Subject: Re: 2.2 Relationship of RFC-2446 (ITIP) and CAP: Taking no action

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 11:21:41 -0500

Doug replied on 10/31/2002 01:45:23 PM:
> I added the sentence:
> 
>    The CUA could also ignore objects for later processing.
> 
> to the end of the above paragraph - okay?

Yes, thanks.

> The entire paragraph now reads:
> 
>    The CUA could also decide not to book the object. In which case
>    the "UNPROCESSED" state objects could be removed from the CS or the
>    CUA could set those object to the marked for delete state.
>    The CUA could also ignore objects for later processing.

I like most of this. 

The part that is confusing and ambiguous is "could be removed from the CS 
or the CUA could set those object to the marked for delete state".  This 
says that the entry can be _actually_ deleted from the CS OR "marked for" 
deletion.  These are 2 separate actions/concepts that seem to get blurred 
when I look @ the DELETE command and its use/intent.  I understood the 
DELETE command to be used to do the former but as our recent discussions 
have shown, some think it the latter.

We need to reach some agreement on dealing with actual deletions and just 
"marking for deletion" but Ill leave that for the other thread where we 
are going over it now.

Bruce
===========================================================================

Bruce Kahn                                INet: 
[email-masked]
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...