Subject: RE: How to use CAP for scheduling events.

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 15:51:19 -0700 (PDT)

> From: "Peter O'Leary" <[email-masked]>
> Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 15:36:19 -0700
>
> Gang,
> 
> Before we start congratulating ourselves overmuch, allow me to make a
> counter-proposal:
> 
> iTIP and CAP should have NOTHING in common. CAP should be concerned ONLY
> with creating, modifying and deleting events, not with inviting others to an
> event or otherwise propogating event information. Remember, iTIP and its
> derivatives were intended to be "interoperability" protocols, while CAP was
> intended to allow clients to access to servers. The relationship between the
> two protocols would therefore be more along the lines of SMTP and IMAP, not
> POP and IMAP.

So if I create a VEVENT using CAP that looks EXACTLY like an iTIP method:
You are saying it should not work exactly like iTIP?

> I think one fallacy here is thinking that all calendaring operations involve
> inviting other people to events. Put another way: I can imagine someone
> implementing CAP to allow storing/updating/deleting calendar events on a
> server and NOT implementing iTIP.

Yes it could be done. However it still would not stop  a CUA from
storing a VEVENT in the CS that looked like an iTIP method.

> Another tendancy I see in this proposal is "as long as I've got the port
> open, I might as well...". Let's not put iTIP commands through CAP just
> because it's convenient.

Not the reason. The user is going to expect to be able to schedule
in an authenticated way - iMIP does not give us that.

-Doug
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[email-masked]		http://playground.sun.com/~dougr
Pager:				[email-masked]
801 W. El Camino #131		Work:   (650)786-7599
Mountain View, CA 94040		Ham Radio: N6AAW, Aviation: PP-ASEL

---

From: "Peter O'Leary" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 14:27:00 -0700

> You are saying it should not work exactly like iTIP?

I think there is a running assumption that CAP will be derived from iTIP.
Why is this the case? Why can't CAP be another "transport" for iCalendar
since the goal of CAP is not "interoperability", as it was with iTIP.

Since we're defining the protocol, we can disallow iTIP objects from CAP,
right?

I think CAP should be limited, for the sake of simplicity and clarity, to
just a few basic operations: CREATE, MODIFY, DELETE. Let iTIP and it's
derivitives be used for REQUEST, REPLY, COUNTER, etc.

> storing a VEVENT in the CS that looked like an iTIP method.

See above.

> in an authenticated way - iMIP does not give us that.

iRIP does.