Subject: RE: CAP draft - last call, etc.

From: Satya Vempati <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:46:20 -0700

Some of the iCAL/iTIP questions will impact the decisions on CAP.
Especially, the outcome of the discussion on RECURRENCE-ID fundamentally
affects the CAP spec based on how it is eventually resolved.

IMHO, one final draft (hopefully 11) to iron out the differences is
required before going to RFC.

-----Original Message-----

From: Doug Royer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 8:19 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: CAP draft - last call, etc.

Items that will be changed in the -11 version of the draft.

(1) Sorting is out per this WG. (I submitted my own add on draft).
(2) The ABNF will be fixed per the email on this WG.
(3) Various typos sent to me and this list.
(4) CS to generate FREEBUSY data (NOT CUA).

As of the San Francisco IETF meeting (-10 release) there have been no
other new CAP issues that seem to have reach consensus. The only
new issue seems to be if TARGET will default and I did not think
that made it past a couple of questions and opinions sent to the list.

Unless I missed something, all of the other issues are
all iCal/iTIP/iMIP issues.

PLEASE SPEAK UP if you think that something else should make the -11
version of the draft - I AM EDITING IT NOW.

Still To do:

(I) Beep profile.
(II) Document the 1:1 or 1:MANY replies.

Item (II) was discussed in S.F. and the thoughts were that
you would bundle all single TARGET replies in one blob,
and for each unique TARGET in the CS reply, the CS would
send another blob of data.

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Well, there's been a lot of traffic going on about all sort of issues 
> and topics.  However, it came to a halt when one note came up with what 
> may be a "show-stopper."  So, I think we need to make a decision here. 
>  Do we take items that are too hard to fix, remove them, and put in an 
> addendum that says "the following items need to be resolved in the next 
> version"?  Or do we try to take a stab at fixing them.  We need to get a 
> version of CAP into RFC status.  We need to get people interoperating so 
> we can see what's really working and what's really hosed badly.  I asked 
> for a last call and that didn't work.  We really do need to get this out 
> the door.  Therefore, I'm once again asking for a last hard look at what 
> can stay and what needs to go in the current CAP draft.  If it's broken 
> and needs a lot of work - it goes out.  I am going to go back over the 
> last year's thr! eads and see what I can determine are the big issues. 
>  I'll post a note to the list with the items and will ask for a "hm" 
> from the list as to whether the item stays or goes.  If it goes, we'll 
> need help changing the draft to remove all text regarding that topic.
> 
> If you disagree with the items I post - say so.  If you agree with the 
> items - say so.  That way I know people are reading the list and will 
> agree with what we produce as the final draft.  
> 
> Cool?
> ___________________
> Patricia Egen Consulting
> www.egenconsulting.com
> 423-875-2652

-- 

  Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
  -------------------------------|-----------------------------
  [email-masked]                 | Office: (208)612-INET
  http://Royer.com/People/Doug   |    Fax: (866)594-8574
                                 |   Cell: (208)520-4044

                 We Do Standards - You Need Standards

---

From: Bob Mahoney <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 14:19:39 -0400

Satya-

Pat and I are pursuing an interpretation from one of the original authors, and hope to be able to shed some light on your questions soon...

(i.e., "we hear you and we're working on it."  :-)

-Bob

At 9:46 AM -0700 7/1/03, Satya Vempati wrote:
>
>Some of the iCAL/iTIP questions will impact the decisions on CAP. Especially, the outcome of the discussion on RECURRENCE-ID fundamentally affects the CAP spec based on how it is eventually resolved.
>IMHO, one final draft (hopefully 11) to iron out the differences is required before going to RFC.

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:07:17 -0600

> affects the CAP spec based on how it is eventually resolved.

I can see how that proposal could have effected the iTIP protocol
but not the CAP protocol. It would indirectly effected CUAs that used
CAP to store local CU data in the object across recurrence rule
changes. No matter which way it went, it would not have effected
the CAP 'protocol' at all. It would have effected all CUAs that
used iTIP to process scheduling requests via iMIP, CAP, or
any other transport.

That proposal that in iCal version-next that the recurrence-id
be tied to SEQUECEN:0  objects in order to be compatible with some
vendors seems to have died. (read Bruce's last email on the subject).
It was never necessary and I think that Burce agrees.

Does any disagree?

--

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:29:13 -0400

I has not died... We have been on vacation.
_____________________
Note: new email address

[email-masked]

Doug Royer <[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked]
07/01/2003 03:07 PM
Please respond to
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>

To
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
cc

Subject
Re: CAP draft - last call, etc.

Does any disagree?

--