Subject: Re: Cap Free-Busy Request; some compelling thoughts

From: "Craig Johnson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:04:03 -0600

B Kahn wrote:
>  iTIP busytime REQUEST/REPLY can be done "real-time"; there is no
store-and-forward 
>  lag inherent in iTIP.  iMIP is the store-and-forward binding (aka
email binding) of iTIP.  
>  CAP is a superset of what started out as iRIP, the real-time binding
of iTIP. 
>  In CAP it should just be a matter of using an iTIP Section 3.3.2
REQUEST whose response 
>  is an iTIP Section 3.3.3 REPLY message.
<snip> 
>  so since the CAP server needs to generate some kind of response for
the VFREEBUSY REQUEST 
>  its logical that it generate this.   

This is contrary to your post of 31 Mar 2003 17:34:53...
 
>  ... if my CUA CREATEs a VFREEBUSY with METHOD:REQUEST, all I get
back is essentially a "Yes, your VFREEBUSY
>  was created in the TARGET", NOT the actual results Im querying for! 
So how does my CUA get the RESULTS of
> the query?? CAP is realtime so I would assume that the query/response
for busy time woud/should be realtime too!.
 
Your earlier post was correct.  You can't do CAP iTIP 'real-time'
VFREEBUSY request.

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:13:33 -0600

QUERY and iTIP are not the same thing. Different topics.

> Your earlier post was correct.  You can't do CAP iTIP 'real-time' 

In Bruce's 2nd paragraph that you quoted, the is saying
that CAP lacked any text to describe what to do. Both are correct.

He was also proposing that the response from a:

  CMD:CREATE/METHOD:REQUEST on a VFREEBUSY

be a dynamically created VREPLY containing a:

  CMD:REPLY/METHOD:REPLY VFREEBUSY component.

And NOT just an 'okay' VREPLY.

If we are going to do both a query and iTIP  then lets
be compatible and not invent something new.

I would prefer only the QUERY be allowed as even if
we mandate the VREPLY containing a VFREEBUSY, the query
syntax is still valid and would therefore have to also
be supported.

-- 

  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: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:35:47 -0400

Craig responded on 07/23/2003 03:04:03 PM:
> >  so since the CAP server needs to generate some kind of response 
> for the VFREEBUSY REQUEST 

The phrase I think you missed in my reply was "In CAP it _should_...".  I 
did not say "In CAP it does...".  The essential points are:

1: iTIP is NOT the limiting factor here; its not "store-and-forward" only, 
it can be done "real-time" w/o any changes.
2: What CAP does and what it should do not always match. 

> Your earlier post was correct.  You can't do CAP iTIP 'real-time' 

The last point jives w/my previous posting that you correctly cited.   I 
am too busy in Real Work (TM) to keep up w/the other threads so if your 
proposal is a way to resolve this then I think the WG should consider it. 

After all in order to do Scheduling (as in Calendaring & Scheduling) you 
really need to have some way to check busytime; it makes the entire 
process so much smoother for everyone!

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: 
[email-masked]
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Warning: Dates in Calendar are closer than they appear.