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

From: Satya Vempati <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 14:00:04 -0700

From your mail to the news group on 6/19/03:

"Fixating the recurrence-id to sequence zero
prevents the recurrence rules from ever changing and will make CAP
VCARs, NOTIFICATIONS, local CU VALARMs break in CAP. So I just do
not see how that will work."

Additionally, from the CAP draft 10: 

-----------
6.1.1.17 Query by Date-Time range

   This query selects the entire content of every booked "VEVENT"
   component that has an instance greater than or equal to July 1st,
   2000 00:00:00 UTC and less than or equal to July 31st, 2000 23:59:59
   UTC.  This includes single instance "VEVENT" components that do no
   explicitly contain a "RECURRENCE-ID" property.

   BEGIN:VQUERY
   EXPAND:TRUE
   QUERY:SELECT * FROM VEVENT
   WHERE RECURRENCE-ID >= '20000801T000000Z'
   AND RECURRENCE-ID <= '20000831T235959Z'
   AND STATE() = 'BOOKED'
   END:VQUERY

---------------

If RECURRENCE-IDs stay rooted at their instantiated values, the query as
formulated above will return erroneous results.

I haven't seen an email in which Bruce Kahn conceded that RECURRENCE-IDs
should change.

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Royer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:07 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: CAP draft - last call, etc.

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.

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?

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

-- 

  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: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 16:25:15 -0600

> not see how that will work."

As in they get DELETED if the UID changes. Not the same as breaking
the CAP protocol.

> Additionally, from the CAP draft 10:

In Bruces email dated: June 26 3:55PM

  ...The other way I described it also works but could mistakenly make some
  think that the CUA must preserve both the SEQUENCE:0 definition and then
  all the current ones and thats not necessary.  Both ways will achieve
  the same effect. ...

So, no.

--