Re: Access Control Requirements

[Arathi Balakrishna <arathib@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andy Turk wrote:

> I think we could save ourselves some time by trying to nail down some
> requirements before attempting to choose between alternative feature sets.
> Here are a couple of suggestions for requirements that our standard should
> satisfy.
> 
> Requirement #1 Calendar Access Model
> Current products seem to offer two different types of access control:
> event level (e.g., "private" and "confidential") and calendar level (e.g.,
> "view only" and "modify"). Of the two, I think that a standard calendar
> access model is a *must* for interoperability. Event level control will be
> important to some users, but probably not everyone. We might be able to
> live without it.
> 
At the event level, we might need a "restricted" level based on user
groups being able to view/modify the calendar, or intepret the
"private" access level to mean "restricted".  Something that would 
come up eventually.....

regards,
Arathi
arathib@staff.prodigy.com