RE: My input - iCAP and administration.

["Pete O'Leary" <poleary@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Steve on both counts:

1. We do not want to turn CAP into an administration protocol for
Calendaring and Scheduling. I would look to other protocols -- LDAP and ACAP
spring to mind -- for performing the bulk of the work.
2. Notwithstanding item #1, I believe that some "administration" information
needs to show up in CAP. As Steve points out, access control is a perfect
example. It is very unsatsifying to relegate all access control to error
messages e.g. the user finds out that they don't have the ability to create
an event when the try to write it to the calendar.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-calendar@imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-calendar@imc.org]On
> Behalf Of Steve Silverberg (Exchange)
> Sent: Monday, April 20, 1998 12:27 PM
> To: 'Anita'; 'Doug Royer [N6AAW]'
> Cc: 'ietf-calendar@imc.org'
> Subject: RE: My input - iCAP and administration.
>
>
> 	Anita said
>
> 	Isn't calendar system administration an implementation issue? Why
> shuould the protocol enforce it?
> 	Is the existing ICAP command set limiting from creating such an
> admin account that will have some privileges to limit access to
> calendars?
>
> Steve Replied
>
> I do not think we want to create a "Administrative protocol" per
> se, but we
> clearly want a definition for objects that need to be managed such as ACLs
> (objects that are not defined in ical) and a protocol to manipulate those
> objects.
>
> Having a conceptual notion of an administrator is probably a good thing to
> help define the critical requirements, but I agree with you in that it
> should not be a goal to create an administration protocol.
>
> steve
>
>
>