Re: Oslo assignments

[Doug Royer <Doug.Royer@xxxxxxx>]

> From: Frank_Dawson@lotus.com
> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:57:25 GMT
> 
> Doug:
> Don't want to get into a long pro/con on iMIP but there is some weakness 
> in the following posting about iMIP weaknesses:
>
> >I would suggest that it also list the limits of an iMIP only
> >implementation. Off of the top of my head:
> >
> >                (1) Scaleability. Piping all request through email
> >                    will only increase the delay for scheduling request 
> and
> >                    increases the likelihood of failed requests.
> 
> I have worked both on a client/server and email based C&S product team. 
> The issue of failed requests is common to both implementation approaches. 
> The server is often down for what ever reason. Mail can get lost due to 
> bad email addresses, down MTAs etc. This argument is a wash. There is 
> nothing here related to "scalability". It is more of an issue of 
> "availability". 

In the sense of multiple requests for retry when multiple users are
competing for the same resource and many overworked SMTP gateways.
And that fact that the MX record may direct your iMIP message via
paths unknown to you.  Through auto reply aliases, vacation programs,
list expanders, and other agents not yet aware if iMIP.  The makes
scaleability difficult to predict.

I see reliability the same as you. Independent of iMIP or CAP.

> >                (2) Hit and miss approach to scheduling (lets send the 
> request
> >                     and see if we get that time slot). If not lets send
> >                    another one (see #1).
> Assuming the deployment of CAP is impacted by enterprise "comfort" with 
> giving CREATE access rights to "strangers", I would guess that even with 
> CAP, you will be left with issuing iTIP REQUEST commands through CAP. This 
> would make this issue a wash too.

Yes. But without CAP there is no such thing as interactive scheduling
at all. Example, if I want to reserve a time slot on a public calendar
it is possible to do that in email. It is not possible to do that
interactively in email.

> >                (3) iMIP Spam. If iMIP is the only or best way to 
> schedule
> >                    mail, you can get a whole new level of SPAM. (Go to
> >                    the we sell you something meeting - iCalendar 
> attached).
> 
> See above. You are going to get calendar SPAM, no matter whether your 
> calendar address is an iMIP or a CAP form of URI. 

True, however there are NO VCARs in iMIP. So your agent might
not know to filter them out. And iMIP authentication does not exist.
'foo@spam.non-existent' can not authenticate with CAP as proposed.

> >                (4) CAP address authentication and access lists. iMIP 
> does not.

> Right. Some would call this a "pro" for iMIP ;-)

True - I was not posting a list of when you want iMIP. I was posting
a list of when you want CAP. There *IS* a need for iMIP. I simply
wanted to point out there is a need for CAP and I think that a
beginners guide to iCalendar needs to point to the limitations
and problems that CAP solves.

-Doug
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug.Royer@Sun.COM		http://playground.sun.com/~dougr
Pager:				Doug.Royer@Pager.Eng.Sun.com
801 W. El Camino #131		Work:   (650)786-7599
Mountain View, CA 94040		Ham Radio: N6AAW, Aviation: PP-ASEL