Re: W-19 - open item - can we defer it?

[Doug Royer <Doug.Royer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>From draft-ietf-calsch-capreq-03.txt (the latest):

4.3.1   Deferred Requirements for Operations on a Calendar

   CAP is not required to specify:

     - How to copy a calendar on a CS or between CSs.

     - How a group operations on a set of calendars.

     - How to undelete a calendar.

     - Auto processing on scheduled components in a calendar that need
     action.

       For example, if someone tries to create a meeting on a calendar
       for a user who is on vacation, the CS may automatically delegate
       the meeting to another user.


Bruce_Kahn@iris.com wrote:
>
> Doug replied:
> >I agree. We did say that group operations will not be addressed at
> >this time.
>
> That agreement was not the WG and it was not everyone...
>
> The concept of groups is really two pronged: they can be static or dynamic.
>  Doing static groups (ie: explode them out at the time you use them) is not a
> viable solution for any real system.  Just too many poor usability issues to
> deal with (ie: new members to the group must be manually added everywhere the
> group was exploded by all CUs!  Ugh!!).  The use of dynamic groups is the onl
y
> really likeable choice from a CUs perspecitive.  They dont have to make manua
l
> changes on all the places the original group was used.
>
> However this puts the cart before the horse: Do we want to preclude the use o
f
> groups entirely is what needs to be answered first.  Being one of the guys wh
o
> is gonna have to build this engine I certainly whince at the thought of what
> this entails for my implementation.  However as a CU I most certanly would
> want to have groups just like I currently have in eMail and in iCalendar.
>
> Since iCalendar is "group enabled", why would we want to preclude the use of
> groups in CAP??  This kinda reminds me of the Volkswaggen commercial where th
e
> guys tie the mattress onto their roof before the light changes but manage to
> tie their doors shut...
>
> Perhaps it would help others to decide either way if someone could post the
> argument for why _not_ to have groups in CAP?  I certainly dont recall the
> reason why not to have them...
>
> Bruce
> ===========================================================================
> Bruce Kahn                                INet: Bruce_Kahn@iris.com
> Iris Associates                          Phone: 978.392.5335
> Westford, MA, USA 01886                    FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
> Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...