Re: Status of the CALSCH working group (Alarms/SEQUENCE)

[Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

George replied on 11/11/2003 05:28:10 PM:
> What if
> a) The CUA doesn't allow repeats?
> b) Or doesn't allow repeats with a duration anywhere as short as 1
second?
> c) Or allows them, but to get them you have to use some advanced function
>    that the user doesn't know or doesn't want to know?

All interesting questions / scenarios.
 I would think that any CUA capable of distinguishing between 20 identical
duplicate alarms would allow something like repeats but perhaps not.  Still
though they are valid questions...

> I fail to see the harm in duplicate alarms, and
judging from the discussions
> I've read in the archive, I think the matter was considered by many
other
> people, and unique ids for alarms were considered a good thing.  Yeah,
sure,
> we can reconsider it, but if you're interested in doing the simplest
thing,
> reopening old issues isn't what you want to be doing.

The only thing that I question regarding
the original discussion was the practicality of multiple exact duplicates
considering its not something available in any shipping product now that
Im aware of.

In any case, I do question the undiscussed
change of ALARMID to SEQUENCE (including the misreuse of SEQUENCE as an
identifier instead of a change tracker).  In evaluating the actual
application I also came up with the 4 questions I posted before.  

Contrary to WG discussion before, I
think the ABNF for this change needs to be '0' or '1', not '1' for technical
reasons previously mentioned.  Doing this and making it clear that
the identifer is ONLY for BOOKED entries and is never sent as part of workflow
should resolve 'em I think.  However Im interested to hear if there
are alternate ideas.

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                  
             INet: Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Messaging & Collaboration            
    Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                
        FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...