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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 11:14:28 -0400

Doug proposed:
>A VCAR can specify a list of users:
>
>BEGIN:VCAR
>CARID:Permisssions for group 'A'
>GRANT:UPN=<user1>...
>GRANT:UPN=<user2>...
>END:VCAR

Sure it can.  However this is the case of the statically exploded group of 
users (new term, add to your vocabs please!).  It will not help me when I 
have a new user that I want to add to the  the original groups of users 
that you exploded.  Any CU who 'exploded' these groups of users originally 
will not get any new additions that occur after exploding.  This is bad! 
It really defeats the entire strength of groups of users; the ability to 
'inherit' (loaded term alert!  Intent = dynamically get the content of 
when needed/asked for).

Just how would all 1500+ of us manage our VCARs for 
"[email-masked]" if we exploded them at the time we created the 
VCAR?  You would not get the new subscribers or lose the ones that are not 
on it any more!

Sure, dynamic expansion of groups of user will require some cycles to do 
but it is not nuclear physics.  However I think that implementation 
details need not enter into this discussion now (just like they didnt for 
ATTENDEE;TYPE=GROUP or ATTENDEE;MEMBER=IETF-CalSched).

Bruce
PS: Who here honestly would stand up in front of a User Group meeting or 
conference and _honestly_ say that doing dynamic groups of users expansion 
was too hard to do and that static expansion is really the better choice?? 
 ( Ill be in the front row of that talk! ;^) )
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: [email-masked]
Iris Associates                          Phone: 978.392.5335
Westford, MA, USA 01886                    FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 12:14:13 -0400

[email-masked] wrote:

> Sure it can.  However this is the case of the statically
> exploded group of users (new term, add to your vocabs please!).

I think I'll add the term "statically *expanded* group of users",
if you don't mind.  "Statically exploded" sounds like they
scuffed their shoes too hard.  :-)

--
/===============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. |
|Chief Scientist |==============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Q: What goes "Pieces of 7! Pieces of 7!"? A: A|
[email-masked]|parroty error.                                |
\===============================================================/