Subject: Re: Default TARGET

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 14:57:15 -0400

Craig wrote on 05/29/2003 07:27:08 PM:
> In the current draft the ABNF for TARGET indicates it is optional. 

Another reason why I think the ABNF needs to be reformatted to be more 
akin to 2445.  The current formatting makes mistakes or odd data likely.

> How does the working group feel about defaulting the TARGET in this 
> manner? Or should TARGET always be explicit?  Either way, the draft 
> needs adjustment to clarify the issue.

I think we should fix up the draft and NOT default TARGET.  Heres why:

1: Not everyone has just 1 calendar.  I happen to have 3 I use; 1 for 
work, 1 for personal/family and 1 for my Red Cross activities.  As such if 
my CS is to default a TARGET to a particular calendar I now have to add 
new infrastructure to the CS.  I now have to provide some means to match a 
UPN to a particular TARGET (a new CS requirement).  I also need to have 
some means to change this.  However many here will yell "Administration 
issue!" and say its out of scope for CAP.  Great, a last minute 
feature/side effect that requires some OOB mechanism to manage from Day 1.

2: The behaviour for the changing identity case (IDENTIFY command) is 
unclear at best.  Should my AA now default to my 'primary' calendar when 
she assumes my identity?  I would expect not but some could argue so.

3: For the case where Im doing acutal Scheduling activities I may want to 
refer to my calendar and  that of others.  Then Id have to specify a 
TARGET of my primary calendar.  Since the TARGET can be a relative 
calendar identifier which is not likely to be overly long, what is the 
real cost savings by defaulting it?  9 octets plus the relcalid length. 
Not a whole lot of extra savings...

4: There is no way for the CUA to find out what the default TARGET is from 
the CS so there is no way for the CUA to know what tell the CU or when to 
use a different relcalid.  Just how would my CUA know it needed to send 
TARGET:BrucesFamilyCalendar or TARGET:BruceRedCross but not 
TARGET:BrucesWorkCalendar??

5: Making assumptions, especially for stuff like DELETE, could be 
disasterous if the wrong default is used (and the CUA has 0% chance of 
determining what the default value is!).  Imagine the user thinking they 
are cleaning out an old project calendar and infact they just erased the 
current one (or their personal one or ...)  =:^(

I see lots of questions / concerns about data safety and usability and the 
only real cost trade off is "9 octets + strlen(relcalid)" vs cleaning up 
the ABNF in CAP.  I for one like it clearly spelled out in the text/ABNF 
since the savings is not likely to be that big anyway (compared to the 
cost of going "off box" to the CS, etc).  I would vote for fixing the text 
and not defaulting anything!

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: 
[email-masked]
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

---

From: Andrea Campi <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 10:24:43 +0200

I'm slowly catching up with wg activity so sorry for resurrecting old
threads...

> I think we should fix up the draft and NOT default TARGET.  Heres why:
[...]
> and not defaulting anything!

I agree with Bruce here. I don't see any compelling reason to default
the TARGET while all worries Bruce expressed are very real.

Bye,
	Andrea

-- 
Andrea Campi                              mailto:[email-masked]
I.NET S.p.A. - BT Ignite                  http://www.inet.it
Technical Dept. - R&D			  phone: +39 02 32863 ext 1
v. Darwin, 85 - I-20019			  fax: +39 02 32863 ext 7705
Settimo Milanese (MI), Italy