Subject: Re: forced VCAR (was: revised security section)

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 10:34:46 -0500

"Paul B. Hill" wrote:

> No that I think about it even more, is this subject appropriate for the
> draft at all? It would never appear as a part of the protocol on the wire,
> right?

It might, if the protocol provides a way for an admin to set it.  (Of course,
then you have to have access control on who gets to be an admin...)

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |A mime is a wonderful thing to waste.        |
[email-masked]|                                             |
\==============================================================/

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 10:15:26 -0800

John Stracke wrote:
> It might, if the protocol provides a way for an admin to set it.
> (Of course, then you have to have access control on who gets to
> be an admin...)

It also might be useful if you want to see what VCARs existed
(assuming you had access). So you could write an GUI that
displayed the data. It might be useful to know that you
could NEVER change this one.

It could still be a standard VCAR that is read-only. I can see a
virtical appliacion or site specific need to never allow anyone to
modify some accesses. A very thin virtical application server
may wish to never allow any changes to any VCARs. They just
might hardcode them in ROM. It could be usfull for a client
to know that before trying to change them.

I could go ether way (having a way to do this or not) Recient XML-iCal
email has convinced me that we need to visably open up our discussions
to allow standards and interoperable extensions. I think that
we may have been too focused on CAP. The iCalendar extension could 
in time greatly outnumber the RFC-2445 and CAP values.

Time for a ical-extensions mailing list?

-Doug

---

From: "Paul B. Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 11:18:15 -0500

Hi,

When the scope of CAP was being worked on there seemed to be general 
consensus that CAP would not be a protocol that supported CS administration.

Obviously there has to be some CS administration support. To date the 
method used to decide what goes in and what gets punted has been the 
question, "Will customers expect that typical individual users need to 
perform this task?"

IMHO setting an enforceable CS policy fails the test that we have been 
using, therefore CAP should not address this topic.

Paul

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 09:52:05 -0800

> consensus that CAP would not be a protocol that supported CS administration.

Good point.

> question, "Will customers expect that typical individual users need to

No I don't think so.

-Doug

---

From: "Paul B. Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 11:18:15 -0500

Hi,

Paul

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 10:15:26 -0800

-Doug