Subject: Re: W-29: Import/Export

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:28:14 -0400

Doug informed me:

>In the requirements doc, we will only be doing what is needed
>to sync-CUA's to CS's. Export/Import is explicitly a vendor
>specific thing (At this time). So it was dropped from CAP
>as import/export. However synching with disconnected devices
>was kept - per the requirements doc.

First tidbit: the requirements doc is expired.  It must be reissued or we 
cannot use it as a yardstick in discussions since its out of date and not 
'official' any more in IETF eyes.

I tried to get a copy but I didnt have a local copy and it seems that the 
CalSched WG maintainer is efficient and removed the expired copy on 
20-Mar-2000.  Can the author(s) please resubmit it to both the WG archives 
and to the IETF Drafts Editor(s). (Doug: Make this a new Action Item for 
the requirements editors please!)

I decided to do some serious diving on the sync topic since this is one 
thats another nuclear blast furnace of issues that stirs many folks up.  I 
found that the WG has not really addressed the issue when its been asked 
several times.  As far back as 06-May-1997, Peter Orbaek asked about 
synchronization and was told to read ICAP.  Later, on 03-Mar-1998 Patrik 
Olsson asked about it and was deflected to other sites.  When the CAP reqs 
were flagged by Andre and Mark D. Anderson back in late November 1998 as "There should be some discussion of how an automatic synchronization could 
be done.", Steve Mansour summed up a general editors (and possibly others) 
philosophy with:

We are leaving it up to the CUAs to handle
synchronization. We've tried to word the requirements to say that CAP must 
provide
sufficient functions to support a CUA that wishes to do synchronization 
work.

As of the last draft of CAP I read (before the DC IETF) I saw no such 
discussion or consideration in the design so I asked about it both in DC 
and on the WG list on 27-Dec-1999 ("Does CAP address synchronization?").  We did not cover this touch subject 
in DC and there was a roaring silence from any CAP editors or proponents 
answering my post.  So, in order to answer the constant questions we need 
A) a revised and reissued CAP requirents doc and B) some discussion of how 
CAP can do this (perhaps an example or two since none existed prior to the 
DC meeting when I least dived all the way into CAP.)...

Bruce
===========================================================================
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: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:05:46 -0700

> 'official' any more in IETF eyes.

We can discuss it. We just can't use it in the CAP RFC when released.
We can now because it is a draft.

I am placing a copy on ROYER.COM now. There seems to be some kind
of a problem at this time with FTP to royer.com . A command line
FTP works yet IE and Netscape don't work.

Anyway 	ftp://Royer.com/pub/CALSCH/capreq.txt

> (Doug: Make this a new Action
> Item for the requirements editors please!)

 C-21 Resubmit REQUIREMENTS draft.

I have renamed the 'C' section to just be EDITOR action items.
(Not specifically CAP).
 
> thats another nuclear blast furnace of issues that stirs many folks up.
>  I found that the WG has not really addressed the issue when its been
> asked several times.  As far back as 06-May-1997, Peter Orbaek asked
> about synchronization and was told to read ICAP.  Later, on 03-Mar-1998
> Patrik Olsson asked about it and was deflected to other sites.  When the
> CAP reqs were flagged by Andre and Mark D. Anderson back in late November
> 1998 as "There should be some discussion of how an automatic
> synchronization could be done.", Steve Mansour summed up a general
> editors (and possibly others) philosophy with:
> 
>  We've tried to word the requirements to say that CAP
> must provide

See capreq.txt - synchronization. is covered, and import/export is not.

> and on the WG list on 27-Dec-1999 ("Does CAP address synchronization?").

Somehow the archive is incomplete or the meeting notes are incomplete.
We have covered this several times.

>  We did not cover this touch subject in DC and there was a roaring
> silence from any CAP editors or proponents answering my post.

I seem to have recalled that we covered this many times.
I am starting to look at the archives now.

>  So, in
> order to answer the constant questions we need A) a revised and reissued
> CAP requirents doc and B) some discussion of how CAP can do this (perhaps
> an example or two since none existed prior to the DC meeting when I least
> dived all the way into CAP.)...

The way we had addressed synchronization was we allowed the disconnected
device (or any CUA) to QUERY for any date range (including all). And we
allow
the disconnect device (or any CUA) to modify any entries.
Thus allowing ANY component to be updated by or synchronized with a CUA.

The CUA + the user do the actual synchronization of the data. The CS
simply allows the CUA to ask for and modify any component.

And as those are features already in CAP we had agreed there did not 
need to be any new features to support synchronization.

(As a side note, many were going to use these ask for all data
and the ability to modify any data, as their method to import/export.)

-Doug