Subject: CAP 10: alarm-seq

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:24:11 -0500

Gee, I think I need to stop comparing my marked up draft 09 and just start 
afresh w/draft 10-12Jan2003.  In doing some deeper reading for another 
topic I ran across something I find added to iCalendar but not actually 
described in CAP.  In Section 2. Additions to iCalendar there is:

These local alarms are not to be forwarded to other CUs, CUAs, or CSs as 
are the "SEQUENCE" property and the "ENABLE" parameter. So for the 
protocol between a CUA and a CS, the following changes apply to the CAP 
protocol from [iCAL] section 4.6.6 page 67: 

  alarmc     = "BEGIN" ":" "VALARM" CRLF
                        alarm-seq
               other-props
                        (audioprop / dispprop / emailprop / procprop)
                        "END" ":" "VALARM" CRLF

 alarm-seq   = "SEQUENCE" alarmseqparams ":" posint CRLF

alarmseqparams = other-params [";" local-param] other-params

               ; Where DIGIT is defined in [iCAL]
               ;
 posint      = posintfirst 1*DIGIT

               ; A number starting with 1 through 9.
               ;
 posintfirst = %x31-39

I saw alarm-seq before but I never consciously grokd the addition of it to 
VALARMs.  I find no discussion of this in the WG archives.  Prior to CAP 
we sent all messages as full snapshots so we did not have to consider just 
revising the VALARM (we would sequence the containing VEVENT, etc instead 
and do whole substitutions).  So now w/CAP we can just modify the VALARM 
on any particular component.  As such Doug thoughtfully added alarm-seq to 
the spec. 

However I think that its not fully fleshed out.  For example, when I first 
create a VALARM on a, say, VEVENT, the SEQUENCE of it SHOULD be 0 to 
follow the existing schema.  This is not possible given the ABNF above; 
the first value could only be 1 (or higher) but never 0.  Why make 
SEQUENCE on VALARMs different from all other components?  I say just use 
the same prose/logic from 2445 and call it a day.

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: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:41:01 -0700

> I saw alarm-seq before but I never consciously grokd the addition of it 
> to VALARMs.  I find no discussion of this in the WG archives.  Prior to 
> CAP we sent all messages as full snapshots so we did not have to 
> consider just revising the VALARM (we would sequence the containing 
> VEVENT, etc instead and do whole substitutions).  So now w/CAP we can 
> just modify the VALARM on any particular component.  As such Doug 
> thoughtfully added alarm-seq to the spec.  

Please re-search the archives Bruce. This is over a YEAR old
and was in several previous drafts. It is in the archives.

-- 

  Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
  -------------------------------|-----------------------------
  [email-masked]                 | Office: (208)612-INET
  http://Royer.com/People/Doug   |    Fax: (866)594-8574
                                 |   Cell: (208)520-4044

                 We Do Standards - You Need Standards