Re: CAP-12-e: Alarms and SEQUENCE

[email protected] wrote:

>
> Ok, I thought I asked about this before but maybe not.  In CAP we 
> added the SEQUENCE property to VALARMs:
>
>      alarmc     = "BEGIN" ":" "VALARM" CRLF
>                           alarm-seq
>                  other-props
>                           (audioprop / dispprop / emailprop / procprop)
>                           "END" ":" "VALARM" CRLF
>
>    alarm-seq   = "SEQUENCE" alarmseqparams ":" posint0 CRLF
> ...
>    The CUA adds a "SEQUENCE" property to each "VALARM" component as it
>   books the component. This property along with the "LOCAL" and
>   "ENABLE" parameters allow the CUA to uniquely identify any VALARM in
>   any component. The CUA should remove those before forwarding to non
>   CAP aware CUAs.
>
> Ok, I have a few comments/questions about this text/concept:
>
> 1: First off, since VALARMs are embedded in other components, what use 
> is adding SEQUENCE to any VALARM on any particular component? 

Please read the archives (which you participated in), in summary:

Its to allow the CUA to uniquely identify any VALARM in
any component. Read up on the MODIFY command debate.

CAP also says:

   In addition a problem exists with the control of "VALARM" components
   and their "TRIGGER" properties. A CU may wish to set their own alarm
   (local alarms) on components. 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:

This was so you could add local VALARMs that are not to be
forwarded. Read the debate on MODIFY and COUNTER where
a CU wished to COUNTER an object and NOT have the VALARMs
deleted or added that are local.


> The workflow is done on the components the VALARM is embedded in, NOT 
> on any separate VALARM so I see no benefit to tracking separate 
> changes to the VALARM using SEQUENCE (what SEQUENCE is defined for). 

We have already had this debate. I see no new information in your post.

-- 

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

                We Do Standards - You Need Standards