Re: CAP-12-e: Alarms and SEQUENCE

Doug replied on 10/21/2003 03:02:57 PM:
> The archive is several megabytes in size. No I will not be posting it so 

> that every thing
> is in context. That is why there is an archive on line.

A simple citation with post, subject or date are sufficient.  I found some 
going back as far as 2000 but I found NOTHING in the archives to support 
the _need_ for the change.

> Yes you do seem to understand why removing SEQUENCE breaks MODIFY
> of VALARMS. So I too do not want to break MODIFY of VALARMS.

Umm, no.  Given the text of MODIFY I see no demonstratable need to have a 
unique identifer on each alarm inside any component that already has a 
unique identifer.  MODIFY already says how to uniquely identify the bits 
to be changed (ie the VALARM) so _why_ do we need to misuse SEQUENCE?

Despite your previous assertions I did manage to find mention of ids on 
alarms dating back to 2000: I can find NO evidence of IETF meeting 
discussion of the need prior to you listing it as an issue starting ~April 
2000 nor any WG mention (let alone discussion of it) until ~Nov 2001, 
nearly a year and a half after it first appeared on your CAP issues list. 
We did discuss using UID vs ALARMID (or ALARM-ID to some) in late 2001/ 
early 2002 and then you magically changed it to SEQUENCE ~Feb 2002. 

However I think that we have no _demonstratable_need_ to modify VALARMs to 
have unique identifiers.  Or as you put it back on 07/10/2000:

ALARMID's are needed CAP because it would be impossible to
modify an alarm without being able to identify which of multiple
alarms in a component would be the target of the METHOD:MODIFY. 

The MODIFY command is pretty clear on dealing with identification of data 
to be changed (see previous msg) so I again have to ask why we need to 
mis-reuse SEQUENCE by adding it to VALARMs?  (The change from the WG 
agreed on UID is a different question...)

Can you _please_ provide a simple example of a MODIFY command that needs 
to have SEQUENCE on the VALARM in order to work correctly??  Perhaps the 
ever enthusiastic Mark can do this for you if you are too busy...

I think the MODIFY command does not need this change to VALARMs.  If it 
really does not then Im against making the change to iCalendar.  However 
if its there for non-demonstratable reasons then it should not be made to 
iCalendar.

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