Subject: [Ietf-calsify] ADD is really optional --?

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:29:16 -0700

I'm doing AD Review of iTIP and the way I read specs like this by  
default is that if there are a bunch of methods that can be sent  
around between agents, all of them must be supported.

However, for the ADD method, iTIP specifies a way for a receiving  
client not to really support it -- return a REQUEST-STATUS of 3.14  
followed by a REFRESH request.

Is ADD routinely supported by iTIP implementations or is this  
exception used in practice?

Lisa
_______________________________________________
Ietf-calsify mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-calsify

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:10:10 -0400

Hi Lisa,

--On August 21, 2008 4:29:16 PM -0700 Lisa Dusseault 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I'm doing AD Review of iTIP and the way I read specs like this by default
> is that if there are a bunch of methods that can be sent around between
> agents, all of them must be supported.
>
> However, for the ADD method, iTIP specifies a way for a receiving client
> not to really support it -- return a REQUEST-STATUS of 3.14 followed by a
> REFRESH request.

Well that procedure can also be used for CANCEL and partial REQUESTs (ones 
that send only overridden instances). So this is not specific to ADD.

> Is ADD routinely supported by iTIP implementations or is this exception
> used in practice?

I believe there are some clients out there that let users add instances to 
a recurring set, and I would expect them to use ADD. But I have no firm 
evidence of

-- 
Cyrus Daboo