Subject: Re: CAP: Consensus?: Order In Which Scheduled Components Are ProcessedIsSpecified In iTIP

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:41:29 -0500

I wrote on 02/25/2002 05:18:46 PM:
> The reason Im more than a bit skeptical is that some CAP commands 
> use "deltas" instead of "full snapshots" and thats why I want to be 
> 100% clear. 

Argh, Im blurring the lines between the CAP funtionality (ie: modifying 
the entry in my calendar) and any subsumed iTIP functionality (ie: The 
scheduling stuff under Section 6.3 Scheduling Commands).  Mea culpa for 
that.  Let me try to take a step back and restate what I wanted to say...

Any action that does not directly or indirectly cause a workflow (ie: 
iTIP) message to be sent out does not need to be "valid in iTIP".  However 
any action that directly or indirectly causes a workflow message to be 
sent MUST be "valid in iTIP".

However its not clear to me still how any address provided in the "target" 
property of a "schedule" command can be considered valid in iTIP.  For 
example, just what kind of "target" value would be used in the missing 
sample under Section 6.2.3.1 REQUEST method if I need to send an reply to 
an iTIP user (ie: ORGANIZER;CN="Bruce The 
Curious":mailto:[email-masked] )??  According to 6.2.3.4 the value of 
"target" is either a CSID or a RelCalID; neither of which match the mailto 
URI that is needed...

Bruce
Just trying to keep the pieces straight in my head...
===========================================================================
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: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:30:39 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:

> However its not clear to me still how any address provided in the
> "target" property of a "schedule" command can be considered valid in
> iTIP. ....

Toss the 06 meaning of 'target' and use the 05 version of 'TARGET'.
As John and I keep saying, there was never any consensus to
change that, the 06 meaning is an error.

Take the 06 doc, rip out the XML commands, add in BEEP,
and add it a single tag for command. That is the current
state.

I still want to rip out the remaining single xml command
and make the CAP BEEP profile text/calendar only.
The xml-Cal draft can then make a profile for xml-iCalendar objects
and beep, and that will be 'the' xml profile for CSs that
support XML-iCal