Subject: Re: RFC 2446: Delegation text needs some changes

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 17:41:41 -0500

John suggested on 02/05/2002 04:34:33 PM:
> That might be the Right Thing, though.  Maybe some other invitee 
accepted 
> only because you were invited, and isn't interested if Steve is coming 
> instead.

You really dislike your customers that much to make them reschedule for 
ANY change like that?? 

You are also making the incorrect assumption that ALL ATTENDEEs see the 
entire ATTENDEE list and thats not correct.  As such your youthful 
optimism is misserving.  I realize you are tongue in cheek but...

Still, if you want to build it that way fine but it still a self 
conflicting design that needs resolution.  So far I havent heard of any 
reason not to propose a fix so Ill work on some change text for later this 
week.

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: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:52:41 -0500

accepted
>This is *exactly* the debate that caused the (1) and (2) ways
>of inviting people that I described in my (recent) reply to Bruces
>comments.

Right, OK, I remember now.  And, yes, I agree that (2) solves the 
spurious-update problem.

/=================================================================\
|John Stracke                    |Principal Engineer              |
[email-masked]   |Incentive Systems, Inc.         |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.         |
|=================================================================|
|The good are innocent and create justice. The bad are guilty, and|
|invent mercy.                                                    |
\=================================================================/

---

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:53:37 -0500

>We always agree

No, we don't.  :-)

/=============================================================\
|John Stracke                    |Principal Engineer          |
[email-masked]   |Incentive Systems, Inc.     |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.     |
|=============================================================|
|Seen in computer peripheral ad: "User-friendly dip switches!"|
\=============================================================/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:05:13 -0500

Doug wrote on 02/05/2002 05:30:30 PM:
> > but implicit in this was that it was intended to be a 'single shot
> > usage' between the sender and the recipient.  It was not something
[Snip]
> Yes. I can live with that. However if it is a 'one-shot' comment,
> then we need to add that text somewhere? 

That was part of one of my earlier postings (go find that thread... ;^] ). 
 It is currently _implicitly_ a 'single shot' deal (based on our original 
intent AND the restriction tables of sorts in iTIP).  I will try to 
propose some formal text to make this clearer.  (To Do Maintainer: chalk 
this one up to me please in case it gets lost...)

>                                           Or if we are 'planning'
> to use it that way - we need some CAP text.

I seriously hope you are NOT planning on making COMMENT persistantly 
preserved or part of the workflow processing process.  It sounded like you 
expected stuff like COMMENT from an Organizer to be preserved when I 
delegate to someone and thats how this came about.  If you did not expect 
it to be preserved and that the COMMENT sent would be mine (to the 
Delegatee) then I think you are agreeing w/my basic premise that the RFC 
is self conflicting in this area and needs to be resolved.

Bruce

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:11:31 -0500

Doug wrote on 02/05/2002 06:23:37 PM:
> Not that it was mandated - but that it was allowed.

Lots of stuff was allowed given the diversity of C&S currently out there. 
However there seems to be a difference of opinion and self contradictory 
text in the RFCs about how delegation can or should work.  I just want to 
get the vagueness and conflicts removed so we can all work together (or at 
least so the CalConnect matrixes gets more "Yes" than "No"...)

> We always agree - we just don't always know we agree
> until after a debate :-)

Sounds like you are counting in "We agree to disagree" in this tally... 
;^b  Actually once I get some Real Work (TM) done for this week Ill get 
out some proposed text to fix it up and we can then agree on that...

Bruce