Subject: Re: RFC 2445 Proposal: ATTCOUNTER

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:09:18 -0500

Doug asked on 02/27/2002 03:34:46 PM:
> Also in DECLINE-COUNTER? 

Not necessary.  A DECLINECOUNTER (no hyphen) is _only_ sent from the 
Organizer to the countering user to tell them "No thanks".  If you check 
the restriction tables in iTIP for DECLINECOUNTER you find that it has 
"ATTENDEE 0" since the only intent is to tell the countering user the 
proposal was rejected.  No additional info is necessary for that method.

>                            So the CUA knows how/who to
> send it back to. What if you AND your AA do a COUNTER.
> If I then do a DECLINE-COUNTER, I would return two objects
> that could look identical.

The DECLINECOUNTER should go to the users in the ATTCOUNTER value.  It 
should not go to the SENT-BY user as well.  After all, all the workflow 
went thru the ATTENDEE and not thru the SENT-BY user(s).  All future 
workflow (ie: other reschedules, updates, etc ) will go thru the ATTENDEE 
and none of their SENT-BY(s) so to KISS Id opt for NOT adding the SENT-BY 
into the decline process.

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: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:12:05 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:

> should not go to the SENT-BY user as well.  After all, all the
> workflow went thru the ATTENDEE and not thru the SENT-BY user(s).

I did not say it should. I said what if YOU AND your AA BOTH
send a COUNTER; Now BOTH DECLINE-COUNERs go the the same ATTCOUNTER
value AND they both look the same. So I concluded that the ATTCOUNTER
would have to also be in DECLINE-COUNTER as well. And then
without something to differentiate them, how does your CUA
know why it got two identical DECLINE-COUNTER objects?
Unless one is tagged with the SENT-BY that was in the
original COUNTER from your AA.

>  All
> future workflow (ie: other reschedules, updates, etc ) will go thru
> the ATTENDEE and none of their SENT-BY(s) so to KISS Id opt for NOT
> adding the SENT-BY into the decline process.

I was not proposing that the AA be added to DECLINE-COUNER.
I was proposing that the COUNTER ATTCOUNER value be copied
entirely to the DECLINE-COUNTER so the origin of the original
COUNTER can be identified.

If the COUNTERs orginated from the same CAP address (one from
the OWNER and another from the AA), then won't the the
DECLINE-COUNTER have the same identification problem as
the orginal COUNTER (without adding the orginal ATTCOUNTER property)?