Subject: ITIP Clarification

From: JP Rosevear <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Jun 2002 06:51:11 -0400

Looking over the itip spec, I can see how the user can act on behalf of
an organizer via the sent-by property.  However what is unclear to me is
if the initial event REQUEST can utilize the sent-by property because
there is no mechanism specified to inform the actual organizer that they
are indeed an event organizer.  This is obviously a problem since all
replies will flow to the organizer.

-JP
-- 
--
=======================================================================
JP Rosevear				[email-masked]
Ximian Inc.				http://www.ximian.com

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:14:19 -0600

> replies will flow to the organizer.

They flow to the organizers calendar, for which the sent-by
CU would have access to the organizers calendar. This would be
known by the organizer as they had given access to their administrative
assistant (or whoever). So it would not be a surprise to the organizer.

Even though the organizer and attendee values are email address
in iMIP, they are in fact the calendar address which might or
might not be the persons email address. So the MIME type
could be used to intercept any replies and so it would not have
to be present in the organizers e-mail in-box.

Plus I think any reply would have the 'sent-by' in the organizer
property - so tools would know.

---

From: JP Rosevear <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Jun 2002 08:52:39 -0400

> assistant (or whoever). So it would not be a surprise to the organizer.

This is assuming there is a centralized calendar store.  Are you saying
that with out such a store, the sent by parameter cannot be used?  This
seems to go against the idea of itip/imip.  Also, the itip spec in 2.1.3
states:

  All responses from "Attendees" flow to the "Organizer"

It is unspecific as to whether it means the calendar or the actual user.
 
> might not be the persons email address. So the MIME type

I think they must be exactly the email address for imip or you may be
unable to respond to the correct person (ie an organizer who's caluser
address is not an email address, with a sentby property, so you can't
even use the from header, same situation with a mailing list).

> property - so tools would know.

They should indeed, but I'm unclear as to how this helps the situation. 
Are you saying the tools should send replies to the sent-by address
instead?

-JP

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 13:25:19 -0600

>   All responses from "Attendees" flow to the "Organizer"

There is no requirement that it be that same persons e-mail inbox.
I would assume that any CUA you have would be told where to
get your calendar-inbox if it is not the same as your e-mail
inbox.

> even use the from header, same situation with a mailing list).

For CAP they are not e-mail addresses, so no - it does not have
to be the same. In fact there is no reason that your calendar
address could not be an iMIP address of mailto:[email-masked]
and your CUA reads from a special mail box.

They just happen to often be the same.

> Are you saying the tools should send replies to the sent-by address

No, I am saying that your CUA will know that 'sent-by' sent the
original objects. And I would assume that 'sent-by' would still
have access to your calendar and would do the work of processing
any replies. Without CAP, it is unspecified how that control
and handshake is done.

If you have your e-mail and calendar-inbox the same, then you
might want to consider writing a filter to pull out the text/calendar
objects and process them so it will not just pop-up in the calendar
owners e-mail inbox.

---

From: JP Rosevear <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Jun 2002 12:10:13 -0400

> They just happen to often be the same.

I explicitly said "for imip".  RFC 2447 in section 2.3:

   The calendar address specified within the "ATTENDEE" property in an
   iCalendar object MUST be a fully qualified, [RFC-822] address
   specification for the corresponding "Organizer" or "Attendee" of the
   "VEVENT" or "VTODO".

   Because [iTIP] does not preclude "Attendees" from forwarding
   "VEVENTS" or "VTODOS" to others, the [RFC-822] "Sender" value may not
   equal that of the "Organizer". Additionally, the "Organizer" or
   "Attendee" cannot be reliably inferred by the [RFC-822] "Sender" or
   "Reply-to" values of an iMIP message. The relevant address MUST be
   ascertained by opening the "text/calendar" MIME body part and
   examining the "ATTENDEE" and "ORGANIZER" properties.

An RFC-822 address is an email address.  I agree that under CAP you can
specify something else.

> any replies. Without CAP, it is unspecified how that control

Then why send the email message at all?  For IMIP the work should be
done by the receiver of the message.

-JP

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:49:31 -0600

>    specification for the corresponding "Organizer" or "Attendee" of the

But it does not say it must be *your* e-mail in box.

It only says it must be *a* mailto URL corresponding to you.

And even if it is your e-mail in box, then there is still
no reason that a filter could not pull out text/calendar
messages and send them to your CUA - which could notice
that 'sent-by' was in the ORGANIZER and do the right thing.

---

From: JP Rosevear <[email-masked]>
Date: 17 Jun 2002 10:45:57 -0400

> that 'sent-by' was in the ORGANIZER and do the right thing.

Granted, but this is not something in the scope of the imip or itip spec
so there is no standard mechanism for this.  Even if there was, when
there is no centralized server it is likely beholden to the user to
perform this task.  In my mind this is making sent-by not really useable
generally for the case of email only scheduling.  There is still no
formal mechanism for creating a meeting with, for instance:

ORGANIZER;SENTBY:[email-masked]:[email-masked]

And having a copy of the meeting be sent to you for your calendar and
then having replies flow to you.  Without that mechanism you may get
attendes REPLY messages without knowing what they are for.

-JP

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:39:00 -0600

> attendes REPLY messages without knowing what they are for.

If you are asking if there are applications that do this correctly:
Yes there are.

If you are asking how to do this: You need to write, borrow,
or buy a mail filter. And your right, this is out of scope
for RFC244[567] and CAP.

---

From: JP Rosevear <[email-masked]>
Date: 17 Jun 2002 13:20:59 -0400

> If you are asking if there are applications that do this correctly:

How can you judge correctness without a standard?
 
> or buy a mail filter. And your right, this is out of scope

Ok, this is what I thought.

-JP