Subject: [Ietf-calsify] Issue 86

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:25:15 -0400

Hi,
Below is some addition text to partly address issue 86. 
<http://www.ofcourseimright.com/cgi-bin/roundup/calsify/issue86>.

This is one piece in the ongoing clarification of SEQUENCE. Another 
clarification will be done on whether SEQUENCE can be different in 
components in the same recurrence set.

2.1.4

...

Whilst a change in SEQUENCE number is indicative of a significant change to 
a previously scheduled item that should be brought to the attention of a 
calendar user, ATTENDEE CUAs SHOULD NOT rely solely on a change in SEQUENCE 
as a means of alerting a calendar user to a change. Instead CUAs SHOULD 
compare the old and new versions of the calendar components and determine 
the exact nature of the changes and make decisions, possible based on 
calendar user preferences, as to whether the user needs to be explicitly 
informed of the change.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

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

---

From: "Tim Hare" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:07:42 -0400

This doesn't seem right to me, somehow.

It seems as though we are somehow specifying how the CUA interacts with the
user (whether to be notified or not, etcetera).  This, to me, does not
belong in iTIP .  iTIP should be solely about the exchange of calendaring
information between two calendaring tools; adding CUA<->user interaction is
really outside the scope of iTIP. As such, it adds un-needed complexity to
the document which doesn't advance the goals of simplification and
interoperability.

Tim Hare
Interested Bystander, Non-Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Cyrus Daboo
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 12:25 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Ietf-calsify] Issue 86

Hi,

2.1.4

...

--
Cyrus Daboo