Subject: [ietf-calsify] RK iTIP Issue #15

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 22:53:17 -0400

Hi,
Rheinhold notes:

    Sec. 3.1.2 (p.14, VTIMEZONE table): This table states that RRULE and
    RDATE MUST NOT both be present at the same time. rfc2445bis does not
    have such a restriction, so that some VTIMEZONE ob jects, which are
    valid in rfc2445bis, cannot be used for group scheduling. I propose to
    remove that restriction.

Now in 2445bis the abnf for a VTIMEZONE says nothing about whether RRULE 
and RDATE are mutually exclusive. However, in the text that follows RRULE 
is described, then it says:

    Alternatively, the "RDATE" property can be used ...

That later sentence could be read to mean that RRULE can be used or RDATE 
can be used instead. i.e. RRULE and RDATE are mutually exclusive as 
indicated in 2446bis.

So what is the right behavior? Can RRULE and RDATE both appear in a 
STANDARD or DAYLIGHT component? If the ABNF is correct, then I suggest some 
re-wording should be done to the sentence I quoted above and 2446bis has to 
be corrected.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

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

---

From: Bernard Desruisseaux <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:59:07 -0400

I propose to change the text in section 3.6.5. Time Zone Component of 
rfc2445bis, from:

   Alternatively, the "RDATE" property can be used to define the onset
   of the observance by giving the individual onset date and times.

to:

   The "RDATE" property can also be used to define the onset
   of the observance by giving the individual onset date and times.

Cheers,
Bernard