Subject: Re: Questions to answer for the METHOD issue

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 08:54:55 -0400

>I had ask people to provide *complete* iCalendar objects
>for all 3 questions, yet no one did.  How can we reach
>consensus with vague answers?

We already have consensus on this issue.  It's embodied in RFC-2446.

/========================================================\
|John Stracke                    |Principal Engineer     |
[email-masked]   |Incentive Systems, Inc.|
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.|
|========================================================|
|Illiterate? Write today for free help!                  |
\========================================================/

---

From: Bernard Desruisseaux <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 10:01:31 -0400

> We already have consensus on this issue.  It's embodied in RFC-2446.

RFC-2446 doesn't say anything about the properties
TARGET, CMD and CMDID.  So how can you say that it's
embodied in RFC-2446?

All the examples I've seen so far breaks RFC-2446.
Futhermore, I haven't seen a message from the chairs
stating that we had reached consensus on this issue.

Perhaps you could elaborate on what you think we have
consensus on.

Cheers,
Bernard
-- 
Bernard Desruisseaux                    mailto:[email-masked]
Research & Development                  Tel.  : +1 514 733-8500 x4213
Steltor                                 Fax   : +1 514 733-8878

---

From: Patrice Lapierre <[email-masked]>
Date: 28 May 2002 12:45:16 -0400

> We already have consensus on this issue.  It's embodied in RFC-2446.

How does iTIP help us with question 2 and 3?  Without answering 
question 2 and 3 how can you be sure that pure iTIP is an
acceptable answer to question 1?

In his message of April 18th, 2002, Steve Mansour was in fact
trying to find an answer to question 1 to help him solves
question 2 and 3.

Steve Mansour wrote :
>
> [...]
>
> is the WORKFLOWSTATE automatically added when we write
> the request to the calstore?  Or do we require the CUA
> to specifically add the WORKFLOWSTATE property?

This issue needs to be treated as a whole.