Subject: Re: free-busy QUERY

From: "Craig Johnson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:55:44 -0600

D Royer wrote:
 
> Except for Graig's proposal is also not iTIP compliant and adds a
> new component that is also called VFREEBUSY and does not look
> like an iTIP VFREEBUSY.
 
There's no need for iTIP compliance.  We are doing a CAP free-busy
request, not an iTIP-via-CAP free-busy request.  We are not bound by
iTIP 'rules' in forming the CAP VFREEBUSY request.
 
Consistency with iTIP (not compliance) is the objective.  Consistency
occurs when both CAP and iTIP use the VFREEBUSY object to make a
free-busy request.  
 
There is a noteworthy difference...
 
CAP's use of VFREEBUSY has one inherent difference from iTIP: the
ORGANIZER and ATTENDEE properties are not required to be present.  They
are not needed by CAP because they are functionally replaced by the
"Session Identity" and TARGET(s).  (This is not so different than many
other CAP operations.)  Importantly, the vital part of the free-busy
request remains the same: DTSTART & DTEND which describe the period of
interest.  This 'tailored for CAP' use of VFREEBUSY is no different than
the "tailored for iTIP" use of VFREEBUSY.  Of course, the details will
need to be articulated in the spec (and I would be glad to help out
there).

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:49:14 -0600

> iTIP 'rules' in forming the CAP VFREEBUSY request.

Then QUERY should be sufficient :-)

> ORGANIZER and ATTENDEE properties are not required to be present.

For CS that have RECUR-EXPAND=true you are correct.

For CS that have RECUR-EXPAND=false they would need the ORGANIZER.
If a CUA gets an iMIP message in with the ATTENDEE value set to a
mailto URL, then the CUA could have to connect to the correct
CAP URL and deposit the iTIP message into the CS for later processing
by the CALID'd (VFREEBUSY/ATTENDEEs) OWNERs CUA. Then that CUA will
have to know the mailto URL that originated the iMIP request in
order to reply, so it MUST BE in the iTIP object that the OWNERs CUA
fetches (The VFREEBUSY ORGANIZER value). Your method will not work
for those CSs.

 > They
> need to be articulated in the spec (and I would be glad to help out there).

Only for RECUR-EXPAND=ture CS's which do not use VFREEBUSY (Well they
do use VFREEBUSY - just an in compatible one in your proposal).
For RECUR-EXPAND=false, your proposal breaks them because they MUST
use iTIP.

So again if we are going to go with 2 methods to get VFREEBUSY, lets
use Bruce's that is iTIP compliant.

-- 

  Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
  -------------------------------|-----------------------------
  [email-masked]                 | Office: (208)612-INET
  http://Royer.com/People/Doug   |    Fax: (866)594-8574
                                 |   Cell: (208)520-4044

                 We Do Standards - You Need Standards