Subject: Re: free-busy QUERY

From: "Craig Johnson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:08:30 -0600

If there are sound reasons for a "CAP VFREEBUSY request object" to
conform more closely to an "iTIP VFREEBUSY request object" I have no
objections.  In fact, there are advantages to doing so (next paragraph).
 However, it would be nice to apply reason where appropriate.  Some
properties required/needed by iTIP have no relevance or are redundant
with CAP.
 
It makes a whole lot of sense for CUA to be able to create a "VFREEBUSY
request object" not knowing (or caring) beforehand if the request is
destined for a CAP or iMIP/iTIP recipient.  The "VFREEBUSY request
object" can then be bundled up and handled/delivered in the manner
appropriate for each recipient.  THE CRUCIAL AND IMPORTANT POINT IS: 
the same "VFREEBUSY request object" is used regardless of whether we are
dealing with CAP, iTIP/iMIP or anything that comes up in the future! 
This creates consistency and continuity among the WG standards for
dealing with free-busy requests and responses.  It makes it easier for
CUAs because there is one way to formulate the request that works for
all types of recipients.

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:09:25 -0600

Craig Johnson wrote:
> objections.  In fact, there are advantages to doing so (next 
> paragraph).  However, it would be nice to apply reason where 
> appropriate.  Some properties required/needed by iTIP have no relevance 
> or are redundant with CAP.

I think the email send so far justifies they all be present as their
are edge cases that need that data (Mixed iMIP/CAP and RECUR-EXPAND=false).

In addition to the points already made, a CUA that deposits the
information may not be the same as the CUA that requests the dynamic
VFREEBUSY information. This can happen when there is a CUA-BOT that
grabs incoming iMIP information from your POP or IMAP servers or filters
the incoming email for your CUA. Such a CUA would never want the
dynamic information and the GUI that the user used would have to
know all of the iMIP information from the original request, thus
it must be saved a sent.

> destined for a CAP or iMIP/iTIP recipient.

I think we are all 100% in agreement on that point.

-- 

  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