Subject: RE: Does anyone still think that RECURRENCE-ID's do NOT change?

From: Joerg Reichelt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:08:54 -0700

It appears that it would have been much easier - and a lot less 
controversial - to define the recurrence ID as an index into the 
set of instances.

Looking at it this way, it would be clear to most of us that
- this index DOES NOT change for simple changes to that instance
  it refers to
- this index DOES change when the instances of a set need to be 
  re-indexed, e.g. when the definition of what instances belong 
  to the set changes; when this happens, and you want to keep
  modifications to individual instances of the set, you need to
  update the index in each of the descriptions of the instance
  modifications (e.g. change that index to the new index of the
  modified instance)

Since the recurrence ID is currently defined to be constructed of 
the start date and time of the instance, it appears to imply that 
it always would be equivalent to that value, which seems to be the 
source of the disagreement. The argument is revolving around the 
question whether the recurrence ID should be the original or the 
current value for a given instance (and conflicting references to
RFC paragraphs about what is correct have been presented, and both
alternatives have been extensively discussed).

It appears to me that it would be easier to work with a constant 
reference as much as possible than with one that changes all the 
time, but that is just my personal opinion on this topic.

My 2 cents.

- Joerg

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:54:05 -0600

Thanks Joerg.

I feel that a definition needs to be worked out that can
ether overlap or overhaul the idea so that everyone's code
can work or minimum changes.

I think another source of confusion is the 'I want' vs. 'it is'.

'I want' may be achievable, but without knowing if the
sender thinks it is a 'want or 'it is', it makes
communication a bit heated.

I am slowly compiling a list of opinions when technical
content is included. I do feel that we can develop an
iTIP-next or an iTIP-add-on draft that will solve the problems.

I also have noted that the 'fixed and never changes' camp
moved to 'fixed and changes under some circumstances'. Or perhaps
they have thought that is what they were saying from day one.

This has been a heated and debated point for years as Frank
and Derik pointed out in their email. I do feel that I do
not fully understand the other model or their confusion. And I
do not think they understand the non-fixed model. Assertions seem
to be 'that will not work', when in fact they are saying 'I do not
know how to make that work'. That may be true for me also, but
I know of no other way than to keep pinging each point until
it is fully explained.

I also feel that many seem to project their implementation details
into the wire protocol and view iCAL objects as a complete state
of the object and not a interoperability protocol to transfer information.
For example the recent assertions that we resolve the 'master' copy
of object issues makes me think the sender is equating
the wire objects with the stored objects. Or perhaps they are asking
"how to you make it work?". I am not sure yet.

Another very important point - heated debates ARE part of the
process. The only time that I take it personally is when
personal remarks are thrown into the debate. They are not
needed.

I have the highest respect for those that I have meet at
the IETF meetings - all of them. If you can not participate
in a debate and keep from throwing personal insults into
the debate - then I tend to think that you are admitting
that you do not have a clue how to communicate.
For example I consider Bruce a friend - we are both capable
of strongly disagreeing and still send each other jokes
on the side from time to time.

-- 

  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

---

From: "Michael Fair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:09:42 -0700

Thanks for the input.
We've been hashing this out with Doug for about 8 weeks now.

If you go through the archives over the past 2 months
almost every message has been on this topic.

Your arguments are very reasonable, and unfortunately
reason has not been very useful here.  Doug clings to
his ideas like they were his saving grace and ignores
any issues raised against his idealogy that he can't
disprove.  He also twists it said to mean what he wants
it to mean rather than the its intent and focuses on
stupid irrelevant arguments without addressing the
core issues.

Your "2 cents gut feel" is actually very demonstratable
to be the only sane way and there have been megabytes
of posts to this list cementing how not doing it the
"fixed-id" way is extremely fragile.

At the moment Doug Royer is the only proponent of his
model and he has placed me on his ignore list because
I demanded he prove his model didn't break.

If you do want to participate, your best bet is to talk to
Doug directly, the rest of us already agree on what we're
saying though we say it in very different ways sometimes.

8 weeks and probably some 300 messages is an eye opening
eperience in how rigomortized some people can be.  We
even sought the opinion of the original authors who
unfortunately didn't do a crystal clear enough job to
convince Doug that he's still mistaken.

-- Michael --

"Joerg Reichelt" <[email-masked]> wrote in message
news:CA8D7A11C649284AA163D951DA56533001305477@srv-mailsjc2...