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

From: Satya Vempati <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:17:00 -0700

To avoid confusion, we need to separate the master/base event and an
instance. I do not think that the sequence number on the master/base event
should change if an instance is rescheduled.

Yes, the sequence number must be updated but only on the instance. Not the
master.

My original question had to do with changing the base/master event: In
that situation, should the new sequence number on the master be (where
seq(n-1) is the sequence before, and seq(n) the sequence after, the change)

seq(n) = seq(n-1) + 1 or
seq(n) = max ((highest seq in all recurring instances), seq(n-1)) + 1

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Royer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 9:56 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Does anyone still think that RECURRENCE-ID's do NOT change?

Satya Vempati wrote:

> The SEQUENCE numbering scheme I am talking about is the following issue:
> 
> Suppose the base set is UID:1, SEQ:0
> We reschedule an instance: UID:1, RID:x, SEQ:1
> We modify/reschedule the instance 49 times: UID:1, RID:x, SEQ:50
(attendee
> A is invited to this instance alone)
> Now we change the RRULE on the base set: Should it be: UID:1, SEQ:51 OR
> UID:1, SEQ:1?

iTIP says that when you send an instance update you increment
the SEQUENCE number each time. Do you disagree?

-- 

  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 13:46:16 -0700

> instance. I do not think that the sequence number on the master/base
> event should change if an instance is rescheduled.
>
> Yes, the sequence number must be updated but only on the instance.
> Not the master.
>

It should be the "max" one.

Though I would simplify it as:
seq(n) = max(seq of all affected instances) + 1

This has the added bonus of applying to "THISANDPRIOR" and
"THISANDFUTURE" updates as well (even though strictly speaking
those are instance updates and not set redefinitions).

If there have been no reschedules or other such thing then all
instances will have the same SEQUENCE value and it will match
the value of the base event so the formula holds.

A an update to the base/master event affects all instances, and
therefore the max sequence from the entire series will be used
and the formula holds.

Kind of a trivial distinction, but it helps simplify it some more.

-- Michael --

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:55:23 -0600

> should change if an instance is rescheduled.

Your talking implementation detail. I see no reason that the wire protocol
needs to care.

And iTIP says (in effect) when you change anything that effects the
instances, you have to bump the SEQUENCE. So why/when do you feel it does
apply?

> Yes, the sequence number must be updated but only on the instance. Not the

Why does it matter how the ORGANZIER-CUA stores objects?

If it is valid to send an instance update .OR. an entire object.
Then the net result must be that the two are equivalent.

> seq(n) = max ((highest seq in all recurring instances), seq(n-1)) + 1

What you send the ATTENDEE must be incremented. What the ATTENDEE replies
to must match what was sent. If it is a single instance update or
a complete replacement - it must be true. I can not find a single
exception to that in iTIP or iCAL. The SEQUENCE number must be
bumped when the listed properties change (or the organizer deems
it needed). Each time they change.

--

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 17:06:21 -0400

If you are changing the base event the new SEQUENCE number is one more 
than the highest SEQUENCE number currently used by any of the instances in 
the set.
_____________________
Note: new email address

[email-masked]

Satya Vempati <[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked]
08/28/2003 04:17 PM

To
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
cc

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

My original question had to do with changing the base/master event: In
that situation, should the new sequence number on the master be (where
seq(n-1) is the sequence before, and seq(n) the sequence after, the 
change)

seq(n) = seq(n-1) + 1 or

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Royer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 9:56 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Does anyone still think that RECURRENCE-ID's do NOT change?

(attendee

--