Subject: Re: Status of the CALSCH working group (CALID vs CU time)

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:29:55 -0700

------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * To: "ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx <mailto:[email-masked]>"
      <ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx <mailto:[email-masked]>>
    * Subject: Re: Status of the CALSCH working group
    * From: Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:[email-masked]>
    * Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:02:28 -0500
    * In-reply-to: <>
    * List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-calendar/mail-archive/>
    * List-id: <ietf-calendar.imc.org>
    * List-unsubscribe:
      <mailto:[email-masked]?body=unsubscribe>
    * Sender: owner-ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxx
      <mailto:[email-masked]>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 >> Because some want and expect the CU (user) VFREEBUSY and others want the
 >> CALID (calendar) VFREEBUSY. Currently the iTIP method gets the CU 
VFREEBUSY
 >> that just might be the same as the CALID VFREEBUSY.

 > We have never drawn a distinction between a CUs availability or a 
calendars before.  Are you saying you have > some proposal in mind for 
drawing a distinction?  Something like hierarchical calendars with 
busytime / content > rollup or "calendar bundling"?  Please say no...

If I spend the time and go find the instances where we have talked about 
it, will you change your mind?

-- 

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

               We Do Standards - You Need Standards