Subject: RE: [Ietf-calsify] Issue 86

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 20:50:01 -0400

Hi Tim,
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this.

--On March 11, 2008 10:07:42 AM -0400 Tim Hare <[email-masked]> wrote:

> It seems as though we are somehow specifying how the CUA interacts with
> the user (whether to be notified or not, etcetera).  This, to me, does not
> belong in iTIP .  iTIP should be solely about the exchange of calendaring
> information between two calendaring tools; adding CUA<->user interaction
> is really outside the scope of iTIP. As such, it adds un-needed
> complexity to the document which doesn't advance the goals of
> simplification and interoperability.

So there was some discussion of this at the IETF meeting, and I think most 
people there were not worried by this.

I think iTIP is about the exchange and processing of scheduling messages 
and I think guidance on how to handle SEQUENCE changes is relevant. That 
said I think the proposed text can be "toned down" a little bit by not 
talking about calendar users in a direct manner:

    Whilst a change in SEQUENCE number is indicative of a significant
    change to a previously scheduled item, ATTENDEE CUAs SHOULD NOT rely
    solely on a change in SEQUENCE as a means of detecting a significant
    change. Instead CUAs SHOULD compare the old and new versions of the
    calendar components and determine the exact nature of the changes and
    make decisions, possibly based on calendar user preferences, as to
    whether the user needs to be explicitly informed of the change.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

_______________________________________________
Ietf-calsify mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-calsify