Subject: [Ietf-calsify] iMip and Mixing content

From: camerost at exchange.microsoft.com (Cameron Stillion)
Date: Wed Aug 25 17:37:08 2004

Good point.  I was not suggesting that we could or should avoid
arbitrary MIME structures.  Attachments in general will be structured in
whatever way the client will choose.  

Perhaps I am pushing iMip beyond it's intended purpose, but most clients
that send/receive calendars will want to attribute meaning to certain
MIME structures - and association to a particular user action and
intended behavior.  

For example: 
	User sends a "Meeting Request".
	User sends a "Meeting Update".
	User sends a "Meeting Request Accept or Decline".
	User sends a packaged calendar representing their free/busy.
	User sends a packaged calendar representing their entire
personal calendar.

Each of these VERY COMMON scenarios in calendaring applications should
have a fairly recognizable MIME structure that the mail client can
identify and then "do the right thing".  At least, that's what I was
hoping iMip would help us define.

Thoughts?

Cameron

-----Original Message-----
From: Nathaniel Borenstein [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 3:27 PM
To: Cameron Stillion
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ietf-calsify] iMip and Mixing content

On Aug 21, 2004, at 11:42 AM, Cameron Stillion wrote:

> While I appreciate the effort to be clear and exhaustive, I wonder at 
> the value of including multiple iCalendar objects in a single MIME 
> message that have different METHOD parameters.  Can anyone think of a 
> good reason a client might do so?

I'd pose a different question:  Can we possibly prevent it?  Imagine
that I get 7 different messages in the mail, each containing an ical
object.  My MUA allows me to select all 7 and forward them as a group.  
I'd probably be intending, in doing that, for the recipient to get all
7, but I can't assume a priori anything about them, can I?  -- Nathaniel