Subject: [Ietf-calsify] Interop Results

From: pregen at egenconsulting.com ([email-masked])
Date: Tue Nov 2 14:26:41 2004

The results of the interop held at UC Berkeley are done and can be located 
at the following URLs. 

http://www.calconnect.org/interop/uc%20berkeley%20interop%20testing.pdf 
(document) 
http://www.calconnect.org/interop/8-2004-results.pdf   (spreadsheet link)

---

From: mark at ScheduleWorld.com (Mark Swanson)
Date: Tue Nov 2 16:54:56 2004

> The results of the interop held at UC Berkeley are done and can be located

Thanks for the info. 
The interop tests will be quite useful.

Cheers.

-- 
Free SyncML-capable J2ME & J2SE replacement for Exchange and Outlook
http://www.ScheduleWorld.com/
WAP: http://www.ScheduleWorld.com/sw/WAPToday?id=4000&tz=EST
WebDAV: http://www.ScheduleWorld.com/sw/webDAVDir/4000.ics
VFREEBUSY: http://www.ScheduleWorld.com/sw/freebusy/4000.ifb

---

From: Doug at Royer.com (Doug Royer)
Date: Tue Nov 2 17:47:33 2004

It looks like all the interop results and summary agree that we need
to have basic objects that can be parsed by non-recurrence aware
applications if for no other reason to allow  implementations that support
some sub-sets of recurrence rules to parse the data.  The new recur-draft
can nail down the exact set that must be implemented in order to be
compliant. . By having the organizer's CUA expand the instances and set
the RECURRENCE-ID value to UTC, it is a format that  at least contains
all of the recurrence data.

In addition it looks like VALARM needs to be an add on as there
is a low level of interoperability between vendors.

In some cases it is hard to tell of the vendor did not support a 
feature, or if
their support is not working per RFC.

It also looks that iTIP needs to be broken down into perhaps individual
METHODs: PUBLISH, REQUEST/REPLY, delegation support,  CANCEL,
ADD,... drafts.

So it looks like we need separate drafts for:

    - Basic - with VEVENT - that describes how to send 2445 recurrence 
rules.

            Implementations that implement 'Basic' can send 2445 
(pre-iCal-Recurence) recurrence
            rules, but if they indicate they support iCal-Recurrence, 
then they would have
            to conform to iCal-Basic and iCal-Recurrence. They can also 
send 2445 VTIMEZONE
            with those objects.

    - VALARM - Do we deprecate PROCEDURE?

    - VTODO

    - Recurrence and VTIMEZONE
      
       I include VTIMEZONE here as VTIMEZONE is not really needed until
       recurrence rules are included.

    - METHOD:VFREEBUSY

    - METHOD:PUBLISH

    - METHOD(s): REQUEST/REPLY/CANCEL/REFRESH - including how to schedule.

       I think that if you have REQUEST, you have to have REPLY, CANCEL, 
and REQUEST.

    - Delegation

       Viewing the results and my testing is clear that most do not 
support this feature.
        So I think it needs to be optional.

    - METHOD: ADD - Or should this be part of REQUEST.

    - VJOURNAL??

    - New iMIP.

-- 

Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
-------------------------------|-----------------------------
[email-masked]                 | Office: (208)612-4638
http://Royer.com/People/Doug   | Fax:    (866)594-8574
                               | Cell:   (208)520-4044

              We Do Standards - You Need Standards

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4696 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/ietf-calsify/attachments/20041102/81370472/smime.bin

---

From: TimHare at comcast.net ([email-masked])
Date: Tue Nov 2 18:29:41 2004

One addition I'd make to the document re: VJOURNAL - the function seems to 
have been taken over by blogging tools, and  RSS and Atom for 
publication/transport.

The only remaining use case I could think of would be solved by having a 
form of VEVENT which has a comment attached to a date/time - people I know 
use an appointment or to-do as this kind of entry anyway, so even the 
comment-form VEVENT wouldn't be used much.

>http://www.calconnect.org/interop/uc%20berkeley%20interop%20testing.pdf

Tim Hare
Interested Bystander, Non-Inc.