Subject: [Ietf-calsify] [Fwd: 2445bis: clarify allowed value types of date-time property combinations]

From: bernard.desruisseaux at oracle.com (Bernard Desruisseaux)
Date: Tue Feb 13 08:15:32 2007

[
   Dear chairs, please add the issues that Cyrus previously raised on the
   list to the tracker.

   http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/ietf-calsify/2006-July/001012.html
]

 > -------- Original Message --------
 > Subject: 2445bis: clarify allowed value types of date-time property combinations
 > Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:00:48 -0400
 > From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
 > To: Bernard Desruisseaux <[email-masked]>
 > CC: [email-masked]
 >
 > Hi Bernard,
 > I was just checking on the behavior for the VALUE type of DTSTART/DTEND
 > and DTSTART/DUE in VEVENT and VTODO. Right now for VEVENT, the only
 > restriction I see is that if DTSTART is a DATE then DTEND must also be a
 > DATE. That means that having DTSTART be DATE-TIME and DTEND be DATE is
 > allowed (provided DTEND is later than DTSTART). If that is allowed then
 > I would like to see it explicitly stated - perhaps a table of the two
 > properties with yes/no for combinations of value types?

I propose to change the following text from section 4.8.2.2
Date/Time End of RFC 2445:

   Description: Within the "VEVENT" calendar component, this property
   defines the date and time by which the event ends. The value MUST be
   later in time than the value of the "DTSTART" property.

as follows:

   Description: Within the "VEVENT" calendar component, this property
   defines the date and time by which the event ends.  The value type
   of this property MUST be the same as the "DTSTART" property, and
   the value of this property MUST be later in time than the value of
   the "DTSTART" property.

 > The issue with VTODO is more complex as there is no restriction at all,
 > so DTSTART as DATE and DUE as DATE-TIME, or DTSTART as DATE-TIME and DUE
 > as DATE is allowed. I was just bitten by this so would like to see more
 > clarification as per VEVENT.

I propose to change the following text from section 4.8.2.3 Date/Time Due
of RFC 2445:

   Description: The value MUST be a date/time equal to or after the
   DTSTART value, if specified.

as follows:

   Description: This property defines the date and time that a to-do is
   expected to be completed.  For cases where this property is specified
   in a "VTODO" component that also specifies a "DTSTART" property, the
   value type of this property MUST be the same as the "DTSTART" property,
   and the value of this property MUST be later in time than the value of
   the "DTSTART" property.

 > PS This might tie in with the UNTIL value issue too. Perhaps a table of
 > all date/time related properties for each component with an indication
 > of what combinations of values each is allowed would be good.

This one is already in the tracker as issue 23.  Draft -06 will state
the following:

   The value of the UNTIL rule part MUST have the same value type as the
   "DTSTART" property.

Cheers,
Bernard

---

From: cyrus at daboo.name (Cyrus Daboo)
Date: Tue Feb 13 08:25:14 2007

Hi Bernard,

>    and the value of this property MUST be later in time than the value of

+1 for these.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo