Subject: [Ietf-calsify] rfc2445/rfc2446/rfc2447 confusion ATTENDEE: TYPE= or CUTYPE=

From: Gren Elliot <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:06:35 +0000

Hi,

There appears to be a contradiction between RFC 2445 (ICalendar) on one 
hand and RFC2446 (iTIP) / RFC2447 (iMIP) on the other, which still seems 
to be true in the latest calsify drafts I can see :

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-calsify-rfc2445bis-07.txt

3.2.3.  Calendar User Type

   Parameter Name:  CUTYPE

   Purpose:  To specify the type of calendar user specified by the
      property.

   Format Definition:  This property parameter is defined by the
      following notation:

        cutypeparam        = "CUTYPE" "="
                           ("INDIVIDUAL"   ; An individual
                          / "GROUP"        ; A group of individuals
                          / "RESOURCE"     ; A physical resource
                          / "ROOM"         ; A room resource
                          / "UNKNOWN"      ; Otherwise not known
                          / x-name         ; Experimental type
                          / iana-token)    ; Other IANA registered
                                           ; type
        ; Default is INDIVIDUAL

   Description:  This parameter can be specified on properties with a
      CAL-ADDRESS value type.  The parameter identifies the type of
      calendar user specified by the property.  If not specified on a
      property that allows this parameter, the default is INDIVIDUAL.
      Applications MUST treat x-name and iana-token value they don't
      recognized the same way as the INDIVIDUAL value.

   Example:

        ATTENDEE;CUTYPE=GROUP:mailto:[email-masked]

In particular, nowhere is a parameter with token "TYPE" defined.

However,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-calsify-2446bis-04.txt
Refers to a TYPE parameter and gives several examples, for instance :

ATTENDEE;RSVP=TRUE;TYPE=INDIVIDUAL;CN=B:Mailto:[email-masked]

RFC 2447 gives similar examples to the RFC 2446 form.

It seems to me that RFC 2446 and RFC 2447 are out of step with common 
usage, although I am seeing the odd message using TYPE instead of CUTYPE?

I would like to see the drafts resolve this contradiction.

Any thoughts?
Regards,
Gren.

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

---

From: Bernard Desruisseaux <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:27:28 -0500

Both draft-ietf-calsify-2446bis and draft-ietf-calsify-rfc2447bis
should replace TYPE by CUTYPE.

Cheers,
Bernard