Subject: [ietf-calsify] REQUEST-STATUS mandatory only for VTODO REPLY

From: Arnaud Quillaud <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:19:19 +0100

Is there a particular reason why the REQUEST-STATUS is mandated in a 
VTODO REPLY 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-calsify-2446bis-08#section-3.4.3) 
when it is not in a VEVENT REPLY 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-calsify-2446bis-08#section-3.2.3) ?

If there is none, shouldn't we make the REQUEST-STATUS a 0+ also for VTODO ?

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

---

From: Bernard Desruisseaux <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:33:04 -0500

Arnaud,

You stung my curiosity! I ran the following egrep command against the 
draft and found other inconsistencies...

egrep "(\|.*REQUEST-STATUS|^   \| METHOD|\| VEVENT.*1+|\| 
VFREEBUSY.*1+|\| VTODO.*1+|\| VJOURNAL.*1+)" 
draft-ietf-calsify-2446bis-08.txt

In summary (including the issue you found):

1- In VEVENT w/ METHOD:REQUEST -> REQUEST-STATUS should be 0  and not 0+
2- In VEVENT w/ METHOD:COUNTER -> REQUEST-STATUS should be 0  and not 0+
3- In VTODO  w/ METHOD:REPLY   -> REQUEST-STATUS should be 0+ and not 1+
4- In VTODO  w/ METHOD:COUNTER -> REQUEST-STATUS should be 0  and not 0+

Cheers,
Bernard

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:33:59 -0500

Hi Bernard,

> 4- In VTODO  w/ METHOD:COUNTER -> REQUEST-STATUS should be 0  and not 0+

I agree with #1 and #3 and have updated my working copy accordingly.

I am not totally convinced about #2 and #3. I would like to know why you 
think that a COUNTER is not a reply to the organizer that can carry status 
about the original request that it is countering.

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Bernard Desruisseaux <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:16:54 -0500

Hi Cyrus,

Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> I am not totally convinced about #2 and #3.
I assume you meant #2 and #4 (i.e., METHOD:COUNTER).
> I would like to know why you think that a COUNTER is not a reply to 
> the organizer that can carry status about the original request that it 
> is countering.
>
I couldn't find any text or example in RFC2446 that would suggest that 
COUNTER can be used as a reply to the original REQUEST. On the other 
hand, the text makes it clear that REPLY may be used to respond to an 
unsuccessful request:

% grep -A 2 "respond to an un" rfc2446.txt

   The "REPLY" method may also be used to respond to an unsuccessful
   "REQUEST" method. Depending on the value of the "REQUEST-STATUS"
   property no scheduling action may have been performed.
--
   The "REPLY" method may also be used to respond to an unsuccessful
   "REQUEST" method. Depending on the "REQUEST-STATUS" value, no busy
   time information may be returned.
--
   The "REPLY" method MAY also be used to respond to an unsuccessful
   "VTODO" calendar component "REQUEST" method. Depending on the
   "REQUEST-STATUS" value, no scheduling action may have been performed.

Also, as mentioned in the text, "REQUEST-STATUS" is not required in 
successful transactions.

In most (all?) cases, a COUNTER *request* will be initiated by the end 
user when the original REQUEST transaction was successful. If the 
original REQUEST was unsuccessful, what would the end user be countering 
anyway?

Cheers,
Bernard