Subject: [calsify] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5546 (3932)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:26:12 -0700 (PDT)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5546,
"iCalendar Transport-Independent Interoperability Protocol (iTIP)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=5546&eid=3932

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Alfie John <[email-masked]>

Section: 3.1.2

Original Text
-------------
   |   DAYLIGHT         | 0+       | MUST be one or more of either     |
   |                    |          | STANDARD or DAYLIGHT.             |
   |     COMMENT        | 0+       |                                   |
   |     DTSTART        | 1        | MUST be local time format.        |
   |     RDATE          | 0+       |                                   |
   |     RRULE          | 0 or 1   |                                   |
   |     TZNAME         | 0+       |                                   |

Corrected Text
--------------
   |   DAYLIGHT         | 0+       | MUST be one or more of either     |
   |                    |          | STANDARD or DAYLIGHT.             |
   |     COMMENT        | 0+       |                                   |
   |     DTSTART        | 1        | MUST be local time format.        |
   |     RDATE          | 0+       | If present, RRULE MUST NOT be     |
   |                    |          | present                           |
   |     RRULE          | 0 or 1   | If present, RRULE MUST NOT be     |
   |                    |          | present                           |
   |     TZNAME         | 0+       |                                   |

Notes
-----
The corrected text appeared in RFC 2446, however I couldn't find the reasoning as to why it was omitted in RFC 5546.

(I tried submitting this earlier today but noticed it wasn't appearing on either the Errata search or the Calsify mailing list (ietf.org's mailman was returning 502 Bad Gateway" this morning), so I decided to resubmit.

Instructions:
-------------
This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC5546 (draft-ietf-calsify-2446bis-10)
--------------------------------------
Title               : iCalendar Transport-Independent Interoperability Protocol (iTIP)
Publication Date    : December 2009
Author(s)           : C. Daboo, Ed.
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Calendaring and Scheduling Standards Simplification
Area                : Applications
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

---

From: Alfie John <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 13:34:35 +1100

> Original Text

Bah! Copy-paste got me. The corrected text should read:

  |     RDATE          | 0+       | If present, RRULE MUST NOT be     |
  |                    |          | present                           |
  |     RRULE          | 0 or 1   | If present, RDATE MUST NOT be     |
  |                    |          | present                           |

Alfie

-- 
  Alfie John
  [email-masked]

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 23:45:26 -0500

I fixed the erratum text as you say below. Now to look into what the 
story is and what to do with it.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 08:04:26 +0100

We should mark this erratum as verified.  It's clearly a typo.  It's
pretty clear what the meaning is, however, and so there is no need to
hold for update.

Eliot
On 3/26/14, 5:45 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>>>     |     COMMENT        | 0+      
>>> |                                   |
>>>     |     RDATE          | 0+      
>>> |                                   |
>>>     |     RRULE          | 0 or 1  
>>> |                                   |
>>>     |     TZNAME         | 0+      
>>> |                                   |
>>>     |     COMMENT        | 0+      
>>> |                                   |
>>>     |                    |          |
>>> present                           |
>>>     |                    |          |
>>> present                           |
>>>     |     TZNAME         | 0+      
>>> |                                   |

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 13:17:55 -0400

> pretty clear what the meaning is, however, and so there is no need to

Eliot, in case you're misunderstanding:

The errata report isn't about "RRULE" vs "RDATE" -- that's the erratum
on the errata report.

The errata report is adding the comments to the RDATE and RRULE
entries under "DAYLIGHT".  Those comments exist just below that, on
the RDATE and RRULE entries under "STANDARD", but are not there in the
entries under "DAYLIGHT".

I'm still inclined to mark this "Verified", though I don't think there
can be any real misunderstanding caused by this -- after all, the
restriction that you can't specify both RDATE and RRULE is noted
elsewhere.

Barry

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 20:47:31 +0100

The below is in fact my understanding.  Thanks...

Eliot