From nobody Wed Mar 2 07:36:10 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 724DE1A88FF for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:36:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.508 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q0y3V1w8uIm4 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:36:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from daboo.name (daboo.name [173.13.55.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A599C1A890B for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:36:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id E485836C8799; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:36:05 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at example.com Received: from daboo.name ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (daboo.name [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eeiqbi6DbfMP; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:36:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.7] (unknown [173.13.55.49]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5F1DE36C878E; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:36:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 10:36:03 -0500 From: Cyrus Daboo To: Donald Eastlake , calsify@ietf.org Message-ID: <801E7FA4A9E13CD1C9498B9B@cyrus.local> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.1.0b1 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; size=486 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [calsify] Two Week WG Last Call for draft-ietf-calext-extensions X-BeenThere: calsify@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 15:36:09 -0000 Hi Donald, --On February 21, 2016 at 10:18:40 PM -0500 Donald Eastlake wrote: > This message begins a two week WG Last Call > on draft-ietf-calext-extensions-01 through March 7th. > > This is also a call for IPR. Anyone aware of any IPR in this draft that > has not be declared to the IETF should post to that effect. The author > must post that they know of no such IPR or declare it if they do. I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft. -- Cyrus Daboo From nobody Wed Mar 2 07:36:23 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D40961A890B for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:36:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.908 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HWlw6aHEM_3m for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:36:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from daboo.name (daboo.name [173.13.55.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E21491A88FF for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:36:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D8E36C87C2; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:36:20 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at example.com Received: from daboo.name ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (daboo.name [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VxBbYk1WsXTp; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:36:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.7] (unknown [173.13.55.49]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B4F8036C87B7; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:36:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 10:36:18 -0500 From: Cyrus Daboo To: Donald Eastlake , calsify@ietf.org Message-ID: <0D2F9348583E6541864A72A0@cyrus.local> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.1.0b1 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; size=486 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [calsify] Two week WG Last Call for draft-ietf-calext-availability X-BeenThere: calsify@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 15:36:22 -0000 Hi Donald, --On February 21, 2016 at 10:26:16 PM -0500 Donald Eastlake wrote: > This message begins a two week WG Last Call on > draft-ietf-calext-availability ending March 7th. > > This is also a call for IPR. Anyone aware of any IPR in this draft that > has not be declared to the IETF should post to that effect. The authors > must post that they know of no such IPR or declare it if they do. I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft. -- Cyrus Daboo From nobody Wed Mar 2 07:57:09 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 523BC1ACD16 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:57:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 60nDLbA9QhBr for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:57:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-x231.google.com (mail-qg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD8081ACC8D for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:57:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qg0-x231.google.com with SMTP id t4so15680781qge.0 for ; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 07:57:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=twfXyGGDyP7WW1GkD/84CY0O8qwDoa81/UTAVaizQWc=; b=SzHnVo6Ictc3o/xbq8P6wSJSL7fBG+qJWUnsCORiMQi1jIVPMeHewYDX/kgo3ju4qd ++ci9RDcZhiLsi1j/cUMLkqDWZlhFhSfgWaKtQmKGSZjLEguOMlAT6dOF3U8Cv5FY58a D/MGdzkF47A6d3VfG8Z0v0FsQPvdONSx3jHx7I9UKMguZ5mk01bqT8sucBe8r9ljpf9F vb0PQLjq6GRS1AyblTaG58ud5R1XZgEYoQzSwYhpw1JLkOUJiqd2SiY7RgVAer5XJSVA 5d18KJ+6eW8cvmP1N9ve1JnCzfLWbYKE4QCxx+zAXVkEFQsE3yBKwg46a1ekhEMedK5H XkMw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=twfXyGGDyP7WW1GkD/84CY0O8qwDoa81/UTAVaizQWc=; b=kLpzrt7juathvpKJb7DoNZMj/gPS52w5QbBOlI31y69FAasrSCSlPxGVrlqiXI0ZJU b5xpcOHtDuamHROMiQXuW4scNBy2cdXsH4YSeULI+XTFdOppFio1V2jWqYHs+npdHfPH BSci9rvoULr4BoF7RsRO+C1P94H1a1ZimKPVZBxQf0JYtaHEF2QRtuzJ2AYaQeLNfRmD NHKUUsUOrBqA5WvWh4GLPqfNphAZEP5Yo5cw0gsrqZ7aqki5Lwn7ojzxSiW4GAagCK4H zra5kBkXiE3YOBCwE6KDnun8e9x+w0XeBVHknm21Lu4374LR8U7vjJ+1XJzLomVEju+X iRCA== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLA77zokarnNtY0MyB3dQNh3jdfgupL87/i6Owzsbo3m8IM56Ik/OLvJz2WaeENZw== X-Received: by 10.140.155.7 with SMTP id b7mr8117577qhb.14.1456934225962; Wed, 02 Mar 2016 07:57:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from Michaels-MacBook-Pro.local (cpe-67-252-53-251.nycap.res.rr.com. [67.252.53.251]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id z62sm15227530qka.26.2016.03.02.07.57.05 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 02 Mar 2016 07:57:05 -0800 (PST) To: calsify@ietf.org References: <0D2F9348583E6541864A72A0@cyrus.local> From: Michael Douglass Message-ID: <56D70D50.1040208@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:57:04 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0D2F9348583E6541864A72A0@cyrus.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Subject: Re: [calsify] Two week WG Last Call for draft-ietf-calext-availability X-BeenThere: calsify@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 15:57:08 -0000 On 3/2/16 10:36, Cyrus Daboo wrote: > Hi Donald, > > --On February 21, 2016 at 10:26:16 PM -0500 Donald Eastlake > wrote: > >> This message begins a two week WG Last Call on >> draft-ietf-calext-availability ending March 7th. >> >> This is also a call for IPR. Anyone aware of any IPR in this draft that >> has not be declared to the IETF should post to that effect. The authors >> must post that they know of no such IPR or declare it if they do. > > I am not aware of any IPR related to this draft. I am also not aware of any IPR related to this draft > From nobody Wed Mar 2 09:18:27 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A37891B2DC3 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 09:18:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.009 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P9nwhhzvHLeF for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 09:18:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from daboo.name (daboo.name [173.13.55.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50F8B1B2CC2 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 09:18:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E17F36CBA05; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 12:18:19 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at example.com Received: from daboo.name ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (daboo.name [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y1uSSNk6D7Lb; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 12:18:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.0.1.7] (unknown [17.44.178.123]) by daboo.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B7B1336CB9FA; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 12:18:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 12:18:16 -0500 From: Cyrus Daboo To: Ken Murchison , Calsify Message-ID: <8869029001FE064B7BE187EC@cyrus.local> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.1.0b1 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; size=1589 Archived-At: Subject: Re: [calsify] draft-ietf-calext-availability X-BeenThere: calsify@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 17:18:22 -0000 Hi Ken, Thanks for your review. Comments below: --On February 29, 2016 at 11:38:46 AM -0500 Ken Murchison wrote: > A few comments: > > - The current text in Section 4 leaves me unclear as to whether the > ordering of VAVAILABILITY components by priority means that the expected > order is: > 0, 1, 2, ... , 8, 9 > OR > 0, 9, 8, ... , 2, 1 This is a little awkward as we are re-using the RFC5545 property PRIORITY and it defines "1" as the highest priority and "9" as the lowest priority and "0" (the default value in the absence of the property) as "undefined". However, for arithmetic purposes we need to define how a value of "0" needs to be treated and we choose to treat that as a priority lower than "9". Hence the ordering from low to high is 0, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. That order is described in the fifth paragraph of Section 4. Is there any specific text in that section that leads you to think some other order is implied? > - The text in Section 5.1.1 (available 8:00AM to 6:00PM, 2 hr event) > doesn't match the iCalendar data in Appendix A (available 9:00AM to > 6:00PM, 1 hr event) - I'd suggest fixing the iCalendar data to match the > text since the table in 5.1.1 uses 2 hr blocks of time on even hours Fixed in my working copy. > - Since VAVAILABILITY components can be stored in calendar collections, > do we need to add a section that discusses how it behaves with > CALDAV:time-range? Perhaps a new Section 6.2.x such as the following: Good point - thanks. I have included that in my working copy. -- Cyrus Daboo From nobody Wed Mar 2 11:36:00 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BCBF1B2DEF for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 11:35:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.206 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AS8pYJti0PYa for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 11:35:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.andrew.cmu.edu (SMTP.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.157.38]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD0F61B2D60 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2016 11:35:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from [100.88.224.95] (163.sub-70-195-137.myvzw.com [70.195.137.163]) (user=murch mech=PLAIN (0 bits)) by smtp.andrew.cmu.edu (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id u22JZmqv000644 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 2 Mar 2016 14:35:49 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Ken Murchison X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13D15) In-Reply-To: <8869029001FE064B7BE187EC@cyrus.local> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 14:35:47 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <8869029001FE064B7BE187EC@cyrus.local> To: Cyrus Daboo X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2016.3.2.192418 X-SMTP-Spam-Clean: 28% ( SXL_IP_DYNAMIC 3, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, MIME_LOWER_CASE 0.05, SUPERLONG_LINE 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1300_1399 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, FROM_EDU_TLD 0, NO_URI_HTTPS 0, RDNS_POOLED 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_SPECIFIC 0, RDNS_WIRELESS 0, REFERENCES 0, __ANY_URI 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __IN_REP_TO 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MSGID_APPLEMAIL 0, __PHISH_SPEAR_STRUCTURE_1 0, __RDNS_POOLED_6 0, __REFERENCES 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __URI_NO_WWW 0, __URI_NS ) X-SMTP-Spam-Score: 28% X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.74 on 128.2.157.38 Archived-At: Cc: Calsify Subject: Re: [calsify] draft-ietf-calext-availability X-BeenThere: calsify@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 19:35:58 -0000 > On Mar 2, 2016, at 12:18 PM, Cyrus Daboo wrote: >=20 > Hi Ken, > Thanks for your review. Comments below: >=20 > --On February 29, 2016 at 11:38:46 AM -0500 Ken Murchison wrote: >=20 >> A few comments: >>=20 >> - The current text in Section 4 leaves me unclear as to whether the >> ordering of VAVAILABILITY components by priority means that the expected >> order is: >> 0, 1, 2, ... , 8, 9 >> OR >> 0, 9, 8, ... , 2, 1 >=20 > This is a little awkward as we are re-using the RFC5545 property PRIORITY a= nd it defines "1" as the highest priority and "9" as the lowest priority and= "0" (the default value in the absence of the property) as "undefined". Howe= ver, for arithmetic purposes we need to define how a value of "0" needs to b= e treated and we choose to treat that as a priority lower than "9". Hence th= e ordering from low to high is 0, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. That order is d= escribed in the fifth paragraph of Section 4. Is there any specific text in t= hat section that leads you to think some other order is implied? Reading it again it seems clear to me. I'm not sure why I was confused in th= e first place.=20 -- Kenneth Murchison Principal Systems Software Engineer Carnegie Mellon University= From nobody Fri Mar 18 06:53:34 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79BE512D8ED for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 06:53:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m1Zbn_1Kpk0j for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 06:53:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vk0-x22f.google.com (mail-vk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D168412D8E3 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 06:53:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vk0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id e6so141850502vkh.2 for ; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 06:53:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=KoohoZmmqHp8Ku8/kZm7TuV+bmYnqW/+rsI9UCG+OoM=; b=QDN3mupaEBrTrnDosppOpKfogvd33EY4Fxq/pjjhRp8zUbhM4PeD6YrV4y4EjhPZh8 QFJgu/GXVRV8QVXWE/uzqcgQmJAT0dTVahwOkg5K0u/B8wzkzWIUfDeGxf1E5QS7jXHm O1MB0AejtRsledzDLiVhAmiHF9MSO/1qcoV/n0RLztwD3CV8VtNLj8DmtlUs2n5vnu0u 35QNcLh9jYfhJK5BKy5LlFLCd2sqw2NZAqKP8oOjX/L5dFqPedwdM91UtlmvhmYVckY+ sG7NhC5myDWD64w4Ced+jWD7EerFaM+yk4wxwoWQyjZV4SDzQJHkDmlfgKx8lo7YbB7/ Qa7w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=KoohoZmmqHp8Ku8/kZm7TuV+bmYnqW/+rsI9UCG+OoM=; b=i4eJL76ROXhgO4MV7N8zaXo8h3HEQRBMR0eYv/tUDIoyuwxbHcKmxfDWIoNzRaFMpS hB0LQgjM3TI8w3V0fTM/UcFunMU9/YIl9bdV1QVnusOWtaTgzfyI9M+hLRC5XJafkUpU CCyrhYtSg/jXO83HZp/lBik334qaaqfUpwHWhDicaRheBg/g2498EeGHo35e83xathjk pWoml1jffMDVWTMMTXzHCGzac3RE0gaoILugNcCFV9TmYA2+4SqG/g9oiQngorA21dQ2 ortGEAEQ0DBZ/Py5KHCdt+1tytfn1Y/+FNMvnYrUElZhfYPNhiH7n1LRZwCXfgC5zhZ7 Uebg== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJiXaTOGPDgOV5mP5ek8ukM4YEGkdO/U1SNDLoaLFvQiwgRrLQwjNSBUVbXAFN7g1yR0tuWpgOzFJLYZ90G X-Received: by 10.176.3.81 with SMTP id 75mr144470uat.137.1458309200867; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 06:53:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Raphael Menderico Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 13:53:11 +0000 Message-ID: To: calsify@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1135208ae4413b052e53111e Archived-At: Subject: [calsify] RFC proposal for a new calendar URI X-BeenThere: calsify@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 13:53:33 -0000 --001a1135208ae4413b052e53111e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Dear calext WG participants, My name is Raphael Menderico, I work at Google and one of my duties has been to work on a new URI schema for calendar events. After discussions inside Google and with the industry group (CalConnect), a draft has been written and submitted to IETF ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-menderico-v-event-uri-00). I would like to ask the participants of this working group if there is interest on this new URI format for events being proposed. Any assistance, like comments or other ideas is really appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help Raphael Menderico Google --001a1135208ae4413b052e53111e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear cale= xt WG participants,
<= br>
My name is Raphae= l Menderico, I work at Google and one of my duties has been to work on a ne= w URI schema for calendar events. After discussions inside Google and with = the industry group (CalConnect), a draft has been written and submitted to = IETF (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-menderico-v-event-uri= -00).=C2=A0

<= /div>
I would like to ask t= he participants of this working group if there is interest on this new URI = format for events being proposed. Any assistance, like comments or other id= eas is really appreciated.

Thanks in = advance for your help

Raphael Menderi= co
Google
--001a1135208ae4413b052e53111e--