Subject: Re: W-19 CAP Group Definitions

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:45:20 -0500

Bob:
Do you all realize we already differentiate in RFC2445 different CUTYPEs? 
This discussion about Group Definitions seems to be unnecessarily 
conflicting with existing definitions of CU Types already codified in 
iCalendar.
Calendar user type is identified in the ATTENDEE property parameter 
CUTYPE. The current enumerated values are INDIVIDUAL, GROUP, RESOURCE or 
UNKNOWN.
-- Frank

---

From: Bob Mahoney <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 14:45:09 -0500

>conflicting with existing definitions of CU Types already codified 
>in iCalendar.
>
>CUTYPE. The current enumerated values are INDIVIDUAL, GROUP, 
>RESOURCE or UNKNOWN.

We need to start carefully distinguishing between calendars and 
users.  ATTENDEEs are calendars, and should be referred to by CSIDs. 

We're not adding new group semantics to a CSID.  A CUA cannot 
distinguish between a C, a CC, or an RC.  However, if the CU knows 
that this CSID refers to a group or resource, the CU could instruct 
their CUA to use the CUTYPE of GROUP or RESOURCE.   However, the CS 
must take every CSID and evaluate it for expansion as a potential CC.

-Bob