Subject: Re: Question for list

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 15:26:03 -0400

Doug replied:
>I still have not been convinced you can't add ORGANIZER to
>your product. I see it (so far) as an oversight in your product.

It is NOT an oversight in my product (or anyones product) if there is no ORGANIZER 
for a personal calendar entry.  The presence of an ORGANIZER implies that 
there is workflow or scheduling going on.  Im simply blocking out Monday, 
4/17/2000 on my calendar so I can volunteer for the Boston Marathon.  Im 
_NOT_ scheduling the Marathon so Im not the ORGANIZER.

If you recheck RFC 2445, 4.8.4.3 you will see:

   Conformance: This property MUST be specified in an iCalendar object
   that specifies a group scheduled calendar entity. This property MUST
   be specified in an iCalendar object that specifies the publication of
   a calendar user's busy time. This property MUST NOT be specified in
   an iCalendar object that specifies only a time zone definition or
   that defines calendar entities that are not group scheduled entities,
   but are entities only on a single user's calendar.

Red highlights mine; for those MIME impaired the last line is the key 
phrase.

So, for a non-group scheduled entries like my private ones I dont (and 
MUST NOT) have an ORGANIZER.  So just how can I use iTIP to PUBLISH it?!? 
I must be a bit slow this week if Im just not seeing it.  Can someone 
explain how to publish my non group scheduled entries using iTIP?  For now 
I claim it cannot be done and I consider it an oversight or loophole in 
iTIP.

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: [email-masked]
Iris Associates                          Phone: 978.392.5335
Westford, MA, USA 01886                    FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 11:57:50 -0700

> I claim it cannot be done and I consider it an oversight or loophole in

Okay I understand your point. You are saying that because 2445 says
if it does not have an ORGANIZER - then it's not a group appointment.

Now consider this:

IF we were to change it to say:

	"This property MUST NOT be specified in an iCalendar object that
	 specifies only a time zone definition."

I don't see how that would hurt anything.

Can there be a group on ONE? I don't see why not.

If so, what't the difference. Frank (I think) said that you could
not tell if it was a group appointment. So what? Why is that a bad
thing? If you are going to SCHEDULE it, then use iTIP and add ORGANIZER.
If you want to get/put it - then use CAP.

-OR- *IF* you were to add ORGANIZER to your group-of-one appointment.
Why do you care? I do not see that anything in the protocol is busted.

So far - I just hear "I don't want to". But I am sure there is a reason.
I just do not see it yet.

-Doug

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:02:01 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:

> ... Can someone
> explain how to publish my non group scheduled entries using iTIP?

The whole concept of 'schedule' implies with someone or something
else - so who would you be scheduling it with?

>  For now

I see it (so far) as out of scope for iTIP - as it is not scheduling.

It looks to me as if you are saying - You want to transfer
a non-scheduling iCalendar object, with a scheduling protocol.

Direct booking is a CAP thing - not an iTIP thing.
There are also other things you can not do in iTIP, that't why CAP
exits.

-Doug