Subject: Updates to iTIP/iMIP RFCs

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:27:41 -0400

John:
As John has pointed out, there is no real market presence for iCalendar 
yet. This was certainly shown by the low attendance at CalConnect #1. 
Don't get me wrong, it is my every hope that the iCalendar market will 
manifest itself in the coming months.
However, one of the problems we have with this current iTIP specification 
for REQUEST method is that it is very overloaded. It includes the 
semantics for:
1. An invitation,
2. A rescheduling invitation,
3. An update on attendee status,
4. A confirmation of the event status.
Now, two of these are clearly REQUEST type of actions. The other two are 
of a confirmation nature. They require no reply, just monitoring and 
possible update of descriptive information in the event definition; by the 
recipient.
This dycotomy was noted by a number of the early implementors with 
iCalendar. Early implementation is the time to fix these problems. 
I strongly disagree with your view of letting design problems linger in 
the early specifications. Let's fix this know bug in the iTIP design now, 
as we agreed to some time ago.
-- Frank

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 11:34:47 -0400

[email-masked] wrote:

> As John has pointed out, there is no real market presence for
> iCalendar yet. This was certainly shown by the low attendance
> at CalConnect #1.

OK, good point.  I withdraw the objection.

--
/=================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.   |
|Chief Scientist |================================================|
|eCal Corp.      |When rats leave a sinking ship, where exactly do|
[email-masked]|they think they're going?                       |
\=================================================================/