Subject: Re: Updates to iTIP/iMIP RFCs

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 16:28:42 -0400

>      Proposal: Add a new method: CONFIRM. It would be used
>      to (a) reply to a REFRESH and (b) notify participants
>      of any changes to ATTENDEE or ORGANIZER.  All other
>      "reschedule" or "update" changes MUST use REQUEST
>      method.
>
Is this really necessary? Since there are some deployed iMIP
implementations (right?), it would require us to support both
modes.
John:
We talked about this some time ago. Just didn't act on it.
The rationale was that the iTIP REQUEST method was overloaded as a verb 
for both invite, reschedule, as well as confirm and attendee status 
confirmations.
-- Frank

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 14:06:12 -0700

> for both invite, reschedule, as well as confirm and attendee status

John,

We knew that RFC 2445 would not be a standard until there
were multiple interoperable implementations. We also knew
that interoperability testing would find bugs. This is one
that was found.

Frank,

Do you have a list of these kind of issues? (For iCal, iTIP, iMIP)?
I don't thing the WG has a full list.

-Doug

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 12:18:17 -0400

> that interoperability testing would find bugs. This is one

Could you clarify, please? What sort of bugs came up, and how would changing
REQUEST avoid them?

While I appreciate that it may be necessary to make changes between Proposed
and Draft, I'd rather see such changes minimized; there will be
implementations that don't catch up, and supporting both old and new
versions is a pain.

--
/===============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own. |
|Chief Scientist |==============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |The Net was designed to survive nukes, but not|
[email-masked]|lawsuits. Wait a minute.                      |
\===============================================================/

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 12:14:28 -0400

[email-masked] wrote:

> The rationale was that the iTIP REQUEST method was overloaded
> as a verb for both invite, reschedule, as well as confirm and
> attendee status confirmations.

Yes, I understand that--it is in the text that I quoted.  It's
not clear to me, though, whether this is a problem serious enough
to break compatibility.