Subject: Re: iTIP: Who sent that message?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:16:28 -0400

Steve wrote:
>Remember that an
>Event may already have several ATTENDEEs with SENT-BY parameters. We 
still
>need to figure out which SENT-BY is sending the COUNTER.

First off, I think that you are assuming that SENT-BY will be preserved or 
propigated by the Organizer when sending out updates.  Thats new behaviour 
thats not univerally agree'd on.  (I would sure hate to have to be the CUA 
coordinating this 'updating of sent-bys' when the value changes on a later 
REPLY!!  I have some mgrs here w/2+ AAs so that value can easily be 
different between responses!!)

The SENT-BY is typically found on 1 Attendee; the one that is sending the 
REPLY or COUNTER (or whatever) _back_ to the Organizer.  So, unless the Organizer is saving and resending them 
out to all other Attendees, I do NOT see this as being something thats 
going to haunt us!

>Will the person doing
>the COUNTER have to strip out all SENT-BY info?

I guess that depends on if you subscribe to the belief that the Organizer 
propagates the SENT-BY property out or not.  Since this is not feasible 
for the delgation case (w/ or w/o an AA) I would stipulate that SENT-BY 
values are NOT propagated to other Attendees and as such are actually 
useful in this case.

I will agree that we are overloading the current 2445 definition of 
SENT-BY: "To specify the calendar user that is acting on behalf of the calendar user 
specified by the property." but Im not convinced its as bad as the other overloadings we have.

>Is the ATTCOUNTER param OK with you, Eric?  Bruce?

Hmm, Im mulling it over but I can see the use of SENT-BY on METHOD being 
another means to convey the same thing.  At this rate, we are going to 
have tons of specialized property parameters for ATTENDEE when we can just 
slightly overload SENT-BY (to allow on METHOD) and achieve the same 
thing...  Having tons of property parameters begs the case we may need to 
revisit the property design/usage and Im not in favor of that.

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: Steve Mansour <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:13:45 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:

> First off, I think that you are assuming that SENT-BY will be
> preserved or propigated by the Organizer when sending out updates.
> Thats new behaviour thats not univerally agree'd on.  (I would sure
> hate to have to be the CUA coordinating this 'updating of sent-bys'
> when the value changes on a later REPLY!!  I have some mgrs here w/2+
> AAs so that value can easily be different between responses!!)

I was just assuming that whatever was sent to the Organizer would be
maintained.

> The SENT-BY is typically found on 1 Attendee; the one that is sending
> the REPLY or COUNTER (or whatever) _back_ to the Organizer.  So,
> unless the Organizer is saving and resending them out to all other
> Attendees, I do NOT see this as being something thats going to haunt
> us!

Seems like useful information to me.  In our implementation, we were not
going to change the SENT-BY info.

Don't you think it's important to save it?  If it's not, how were you
envisioning that it would be used?

-Steve