Subject: [Ietf-calsify] Double-checking IETF66 consensus

From: aki.niemi at nokia.com (Aki Niemi)
Date: Fri Aug 4 00:24:35 2006

Folks,

There were a number of items in the IETF66 meeting where we were able to
get consensus among the people in the room (and those participating via
chat and/or audio feed).

However, since physical meetings are not official decision-making, that
consensus needs to be double-checked here on the list. This list is
anyway the primary arena for this work.

Take a look at the issues below, and if you *strongly* disagree with any
of them, send a note. I say strongly, since rough consensus is all we
really need; if you can live with it, great. :)

Cheers,
Aki

RFC 2445 issues:
----------------

Issue#1:

The first issue is about disallowing BYHOUR, BYMINUTE and BYSECOND
recurrence rules when the value type is DATE. There was consensus during
the meeting to disallow generating such rules (MUST NOT), and to ignore
any VEVENT containing such a construct.

Issue #2:

The second issue is with recurrence rules and the UNTIL rule. There was
consensus to mandating that the UNTIL value type MUST always match the
DTSTART value type.

Issue #3:

The third issue is with the end-time of an recurring event instance that
happens to coincide with a DST shift. Proposal is to leave the draft
as-is, but add a note instructing implementations to add some sort of
user indication when such a case is about to happen, namely, choice
should be given to the user whether to keep the duration or the end-time
fixed.

Issue #4:

Is the 1st recurrence instance, defined by DTSTART, always excluded by
EXRULE? There was consensus that the 1st recurrence instance defined by
DTSTART should not be excluded by EXRULE. If the EXRULE property
contains a COUNT rule part, the value specified in DTSTART should not be
considered as part of the count.

Issue #5:

Should clarify whether RDATE is REQUIRED even when the recurrence
instance is redefined in a separate component. There was consensus that
we should relax this MUST requirement, such that if an exception
component is defined to reschedule a specific recurrence instance, the
master component doesn't need to define an RDATE for this instance as
well. We should also specify that the duration of the instance defined
in the exception component has precedence over the duration specified in
the RDATE property.

Issue #6:

Clarify whether DTSTART is required in VTODO and VJOURNAL components
when the RRULE or EXRULE properties are defined in those components.
Consensus to mandate that DTSTART be REQUIRED when the RRULE or EXRULE
properties are defined in those components.

RFC2446-issues:
---------------

Issue #1:

Conflict between 2445bis and 2446bis regarding whether multiple
recurrence-IDs can be sent in a CANCEL. Consensus to remove the option
allowing multiple recurrence-IDs to be sent.

-- 
Aki Niemi
Nokia Research Center