Subject: [caldav] SCHEDULE-STATUS inconsistencies and questions

From: Arnaud Quillaud <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:49:57 +0100

Hello,

I noticed some inconsistencies between the definition and the examples 
regarding the SCHEDULE-STATUS parameter:

While the definition states that only the status code (e.g. "2.1") 
should be present, all the examples include both the status code and 
status description (e.g. "1.2;Scheduling message has been delivered").

Then a question: the list of valid status for delivery at 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-desruisseaux-caldav-sched-08#section-9.2 includes

3.8 " The scheduling message was not delivered due to insufficient 
privileges."

I assumed that this would happen in the case where the organizer does 
not have schedule-deliver-invite privilege, or if the attendee replying 
does not have schedule-deliver-reply.

On the other hand, iTIP describes 3.8 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-calsify-2446bis-10#section-3.6.21) as 
meaning that " iTIP operation failed because an **Attendee** does not 
have suitable privileges for the operation."

When would this happen ?

Thanks,

Arnaud Quillaud

---

From: Arnaud Quillaud <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:10:30 +0100

OK. Should have read the table more carefully: it looks like a lack of 
schedule-deliver-invite or schedule-deliver-reply privilege would 
actually result in a 5.3: " The scheduling message was not delivered and 
was rejected because scheduling with that recipient is not allowed. This 
is likely a permanent failure, and the originator should not try to send 
the message again."

If it is the case, does 3.8 correspond to the lack of " schedule-send" 
privilege ? I would have expected a needs-privilege error when doing the 
PUT when lacking such privilege. Or does it correspond to something else ?

Thanks,

Arnaud Quillaud

On 11/19/09 10:49 AM, Arnaud Quillaud wrote:
> not have schedule-deliver-invite privilege, or if the attendee 
> replying does not have schedule-deliver-reply.
>
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-calsify-2446bis-10#section-3.6.21) 
> as meaning that " iTIP operation failed because an **Attendee** does 
> not have suitable privileges for the operation."
>
> When would this happen ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Arnaud Quillaud