Subject: Re: iTIP updates

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:11:11 -0500

Steve clarified with:
>No, I'm referring specifically to the change where we add people to or 
remove them from 
>the recipient list. If we don't bump the sequence number, then you and I 
can have an event 
>with the same UID and the same SEQUENCE but different attendee lists. 
That just seems
>wrong.

I fail to see _why_ if I add a new ATTENDEE that I must rev SEQUENCE and 
thus invalidate the responses from _ALL_ other ATTENDEEs?  If I have a 
standing weekly team meeting that I need to add a new ATTENDEE to, I have 
to invalidate everyone elses acceptances/declines??  Not because of any 
time or (possibly) LOCATION change but just for a new ATTENDEE.  Thats not 
cool.

Perhaps you can tell me why sending out a new REQUEST w/the SAME UID and 
SEQUENCE but a _newer_ DTSTAMP and the additional ATTENDEE is not 
sufficient.  Im sorry but I just dont see why it is insufficient??  After 
all, the recipients see the same (UID, SEQUENCE) and a newer DTSTAMP so 
they compare their copy to the newer one and see 1 new ATTENDEE (and maybe 
a typo change too, maybe not...) so they just add the new ATTENDEE to 
their local copy WITHOUT invalidating their current response status.

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, 28 Nov 2000 17:36:57 -0800

[email-masked] wrote:

> Steve clarified with:
> >No, I'm referring specifically to the change where we add people to
> or remove them from
> >the recipient list. If we don't bump the sequence number, then you
> and I can have an event
> I fail to see _why_ if I add a new ATTENDEE that I must rev SEQUENCE
> and thus invalidate the responses from _ALL_ other ATTENDEEs?  If I
> have a standing weekly team meeting that I need to add a new ATTENDEE
> to, I have to invalidate everyone elses acceptances/declines??  Not
> because of any time or (possibly) LOCATION change but just for a new
> ATTENDEE.  Thats not cool.

It just seems wrong to me that you and I can have an event with the same
UID / RID / SEQ  and your version has one list of attendees and my list
has a different list.

> Perhaps you can tell me why sending out a new REQUEST w/the SAME UID
> and SEQUENCE but a _newer_ DTSTAMP and the additional ATTENDEE is not
> sufficient.  Im sorry but I just dont see why it is insufficient??
> After all, the recipients see the same (UID, SEQUENCE) and a newer
> DTSTAMP so they compare their copy to the newer one and see 1 new
> ATTENDEE (and maybe a typo change too, maybe not...) so they just add
> the new ATTENDEE to their local copy WITHOUT invalidating their
> current response status.

Yes, this works. That's why I did not insert my preference in the iTIP
text :-)  It just seems weird to have different attendee lists for
events with the same UID / RID / SEQ.

I may be the only person who finds it odd. If so, I won't reopen the
sequence number issue.

-Steve