Subject: Re: iTIP updates

From: George Babics <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 14:44:44 -0500

Steve Mansour wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Here are the list of iTIP updates.  Somebody made a suggestion for #2  (I think it was George Babics) about an additional use for the ATTCOUNTER parameter -- there was some other situation where we needed to determine who was doing an action -- I think it had to do with delegation.  But I didn't add it to this list. Whoever it was please reply so we can review it and put it in if it makes sense.

  No it was not me. (Or, if it was me, I forgot :)).

George

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 09:13:16 -0500

Steve Mansour wrote:

> 3. Adding/deleting ATTENDEEs
>
>      Problem: If the Organizer adds or deletes an
>      ATTENDEE, do they really have to send the reschedule
>      to all of the other ATTENDEEs? The iTIP specification
>      is not clear on this point.
>
>      Proposal: No, the Organizer can send the REQUEST
>      w/the new ATTENDEE info to just the new ATTENDEE. It
>      is up to the CUA.
>
I think we should specify that the Organizer SHOULD send the
REQUEST to all ATTENDEEs, but let the user override.  When we
discussed this before, I was swayed by the argument that you
might be inviting someone who doesn't want everyone to know he'll
be there; but I think that's the exception.  Most of the time,
you should let all the ATTENDEEs know who's going to be there,
because it might influence their decision on whether to attend.
("I'm not going to the party if Joe Rude is going to be there."
"Fred and I don't both need to go to the meeting.") In other
words, the ATTENDEE list is part of the description of the event,
and we should try to transmit it as accurately as possible.

>      It is an implementation dependent issue if the
>      SEQUENCE number needs to be incremented when you
>      add/delete an ATTENDEE. iCalendar does not require an
>      updated SEQUENCE number if a new ATTENDEE is added so
>      this won't break iCalendar as it stands today.
>
I think, if the ATTENDEE list is considered part of the
information that we're distributing, a change to the list should
imply a change to the SEQUENCE number.

--
/================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.  |
|Chief Scientist |===============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |"Where's your sense of adventure?" "In front of|
[email-masked]|a roaring fire with a cup of cocoa."           |
\================================================================/

---

From: [email-masked] (Steve Mansour)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 07:57:49 -0800

> and we should try to transmit it as accurately as possible.

Any objections to this?

> imply a change to the SEQUENCE number.

I'm starting to think the same thing. We actually came up with a few
circumstances where odd things could happen in our iTIP implementation
if we don't bump the sequence number.  iCalendar does not require this,
but we could say that a conformant iTIP implementation needs to support
it.

Any objections to this?