Subject: REQUEST sent to non-ATTENDEE

From: Alan Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 12:26:06 -0400

A recent discussion brought to light the fact that iCalendar
implementations may wish to achieve an effect similar to an
email Bcc (or even Cc). Here are three possible ways that it
could be achieved (I'll call the CU who receives the Bcc
'User B'):

     1) Add User B as an ATTENDEE with ROLE=NON-PARTICIPANT.
        User B would be visible to all other ATTENDEEs though,
        which might not be the required effect.

     2) PUBLISH the event to the User B. The PUBLISHed object
        would, of course, contain no ATTENDEEs, which may not
        leave much value in the Bcc.

     3) Send User B the same REQUEST that was sent to all ATTENDEEs,
        (i.e. just Bcc User B on the iMIP REQUEST that is sent).
        This solves the first two problems, but what would
        User B's CUA be expected to do with this object? User
        B is not an ATTENDEE, and it seems logical to me that all
        recipients of a REQUEST should be ATTENDEEs, but I couldn't
        find a statement about this anywhere in RFC2246.

So, what do other implementors think- can a REQUEST be sent
to a non-ATTENDEE?

--Alan

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:16:28 -0400

> So, what do other implementors think- can a REQUEST be sent

I'd think so.  2446/3.2.2 lists uses for REQUEST, including:

     Forward a "VEVENT" to another uninvited CU.

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |"There will be no more there. We will all be |
[email-masked]|here."--networkMCI ad                        |
\==============================================================/