Subject: Re: RECAP & Questions of CPL RECUR Issues.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:07:39 -0400

Jonathan replied:
>>               Would the telephony equipment set a limit on the maximum
>> number of RDATE, RRULE, EXRULE and EXDATE properties it would accept, 
and
>> reject anything over that limit?
>
>If it always expanded its rules, then yes, it would.  I suppose the
>equipment would have to have a "don't be absurd" response if someone 
dropped
>a 10-megabyte rule on it.

Well given that it is possible to use, say, 4 RRULEs or 1 RRULE to 
represent the same set of instances then when it the size/count 'absurd'? 

For example, "Every other Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday for 18 
months" can be 4 separate BYDAY= rules with 1 value each (BYDAY=MO in 1, 
BYDAY=TU in next, etc) OR it can be simply "BYDAY=MO, TU,WE,TH" in 1 rule. 
 Since RRULEs are combined to make the final recurrence set both sets are 
equivalent and both would generate the same results; 1 case is just 4 
times the size of the other. 

I did not notice in the iptel draft if there was any mention of a 
mechanism by which the entry was bounced back as "illegal", "too complex" 
or "too many instances".  Is there any such mechanism?  (This gets back to 
my 1st posting but it bears reconfirming)

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: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 18:03:28 -0400

John claimed:
>To reach Draft Standard, there need to be two implementations
>which implement the *entire* specification.  You can't
>cherry-pick; you can't say, "A and B support X, and C and D
>support Y, so we keep X and Y" (unless X and Y are optional).

Thats not how I read RFC 2026, section 4.1.2  Draft Standard, paragraph 2 where it says:

              In cases in which one or more options or features
   have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
   implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard
   level only if those options or features are removed.

This tells me that both X and Y would stay in the spec as it progressed 
since at least 2 implementations implement those "options or features". 
That confirms what I was first told when I was new to IETF.  However, 
perhaps Patrick or some other AD can confirm / decline / clarify this.

Bruce