RE: Free/Busy Issues

["Bill Bliss (Exchange)" <billbl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

We will take a look at the ICAP spec.

I don't think we can assume the existence of a server here.  If one
exists (and we standardize on a way of talking to one!) then of course
it would work better, but a peer-to-peer solution is also necessary
IMHO.

The way Outlook does it now is that the client updates a file (or the
equivalent if running in an Exchange server environment) every 15
minutes if necessary (the exact interval is configurable).  For most
users, this is easily frequent enough.  Clearly you can identify cases
where this is not adequate but these are also probably the cases where
you can require a server.  Conference rooms or other resources spring to
mind, for example...

  -- bill 

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Peter O'Leary [SMTP:poleary@clearblue.com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, February 18, 1997 8:49 AM
> To:	Steve Silverberg (Exchange)
> Cc:	ietf-calendar@imc.org
> Subject:	Re: Free/Busy Issues
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> The functionality that you require is supported by ICAP in its current
> draft: the ICAP SELECT command allows you to specify multiple
> calendars
> to review and the FETCH command accepts a flag which returns very
> terse
> busy information.
> 
> I really believe that free/busy access as you describe it is best
> handled in a "connected" protocol like ICAP. As you point out, users
> require up to the minute information which cannot be obtained via
> SMTP.
> Using HTTP will probably be seen as insufficient also, since the
> free/busy information will begin to stale as soon as the HTTP
> connection
> is dropped.
> 
> Pete.
> 
> Steve Silverberg (Exchange) wrote:
> > 
> >         Maybe I'm missing something, but one of the issues that
> appears
> > not to be addressed in this working group is real-time access to
> > free/busy information.