[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Recurrence ID changes?

To: Frank_Dawson@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Recurrence ID changes?
From: Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 15:05:15 -0400
Cc: dhickman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-calendar/mail-archive/>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-calendar-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Sender: owner-ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx

Frank wrote:
>The response to the REFRESH for the whole recurrence set
>could be the initial REQUEST, followed by the reschedule
>REQUEST, in a multipart/related container. Right?

Actually I dont think so. Why would you send 2 entries, the "original" and the "update"?? Aren't all messages supposed to be 'full snapshots'? If so, only the 'current ' state needs to be sent. Hence, if the SEQUENCE was 'stale' then the Organizer would send a new full snapshot in a single message; not a 'base' and then the most recent 'delta' (as that wont suffice at all).

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn INet: Bruce_Kahn@iris.com
Iris Associates Phone: 978.392.5335
Westford, MA, USA 01886 FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

Follow-Ups:
- RE: Recurrence ID changes?
  - From: Dan Hickman

Prev by Date: Re: SEQUENCE Number
Next by Date: Re: CAP Transport -- Issue Resolved? Renamed "Issues Document"
Previous by thread: RE: Recurrence ID changes?
Next by thread: RE: Recurrence ID changes?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread