Re: Question for list

[Doug Royer <Doug.Royer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

pregen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> During interoperability testing the following question has been asked. Can
> the list please discuss their thoughts (especially our editors).  Thanks.
> 
> "iCalendar says "no ORGANIZER" parameter. iTIP says "ORGANIZER" is a must."

I can't find the string 'no ORGANIZER' in RFC2445. Could you
me more specific? Thanks!

I think RFC2446 makes it clear:

  3.7.2 Attendee Property Considerations

   The "ORGANIZER" property is required on published events, to-dos, and
   journal entries for two reasons. First, only the "Organizer" is
   allowed to update and redistribute an event or to-do component. It
   follows that the "ORGANIZER" property MUST be present in the event,
   to-do, or journal entry component so that the CUA has a basis for
   contact for anyone who receives a published component in case of
   problems.

	...

Note that above the word 'published' is not upper case. So it
does *not* mean METHOD:PUBLISH.

And from RFC2445:

  4.8.4.3 Organizer

	...

   Conformance: This property MUST be specified in an iCalendar object
   that specifies a group scheduled calendar entity. This property MUST
   be specified in an iCalendar object that specifies the publication of
   a calendar user's busy time. This property MUST NOT be specified in
   an iCalendar object that specifies only a time zone definition or
   that defines calendar entities that are not group scheduled entities,
   but are entities only on a single user's calendar.

	...

I think the last part of the last sentence above is confusing:

	"...or that defines calendar entities that are not group
         scheduled entities,  but are entities only on a single user's        	
calendar."

This means that ORGANIZER is only relevant when the object is pushed
outside of the users original calendar. Although I don't see why
it can't be there.

-Doug