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

Re: Updates to iTIP/iMIP RFCs

To: John Stracke <francis@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Updates to iTIP/iMIP RFCs
From: Frank_Dawson@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 16:28:42 -0400
Cc: Bruce Kahn <Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxx>, deweydev@xxxxxxxxxxxx, CalSched IETF <ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx>, Katia Hage <katiah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Naveen Kachroo <nkachroo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, owner-ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxx
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-calendar/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-calendar.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-calendar-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Sender: owner-ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxx

> Proposal: Add a new method: CONFIRM. It would be used
> to (a) reply to a REFRESH and (b) notify participants
> of any changes to ATTENDEE or ORGANIZER. All other
> "reschedule" or "update" changes MUST use REQUEST
> method.
>
Is this really necessary? Since there are some deployed iMIP
implementations (right?), it would require us to support both
modes.

John:

We talked about this some time ago. Just didn't act on it.

The rationale was that the iTIP REQUEST method was overloaded as a verb for both invite, reschedule, as well as confirm and attendee status confirmations.

-- Frank

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Updates to iTIP/iMIP RFCs
  - From: John Stracke
- Re: Updates to iTIP/iMIP RFCs
  - From: Doug Royer

Prev by Date: CALSCH Action Items
Next by Date: Re: Updates to iTIP/iMIP RFCs
Previous by thread: Re: Updates to iTIP/iMIP RFCs
Next by thread: Re: Updates to iTIP/iMIP RFCs
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread