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

Re: iTIP Common Component Restriction Tables

To: Frank_Dawson@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: iTIP Common Component Restriction Tables
From: sman@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Steve Mansour)
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 07:35:24 -0700
Cc: Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxx, ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx, 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>
References: <>
Sender: owner-ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxx

I took a quick scan through iTIP. I could have missed it, but I didn't catch anything that said we should assume PUBLISH if METHOD is not present. I think we're safer in making METHOD a MUST. The whole idea behind iTIP is to send an an iCalendar object to someone and give it an associated action. METHOD defines the action. Seems like it needs to be present.

-Steve

Frank_Dawson@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Effectively, in iTIP METHOD is always present. If absent, it is assumed to be PUBLISH. Right?

begin:vcard 
n:Mansour;Steve
tel;work:408-276-4268
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:;Netscape
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:sman@xxxxxxxxxxxx
title:Judge, Jury, and Executioner
fn:Steve Mansour
end:vcard

References:
- Re: iTIP Common Component Restriction Tables
  - From: Frank_Dawson

Prev by Date: Re: iTIP & Repeat/DUE/Duration restrictions
Next by Date: Re: iTIP & Repeat/DUE/Duration restrictions
Previous by thread: Re: iTIP Common Component Restriction Tables
Next by thread: iTIP Common Component Restriction Tables (vAlarms)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread