Re: Proposed Text for RFC2445 Issue #1

[Eric Busboom <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, John Stracke wrote:

> Eric Busboom wrote:
> 
> > So, do you agree or disgree with the proposal?
> 
> I disagree, but not strongly.  I oppose it because I don't see any reason to do
> it; if someone shows me a good use case, I might change my mind.
> 

I think we should add the FILE-NAME parameter to ATTACH. 

Without this parameter, an attendee will have a different name for the
attached file than the organizer on the attendee's local store. This isn't
a problem while the attendee accesses the attached file though the CUA,
but attachements tend to have a longer lifetime than the message they are
attached to.

If you send a document to me in a meeting proposal, I am likely to want to
keep the document for later reference, even after the CS has archived the
meeting proposal and it is no longer available to the CUA. ( At my last
company, no events older than 6 months were accessible. ) That means the
document will be on my hard drive, seperated from the CUA, so it is going
to need a sensible name. If it does not have the same name as the the
Organizer gave it originally, then it will be impossible for the organizer
and the attendees to refer to the document out of band.

Adding a filename parameter to ATTACH would allow the document to keep the
same name among the organizer and all attendees. 

eric.