Re: iTIP updates

[John Stracke <francis@xxxxxxxx>]

Steve Mansour wrote:

> Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> Although this change would kind of special case REQUESTs as
>> being only when rescheduling is necessary and that is what we
>> defined SEQUENCE changes for... Argh!   I do NOT want to
>> revisit that entire discussion again...
>
> I think we're going to have to open it up again. I think there
> are too many ambiguities with not bumping the sequence number
> as we modify the attendee list.

[...]

> yea.  ugh!  I like fewer methods.

So maybe all we need to do is widen the cases where we increase
the sequence number, but not add new methods?

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Excuse me. I've been dead lately & my brain  |
|francis@xxxxxxxx|isn't working too well. --Miles Vorkosigan   |
\==============================================================/