[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: iTIP updates
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 |