Re: IPTEL spec and iCalendar

[George Babics <georgeb@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

pregen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> The IESG is reviewing the draft-ietf-iptel-cpl draft, which uses iCal
> time spec for occurances of events. They use a subset of the iCal
> specification and we need to know if this is valid. Basically, if the
> phone people have problems with the spec, we in the calendar group
> also should have problems.
> 
> We need to have people on the list go look at the draft
> "draft-ietf-iptel-cpl" and see if we see potential problems/issues.

  - They recommend using the Olson database on timezones. However, it
    should be noted that it is incomplete.

  - iCalendar does not have a notion of "floating" times for recurrence
    rules. A local time zone must be specified. This is the only
inconsistency
    that I found with iCal. For their purposes they need not be
consistent,
    however they may want to note this difference.

> 
> We have been asked if we handled recurrence rules during
> interoperability testing.  I told our AD that this was not done in the
> first pass.  WE know recurrence rules are going to be a challenge.
>  Here's probably yet another one as well.

  We still have some unresolved issues with recurrence rules.

  Eric has a list of iCalendar issues at:

    http://www.softwarestudio.org/iCal/2445Issues.html

  Having a quick glance at the list revealed that CPL may
  also encounter issues with the "BYXXX" parameters.

> 
> Also, if anyone can provide a brief description of what part of
> recurrence rules must be implented to be compliant with ical, it would
> be helpful.  I'll forward that on to the iptel people.

  One must implement all parts of recurrence rules to be compliant with
iCalendar.  There are no different levels of support.

> 
> Thanks for your help.