----- Forwarded by Robert Ransdell/Westford/IBM on 11/12/2001 02:19 PM -----
Steve Mansour <sman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: sman@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Steve Mansour)
11/12/2001 01:49 PM
To: Robert_Ransdell@xxxxxxxx
cc:
Subject: Re: MIME Multiple body parts (Was Re: uid...)
I absolutely agree that we *should* have allowed for multiple UIDs in
iTIP messages. As I said, I was overruled :-)
Why did you not post this to the group?
-STeve
Robert_Ransdell@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> The one that would cause you a problem is posting a conference. For
> example all the events at Lotussphere; In this case each event is a
> different uid. The .ics stream is all the possible events at the
> conference.
>
> sman
> To: Robert Ransdell/Westford/IBM
> 11/12/2001 12:37 <Robert_Ransdell@xxxxxxxx>
> PM cc:
> Subject: Re: MIME Multiple body
> parts (Was Re: uid...)
>
> That should be no problem, right? The UID will still be the same. So
> that doesn't violate the RFC as I read it.
>
> -Steve
>
> Robert Ransdell/Westford/IBM wrote:
>
> > You have to allow, at least, an iCalendar stream with multiple
> VEvents to
> > handle the case of an additional invitee to an already existing
> repeating
> > event where some of the individual events have been modified.
> >
> >
> |---------+--------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> > | | sman |
> |
> > | | Sent by: | To:
> ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx |
> > | | owner-ietf-calendar@m| cc: (bcc:
> Robert Ransdell/Westford/IBM) |
> > | | ail.imc.org | Subject: Re:
> MIME Multiple body parts (Was Re: uid...) |
> > | | |
> |
> > | | |
> |
> > | | 11/10/2001 12:35 AM |
> |
> > | | |
> |
> >
> |---------+--------------------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> > >------------------------|
> > | |
> > >------------------------|
> >
> > Doug Royer wrote:
> >
> > > (I think Steve was sleeping when he sent his reply :-)
> >
> > that could be true, but see below...
> >
> > > Steve Mansour wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Shannon J. Clark" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > There is a common trend to associate ONE MIME object holding
> an
> > iCalendar
> > > > > object with ONE vEVENT (and perhaps a vTimezone object). In
> fact I
> > think
> > > > > some vendors may ONLY deal with iCalendar objects that contain
> only
> > one
> > > > > vEVENT.
> > > > >
> > > > > However it is clearly valid to have a vCalendar with multiple
> vEVENT
> > objects
> > > > > (or else what are we doing here???)
> > > >
> > > > you'd think it would be clearly valid wouldnt you? Actually,
> there was
> > > > a very persuasive group of folks that wanted text/calendar mime
> parts
> > to
> > > > only contain components with a single UID. And they won :-)
> Have a
> > > > look at the restriction tables in iTIP. For VEVENTs, where the
> presence
> > > > value is 1+, the text specifies that all components must have
> the same
> > > > UID.
> > >
> > > No: You can have multiple VEVENTS in one VCALENDAR each with
> > > its own UID.
> > >
> > > BEGIN:VCALENDAR
> > > ...
> > > BEGIN:VEVENT
> > > UID:1
> > > ...
> > > END:VEVENT
> > > BEGIN:EVENT
> > > UID:2
> > > ...
> > > END:VEVENT
> > > END:VCALENDAR
> > >
> > > The restriction is per VEVENT, not PER VCALENDAR.
> >
> > Hmm... that's not the way I read RFC2446. Have a look at 3.2.2
> REQUEST.
> > The
> > restriction table says
> >
> > VEVENT 1+ All components MUST have the same
> UID
> >
> > I take this to mean that in a REQUEST you can have 1 or more VEVENTs
> but
> > they all
> > must have the same UID. How do others read this?
> >
> > -Steve
> > (See attached file: sman.vcf)