Re: Correct handling of Recurrence-id

[Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Doug wrote on 05/27/2003 05:31:21 PM:
> I can not find ANY email from "Arnaud Quillaud". Could you
please
> post a  link to the IMC site for this?

And here is the 2nd posting he sent
in reply to my reply to his first posting (the 2nd one I sent but #1 in
the ordering), again sans HTML:

Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([9.14.4.129])
          by ace.notesdev.ibm.com (Lotus Domino
Build V602_05122003NP)
          with ESMTP id 2003052319595385-21118
          for <Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
;
          Fri, 23 May 2003 19:59:53 -0400 
Received: from capricorn.iris.com (capricorn.notesdev.ibm.com [205.159.212.202])
                
by e31.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h4NNxru9253464
                
for <Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 23 May 2003 19:59:53 -0400
Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.98.43])
          by capricorn.iris.com (Lotus Domino
Build V602_03262003NP)
          with ESMTP id 2003052319584589-24208
          for <Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
;
          Fri, 23 May 2003 19:58:45 -0400 
Received: from engmail2sun.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.144.134.19])
                
by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4NNxMYU017219;
                
Fri, 23 May 2003 17:59:22 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from phys-mpkmaila (phys-mpkmaila.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.18.131])
                
by engmail2sun.Eng.Sun.COM (8.12.9+Sun/8.12.9/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP
id h4NNxLuc027717;
                
Fri, 23 May 2003 16:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ENG.SUN.COM (iabs-2k.red.iplanet.com [192.18.144.144])
 by mpkmail.eng.sun.com
 (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 1 (built Apr  2 2002))
 with ESMTP id <0HFD00A0S6MXOT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri,
 23 May 2003 16:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 16:59:28 -0700
From: Arnaud Quillaud <Arnaud.Quillaud@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Correct handling of Recurrence-id
To: Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx
Message-id: <3ECEB5E0.6020504@xxxxxxxxxxx>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1)
 Gecko/20020826
References: 
 <OFCDB74C02.22104DB7-ON85256D2F.007434BC-85256D2F.007B6F03@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on Capricorn/Iris(Build V602_03262003NP|March
26, 2003) at
 05/23/2003 07:58:46 PM,
                
Serialize by Router on Capricorn/Iris(Build V602_03262003NP|March 26, 2003)
at
 05/23/2003 07:58:46 PM,
                
Serialize complete at 05/23/2003 07:58:46 PM,
                
Itemize by SMTP Server on Ace/Iris(Build V602_05122003NP|May 12, 2003)
at
 05/23/2003 07:59:54 PM,
                
Serialize by Notes Client on Bruce Kahn/Westford/IBM(Build V70_04022003NP|April
 02, 2003) at 05/28/2003 10:59:13 AM,
                
Serialize complete at 05/28/2003 10:59:13 AM
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="Boundary_(ID_AaJntEE6BeSgWe5jsMypqw)"


--Boundary_(ID_AaJntEE6BeSgWe5jsMypqw)
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed

Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>
> Arnaud Quillaud wrote on 05/23/2003 02:49:21 PM:
> > But what is the advantage of the opposite interpretation of the
spec
> > (changing RECURRENCE-ID over time) ? Or what are the disadvantages
> > of fixed RECURRENCE-ID ?
>
> I thought I covered them already earlier today but Ill try to 
> resummarize the probelms with the 'delta' model: 

...
Sorry, I was probably not clear enough. My question was not aimed at you.
Let me try to rephrase it:
First, I think we all agree that the current RFCs are not crystal clear
in that area, otherwise, we wouldn't have this interesting discussion.
Then, I don't really like to use names, as this discussion is not just
about 2 people arguing, but to be more clear, let's say we have the 
Bruce model on one hand and the Doug model on the other hand.
You (Bruce) have been quite clear about why you think your model makes
everybody's life easier, is the only one that truely works, etc...
I would like to to hear now, from Doug or from others, why they think 
their model is simpler/better. There is probably some good reasons why
they think we should go that way. It would help the debate if they could
expose those reasons, just like you've exposed yours.

Arnaud

--Boundary_(ID_AaJntEE6BeSgWe5jsMypqw)
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

[Snip, snip]

--Boundary_(ID_AaJntEE6BeSgWe5jsMypqw)--

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                  
             INet: Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Messaging & Collaboration            
    Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                
        FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...