[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RECURRENCE-ID discussion
Doug asked on 08/07/2003 07:24:00 PM:
> How about responding to the email that showed why your model
> is broken?
You have not shown anything; you have
merely written a few lines claiming the model is broken.
I have posted detailed examples and
analyses of how workflow performs using both your changing RECURRENCE-ID
model and the iCalendar fixed RECURRENCE-ID model.
I have provided iTIP fragments all along
that support the model and are supported by the RFC texts.
I have shown that in 5 simple steps
its easy for the Organizer to fail to match the REPLY to the proper instance.
I have shown that error recovery for
missequenced or lost iTIP messages is trival for the fixed RECURRENCE-ID
case. All it takes is 1 simple REPLY and workflow is restored.
I have shown that for a changing RECURRENCE-ID
model, because you cannot uniquely identify the correct instance in question
because its id changes, its easy to trash about trying to recover from
1 single missequenced or lost message. Recovery at the instance level
is NOT possible as Doug has tacitly agreed, the only way to recover is
to nuke all instances and recreate them all from scratch. This of
course assumes you can correctly sequence that REQUEST w/the rest and its
not missequenced too!
At this point Im coming to the conclusion
that Doug is either unfamiliar with iTIP Section 2.1.5 or is unsure how
to correctly apply it to all the iTIP methods. Thats the only explaination
I can come up with for how hes is misinterpreting iTIP (invitation vs reschedules)
and iCalendar but if someone else can see it please chime in.
Messaging & Collaboration
IBM Software Group
FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...