[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RECURRENCE-ID discussion



Michael Fair wrote: 
"Doug Royer" <Doug@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3F3BA905.8070409@xxxxxxxxxxxx


Michael Fair wrote:


Your assertion is above = "It doesn't break the uniqueness for a

single

instance...". Yet you were unable to tell the difference - both
can not be true.


I don't understand this assessment. 

I sent a BEGIN/END VCALENDAR object and asked you what it was.
Your guessed incorrectly. Why? Because you could NOT tell
if it was a NEW single instance invite OR an single instance
modification. Which is why I am still saying you are breaking
the iTIP flow if you invite NEW attendees that way.


But you're missing the point.

So I was right, your not talking iTIP, your talking what you want. 


I am talking iTIP as iTIP is a protocol for distributing
calendar information.
> 
You have yet to show where in iTIP it says that a CUA
must be able to distinguish between a new invite and
an update.



So when *you* said ""It doesn't break the uniqueness for a..." (above)
But now you are saying, it does but you do not care?

So it looks to me as if you have not thought out the problem.


--

 Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
 -------------------------------|-----------------------------
 Doug@xxxxxxxxx                 | Office: (208)612-INET
 http://Royer.com/People/Doug   |    Fax: (866)594-8574
                                |   Cell: (208)520-4044

We Do Standards - You Need Standards

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature