Re: Uniquness of 4.4.2 Modify A Recurring Instance

[Robert_Ransdell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

But a Full refresh response would be
all the events with their Recurrence-ids
_____________________
Note: new email address

tom_ransdell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Doug Royer <Doug@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: owner-ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxx

08/18/2003 03:55 PM

Please respond to
"ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx" <ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx>

To	"ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx" <ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	Re: Uniquness of 4.4.2 Modify A Recurring Instance

Satya Vempati wrote:
> I cannot see how the current-value-recurrence-id model and the
> fixed-recurrence-id model can interoperate. If you (as an attendee)
ask
> for a REFRESH for a UID and RECURRENCE-ID from the
> current-value-recurrence-id model, your recurrence-id does not match
> anything that the organizer (who follows the fixed-recurrence-id model)
> has.
> 
> How can you do a REFRESH with a UID+RECURRENCE-ID (i.e. one instance
of a
> recurring event)?


It's ugly, but if the CUA only asks for full REFRESH, then they
can always go back into sync.

The only time a CUA should need to do a REFRESH is when the
(as Michael put it) CUA gets a 'fishy' object.

And the uniqueness of an invitation VS the RECURRENCE_ID issue
(the subject of your email) are orthogonal. That is Bruces
proposal to invite an ATTENDEE with an instance modification
is independent of the RECURRENCE-ID model used.

I will now unconditionally do a full REFRESH if given a RECURENCE-ID
in a REQUEST for a UID that I do not have. Again ugly but if
people are going to use instance modification for invitation
I do not know of any other fix.

-- 

  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