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

Re: Status of the CALSCH working group

To: ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Status of the CALSCH working group
From: Mark Smith <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:03:58 -0700
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-calendar/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-calendar.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-calendar-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <>
Sender: owner-ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> 
> We have never drawn a distinction between a CUs availability or a
> calendars before.  Are you saying you have some proposal in mind for
> drawing a distinction?  Something like hierarchical calendars with
> busytime / content rollup or "calendar bundling"?  Please say no...

So what - what he said is still true. Currently MANY systems
PUBLISH freebusy, including the big vendor - please say you
do not want to break them!!!

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Status of the CALSCH working group
  - From: Bruce_Kahn

References:
- Re: Status of the CALSCH working group
  - From: Bruce_Kahn

Prev by Date: Re: Status of the CALSCH working group (Versioning)
Next by Date: Re: Status of the CALSCH working group (QUERYID)
Previous by thread: Re: Status of the CALSCH working group
Next by thread: Re: Status of the CALSCH working group
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread