Re: Status of the CALSCH working group

[Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Mark said on 11/10/2003 03:03:58 PM:
> 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!!!

In case you've never actually used their
product, the model is that the entire process is user centric, not some
abstract calendar that can be linked but to someone but not necessarily
the contents of that calendar.  They use a single calendar model and
their CUA pushes the busytime out as necessary to a configured place.  The
"contacts" have a URL where the client can go get busytime data
for a particular contact w/o doing any actual iTIP REQUEST/REPLY.  So
are you are proposing we change CAP and iTIP to follow their direct access
model of busytime?

Busytime is UPN or CU focused and in
RFC 2739 we defined a couple URI to use in protocols like CAP for doing
busytime query for users.  Doug sounded like he had a different model
of busytime but didnt quite say so (nor has he clarified yet).  In
any case, the format of the query can still be iTIP but query is done via
the capFBURL rather than a email address in an iMIP message.  Thats
why Frank defined those properties in 2739 for us...

Are you suggesting we make busytime
relcalid focused and not user focused??

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...