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

Re: Status of the CALSCH working group (CALID vs CU time)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

   * To: "ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx <mailto:ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
     <ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx <mailto:ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
   * Subject: Re: Status of the CALSCH working group
   * From: Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   * Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:02:28 -0500
   * In-reply-to: <>
   * List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-calendar/mail-archive/>
   * List-id: <ietf-calendar.imc.org>
   * List-unsubscribe:
     <mailto:ietf-calendar-request@xxxxxxx?body=unsubscribe>
   * Sender: owner-ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxx
     <mailto:owner-ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

>> Because some want and expect the CU (user) VFREEBUSY and others want the
>> CALID (calendar) VFREEBUSY. Currently the iTIP method gets the CU VFREEBUSY
>> that just might be the same as the CALID VFREEBUSY.

> 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...

If I spend the time and go find the instances where we have talked about it, will you change your mind?

--

Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
-------------------------------|-----------------------------
Doug@xxxxxxxxx                 | Office: (208)520-4044
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