Re: DTSTART for recurrence instances

[Mark Smith <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael Fair wrote:
> 
> "Mark Smith" <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:3FDA25D3.4A81571B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > Michael Fair wrote:
> > >
> > > "Mark Smith" <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:3FD9138F.B5E9C8F4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > > Michael Fair wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The RECURRENCE-IDs are derived from the set described by the object
> > > > > with the UID in question but no RECURRENCE-ID property. period.
> > > > > The RECURRENCE-ID MUST NEVER be derived from the instance itself.
> > > > > If the instance is being stored as a separate object in the CS it
> > > > > must also track the RECURRENCE-ID value originally assigned to it.
> > > >
> > > > How would the CS used by attendee-2 ever have that history in
> > > > order to find or track the originall and RECURRENCE-ID?
> > >
> > > Attendee-2 received a sequence of messages that:
> > >
> > >    a) defined a 3peat event  (UID:XXX/SEQ:0)
> > >    b) redefined that event to be a 2peat event  (UID:XXX/SEQ:1)
> > >    c) added a 3rd instance (using ADD)   (UID:XXX/SEQ:2)
> >
> > You did not follow the example that was sent and that was not the
> > question.
> 
> Could you please expand on this response?  Would you please clarify
> for me the example you think was sent that I am not following?
> 
> Here is what I followed:
> 
> There were four total examples sent, named methods A, B, C, and D.
> Attendee-2 used method A or B.  The example Doug displayed of the
> Calendar store was clearly from Method B but I understood why it
> could have been A or B because both methods A and B were fundamentally
> the same.  The only difference was the method used to construct the
> set in step b above (A used RDATE, B used RRULE).

Method B did NOT send a sequence starting at ZERO to attendee-2.
Attendee-2 was not invited until sequence:2. So no such history exists
in attende-2's CS. The ONLY way that attendee-2 can expand
the instances for the object it was invited to is from the object
it self.

I can ftp or webdav fetch a sequence:2 .ics file, or get an imip
sequence:2 method:request object all by itself. So, it can not be
true that the expansion of the sequence:2 object depends on
recurrence-id's that pre date the sequence:2 object because
attendee-2 will not have that history. Nor will any other attendee
that does not get invited in the initial request.