CAP-12-e: TRANSP and -NOCONFLICT changes

[Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

In trying to picture how the new TRANSPARENT-NOCONFLICT
and OPAQUE-NOCONFLICT TRANSParency property values would function I ran
into a bit of a quandry about how something would work given the new values.
 In particular I see 2 scenarios where I see some potential problems
with CU confusion or frustration.  So I thought Id ask the WG for
some help in understanding/resolving it.

Sceneario 1: I am going on vacation
and I want to block off that entire week from my calendar.  I also
want to make sure I do not overbook myself for, say, Wednesday afternoon
when my family and I have reservations to some special activity at a particular
time (ie: "Island boat tour from 3 - 5PM, no rainchecks or refunds").

For this case I would normally expect
to create either an entry that spans all week and has TRANSP:OPAQUE so
that my coworkers know Im out that week.  However, given the rules
for TRANSPARENT-NOCONFLICT and OPAQUE-NOCONFLICT, I cannot later add that
special Wednesday event to my calendar with either -NOCONFLICT value.  Trying
to do so would result in my CUA being given a REQUEST-STATUS:6.2; response
code.

So just how would I block off the entire
vacation week and have that special event on my calendar?  Possible
solutions include:

        A:
Do not use an OPAQUE-NOCONFLICT property value for either entry.  This
though could allow me to overbook myself for that special activity.

        B:
Split the preexisting week long blocker into a "before special event"
block and an "after special event" block.  While doable,
it does introduce some other potential issues:

         
      1: If the special event gets rescheduled,
the same process would need to be repeated.  Also, this would leave
a non-OPAQUE slot in my availability that should not be there.
         
      2: If the special event is cancelled (ie:
rained out) then I now have an available spot in my availability that should
not be there.

Scenario 2: I want to go on vacation
for 2 weeks and block out my time accordingly.  However I have a bi-weekly
team meeting with a TRANSP:OPAQUE-NOCONFLICT so I cant just make a blocking
entry that spans my entire vacation block.

So again Im not sure what the expected
/ correct set of actions would be for me to be able to block out my vacation
time when I have a pre-existing OPAQUE-NOCONFLICT entry.  Just because
Im on vacation does not mean I want to delete the team meeting from my
calendar.  I may be the Organizer of it and as such clearly do not
want to CANCEL it or delete it for everyone.  Besides even if I make
the VEVENT have a STATUS:CANCELLED, that does not mean the TRANSParency
value is ignored since the entry still exists in my calendar.

One possible solution would be to locally
change my copy of the VEVENT to be TRANSP:OPAQUE (not OPAQUE-NOCONFLICT)
and then save the vacation entry.  This however would mean that my
version is no longer in sync with the version the other ATTENDEEs have.
 So if I were to delegate it to someone else, my CUA would have to
know to restore the original OPAQUE-NOCONFLICT on the copy it sent to my
designee.  Other bad sideffects of this solution is that if I were
the Organizer then if I were to do any updates to it (before going on vacation)
then the instance affected would also get a TRANSP:OPAQUE value which would
allow others to overbook now and thats not what I would expect.

The (B) solution above could be equally
applied here too but again there are undesirable side effects in doing
this.

So can someone please explain how to
solve these simple scenarios?  While I see and understand the uses
for the new -NOCONFLICT values, Im having a hard time visualizing their
practical use in some simple cases.

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                  
             INet: Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Messaging & Collaboration            
    Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                
        FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Warning: Dates in Calendar are closer than they appear.