Re: ADD does not INVALIDATE current PATTERN

[email protected] wrote:
> 
> Doug wrote on 09/01/2003 12:17:37 PM:
>  > As I suspected, you did not read the email. The subject
>  > is 'ADD' not 'REQUEST'. Now read 'ADD':
> 
> Actually you misread what Tom wrote.  He said:


Please re-read my post, I replied to what Robert sent
and not what Tom sent.

> An ADD is equivalent to sending the invitee an REQUEST with a 
> RECURRENCE-ID that he does not currently have.
> The invitee WOULD take CHAIRS word for RECURRENCE-ID and add it to his 
> calendar, storing off RECURRENCE-ID that CHAIR supplied.
> 
> The latter line is referring to the receiving the equivalent REQUEST 
> with RECURRENCE-ID in it that the invitee does not have and thus 
> treating it as an invitation to a new instance they do not currently 
> have (Section 3.2.2 REQUEST).  He was NOT referring to the ADD method in 
> the second sentence.

So - I'll ask again, equivalent to WHAT as there is NO SUCH
text in iTIP or iCAL? iTIP specifically tells the reader how
to invite an ATTENDEE, and it is NOT what was included in
that email. So if he was not talking about the "ADD" method,
equivalent to what?

-- 

  Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
  -------------------------------|-----------------------------
  [email protected]                 | Office: (208)612-INET
  http://Royer.com/People/Doug   |    Fax: (866)594-8574
                                 |   Cell: (208)520-4044

                 We Do Standards - You Need Standards