Re: I-D ACTION:draft-royer-rid-ical-00.txt]

[email protected] wrote:
> 
> Just for the record I agree with Michael Fairs assessment.

Have you looked closly at the examples and comments by
those in the 'fixed' camp? They are not all compatible
with each other.

Plus the draft throws in the how to invite to a single instance
issue - which seems related but ether model can do or
not do that independent of fixed or not-fixed.

And there is also the CANCEL issue with respect to
instances - not everyone agrees yet. And again this
seems to be independent of fixed vs non-fixed.

And not everyone agrees that SEQUENCE:0 plus X updates
is the same object as a full replacement sent as SEQUENCE:X
(or would that be X+1). And again this seems to be independent
of fixed vs non-fixed.

Not everyone agrees that you can send unique objects
to unique ATTENDEES. And again this seems to be independent
of fixed vs non-fixed.

This issue was ignored at iCAL and iTIP time because it was
controversial, it still is. As are other issues that relate
to RECURRENCE-ID.

If nothing else when the draft is done, it will allow
the next reader to not have to guess.

-- 

  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