Re: Status of the CALSCH working group

Mark said on 11/10/2003 03:03:58 PM:
> So what - what he said is still true. Currently MANY systems
> PUBLISH freebusy, including the big vendor - please say you
> do not want to break them!!!

In case you've never actually used their product, the model is that the 
entire process is user centric, not some abstract calendar that can be 
linked but to someone but not necessarily the contents of that calendar. 
They use a single calendar model and their CUA pushes the busytime out as 
necessary to a configured place.  The "contacts" have a URL where the 
client can go get busytime data for a particular contact w/o doing any 
actual iTIP REQUEST/REPLY.  So are you are proposing we change CAP and 
iTIP to follow their direct access model of busytime?

Busytime is UPN or CU focused and in RFC 2739 we defined a couple URI to 
use in protocols like CAP for doing busytime query for users.  Doug 
sounded like he had a different model of busytime but didnt quite say so 
(nor has he clarified yet).  In any case, the format of the query can 
still be iTIP but query is done via the capFBURL rather than a email 
address in an iMIP message.  Thats why Frank defined those properties in 
2739 for us...

Are you suggesting we make busytime relcalid focused and not user 
focused??

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: 
[email protected]
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...