Re: Status of the CALSCH working group (VFREEBUSY auto reply)

[email protected] wrote:
> 
> 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?

I have see no text in CAP that stops auto create and auto
reply of vfreebysy from working.

And I have not seen even you dispute that the user busytime is
not always the same as the calender busy time. Can you
explain why you insist that all implementations that publish
a user vfreebusy that is different that the calendar vfreebusy
must break so that CAP fits your desired model?

No I am repeating that it is the user busytime and not the calendar
busytime has he has pointed out. And case you have not actuall used
their product you may notice that the user can block out time
that is not in the calender. Thus user busytime is not always the same
as calendar busy time.

In fact making the CS always auto create vfreebusy times is what
changes the model. The existing CAP text allows the existing
implementations and models that publish vfreebusy to continute
to work. And CAP-12-newest does allow auto create to work and
it does not break implementations that use publish to manually
set the users vfreebusy time.

Why do you keep insisting that if someone disagrees with you they
do not understand? Looking through the archives I have found many
instances of people talking about wanting to block out time that
is not in the calendar. Example: There was (a long time ago) in the
archives a debate to include include work schedules, which
seems to have been droped specificaly because the vfreebusy time
does not have to equal the calendar vfreebusy time. The work
schedule components were ruled redundent as you could simply
publish busy time that was not in your calendar. This is true of ITIP
why do you insist that it can not be true in CAP?