Re: Status of the CALSCH working group (CALSCALE)

(copy from archive)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * To: "ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx <mailto:[email protected]>"
      <ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx <mailto:[email protected]>>
    * Subject: Re: Status of the CALSCH working group (CALSCALE)
    * From: Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:[email protected]>
    * Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:41:18 -0500
    * In-reply-to: <>
    * List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-calendar/mail-archive/>
    * List-id: <ietf-calendar.imc.org>
    * List-unsubscribe:
      <mailto:[email protected]?body=unsubscribe>
    * Sender: owner-ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxx
      <mailto:[email protected]>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 >>> CALSCALE -- I would like to either see us add a capability
 >> specification for calendar scales and a special error code for
 >> unsupported calendar scales, or I would like someone to convince me
 >> that the absence of such scales isn't really a problem for future
 >> extensions. What we have right now tells us that there might be other
 >> calendar scales, but doesn't really tell an implementation how to
 >> behave if it encounters one.
 >>
 >> iCAL can do a 'REQUEST-STATUS:3.1;Invalid property value;CALSCALE:foo'
 >> now and
 >> seems the correct choice for an unknown CALSCALE.
 >

...

 > In response to a CALSCALE:Foo property I would think the CS would 
send back a:
 >  ...REQUEST-STATUS:3.13;Unsupported component or property 
found;CALSCALE\:Foo is unknown.

 > ...Unfortunately the new REQUEST-STATUS codes (Section 10.15 Response 
Codes) are
 > not well organized so its hard to tell exactly what should be sent 
back.  ...


(1) REQUEST-STATUS values '3.1' and '3.13'  are defined in 2446  and not 
in CAP.

(2) You have them backwards:

 In 2446 they are defined in section (3.6 Status Replies):

   3.1 Invalid property value. Property name and value MAY be specified.

   3.13 Unsupported component or property found.

  So, no not 3.13 as you state, but 3.1 (incorrect value) as
  sent in the original email is in fact correct.

(3) The topic was do we add CALSCALE as a GET-CAPABILITY reply.
    I say it can wait until someone comes up with a new CALSCALE.

-- 

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

               We Do Standards - You Need Standards