Re: request + add

I vote we continue this offline.

It's obvious to me that we aren't understanding each other.
I'm certainly not proposing the solution you've implied results
from what I presented and there's no need, in my opinion, to
have the WG watch us talk past each other.

Let's get on the same page, and if there is a clarification
or resolution we can come back to this thread then.

-- Michael --

"Mark Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Michael Fair wrote:
> >
> > "Mark Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > Michael Fair wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The example given was ADD which is NOT the object above.
> > > > > See the original post and section "3.2.4 ADD" in iTIP.
> > > >
> > > > I think you are misunderstanding what object it is that's being
> > > > described here.
> > >
> > > So the question (restated) is:
> > >
> > >   Once attendee-2 gets 'B' which is an 'add' (not some other things).
> > >   As that is a valid way to invite an attendee.
> >
> > Where in rfc2446 did you get that?
> >
> > As far as valid invites go, I only see one "valid" way to do an invite:
>
>
> That was the question that was asked repeatedly (B)
> which was a request + add, which is also the subject
> line you keep replying to. I am now convinced you have no
> intention of participating in a technical debate about
> this issue.
>
> If there is anyone that thinks that you can get 'B'
> and still thinks that you have to have prior history
> of an object in order to extract the recurrece-id
> on expand?
>
> If there are 20 changes to a uid, it is insane to expect
> that the next person added will have to say yes/no to
> 19 old dates, reply to them, only to finaly get vevent
> request 20 and then possibly counter. How would they
> know that they can not counter the first 19 until they
> get a no, accept and then get another sequence. I do not
> read that into any rfc or draft.  I have over the last
> two months read the entire list archive and see discussions
> about using 'add' to describe a single instance that is part
> of a set that has a different location. That seems to have
> been one purpose to 'add'.
>