1 / 21

IETF 65 Calsify WG

IETF 65 Calsify WG. March 21, 2006 Dallas, TX. Agenda. Agenda bashing (Chairs, 5 mins) Discuss 'simplification' vs 'clarification' as the way forward for this WG. (Daboo, 15 mins) 2445bis issues discussion (Desruisseaux, 15 mins) 2446bis issues discussion (Daboo, 10 mins)

ekoziol
Download Presentation

IETF 65 Calsify WG

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IETF 65 Calsify WG March 21, 2006 Dallas, TX

  2. Agenda • Agenda bashing (Chairs, 5 mins) • Discuss 'simplification' vs 'clarification' as the way forward for this WG. (Daboo, 15 mins) • 2445bis issues discussion (Desruisseaux, 15 mins) • 2446bis issues discussion (Daboo, 10 mins) • 2447bis status - Ready for WG last call? (Melnikov, 5 mins) • Report from CalConnect on recurrences (Daboo, 5 mins) • Report from CalConnect on last interop event (McCullough, 5 mins)

  3. Calsify • Simplification vs fixing? • Proposal: simply fix the things that don’t work now rather than removing/splitting of features. • Worry about draft status after we do that.

  4. RFC 2445 Issues Discussion Bernard Desruisseaux

  5. RFC2445 Issues (1) • Need to clarify that the only character sets allowed are UTF-8 and US-ASCII. • The NON-US-ASCII production rule should make reference to the UTF-8 production rulesNON-US-ASCII = UTF8-2 / UTF8-3 / UTF8-4 ; UTF8-x are defined in RFC 3629 • Need to clarify how to handle the method parameter for sequence of iCalendar objects with different METHOD values. • Components should allow “iana-prop” in addition to “x-prop”.

  6. RFC2445 Issues (2) • The semantic of PERCENT-COMPLETE is only defined when used in an iTIP message with METHOD:REPLY. • Could allow PERCENT-COMPLETE to be used as a parameter to the ATTENDEE property. • Not clear that iCalendar should specify when the value of SEQUENCEshould be incremented. • Should only be specified in iTIP.

  7. RFC2445 Issues (3) • The DELEGATED-FROM, DELEGATED-TO properties and the SENT-BY parameters require mailto URI values. • Any kind of URI should be allowed. • Some properties are listed as OPTIONAL in the ABNF of some components but as REQUIRED in those components in their own Conformance section, e.g., DTSTAMP, DTSTART, UID. • ABNF needs to be fixed.

  8. RFC2445 Issues (4) • Not possible to specify that a VALARM has been processed, nor which instance of a repeating VALARM has been processed. • Updating/deleting VALARM is the only interoperable way right now. • The ACTION:PROCEDURE of VALARM doesn’t interoperate well and raises security issues. • Its use should be deprecated.

  9. RFC2445 Issues (5) • Needs to clarify how to specify the name of an inline attachment. • The FMTTYPE parameter could follow the same syntax as the Content-Type MIME header field and make use of the “name” parameter, e.g., • FMTTYPE=“application/msword;name=report.doc” • Not possible to specify a DQUOTE (") in a parameter value, e.g., • ATTENDEE;CN="RL "Bob" Morgan": mailto:rlmorgan@washington.edu • ATTACH;FMTTYPE="text/plain;name="foo.txt";charset="ISO-8859-1";wuajsfkfasdfkjfl==

  10. RFC2445 Issues (6) • Need to clarify if VFREEBUSY components can be used to block off time in a calendar. • Need to clarify if DTEND is inclusive or exclusive when both the DTSTART and DTEND are DATE values. • Is a DATE DTEND allowed with a DATE-TIME DTSTART in a VEVENT? If so, what does it mean?

  11. RFC 2446 Issues Discussion Cyrus Daboo

  12. RFC2446 Issues (1) • Change tables to list the ‘exceptions’ to 2445 component/property rules only, or make current set of tables complete wrt items in 2445. • Allow REFRESH of a published event? • Concept of forwarding needs clarification.

  13. RFC2446 Issues (2) • SEQUENCE changes? • Yes for any change to time/duration of event. • What about addition/removal of attendees? • What about change to location? • Addition/removal of attachments? • Should we create a table or properties and indicate when changes to each MUST/SHOULD/MAY result in a SEQUENCE change?

  14. RFC2446 Issues (3) • Should we use examples as a way of describing the ‘right’ way to do scheduling?

  15. RFC 2447 Status Alexey Melnikov

  16. RFC 2447 Issues/To-do • Should infinite multipart/mixed nesting be allowed? • Need feedback to know if this is an interop issue. • Add examples of 8bit and quoted-printable. • Address IANA considerations section.

  17. Report from CalConnecton recurrences Cyrus Daboo

  18. Calconnect Recurrence Recommendations Document • http://www.calconnect.org/publications/icalendarrecurrenceproblemsandrecommendationsv1.0.pdf • Describes problems related to handling recurrences in iCalendar (mostly iTIP) and recommendations on how to deal with that.

  19. Summary of Results • Are multiple RRULEs and EXRULEs really useful, could we do without them? • Are EXRULEs really useful, could we do without them? • Removal of THISANDPRIOR, since THISANDPRIOR always refers to a finite number of occurrences it could be done with exceptions.

  20. Report from CalConnecton last interop event Jeff McCullough

  21. Report from CalConnecton last interop event • Basic iCalendar Interop improving • Scheduling still has problems • CalDAV implementations improving

More Related