[Ietf-calsify] Simplification/levels/mandatory sets, etcetera

TimHare at comcast.net TimHare at comcast.net
Mon Aug 23 05:10:02 PDT 2004

Would it be profitable to take the existing specs for 2445/2446/2447 and 
have some discussion about "levels" into which various parts would go? For 
example (I am _not_ definitevly advocating these, this is an example off 
the top of my head):

Level 0 - mandatory for simplest implementations. VEVENTS (but not all 
properties?), METHOD. no CAP support?, no recurrence rules. If One query 
supported (if any) - GET-CAPABILITY, to which it replies "I don't know 
nuthin' about interoperation, leave me alone".  A standalone calendaring 
system for one user, basically?

Level 1 - adds VTODOs, perhaps other METHODs, iTIP/iMIP?  Exchanges lists 
of dates instead of recurrence rules.

Level 2 - Adds CAP support, GET-CAPABILITY check for recurrence languages 
ala Nathaniel's suggestion, recurrence set exchange?

I'm sure the levels need quite a bit of refining, but I think it might be 
worthwhile to sort the RFCs and their contents into bins in this way.

Tim Hare
Interested Bystander, Non-Inc. 

More information about the Ietf-calsify mailing list