[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