[Ietf-calsify] Issue 95: text on REQUEST-STATUS
cyrus at daboo.name
Tue May 6 18:42:25 PDT 2008
--On March 11, 2008 10:10:40 AM -0400 Tim Hare <TimHare at comcast.net> wrote:
> "Additional codes MAY be used provided it is known that the recipient's
> CUA has appropriate knowledge of such codes."
> This is not a good thing for interoperability. CUA-specific status codes
> need to be an X- component (ex: X-MYCAL-REQUEST-STATUS). The only way one
> end can know for certain the other end "has appropriate knowledge of such
> codes" is if both are from the same vendor.
The alternative is to create a registry of status codes. I am not thrilled
by that prospect but it is the best thing for interoperability. I also
think that there are likely to be iTIP based protocols that will need their
own specific codes (e.g. there is some useful status in CalDAV scheduling
that could be conveyed in new codes).
Anyone else think the status codes should be in a registry.
More information about the Ietf-calsify