[ietf-calsify] Issue 9 of Reinhold Kainhofer's iTIP Review

[Caleb Richardson]

Issue 9 of Reinhold Kainhofer's iTIP Review

Hello,

I have an issue with the changes recently made in rfc2445bis-09 and 
2446bis-08 as a result of Issue 9 of Reinhold Kainhofer's iTIP Review.

In <draft-ietf-calsify-rfc2445bis-09 section 3.8.7.4. Sequence Number> 
the following statement was added:

"Recurrence instances of a recurring component MAY have different 
sequence numbers."

There were also some changes made to <draft-ietf-calsify-2446bis-08 
section 2.1.5. Message Sequencing>, although I am still trying to 
determine the implications of those changes.

As discussed in this thread started by Cyrus Daboo (it occurred on this 
mailing list in October 2007): 
http://osdir.com/ml/ietf.calsify/2007-10/msg00004.html, there are severe 
consequences if two CUAs differ on their opinion of how to increment 
SEQUENCE. There is a good example of potential problems in that thread, 
and I believe the conclusion was that keeping one SEQUENCE per 
recurrence set was the superior approach.

-- 
Caleb Richardson
Everyone.net