[ietf-calsify] Issue 9 of Reinhold Kainhofer's iTIP Review
caleb at everyone.net
Fri Nov 7 19:02:26 PST 2008
Issue 9 of Reinhold Kainhofer's iTIP Review
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 22.214.171.124. Sequence Number>
the following statement was added:
"Recurrence instances of a recurring component MAY have different
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.
More information about the ietf-calsify