[ietf-calsify] RK iTIP Issue #15

[Bernard Desruisseaux]

I propose to change the text in section 3.6.5. Time Zone Component of 
rfc2445bis, from:

   Alternatively, the "RDATE" property can be used to define the onset
   of the observance by giving the individual onset date and times.

to:

   The "RDATE" property can also be used to define the onset
   of the observance by giving the individual onset date and times.

Cheers,
Bernard


Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> Hi,
> Rheinhold notes:
> 
>     Sec. 3.1.2 (p.14, VTIMEZONE table): This table states that RRULE and
>     RDATE MUST NOT both be present at the same time. rfc2445bis does not
>     have such a restriction, so that some VTIMEZONE ob jects, which are
>     valid in rfc2445bis, cannot be used for group scheduling. I propose to
>     remove that restriction.
> 
> Now in 2445bis the abnf for a VTIMEZONE says nothing about whether RRULE 
> and RDATE are mutually exclusive. However, in the text that follows RRULE 
> is described, then it says:
> 
>     Alternatively, the "RDATE" property can be used ...
> 
> That later sentence could be read to mean that RRULE can be used or RDATE 
> can be used instead. i.e. RRULE and RDATE are mutually exclusive as 
> indicated in 2446bis.
> 
> So what is the right behavior? Can RRULE and RDATE both appear in a 
> STANDARD or DAYLIGHT component? If the ABNF is correct, then I suggest some 
> re-wording should be done to the sentence I quoted above and 2446bis has to 
> be corrected.
>