[ietf-calsify] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC5546 (3037)

[Eliot Lear]

I agree with Reinhold on this one.

On 11/30/11 4:33 PM, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> On 30/11/2011 16:24, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Cyrus, please let us know if you agree with this report.
>>
>> On 11/30/11 5:29 AM, RFC Errata System wrote:
>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5546,
>>> "iCalendar Transport-Independent Interoperability Protocol (iTIP)".
>>> [...]
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Type: Editorial
>>> Reported by: Praveen Bhamidipati <bhamidipati_praveen at rediffmail.com>
>>>
>>> Section: 3.1.3
>>>
>>> Original Text
>>> -------------
>>>    |   DURATION         | 0 or 1   | If present, REPEAT MUST be        |
>>>    |                    |          | present.                          |
>>>    |   REPEAT           | 0 or 1   | If present, DURATION MUST be      |
>>>    |                    |          | present.                          |
>>>
>>> Corrected Text
>>> --------------
>>>    |   DURATION         | 0 or 1   | If present, DURATION MUST be      |
>>>    |                    |          | present.                          |
>>>    |   REPEAT           | 0 or 1   | If present, REPEAT MUST be        |
>>>    |                    |          | present.                          |
>>>
>>> Notes
>>> -----
>>> Currently, the Component/Property doesn't match the term used in Comment. That needs to be corrected.
> No! The RFC is entirely correct on this. If DURATION is present within a
> VALARM, then the restriction is that REPEAT MUST also be present (and
> vice versa). I.e. either DURATION and REPEAT is present, or none of
> them. This is exactly what the original text says. Compare also rfc 5545
> (section 3.6.6. Alarm Componen):
>                   ; 'duration' and 'repeat' are both OPTIONAL,
>                   ; and MUST NOT occur more than once each;
>                   ; but if one occurs, so MUST the other.
>                   ;
>                   duration / repeat /
>
>
> The "Corrected Text" doesn't make sense logically, either (if it is
> present, it is present, so no need for MUST ;-) )
>
> Cheers,
> Reinhold
>