[caldav] SCHEDULE-STATUS inconsistencies and questions

[Arnaud Quillaud <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

I noticed some inconsistencies between the definition and the examples 
regarding the SCHEDULE-STATUS parameter:

While the definition states that only the status code (e.g. "2.1") 
should be present, all the examples include both the status code and 
status description (e.g. "1.2;Scheduling message has been delivered").

Then a question: the list of valid status for delivery at 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-desruisseaux-caldav-sched-08#section-9.2 includes

3.8 " The scheduling message was not delivered due to insufficient 
privileges."

I assumed that this would happen in the case where the organizer does 
not have schedule-deliver-invite privilege, or if the attendee replying 
does not have schedule-deliver-reply.

On the other hand, iTIP describes 3.8 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-calsify-2446bis-10#section-3.6.21) as 
meaning that " iTIP operation failed because an **Attendee** does not 
have suitable privileges for the operation."

When would this happen ?

Thanks,

Arnaud Quillaud