Re: [calsify] More erratas (RFC 5545)

[Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ken, Mike,

Thanks for this. Almost all errata have been handled. Only one is left, and I hope we can get to an agreement.

https://www.rfc-editor.org/verify_errata_select.php?eid=6316 • this seems to me as it is trying to specify text and making too big of a change to be verified, but probably should be either rejected (if it changes existing behavior) or hold for doc update (if it fixes current buggy behavior).

> So, we feel that this was an omission in the original text that can lead to interp problems.  EXDATE should exclude a single instance of a recurrence rule so it should match the type of DTSTART.  As currently written, allowing EXDATE to be a date alongside an hourly recurrence rule for example, leads to a question of which instance gets excluded? Or do ALL instances get excluded?  We will leave it up to the AD to decide on the disposition of this report.

I understand that this is an omission, or a “bug”, and should be fixed. My question (to you, but also to the author of RFC 5545, and to the chairs and the working group in general) is: is the resolution suggested by this errata in line with the original intent? It is important that the bug fix is covered by the intended consensus of when the document was approved. Otherwise I believe the correct resolution is mark as Hold for doc update, and resolve the bug through an update to the doc.

Thanks,

Francesca