Re: [calsify] The two ways of cancelling an event by an organizer

Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com> Tue, 06 August 2019 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <douglasroyer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: calsify@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C60ED120033 for <calsify@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 14:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uOSkiGCkzHF5 for <calsify@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 14:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x236.google.com (mail-oi1-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F28E120025 for <calsify@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 14:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x236.google.com with SMTP id a127so68744835oii.2 for <calsify@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Aug 2019 14:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:subject:to:references:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=r9BhCPdQyY2pQd8xgsUdUzPdCfdtysLUpo0R3tO4sB4=; b=OzR8kKFB/DQq+gxXm9Qppb3PpfnRbdWym+Eunt8eNVZTupb97eNueeyfxFLG8QIukp 6mgZ45N5KpTwtSIXq+l9gaDvSdb/drbxRyAxCc6y0S8bT6BS0kDPgrW00iFb+yYM536Z l6uF4h/nuXLXMv31mY85hK4M9nqoOyqgQ214KfCqasOR+5CETdpyRMPVqisD0jl/4BiJ H20E30xpfweekT0Xk/q30dheETyBBjLiG/3ZXorK8DEdo20qmgJ6LJMNihc3WO7pwo7A n7NfsxGGRTrRctzRvZJzmd8sfjyfWWXmHjWrzz4jEmPt/TGN0QeAfphfdF6pSf9WZMNa WgrA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:subject:to:references:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=r9BhCPdQyY2pQd8xgsUdUzPdCfdtysLUpo0R3tO4sB4=; b=DW1f65IALvahRz8+o2GiF0TB/KjFusxNJGYNXhKYoYPzCyGJu6SVb60pYrXV1qJnVw 9xpOYCYwRZJcCzWY9UbMhJdPjsA0p208yRIqUDns6V6/O/V9LA6k13Q9Ktml1GRMfxqr M1cR3zpknfesdTqapmND90DuDSqCULp3RBnmTTzGmcOfD0D1L4bKIwtRdglhtwBTaxx4 0nRtg90iFMVPigtoXv7JivJpXZE2HeYHYmkapqn6bAgmn2/8uN0Oub/DqdCl+LysBDTP do77jQSlp0+fMUzC35/AsNbVQHcm28zcgRwGEkVksQ3C3oyVH3TOuWKWBegBx3MZP+kr 6JzA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWzRB+cGYDaPzBTlr0Gk1bDzeQbo8J9+lxQ7kltEWTQpBxGivTL B2PJLg27XG4TT9pEh4JfWiNaAoLTI3si
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxB1xOrCCayHsOX5zYBhoTC+7/m+FJbqU2X6uNIVQU+kYM9YD2BWml9surUdtDNKiO+8wBOIQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a02:aa8f:: with SMTP id u15mr6512238jai.39.1565126948938; Tue, 06 Aug 2019 14:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.7] ([174.27.19.182]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id t14sm70603178ioi.60.2019.08.06.14.29.08 for <calsify@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Aug 2019 14:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com>
X-Google-Original-From: Doug Royer <DouglasRoyer@gmail.com>
To: calsify@ietf.org
References: <521fb368aebb4294888468efaf1dceace864fa97.camel@aegee.org>
Organization: http://SoftwareAndServices.NET
Message-ID: <bafbec6a-2c65-349f-92fc-d6706a79f1a3@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 15:29:07 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <521fb368aebb4294888468efaf1dceace864fa97.camel@aegee.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/calsify/TnCaCaTcoxp7QgW-_z-X8x9oSl4>
Subject: Re: [calsify] The two ways of cancelling an event by an organizer
X-BeenThere: calsify@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <calsify.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/calsify>, <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/calsify/>
List-Post: <mailto:calsify@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/calsify>, <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 21:29:12 -0000

I have not done HTTP based calendar code, but this seems valid:

Could you just add a COMMENT to the METHOD CANCEL object when you iMIP the cancel?
In the COMMENT, explain why. No need to update the DESCRIPTION or SUMMARY.

3.8.1.4.  Comment

    Property Name:  COMMENT

    Purpose:  This property specifies non-processing information intended
       to provide a comment to the calendar user.


On 8/6/19 4:35 AM, Дилян Палаузов wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> when an organzer cancels an event, the organizer shall be able to change the description of the event, explainging why
> the event was cancelled and then send METHOD=CANCEL iMIP message to the attendees.  The attendees shall get a single
> iMIP message, containing both the updated description and METHOD=CANCEL.
> 
> How can the genaration of a single iMIP message be achieved in terms of HTTP Scheduling?
> 
> There are two ways to cancel an event by an orginizer: delete it from the calendar or set STATUS:CANCELLED.
> 
> With CalDAV Scheduling Extensions, Attendees, and iMIP message generation by the server, when the organizer cancels an
> event, the attendees shall get a
> 
> Content-Type: text/calendar; charset=utf-8; method=CANCEL; component=VEVENT
> 
> message.
> 
> Moreover, RFC 5546 “iTIP” says that for VEVENT the Content-Type can contain method=REQUEST only when the status of the
> message is TENTATIVE or CONFIRMED.  When the STATUS of the message is CANCELLED the method must be CANCEL.
> 
> Changing the STATUS of an event to CANCELLED and PUTting the new event over HTTP is modifying the VEVENT.  Doing HTTP
> DELETE is removing the event.  RFC 6638 (Scheduling Extensions to CalDAV) says in sections 3.2.1.2 and 3.2.1.3 that when
> the iCalender object is modified, then the METHOD is REQUEST and when the iCalendar object is removed, the method is
> CANCELLED.
> 
> That sayd, when the organizer HTTP DELETEs an event, the generated iMIP is wih method=CANCEL and STATUS: CANCELLED.
> 
> HTTP PUTting an event with STATUS:CANCELLED is valid operation.
> 
> What shall happen, when the organizer sets the event STATUS to CANCELLED?  Shall it generate method=CANCEL iMIP
> messages, or generate no iMIP messages?
> 
> When an event is CANCELLED, I want to change the description of the message, stating why the event was cancelled and
> sent a METHOD=CANCEL message to the attendees.  The attendees shall get a single message.
> 
> If I change the description and HTTP PUT the event, then for the server is feasible to distribute an iMIP update
> messages to the attendees.  If I HTTP DELETE on the next step the event, attendees will get a second message.
> 
> So, what shall happen here?
> 
> A. WebDAV-Lock the iCalendar object, modify the icalendar desription, PUT the modified object, DELETE the object und
> UNLOCK the object, so that the server can generate a single message.  (Not so efficient.  With DELETE there is likely
> implicit UNLOCK).
> 
> B. Submit the content of the modified object with the DELETE verb.  The content is submitted, as if the verb was PUT,
> but returning ETAG and Scheduling-Tag on DELETE does not make sense.
> 
> I cannot find examples in RFCs for DELETE with content/payload, but neither can I find text preventing the
> content/payload.  In particular https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-4.3.5 (HTTP/1.1 definition) says for DELETE:
> 
>     A payload within a DELETE request message has no defined semantics;
>     sending a payload body on a DELETE request might cause some existing
>     implementations to reject the request.
> 
> Can this be clarified by erratum to RFC6638 “Scheduling Extensions to CalDAV”?
> 
> Regards
>    Дилян
> 


-- 

Doug Royer - (http://DougRoyer.US)
Douglas.Royer@gmail.com
714-989-6135