Re: [calsify] Roadmap for JsCalendarbis, iTip and iMip

[Robert Stepanek <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jul 7, 2022, at 4:52 AM, Robert Stepanek wrote:
> The deadline for draft submissions for IETF 114 is getting very close now: Do we have consensus on any of the discussed options (keep as-is, keep multi-valued but use `itip`, change to single-valued property)? If so, I will try to update the jscalendarbis draft accordingly before the deadline. If not, we will continue the discussion here and during the calext session.

We did not reach unequivocal consensus, but let's be realistic: there is no point in a calendaring standard if there is no consensus how to do scheduling with it.

I say that any scheduling method, either as part of jscalendarbis or as an extension, must clearly describe:
 * How scheduling is done such that multiple systems can interoperate.
 * How it relates to the already defined scheduling methods that are in use (that being iTIP and iMIP until further scheduling standards are defined).
 * How it maps from and to iCalendar (as required by the charter), or define why this is not necessary.
 * Once consensus has been reached to add the scheduling method, provide the necessary RFC documents and updates to existing standards.
I understood the majority of people in yesterday's meeting to agree that the `replyTo` and `sendTo` properties should stay multi-valued, but the only defined scheduling method to be the `itip` method for now. This is 100% compatible with  ticks all checkboxes for the requirements outlined above, except for the last bullet, and for the latter I volunteer to write the relevant document updates if someone is willing to co-author.