Protocol Action: 'iCalendar Transport-Independent Interoperability Protocol (iTIP)' to Proposed Standard
The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Thu, 15 October 2009 20:44 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@core3.amsl.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-announce@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietf-announce@core3.amsl.com
Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 4A85A28C16E; Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-idtracker: yes
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'iCalendar Transport-Independent Interoperability Protocol (iTIP)' to Proposed Standard
Message-Id: <20091015204449.4A85A28C16E@core3.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:44:49 -0700
Cc: calsify mailing list <ietf-calsify@osafoundation.org>, Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>, calsify chair <calsify-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf-announce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <ietf-announce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce>, <mailto:ietf-announce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-announce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-announce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce>, <mailto:ietf-announce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:44:49 -0000
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'iCalendar Transport-Independent Interoperability Protocol (iTIP) ' <draft-ietf-calsify-2446bis-10.txt> as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Calendaring and Scheduling Standards Simplification Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Lisa Dusseault and Alexey Melnikov. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-calsify-2446bis-10.txt Technical Summary This memo updates RFC 2446, iTIP. While no new protocol elements are introduced, a number are deprecated, while others are clarified. The examples are also improved. Working Group Summary There is rough consensus to move the document forward, and it wasn't all that rough. We had one minor issue relating to a constraint table, as to readability, but that is editorial preference. Document Quality There are existing implementations, and a number of vendors plan to implement the specification. We gratefully acknowledge Nigel Swinson for his review of the constraint table. RFC Editor Note adding to the beginning of Section 7.3: New "REQUEST-STATUS" values can be registered using the process described in Section 8.2.1 of [RFC5545].