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].