IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tzdist] AD review of draft-ietf-tzdist-caldav-timezone-ref-03

Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> Fri, 28 August 2015 14:33 UTC

Return-Path: <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
X-Original-To: tzdist@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tzdist@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA6D41A0083; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 07:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 kcYjLBrRmvbT; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 07:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.andrew.cmu.edu (SMTP.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.157.38]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A4A91A9166; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 07:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (cpe-76-180-151-43.buffalo.res.rr.com [76.180.151.43]) (user=murch mech=PLAIN (0 bits)) by smtp.andrew.cmu.edu (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id t7SEXR3N030657 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 28 Aug 2015 10:33:28 -0400
Message-ID: <55E07137.2020704@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 10:33:27 -0400
From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
References: <CALaySJKAephrJS=XHfMSM3C3qpH4_Monn+Ear1vhCjMtqVZ+4w@mail.gmail.com> <4733A6EDE125B3121612FE24@caldav.corp.apple.com> <CALaySJLy-yoCwGaeOvr1F+2t7ZOApvtNurN3Bfsq6eQGSDVf7Q@mail.gmail.com> <55DBFCD3.4060703@cisco.com> <7F54FB4C7591CBD0A4C19BD8@caldav.corp.apple.com> <ABF86F9F2D7866DEFC1F5CFE@caldav.corp.apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <ABF86F9F2D7866DEFC1F5CFE@caldav.corp.apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2015.8.28.142717
X-SMTP-Spam-Clean: 28% ( SXL_IP_DYNAMIC 3, MULTIPLE_RCPTS 0.1, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1200_1299 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, FROM_EDU_TLD 0, NO_URI_HTTPS 0, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED 0, RDNS_POOLED 0, RDNS_RESIDENTIAL 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC 0, RDNS_SUSP_SPECIFIC 0, REFERENCES 0, __ANY_URI 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __IN_REP_TO 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MOZILLA_MSGID 0, __MOZILLA_USER_AGENT 0, __MULTIPLE_RCPTS_CC_X2 0, __PHISH_SPEAR_STRUCTURE_1 0, __RDNS_POOLED_1 0, __REFERENCES 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __URI_NO_PATH 0, __URI_NO_WWW 0, __URI_NS , __USER_AGENT 0)
X-SMTP-Spam-Score: 28%
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.74 on 128.2.157.38
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tzdist/8NDlR87Ot8O-jhFvXyKsFD1Jnmk>
Cc: tzdist@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tzdist-caldav-timezone-ref@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Tzdist] AD review of draft-ietf-tzdist-caldav-timezone-ref-03
X-BeenThere: tzdist@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <tzdist.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tzdist>, <mailto:tzdist-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tzdist/>
List-Post: <mailto:tzdist@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tzdist-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tzdist>, <mailto:tzdist-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:33:41 -0000

On 08/28/2015 10:29 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
> Hi Eliot, Barry,
>
> --On August 25, 2015 at 5:18:02 PM -0400 Cyrus Daboo 
> <cyrus@daboo.name> wrote:
>
>> In summary, two choices for the WG (with #1 being the currently defined
>> behavior):
>>
>> 1) In the absence of the new request header, by default the server does
>> not send VTIMEZONE components, but it SHOULD provide an option to
>> override that behavior for specific clientsE, based on User-Agent, that
>> always require a VTIMEZON.
>>
>> 2) In the absence of the new request header, by default the server 
>> always
>> sends VTIMEZONE components, but it MAY provide an option to override 
>> that
>> behavior for specific clients, based on User-Agent, that are known to
>> ignore VTIMEZONEs in the data.
>
> Any comment on this before I update the spec? In the absence of any 
> preference I will leave the spec as is (i.e., choice #1).
>

I believe that choice #2 would be the norm for new behavior (opt-in), 
but I don't have a strong opinion either way since it appears that most, 
if not all, clients use their own VTIMEZONE data anyways.

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email