[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02                                                      
Network Working Group                             Bob Mahoney/MIT
Internet Draft                                    Alexander Taler
<draft-ietf-calsch-imp-guide-02.txt>              George Babics/Steltor
November 24 2000
Expires: May 24 2001


                Implementors' Guide to Internet Calendaring

Status of this Memo

   This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
   groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society 2000.  All Rights Reserved.

Abstract

   This document describes the various internet calendaring and
   scheduling standards and drafts and the relationships between them.
   It's intention is to provide a context for these documents, assist in
   their understanding, and potentially help implementors in the design
   of their internet calendaring and scheduling systems. The standards
   addressed are RFC 2445 (iCalendar), RFC 2446 (iTIP), and RFC 2447
   (iMIP). The draft addressed is "Calendar Access Protocol" (CAP).

   [Note: in the past there has been some discussion as to whether iRIP
   was a live effort, given that interest has waned and some
   functionality  has been moved to CAP.  Its status will be discussed
   further.]

   This document also describes issues and problems that are not solved
   by these protocols, and could be targets for future work.

Status of this Memo

   1.  Introduction
       Terminology
   2.  Requirements
       Fundamental Need
       Protocol Requirements
   3.  Standards Solution
       Examples
       Systems
       Standalone single-user system
       Single-user systems communicating
   4.  Important Aspects
       Timezones

Mahoney/Taler/Babics                 1                 Expires May 2000


Draft           Implementors' Guide To Calendaring       November, 2000

       Choice of Transport
       Security
       Amount of data
       Recurring Components
   5.  Open Issues
       Choice of Transport
       Scheduling People, not calendars
       Administration
       Notification
   6.  Security Considerations
       Access Control
       Authentication
       Using Email
       Other issues
   7.  Acknowledgements
   8.  Bibliography
   9.  Author's Addresses
   10. Full Copyright Statement

1. Introduction

   The calendaring and scheduling protocols are intended to provide for
   the needs of individuals attempting to obtain calendaring information
   and schedule meetings across the internet, organizations attempting
   to provide calendaring information on the internet, as well as
   organizations looking for a calendaring and scheduling solution to
   deploy internally.

   It is the intent of this document is to provide a context for the
   calendar standard and draft documents, assist in their understanding,
   and potentially help implementors in the design of their internet
   calendaring and scheduling systems.

   Problems not solved by these protocols, as well as security issues to
   be kept in mind, are discussed at the end of the document.

   1.1 Terminology

   This memo uses much of the same terminology as [ICAL], [ITIP],
   [IMIP], [IRIP] and [CAP]. The following definitions are provided as
   introductory, the definitions in the protocol specifications are the
   canonical ones.

   Calendar
      A collection of events, todos, journal entries, etc. A
      calendar could be the content of a person or a resource's
      agenda; it could also be a collection of data serving a more
      specialized need. Calendars are the basic storage containers
      for calendaring information.

   Calendar Access Rights
      A set of rules for a calendar describing who may perform
      which operations on that calendar, such as reading and
      writing information.

   Calendar Service
      A running server application which provides access to a
      collection of calendars.

   Calendar Store
      A data store of a calendar service. A calendar service may
      have several calendar stores, and each store may contain

Mahoney/Taler/Babics                 2                Expires May 2000

Draft           Implementors' Guide To Calendaring       November, 2000

      several calendars, as well as properties and components
      outside of the calendars.

   Calendar User
      An entity (often a human) that accesses calendar
      information.

   Calendar User Agent (CUA)
      Software used by the calendar user that communicates with
      calendar services to provide the user access to calendar
      information.

   Component
      A piece of calendar data such as an event, a todo or an
      alarm. Information about components is stored as properties
      of those components.

   Delegate
      Is a calendar user (sometimes called the delegatee) who has
      been assigned participation in a scheduled calendar
      component (e.g., VEVENT) by one of the attendees in the
      scheduled calendar component (sometimes called the
      delegator). An example of a delegate is a team member told
      to go to a particular meeting.

   Designate
      Is a calendar user who is authorized to act on behalf of
      another calendar user. An example of a designate is an
      assistant.

   Local Store
      A CS which is on the same platform as the CUA.

   Property
      A property of a component, such as a description or a start
      time.

   Remote Store
      A CS which is not on the same platform as the CUA.

1.2 Concepts and Relationships

      iCalendar is the Language to be used in calendar events.
      iTIP is how you use the language.
      iMIP is further definition for use over email.
      iRIP is the language used over a real-time transport
      CAP is how to use the language, in real-time, to access a
      calendar server

      Another way to put it is as follows:
      iCalendar are the words
      iTIP is the grammar book or the "Rosetta Stone".
      iMIP is "expressing it in email terminology" an
      EMAIL dictionary
      CAP/iRIP is "expressing it for use in a Real Time transport"

      A comparison with email:
      RFC822 in email:  iRIP in Calendaring (scheduling not
      booking)
      POP/IMAP in email: CAP in calendaring
      iMIP uses RFC822
      RFC822 is a wrapper for email:  iTIP is a wrapper for

Mahoney/Taler/Babics                 3                Expires May 2000

Draft           Implementors' Guide To Calendaring       November, 2000

      calendaring objects


2. Requirements

2.1 Fundamental Needs


   The following examples illustrate people's and
   organizations' basic calendaring and scheduling needs:

      a]   A doctor wishes to keep track of all his appointments.

      Need: Read and manipulate one's own calendar with only one
      CUA.

   b] A busy musician wants to maintain her schedule on an
      internet-based agenda which she can access from anywhere.

      Need: Read and manipulate one's own calendar.

      c] A software development team wishes to share agenda
         information by using a group scheduling product in order
         to more effectively schedule their time.

      Need: Share calendar information with users using the same
      calendar service.

      d] A teacher wants his students to be able to book time
         slot during his office hours.

      Need: Schedule calendar events and todos with users using
      the same calendar service.

      e] A movie theatre wants to publish its schedule so that
         prospective customers can easily access it.

      Need: Share calendar information with users using other
      calendar services, possibly from different vendors.

      f] A social club wants to be able to organize events more
         effectively by booking time with its members.

      Need: Schedule calendar events and todos with users using
      other calendar services, possibly from different vendors.

   2.2 Protocol requirements

   The first four needs can be satisfied through proprietary solutions,
   but the last two cannot. From these needs we can establish that
   protocols are required for accessing information in a calendar store,
   and for scheduling events and todos. In addition these protocols
   require a data format for representing calendar information.

   These roles are filled by the following protocol requirements.

         - [ICAL] is the data format

         [ICAL] provides data format for representing calendar
         information which the other protocols can use. [ICAL] can
         also be used in other contexts such as a drag and drop
         format or an export/import format.

Mahoney/Taler/Babics                 4                Expires May 2000

Draft           Implementors' Guide To Calendaring       November, 2000


         All the other protocols depend on [ICAL], so all elements
         of a standards-based calendaring and scheduling systems
         will have to interpret [ICAL].

            For example the following describes an event:

            BEGIN:VCALENDAR
            VERSION:2.0
            PRODID:-//ABC Corporation//NONSGML My Product//EN
            BEGIN:VEVENT
            ORGANIZER;CN=Jane Doe:MAILTO:jane@bar.com
            DTSTART:20000905T120000Z
            SUMMARY:Lunch
            DTEND:20000905T130000Z
            ATTENDEE;CN=John Smith:MAILTO:john@foo.com
            ATTENDEE;CN=Jane Doe:MAILTO:doe@bar.com
            END:VEVENT
            END:VCALENDAR


         - [ITIP] is the scheduling protocol

         [ITIP] describes the messages used to schedule calendar
         events. These messages are represented in [ICAL], and
         have semantics that include such things as being an
         invitation to a meeting, an acceptance of an invitation
         or the assignation of a task.

         [ITIP] messages are used in the scheduling work flow,
         where users exchange messages in order to organize things
         such as events and todos. CUAs generate and interpret
         [ITIP] messages at the direction of the calendar user.

         With [ITIP] one can create, modify, delete, reply to,
         counter, and decline counters to, the various [ICAL]
         components. Furthermore, one can also request the
         freebusy time of other people.

         For example, to invite a user to the above event, one can
         send a message like this one:

            BEGIN:VCALENDAR
            METHOD:REQUEST
            VERSION:2.0
            PRODID:-//ABC Corporation//NONSGML My Product//EN
            BEGIN:VEVENT
            ORGANIZER;CN=Jane Doe:MAILTO:jane@bar.com
            DTSTART:20000905T120000Z
            SUMMARY:Lunch
            DTEND:20000905T130000Z
            ATTENDEE;CN=John Smith:MAILTO:john@foo.com
            ATTENDEE;CN=Jane Doe:MAILTO:doe@bar.com
            END:VEVENT
            END:VCALENDAR

            The user, John Smith, can send a reply using the
            REPLY method.


         [ITIP] is transport-independent, but has two specified
         transport bindings, [IMIP] is a binding to email and

Mahoney/Taler/Babics                 5                Expires May 2000

Draft           Implementors' Guide To Calendaring       November, 2000

         [IRIP] is a real-time binding. In addition [CAP] will
         provide a second real-time binding of [ITIP], allowing
         CUAs to perform calendar management as well as scheduling
         over a single connection.

         For example, sending the above request using iMIP would
         look like:

            From: jane@bar.com
            To: john@foo.com
            Subject: Lunch
            Mime-Version: 1.0
            Content-Type:text/calendar; method=REQUEST;charset=US-ASCII
            Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

            BEGIN:VCALENDAR
            VERSION:2.0
            PRODID:-//ABC Corporation//NONSGML My Product//EN
            BEGIN:VEVENT
            ORGANIZER;CN=Jane Doe:MAILTO:jane@bar.com
            DTSTART:20000905T120000Z
            SUMMARY:Lunch
            DTEND:20000905T130000Z
            ATTENDEE;CN=John Smith:MAILTO:john@foo.com
            ATTENDEE;CN=Jane Doe:MAILTO:doe@bar.com
            END:VEVENT
            END:VCALENDAR


         Both CUAs and calendar services may have [ITIP]
         interpreters.

         - [CAP] is the calendar management protocol

         [CAP] describes the messages used to manage calendars. These
         messages are represented in [ICAL], and have semantics such as
         being a search for data, being data in response to a search or
         the being the creation of a meeting.

         [CAP] describes the messages used to manage calendars on a
         calendar store.

         These messages are represented in [ICAL]. With these messages
         one can do the operations in [ITIP] and other operations
         relating to a calendar store. These operations include, search,
         creating calendars, specifying calendar properties, and being
         able to specify access rights to one's calendars.

         [CAP] also provides a real-time binding for the calendar
         management messages. Although other bindings, such as an email
         binding, could be defined, this is not done because it is
         inappropriate for this protocol.

         For example, one can schedule the above meeting using CAP:

            C:SENDATA
            C:CONTENT-TYPE:text/calendar; method=CREATE;charset=US-ASCII
            C:content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
            C:BEGIN:VCALENDAR
            C:VERSION:2.0
            C:PRODID:-//ABC Corporation//NONSGML My Product//EN
            C:TARGET:cap://cal.example.com/johns

Mahoney/Taler/Babics                 6                Expires May 2000

Draft           Implementors' Guide To Calendaring       November, 2000

            C:TARGET:janed
            C:METHOD:CREATE
            C:BEGIN:VEVENT
            C:ORGANIZER;CN=Jane Doe:MAILTO:jane@bar.com
            C:DTSTART:20000905T073000Z
            C:SUMMARY:Lunch
            C:DTEND:20000905T120000Z
            C:END:VEVENT
            C:END:VCALENDAR
            C: .
            S: 2.0
            S: Content-Type:text/calendar; method=RESPONSE;
            S:
            S: BEGIN:VCALENDAR
            S: VERSION:2.1
            S: METHOD:RESPONSE
            S: BEGIN:VEVENT
            S: TARGET::cap://cal.example.com/johnd
            S: REQUEST-STATUS:2.0
            S: END:VEVENT
            S: END:VCALENDAR
            S: Content-Type:text/calendar; method=RESPONSE;
            S:
            S: BEGIN:VCALENDAR
            S: VERSION:2.1
            S: METHOD:RESPONSE
            S: BEGIN:VEVENT
            S: TARGET::cap://cal.example.com/janed
            S: REQUEST-STATUS:2.0
            S: END:VEVENT
            S: END:VCALENDAR
            S: .

         Note that "C" indicates the data sent by the client,
         and "S" the data sent by the server. Furthermore, CAP
         is still a draft, thus the details of one can create
         such an event may change.

      The dependencies between the different protocols are as follows:

      iCalendar is the language set used to describe/specify calendaring
      events or operations.

      When specified using correct iCalendar grammar, we refer to these
      event representations or operation requests as " calendar object
      representations

      There are two main methodologies for communicating iCalendar
      objects:

      1) Via a store-and-forward mechanism (usually email), using the
         iMIP specification.

      2) Via an on-the-wire mechanism (a directly connected state,
         however briefly), using the CAP specification.

      A system may implement the first methodology only. The second one
      is dependent on iTIP. It requires understanding of iTIP and the
      ability to communicate with other CAP servers using iTIP. Since,
      currently, iMIP is the only binding of iTIP, the second method
      is also dependent on iMIP.


Mahoney/Taler/Babics                 7                Expires May 2000

Draft           Implementors' Guide To Calendaring       November, 2000

      Additionally, the iTIP specification describes a
      transport-independent grammar for communicating between systems.
      The iMIP specification utilizes iTIP to express iCalendar objects.


3. Solutions

3.1 Examples

      Returning to the examples of section 2.1, they can be solved using
      the protocols in the following ways:

         a] The doctor can use a proprietary CUA with a local store,
            and perhaps use [ICAL] as a storage mechanism.  This would
            allow the doctor to easily import his store into another
            application that supports [ICAL].

         b] The musician who wishes to access her agenda from anywhere
            can use a [CAP] enabled calendar service accessible through
            the internet. She can then use whichever [CAP] clients are
            available to access the data.

            A proprietary system could also be employed which provides
            access through a web-based interface, but the use of [CAP]
            would be superior in that it would allow the use of third
            party tools, such as PDA synchronization tools.

         c] The development team can use a calendar service which
            supports [CAP] and then each member can use a [CAP]-enabled
            CUA of their choice.

            Alternatively, each member could use an [IMIP]-enabled CUA,
            and they could book meetings over email. This solution has
            the drawback that it is difficult to examine the other
            agendas, making organizing meetings more difficult.

            Proprietary solutions are also available, but they require
            that all people use clients by the same vendor, and disallow
            the use of third party applications.

         d] The teacher can set up a calendar service, and have students
            book time through any of the [ITIP] bindings. [CAP] or
            [IRIP] provide real-time access, but could require
            additional configuration. [IMIP] would be the easiest to
            configure, but may require more email processing.

            If [CAP] access is provided then determining the state of
            the teacher's schedule is straightforward. If not, this can
            be determined through [ITIP] free-busy requests. Non-
            standard methods could also be employed, such as serving up
            ICAL, HTML, XML through HTTP.

            A proprietary system could also be used, but would require
            that all students be able to use software from a specific
            vendor.

         e] For publishing a movie theatre's schedule [CAP] provides the
            most advanced access and search capabilities. It also allows
            easy integration with its customer's calendar systems.

            Non-standard methods such as serving data over HTTP could
            also be employed, but would be harder to integrate with

Mahoney/Taler/Babics                 8                Expires May 2000

Draft           Implementors' Guide To Calendaring       November, 2000

            customer's systems.

            Using a completely proprietary solutions would be very
            difficult since it would require every user to install and
            use proprietary software.

         f] The social club could distribute meeting information in the
            form of [ITIP] messages. This could be done over email using
            [IMIP], or [IRIP] depending on the recipient. Meeting
            invitations, as well as a full published agenda could be
            distributed.

            Alternatively, the social club could provide access to a
            [CAP] enabled calendar service, however this solution would
            be more expensive since it requires the maintenance of a
            server.


3.2 Systems

   The following diagrams illustrate possible example systems and
   usage of the protocols.

3.2.1 Standalone single-user system

   A single user system that does not communicate with other systems
   need not employ any of the protocols. However, it may use [ICAL] as a
   data format in some places.

       -----------       O
      | CUA w/    |     -+- user
      |local store|      A
       -----------      / \

3.2.2 Single-user systems communicating

   Users with single-user systems may schedule meetings with each other
   using [ITIP]. The easiest binding of [ITIP] to use is [IMIP], since
   it messages can be held in their mail queue, which we assume to
   already exist. [IRIP] or [CAP] would require at least one user to run
   a listening server.


       O   -----------                    -----------   O
      -+- | CUA w/    | -----[IMIP]----- | CUA w/    | -+- user
       A  |local store|     Internet     |local store|  A
      / \  -----------                    -----------  / \

3.2.3 Single-user with multiple CUA

   A single user may use more than one CUA to access his or her
   calendar. The user may use a PDA, a web client, a PC, or some other
   device, depending an accessibility.  Some of these clients may have
   local stores and others may not.  If they do, then they need to
   ensure that the data on the CUA is synchronized with the data on the
   CS.







Mahoney/Taler/Babics                 9                Expires May 2000

Draft           Implementors' Guide To Calendaring       November, 2000

                 -----------
                |   CUA w   | -----[CAP]----------+
                |local store|                     |
           O     -----------                    ----------
          -+-                                  |   CS     |
           A                                   |          |
          / \                                   ----------
                 -----------                      |
                |  CUA w/o  | -----[CAP]----------+
                |local store|
                 -----------

3.2.4   Single-user with multiple calendars

   A single user may have many independent calendars.  One may be work
   related, another for personal use.  The CUA may or may not have a
   local store.  If it does, then it needs to ensure that the data on
   the CUA is synchronized with the data on both of the CS.

                                                ----------
                      +------------[CAP]------ |   CS     |
                      |                        |          |
           O     -----------                    ----------
          -+-   |  CUA      |
           A    |           |
          / \    -----------
                      |                         ----------
                      +------------[CAP]------ |   CS     |
                                               |          |
                                                ----------

3.2.5   Users communicating on a multi-user system

   Users on a multi-user system may schedule meetings with each other
   using [CAP]-enabled CUA and service.  The CUA may or may not have a
   local store.  If they do, then they need to ensure that the data on
   the CUA is synchronized with the data on the CS.

           O     -----------
          -+-   |   CUA w   | -----[CAP]----------+
           A    |local store|                     |
          / \    -----------                    ----------
                                               |   CS     |
                                               |          |
                                                ----------
           O     -----------                      |
          -+-   |  CUA w/o  | -----[CAP]----------+
           A    |local store|
          / \    -----------

3.2.6  Users communicating through different multi-user systems

   Users on a multi-user system may need to schedule meetings with user
   on a different multi user system.  The services can communicate using
   [CAP] or [ITIP].








Mahoney/Taler/Babics                 10                Expires May 2000

Draft           Implementors' Guide To Calendaring       November, 2000

          O     -----------                    ----------
         -+-   |   CUA w   | -----[CAP]-------|   CS     |
          A    |local store|                  |          |
         / \    -----------                    ----------
                                                   |
                                                 [CAP]
                                                   |
          O     -----------                    ----------
         -+-   |  CUA w/o  | -----[CAP]-------|   CS     |
          A    |local store|                  |          |
         / \    -----------                    ----------


4. Important Aspects

   There are a number of important aspects of these calendaring
   documents that people, especially implementors, should be aware of.

4.1 Timezones

   The dates and times in components can refer to timezones. These
   timezones can be defined in some central store, or they may be
   defined by a user to fit his or her needs. Any user and application
   should be aware of timezones and timezone differences.

4.2 Choice of Transport

   There are issues to be aware of in choosing a transport mechanism.
   The choices are a network protocol, such as CAP, or a store and
   forward (email) solution.

   The use of a network ("on-the-wire") mechanism may require some
   organizations to make provisions to allow calendaring traffic to
   traverse a corporate firewall on the required ports.  Depending on
   the organizational culture, this may be a challenging social
   exercise.

   The use of an email-based mechanism exposes innately time-sensitive
   data to unbounded latency.  Large or heavily utilized mail systems
   may experience an unacceptable delay in message receipt.

4.3 Security

   See the "Security Considerations" section below.

4.4 Amount of data

   In some cases a component may be very large. For instance, some
   attachments may be very large. Some applications may be low-bandwidth
   or be limited in the amount of data they can store. The size of the
   data may be controlled in [CAP], by specifying maximums. In [iMIP] it
   can be controlled, by restricting the maximum size of the email that
   the application can download.

4.5 Recurring Components

   In [iCAL] one can specify complex recurrence rules for VEVENTs,
   VTODOs, and VJOURNALs. There is the danger that applications
   interpret these rules differently. Thus, one must make sure that one
   is careful with recurrence rules.



Mahoney/Taler/Babics                 11                Expires May 2000

Draft           Implementors' Guide To Calendaring       November, 2000

5. Open Issues

   Many issues are not currently resolved by these protocols, and many
   desirable features are not yet provided. Some of the more prominent
   ones follow.

5.1 Scheduling people, not calendars

   Meetings are scheduled with people, however people may have many
   calendars, and may store these calendars in many places. There may
   also be many routes to contact them. These protocols do not attempt
   to provide unique access for contacting a single person. Instead,
   'calendar addresses' are booked, which may be email addresses or
   individual calendars. It is up to the users themselves to orchestrate
   mechanisms to ensure that the bookings go to the right place.

5.2 Administration

   These protocols do not address the issues of administering users and
   calendars on a calendar service. This must be handled by proprietary
   mechanisms for each implementation.

5.3 Notification

   People often wish to be notified of upcoming events, new events, or
   changes to events. These protocols do not attempt to address these
   needs in a real-time fashion. Instead, the ability to store alarm
   information on events is provided, which can be used to provide
   client-side notification of upcoming events. To organize notification
   of new or changed events clients will have to poll the data store.

6. Security considerations

6.1 Access Control

   There has to be reasonable granularity in the configuration options
   for access to data through [CAP], so that what should be released to
   requestors is, and what shouldn't isn't. Details of handling this are
   described in [CAP].

6.2 Authentication

   Access control must be coupled with a good authentication system, so
   that the right people get the right information. For [CAP] this means
   requiring authentication before any data base access can be
   performed, and checking access rights and authentication credentials
   before releasing information. [CAP] uses SASL for this
   authentication. In [IMIP], this may present some challenges, as
   authentication is  often not a consideration in store-and-forward
   protocols.

   Authentication is also important for scheduling, in that receivers of
   scheduling messages should be able to validate the apparent sender.
   Since scheduling messages are wrapped in MIME, signing and encryption
   is available for free. For messages transmitted over mail this is the
   only available alternative. It is suggested that developers take
   care in implementing the security features in [IMIP], bearing in mind
   that the concept and need may be foreign or non-obvious to users, yet
   essential for the system to function as they might expect.


Mahoney/Taler/Babics                 12                Expires May 2000

Draft           Implementors' Guide To Calendaring       November, 2000

   The real-time protocols provide for the authentication of users, and
   the preservation of that authentication information, allowing for
   validation by the receiving end-user or server.

6.3 Using email

   Because scheduling information can be transmitted over mail without
   any authentication information, email spoofing is extremely easy if
   the receiver is not checking for authentication. It is suggested
   that implementors consider requiring authentication as a default,
   using mechanisms such as are described in Section 2 of [IMIP].

   The use of email, and the potential for anonymous connections, means
   that 'calendar spam' is possible. Developers should consider this
   threat when designing systems, particularly those that allow for
   automated request processing.

6.4 Other issues

   The current security context should be obvious to users. Because the
   underlying mechanisms may not be clear to users, efforts to make
   clear the current state in the UI should be made. One example is the
   'lock' icon used in some web browsers during secure connections.

   With both [IMIP] and [CAP], the possibilities of Denial of Service
   attacks must be considered.  The ability to flood a calendar system
   with bogus requests is likely to be exploited once these systems
   become widely deployed, and detection and recovery methods will need
   to be considered.

7. Acknowledgements

   Thanks to the following who have participated in the development of
   this document:

      Eric Busboom, Pat Egen, David Madeo, Shawn Packwood, Bruce Kahn.

8. Bibliography

   [ICAL] [RFC-2445] Calendaring and Scheduling Core Object
   Specification
   [ITIP] [RFC-2446] iCalendar Transport-Independent Interoperability
   Protocol
   [IMIP] [RFC-2447] iCalendar Message-Based Interoperability Protocol
   [IRIP] draft-ietf-calsch-irip iCalendar Real-time Interoperability
   Protocol
   [CAP] draft-ietf-calsch-cap Calendar Access Protocol

   [RFC-1847] Security Multiparts for MIME
   [RFC-2045] MIME Part 1: Format of Internet Message Bodies
   [RFC-2046] MIME Part 2: Media Types
   [RFC 2047] MIME Part 3: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text
   [RFC-2048] MIME Part 4: Registration Procedures
   [RFC-2049] MIME Part 5: Conformance Criteria and Examples


9. Author's Addresses

   Alexander Taler
   Email: alex@elea.dhs.org



Mahoney/Taler/Babics                 13                Expires May 2000

Draft           Implementors' Guide To Calendaring       November, 2000

   Bob Mahoney
   MIT
   E40-327
   77 Massachusetts Avenue
   Cambridge, MA 02139
   Tel: (617) 253-0774
   Email: bobmah@mit.edu

   George Babics
   Steltor (formerly CS&T/Lexacom)
   2000 Peel Street
   Montreal, Quebec, Canada
   H3A 2W5
   Tel: (514) 733-8500 x4201
   Fax: (514) 733-8878
   mailto: georgeb@steltor.com


10. Full Copyright Statement

   "Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
   This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
   or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
   and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
   kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph
   are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
   document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
   the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
   Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of
   developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for
   copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process MUST be
   followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than
   English.

   The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
   revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.  This
   document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS
   IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK
   FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT
   NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN
   WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
   MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Mahoney/Taler/Babics                 14                Expires May 2000