RFC 3283 (rfc3283) - Guide to Internet Calendaring
Description: RFC 3283 - Guide to Internet Calendaring

# RFC 3283 (RFC3283)

Internet RFC/STD/FYI/BCP Archives

[ RFC Index | RFC Search | Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | Cities ]

Alternate Formats: rfc3283.txt

### RFC 3283 - Guide to Internet Calendaring

    Network Working Group                                         B. Mahoney
    Request for Comments: 3283                                           MIT
    Category: Informational                                        G. Babics
                                                                     Steltor
                                                                    A. Taler
                                                                   June 2002

                         Guide to Internet Calendaring

    Status of this Memo

       This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
       not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
       memo is unlimited.

    Copyright Notice

       Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  All Rights Reserved.

    Abstract

       This document describes the various Internet calendaring and
       scheduling standards and works in progress, and the relationships
       between them.  Its intent is to provide a context for these
       documents, assist in their understanding, and potentially aid in the
       design of standards-based calendaring and scheduling systems.  The
       standards addressed are RFC 2445 (iCalendar), RFC 2446 (iTIP), and
       RFC 2447 (iMIP).  The work in progress addressed is "Calendar Access
       Protocol" (CAP).  This document also describes issues and problems
       that are not solved by these protocols, and that could be targets for
       future work.

    Table of Contents

       1.    Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
       1.1   Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
       1.2   Concepts and Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.    Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.1   Fundamental Needs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.2   Protocol Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       3.    Solutions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.1   Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       3.2   Systems  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.2.1 Standalone Single-user System  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.2.2 Single-user Systems Communicating  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
       3.2.3 Single-user with Multiple CUAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       3.2.4 Single-user with Multiple Calendars  . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

       3.2.5 Users Communicating on a Multi-user System . . . . . . . . . 10
       3.2.6 Users Communicating through Different Multi-user Systems . . 10
       4.    Important Aspects  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.1   Timezones  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       4.2   Choice of Transport  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.3   Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.4   Amount of data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       4.5   Recurring Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       5.    Open Issues  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       5.1   Scheduling People, not Calendars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       5.2   Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       5.3   Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       6.    Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       6.1   Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       6.2   Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       6.3   Using E-mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       6.4   Other Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
             Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
             References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
             Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
             Full Copyright Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

    1. Introduction

       Calendaring and scheduling protocols are intended to aid individuals
       in obtaining calendaring information and scheduling meetings across
       the Internet, to aid organizations in providing calendaring
       information on the Internet, and to provide for organizations looking
       for a calendaring and scheduling solution to deploy internally.

       It is the intent of this document to provide a context for these
       documents, assist in their understanding, and potentially help in the
       design of standards-based 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 iCalendar [RFC-2445],
       iTIP [RFC-2446], iMIP [RFC-2447], and [CAP].  The following
       definitions are provided as an introduction; the definitions in the
       protocol specifications themselves should be considered canonical.

       Calendar

          A collection of events, to-dos, journal entries, etc.  A calendar
          could be the content of a person or 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 defining who may perform what operations, such as
          reading or writing information, on a given calendar.

       Calendar Service

          A running server application that provides access to a number of
          calendar stores.

       Calendar Store (CS)

          A data store of a calendar service.  A calendar service may have
          several calendar stores, and each store may contain several
          calendars, as well as properties and components outside of those
          calendars.

       Calendar User (CU)

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

       Calendar User Agent (CUA)

          Software with which the calendar user communicates with a calendar
          service or local calendar store to access calendar information.

       Component

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

       Delegator

          A calendar user who has assigned his or her participation in a
          scheduled calendar component (e.g.  a VEVENT) to another calendar
          user (sometimes called the delegate or delegatee).  An example of
          a delegator is a busy executive sending an employee to a meeting
          in his or her place.

       Delegate

          A calendar user (sometimes called the delegatee) who has been
          assigned to participate in a scheduled calendar component (e.g. a
          VEVENT) in place of one of the attendees in that component
          (sometimes called the delegator).  An example of a delegate is a
          team member sent to a particular meeting.

       Designate

          A calendar user authorized to act on behalf of another calendar
          user.  An example of a designate is an assistant scheduling
          meetings for his or her superior.

       Local Store

          A CS that is on the same device as the CUA.

       Property

          A description of some element of a component, such as a start
          time, title or location.

       Remote Store

          A CS that is not on the same device as the CUA.

    1.2 Concepts and Relationships

       iCalendar is the language used to describe calendar objects.  iTIP
       describes a way to use the iCalendar language to do scheduling.  iMIP
       describes how to do iTIP scheduling via e-mail.  CAP describes a way
       to use the iCalendar language to access a calendar store in real-
       time.

       The relationship between calendaring protocols is similar to that
       between e-mail protocols.  In those terms, iCalendar is analogous to
       RFC 2822, iTIP and iMIP are analogous to the Simple Mail Transfer
       Protocol (SMTP), and CAP is analogous to the Post Office Protocol
       (POP) or Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP).

    2. Requirements

    2.1 Fundamental Needs

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

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

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

          b] A busy musician wants to maintain her schedule with multiple
          devices, such as through an Internet-based agenda and with a PDA.

          Need: To read and manipulate one's own calendar, possibly with
          solutions from different vendors.

          c] A software development team wishes to more effectively schedule
          their time through viewing each other's calendar information.

          Need: To share calendar information between users of the same
          calendar service.

          d] A teacher wants his students to schedule appointments during
          his office hours.

          Need: To schedule calendar events, to-dos and journals with other
          users of the same calendar service.

          e] A movie theater wants to publish its schedule for prospective
          customers.

          Need: To share calendar information with users of other calendar
          services, possibly from a number of different vendors.

          f] A social club wants to schedule calendar entries effectively
          with its members.

          Need: To schedule calendar events and to-dos with users of other
          calendar services, possibly from a number of different vendors.

    2.2 Protocol Requirements

       Some of these needs can be met by proprietary solutions (a, c, d),
       but others can not (b, e, f).  These latter scenarios show that
       standard protocols are required for accessing information in a
       calendar store and scheduling calendar entries.  In addition, these
       protocols require a common data format for representing calendar
       information.

       These requirements are met by the following protocol specifications.

          - Data format: iCalendar [RFC-2445]

          iCalendar [RFC-2445] provides a data format for representing
          calendar information, to be used and exchanged by other protocols.
          iCalendar [RFC-2445] can also be used in other contexts, such as a
          drag-and-drop interface, or an export/import feature.  All the
          other calendaring protocols depend on iCalendar [RFC-2445], so all
          elements of a standards-based calendaring and scheduling systems
          will have to be able to interpret iCalendar [RFC-2445].

          - Scheduling protocol: iTIP [RFC-2446]

          iTIP [RFC-2446] describes the messages used to schedule calendar
          events.  Within iTIP messages, events are represented in iCalendar
          [RFC-2445] format, and have semantics that identify the message as
          being an invitation to a meeting, an acceptance of an invitation,
          or the assignment of a task.

          iTIP [RFC-2446] messages are used in the scheduling workflow,
          where users exchange messages in order to organize things such as
          events and to-dos.  CUAs generate and interpret iTIP [RFC-2446]
          messages at the direction of the calendar user.  With iTIP [RFC-
          2446] users can create, modify, delete, reply to, counter, and
          decline counters to the various iCalendar [RFC-2445] components.
          Furthermore, users can also request the free/busy time of other
          people.

          iTIP [RFC-2446] is transport-independent, and has one specified
          transport binding: iMIP [RFC-2447] binds iTIP to e-mail.  In
          addition [CAP] will provide a real-time binding of iTIP [RFC-
          2446], allowing CUAs to perform calendar management and scheduling
          over a single connection.

          - Calendar management protocol: [CAP]

          [CAP] describes the messages used to manage calendars on a
          calendar store.  These messages use iCalendar [RFC-2445] to
          describe various components such as events and to-dos.  These
          messages make it possible to perform iTIP [RFC-2446] operations,
          as well as other operations relating to a calendar store such as
          searching, creating calendars, specifying calendar properties, and
          specifying calendar access rights.

    3. Solutions

    3.1 Examples

       Returning to the scenarios presented in section 2.1, the calendaring
       protocols can be used in the following ways:

          a] The doctor can use a proprietary CUA with a local store, and
          perhaps use iCalendar [RFC-2445] as a storage mechanism.  This
          would allow her to easily import her data store into another
          application that supports iCalendar [RFC-2445].

          b] The musician who wishes to access her agenda from anywhere can
          use a [CAP]-enabled calendar service accessible over the Internet.
          She can then use any available [CAP] clients to access the data.

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

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

          Alternatively, each member could use an iMIP [RFC-2447]-enabled
          CUA, and they could book meetings over e-mail.  This solution has
          the drawback that it is difficult to examine other users' agendas,
          making the organization of meetings more difficult.

          Proprietary solutions are also available, but they require that
          all members 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 [RFC-2446] bindings.  [CAP]
          provides real-time access, but could require additional
          configuration.  iMIP [RFC-2447] would be the easiest to configure,
          but may require more e-mail 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 [RFC-2446] free/busy requests.  Non-
          standard methods could also be employed, such as serving up
          iCalendar [RFC-2445], HTML, or XML over HTTP.

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

          e] [CAP] would be preferred for publishing a movie theater's
          schedule, since it provides advanced access and search
          capabilities.  It also allows easy integration with customers'
          calendar systems.

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

          Using a completely proprietary solution would be very difficult,
          if not impossible, since it would require every user to install
          and use the proprietary software.

          f] The social club could distribute meeting information in the
          form of iTIP [RFC-2446] messages, sent via e-mail using iMIP
          [RFC-2447].  The club could distribute meeting invitations, as
          well as a full published agenda.

          Alternatively, the 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 systems and their usage of
       the various 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 iCalendar
       [RFC-2445] 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 others
       using iTIP [RFC-2446].  The easiest binding of iTIP [RFC-2446] to use
       would be iMIP [RFC-2447], since messages can be held in the users'
       mail queues, which we assume to already exist.  [CAP] could also be
       used.

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

    3.2.3 Single-user with Multiple CUAs

       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 on accessibility.  Some of these clients may have
       local stores and others may not.  Those with local stores need to
       synchronize the data on the CUA with the data on the CS.

                    -----------
                   |   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; for example, one
       may contain work-related information and another personal
       information.  The CUA may or may not have a local store.  If it does,
       then it needs to synchronize the data of the CUA 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 CUAs and services.  The CUAs may or may not have
       local stores.  Those with local stores need to synchronize the data
       on the CUAs 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 users
       on a different multi-user system.  The services can communicate using
       [CAP] or iMIP [RFC-2447].

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

    4. Important Aspects

       There are a number of important aspects of these calendaring
       standards of which people, especially implementers, should be aware.

    4.1 Timezones

       The dates and times in components can refer to a specific time zone.
       Time zones can be defined in a central store, or they may be defined
       by a user to fit his or her needs.  All users and applications should
       be aware of time zones and time zone differences.  New time zones may

       need to be added, and others removed.  Two different vendors may
       describe the same time zone differently (such as by using a different
       name).

    4.2 Choice of Transport

       There are issues to be aware of in choosing between a network
       protocol such as [CAP], or a store and forward protocol, such as iMIP
       [RFC-2447].

       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 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 6) section below.

    4.4 Amount of data

       In some cases, a component may be very large, for instance, a
       component with a very large attachment.  Some applications may be
       low-bandwidth or may be limited in the amount of data they can store.
       Maximum component size may be set in [CAP].  It can also be
       controlled in iMIP [RFC-2447] by restricting the maximum size of the
       e-mail that the application can download.

    4.5 Recurring Components

       In iCAL [RFC-2445], one can specify complex recurrence rules for
       VEVENTs, VTODOs, and VJOURNALs.  One must be careful to correctly
       interpret these recurrence rules and pay extra attention to being
       able to interoperate using them.

    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 are outlined below.

    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.  The calendaring protocols do
       not attempt to provide unique access for contacting a given person.
       Instead, 'calendar addresses' are booked, which may be e-mail
       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

       The calendaring 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 existing events.  The calendaring protocols do not attempt
       to address these needs in a real-time system.  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 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
       requesters is released, and what shouldn't is not.  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 database access can be
       performed, and checking access rights and authentication credentials
       before releasing information.  [CAP] uses the Simple Authentication
       Security Layer (SASL) for this authentication.  In iMIP [RFC-2447],
       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 [RFC-2045], signing and
       encryption are freely available.  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
       [RFC-2447], 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.

       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 E-mail

       Because scheduling information can be transmitted over mail without
       any authentication information, e-mail spoofing is extremely easy if
       the receiver is not checking for authentication.  It is suggested
       that implementers consider requiring authentication as a default,
       using mechanisms such as are described in Section 3 of iMIP [RFC-
       2447].  The use of e-mail, 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 of
       this is the 'lock' icon used in some Web browsers during secure
       connections.

       With both iMIP [RFC-2447] 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.

    Acknowledgments

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

          Eric Busboom, Pat Egen, David Madeo, Shawn Packwood, Bruce Kahn,
          Alan Davies, Robb Surridge.

    References

       [RFC-2445] Dawson, F. and D. Stenerson, "Internet Calendaring and
                  Scheduling Core Object Specification - iCalendar", RFC
                  2445, November 1998.

       [RFC-2446] Silverberg, S., Mansour, S., Dawson, F. and R. Hopson,
                  "iCalendar Transport-Independent Interoperability Protocol
                  (iTIP):  Scheduling Events, Busy Time, To-dos and Journal
                  Entries", RFC 2446, November 1998.

       [RFC-2447] Dawson, F., Mansour, S. and S. Silverberg, "iCalendar
                  Message-Based Interoperability Protocol - iMIP", RFC 2447,
                  November 1998.

       [RFC-2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
                  Extensions (MIME) - Part One: Format of Internet Message
                  Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.

       [CAP]      Mansour, S., Royer, D., Babics, G., and Hill, P.,
                  "Calendar Access Protocol (CAP)", Work in Progress.

    Authors' Addresses

       Bob Mahoney
       MIT
       E40-327
       77 Massachusetts Avenue
       Cambridge, MA  02139
       US

       Phone: (617) 253-0774
       EMail: bobmah@mit.edu

       George Babics
       Steltor
       2000 Peel Street
       Montreal, Quebec  H3A 2W5
       CA

       Phone: (514) 733-8500 x4201
       EMail: georgeb@steltor.com

       Alexander Taler

       EMail: alex@0--0.org

    Full Copyright Statement

       Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2002).  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.

    Acknowledgement

       Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
       Internet Society.

Previous: RFC 3282 - Content Language Headers |  | Next: RFC 3284 - The VCDIFF Generic Differencing and Compression Data Format

[ RFC Index | RFC Search | Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | Cities ]