Overview
An invitation asks the recipient to respond for a specified event. This record examines how agents can use existing calendar protocols and whether a MAP binding would add useful behaviour.
This is a reuse assessment. Its operations and representation are still under discussion.
Proposed operations
Target: The event identifier, occurrence where applicable, and invitation update sequence.
- Accept
- Indicate that the invitee expects to attend.
- Decline
- Indicate that the invitee does not expect to attend.
- Respond tentatively
- Record a tentative attendance response.
Inputs and results
Inputs. The invitation reference and response for the appropriate event or occurrence.
Results. An attendance response recorded for the identified invitation, with updates and cancellations handled by the applicable calendar protocol.
Permissions. The agent needs permission to respond for the invitee. Receiving an invitation alone does not grant that permission.
Human participation. The ordinary invitation response in a calendar or service interface.
The behaviour is described here. A machine-readable representation has not yet been selected.
Respond to a workshop invitation
- An invitation identifies a workshop and its scheduled time.
- The recipient asks their agent to respond tentatively.
- The agent uses the supported calendar route and records the response.
If the invitation has changed, the client must reconcile the update before replying. It must avoid sending the same response through two different routes.
Existing standards
- iCalendar · RFC 5545
The calendar object model.
- iTIP · RFC 5546
Scheduling exchanges and invitation responses.
- iMIP · RFC 6047
Calendar exchanges carried by email.
- Schema.org RsvpAction
Related vocabulary for attendance responses.
Versions and open questions
Reuse assessment
Existing calendar protocols are the starting point. A MAP binding has not been defined.
- Whether a MAP binding adds a capability beyond existing calendar protocols.
- Updates, recurrence and duplicate response handling.
- Any new execution profile; iMIP is not the current MAP HTTPS profile.
Contribute to this definition →
Implementations
No implementation evidence has been published for this proposal.
Support declarations and test reports are supplied by their contributors. Listing them does not certify compatibility. Each targets a type version, execution profile and exact record.