Subject: CAP Extensions Revised draft vs. IANA?

From: Bob Mahoney <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:29:40 +0930

There was a brief discussion after the meeting yesterday about how to 
handle iCalendar enhancements, in CAP or as IANA extensions.   (We 
have had some errors in the iCalendar document recently come to 
light- these will need to be revised in any event.)   Harald 
Alvestrand was still in the room, and had some good thoughts along 
the lines of "do both".

The feeling was that we should use the IANA process, as there is 
value in exercising that.  But it is also useful for future 
developers to be able to find the relevant information in the 
mainline documents as much as possible.

-Bob

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:55:54 -0500

Paul Hill wrote:

>Does this mean that you do not agree with Harald that the extensions to 
>iCalendar for CAP should also be incorporated into a revised iCalendar as 

>long as we are also revising iCalendar to fix some errors?

If they are "approved" iCalendar extensions, then they will have used the 
iCalendar extension procedure specified in RFC 2445. That means that IANA 
gets notified of the approved extensions. If that IANA notification 
mechanism is via the publication of a CAP RFC or via a revision to the 
iCalendar RFC ... I am just a humble document editor.

Let me know what the mailing list consensus mechanism ends up being.

-- Frank