Subject: Re: CAP Extensions Revised draft vs. IANA?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 07:43:01 -0500

The errors should be reported so we can correct them in a revised 
iCalendar draft, if they are new errors. A number of typos were already 
reported and corrected in a past iCalendar draft update.
I agree with Harald that the extensions to iCalendar for CAP should follow 
the IANA registration process defined in RFC 2445.
-- Frank

---

From: "Paul B. Hill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 07:56:27 -0500

>the IANA registration process defined in RFC 2445.

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?

Paul

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:53:59 +0930

[email-masked] wrote:

> I agree with Harald that the extensions to iCalendar for CAP
> should follow the IANA registration process defined in RFC
> 2445.

We should fix the registration process first, though.  (Reminder:
the problem is that the Method Reviewer's decision to accept an
extension cannot be appealed.  Decisions to reject can be
appealed; but, if the MR's decision to accept is final, then a
single person has the power to define new extensions
unilaterally.)

--
/================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.  |
|Chief Scientist |===============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Almost no one has ever wanted a 1/4" drill bit;|
[email-masked]|all they ever wanted was a 1/4" hole.          |
\================================================================/

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 20:21:20 -0800

Yes. I think the WG already agreed to this.

-Doug