Clarification

["Se-Wai Lee (Exchange)" <cxylee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> As a member of the Outlook team, I would like to clarify two
> distortions in the below email.
> 
> 1) We stand behind Alec, Lewis, and Deriks' representation in the
> IETF-Calendar working group.
> 2) While we did see a public draft of the vCalendar spec shortly
> before it went 1.0, we don't consider that constituting "having input
> on the definition of vCalendar".
> 
> C.Y. Lee 
> cxylee@microsoft.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	owner-ietf-calendar@imc.org [SMTP:owner-ietf-calendar@imc.org]
> On Behalf Of Frank Dawson
> Sent:	Friday, December 06, 1996 1:06 PM
> To:	ietf-calendar@imc.org; Lewis Geer (Exchange); 'Steve Carter'
> Subject:	RE: RE: Microsoft Document IS NOT A Merged Document
> 
> Lewis:
> 
> Had to disagree with your note. It is not even close. The vCalendar
> specification was developed by a broad group of calendaring and
> scheduling industry folks. That is why is so broadly supported on this
> list.
> 
> Even Microsoft had input into vCalendar. A member of the Outlook team
> commented directly to me that it was the "greatest". He even provided
> input on the design. He may be out-voted by the Exchange team, but he
> had input on the definition of vCalendar. In fact, not only did the
> vendors that  you mention in your note have input, but many others did
> also. The list is in the front cover of the vCalendar document.
> 
> I think that many of us can't help but view the Microsoft critique as
> a feeling of NIH.
> 
> - - Frank
> 
> [cxylee]  rest of thread snipped...