Re: Intolerant iMIP receivers

["Frank Dawson" <fdawson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thursday, March 18, 1999 8:27 PM, Doug Royer responded to my append on
the subject and wrote, in part:

>> I would agree with your suggestion that CUAs conforming to RFC 2447/iMIP
>> should be able to receive all the various type of iCalendar encapsulation
>> outlined in the spec. However, are we making a jump when we ask a CUA to
>> adhere to the same conformance as a MIME conferment MUA? Aren't they
>> different beasts?
>
>I hope NOT. Otherwise we would be defining that we only support
>a subset of MIME, that exists today. And for what gain?


We are talking about an implementation to RFC 2427, iMIP. By definition, I
only expect conformance to apply to what is specified directly or through
reference in RFC 2427. That means that I only have to support those parts of
MIME that are specified in the iMIP spec. No where that I read did it say
that a mail-enabled application that conformed to iMIP had to be a full MIME
compliant MUA.

Certainly, Lotus and other PIM vendors might implement a product that
supported iMIP but that for business reasons was not a MUA, but rather was a
CUA.

Let me repeat:     CUA <> MUA

These are different beasts. Certainly, you could implement a MUA that also
had CUA functions. But to infer from this product strategy that all CUAs had
to be conformant MIME MUAs is a false assumption. The iMIP spec's statement
of conformance should clarify this, right?

- - Frank