Frank_Dawson@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Folks: > > After some lengthly and careful thought, I would like to ask that my name > be removed as an editor for the current Calendar Access Protocol > specification. Ouch! > This is not a reflection on the other editors for this I-D. > They remain some of the most forward thinking experts on C&S in the > industry and hopefully, still my friends and colleagues! > However, it is apparent to me that the current CAP work effort is not > proceeding in the technical direction or with the schedule that I had > expected. The speed if CAP is of concern to many of us. I do however think we are making some progress and the pace is picking up. > The current draft is making presumptions about the technical > direction and the priority of features that ought to be included in the > initial version CAP. I disagree with these current directions and > priorities. I assume you have been busy lately - we missed your input. > In addition, I believe this current effort is draining the > resources and focus that SHOULD BE applied to iCalendar/iTIP/iMIP > interoperability testing. I do not see that CAP is slowing down iCalendar/iTIP/iMIP testing. I see CAP as the reason that the vendors are starting to be concerned about interoperability testing as CAP can't work if iCalendar/iTIP/iMIP is not working. > I think that the current effort should be published as an Internet-Draft > but is not suitable for publication as an RFC. Why? -Doug
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature