[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CAP Extensions Revised draft vs. IANA?

To: Frank_Dawson@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: CAP Extensions Revised draft vs. IANA?
From: "Paul B. Hill" <pbh@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 07:56:27 -0500
Cc: ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <OF91920067.09E74144-ON852568B1.0034C0DF@lotus.com>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-calendar/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-calendar.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-calendar-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Sender: owner-ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxx

At 07:43 AM 3/29/2000 -0500, Frank_Dawson@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

I agree with Harald that the extensions to iCalendar for CAP should follow 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

References:
- Re: CAP Extensions Revised draft vs. IANA?
  - From: Frank_Dawson

Prev by Date: Re: CAP Extensions Revised draft vs. IANA?
Next by Date: Re: CAP Extensions Revised draft vs. IANA?
Previous by thread: Re: CAP Extensions Revised draft vs. IANA?
Next by thread: Re: CAP Extensions Revised draft vs. IANA?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread