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

Re: CAP Extensions Revised draft vs. IANA?

To: Bob Mahoney <bobmah@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: CAP Extensions Revised draft vs. IANA?
From: Frank_Dawson@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 07:43:01 -0500
Cc: ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx, owner-ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxx
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

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

Follow-Ups:
- Re: CAP Extensions Revised draft vs. IANA?
  - From: John Stracke
- Re: CAP Extensions Revised draft vs. IANA?
  - From: Paul B. Hill

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