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

Re: CAP Extensions Revised draft vs. IANA?

To: "Paul B. Hill" <pbh@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: CAP Extensions Revised draft vs. IANA?
From: Frank_Dawson@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:55:54 -0500
Cc: ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx
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

Paul Hill wrote:

>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?

If they are "approved" iCalendar extensions, then they will have used the iCalendar extension procedure specified in RFC 2445. That means that IANA gets notified of the approved extensions. If that IANA notification mechanism is via the publication of a CAP RFC or via a revision to the iCalendar RFC ... I am just a humble document editor.

Let me know what the mailing list consensus mechanism ends up being.

-- Frank

Prev by Date: Re: CAP Extensions Revised draft vs. IANA?
Next by Date: RE: cap requirements
Previous by thread: Re: CAP Extensions Revised draft vs. IANA?
Next by thread: draft-stracke-calsch-ical-reviewer-00
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread