Re: CAP Extensions Revised draft vs. IANA?

[John Stracke <francis@xxxxxxxx>]

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.

We should fix the registration process first, though.  (Reminder:
the problem is that the Method Reviewer's decision to accept an
extension cannot be appealed.  Decisions to reject can be
appealed; but, if the MR's decision to accept is final, then a
single person has the power to define new extensions
unilaterally.)

--
/================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.  |
|Chief Scientist |===============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Almost no one has ever wanted a 1/4" drill bit;|
|francis@xxxxxxxx|all they ever wanted was a 1/4" hole.          |
\================================================================/