Re: RECUR Subset and IPTel's CPL: Need Resolution

[pregen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Not being in Minnesota, I can not be sure of all that was discussed.  However, I really am reluctant to see us "step back" a draft in order to make it fit a smaller model such as telephony.  I don't believe that is the best thing to do here.  There are already vendors implementing or attempting to implement iCalendar and making what appears to be such a big change could potentially throw a monkey wrench in a process that is finally starting to move - i.e. interoperability.  Those of you on the list need to speak up on this comment about reducing the complexity of recurrence rules.  If anything happens it needs to be a new RFC.  There will always be new technology that comes along after a draft has been produced.  What happens in those situations?  They don't rewrite the draft - they build new drafts that add on to or enhance the draft. I don't think they step the drafts backwards.  I may be wrong - some one step up and throw rocks at me if I'm reading this incorrectly.
___________________
Patricia Egen Consulting
www.egenconsulting.com
423-875-2652