[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RECUR Subset and IPTel's CPL: Need Resolution
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