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

[John Stracke <francis@xxxxxxxx>]

pregen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> 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.

Yeah, but RECUR is too big for calendaring, too.

> 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.

It can happen, I think; there's no law that says that the Draft
Standard has to be a superset of the Proposed Standard.  In fact,
there's at least one case where RFC-2026 mandates that features
be removed:

     The requirement for at least two independent and
     interoperable implementations applies to all of the
     options and features of the specification.  In cases in
     which one or more options or features have not been
     demonstrated in at least two interoperable
     implementations, the specification may advance to the
     Draft Standard level only if those options or features
     are removed.

(RFC-2026, 4.1.2, second paragraph.)

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Brought to you by the letter Q.              |
|francis@xxxxxxxx|                                             |
\==============================================================/