Re: CAP issue: Fallback/fanout to iTIP

[Martijn van Beers <martijn@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 04:57:15PM -0700, Steve Mansour wrote:
> Martijn van Beers wrote:
> > >   If a CAP request must get turned into iTIP then some extra coding must
> > > occur
> > Shouldn't that be iMIP, not iTIP, or am I misunderstanding all of
> > this completely?
> yes. Sometimes we use those two interchangeably.  It should be something like
> a CAP request gets translated into an iTIP equivalent and sent via iMIP.  But
> I think you get the idea.

Hmm, does that mean CAP scheduling messages aren't
(encapsulated) iTIP messages?


Martijn