Re: Fw: CAP & busytime? - not CAP reqirement - CUA-BOT

[Martin Jackson <martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

7

Martin Jackson

On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 16:49, Robert_Ransdell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 6
> Tom Ransdell
> 
> ----- Forwarded by Robert Ransdell/Westford/IBM on 04/03/2003 10:46 AM
> -----
> "Preston Stephenson"
> <PStephenson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by:
> owner-ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 04/02/2003 08:06 AM
>                To
> "<"
>                cc
> 
>           Subject
> RE: CAP &
> busytime? - not
> CAP reqirement -
> CUA-BOT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5 
> Preston
> 
> >>> "Paul B. Hill" <pbh@xxxxxxx> 4/1/2003 4:04:02 PM >>> 
> 
> OK, we're up to 4. Keep those "votes" coming :)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxx]OnBehalf Of Dan Winship
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 4:58 PM
> To: ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: CAP & busytime? - not CAP reqirement - CUA-BOT
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 14:58, Doug Royer wrote:
> > Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> >
> > > The only reasonble source for keeping the VFREEBUSY accurate is to
> have
> > > it done by the CS as changes are made to the calendar.  _Assuming_
> that
> > > an unspecified "Bot" mechanism  is the way that it
> should/would/MAY be
> > > done is NOT sufficient here if we want that key functionality in
> CAP.
> > >  CAP 1.0 needs to provide that basic functionality in it or we
> severly
> > > risk loosing user adoption.
> >
> > Need told me and Pat repeated that we can not add features to CAP
> > unless 20 people on this list insist tht it must be done.
> 
> Well, I agree with Bruce, so there's 2...
> 
> -- Dan
-- 
Martin Jackson <martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.