Re: Status of the CALSCH working group (Alarms/SEQUENCE)

[Doug Royer <Doug@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Greg replied on 11/10/2003 07:58:43 PM:
> > 1) To move CAP along, I think we have to concede that the question of
> > unique ids for VALARMs was already considered, and unique ids were
> > considered good by almost everyone.  From the archive, it appears this
> > was most heavily discussed November 2001-January 2002, and everyone
> > seemed to agree that alarmids of some sort were useful.  For 
> example, from:
> >
> > <http://www.imc.org/ietf-calendar/mail-archive/msg02317.html>
>
> While we did discuss its addition back then, we did not cover all the 
> bases (nor was the actual need discussed that I can see but thats a 
> different topic).  Undiscussed or answered bits that come to mind are: 

Give it up, you claimed it was not discussed, it was.

You *always* claim that something you do not want is undiscussed.


--

Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
-------------------------------|-----------------------------
Doug@xxxxxxxxx                 | Office: (208)520-4044
http://Royer.com/People/Doug   |    Fax: (866)594-8574
                              |   Cell: (208)520-4044

              We Do Standards - You Need Standards

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature