Re: [Ietf-calsify] xCal - time to submit?

[Doug Royer <Doug@xxxxxxxxx>]

Aki Niemi wrote:
> [Speaking as individual again]
>
> Inline.
>
> ext Doug Royer wrote:
>
> > Aki Niemi wrote:
> >
> > > [Speaking as an individual, not chair.]
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > A couple of issues occured to me while reading the draft:
> > >
> > > First, the problem this draft is trying to solve seems approximately 
> > > the same that MMUSIC aimed at in its SDPng work, in which the idea 
> > > was to move from the current SDP into an XML based format. Even the 
> > > core difficulty seems to be the same, namely the huge installed base 
> > > only supporting the legacy format makes transition a bit hairy. 
> >
> >
> > What move?
>
>
> As in stop using the current format and start using the new one.

What new one? xCal is YEARS old.

Its clear that you have not really read xCal. And it is clear
that you are not interested in discussing any real points in the draft.


--

Doug Royer                     | http://INET-Consulting.com
-------------------------------|-----------------------------

              We Do Standards - You Need Standards

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