Subject: CAP: Consensus?: Who Sent The Counter?

From: George Babics <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:39:47 -0500

A while ago it was identified in CAP, that CUA is unable to
identify who sent a COUNTER.

Looking in the archives, this issue has already come up in iTIP
and a consensus was reached.

  The thread: http://www.imc.org/ietf-calendar/mail-archive/msg00709.html
  The proposal: http://www.imc.org/ietf-calendar/mail-archive/msg00731.html
  The consensus: http://www.imc.org/ietf-calendar/mail-archive/msg00751.html

  Thus, I think it is no longer an issue for CAP.

George

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 20:12:08 -0700

>   Thus, I think it is no longer an issue for CAP.

GREAT - I agree that we should adopt this this proposal.
It makes more sense that SEND-BY I proposed.

---

From: George Babics <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:34:16 -0500

Given that this is no longer an issue for scheduling in CAP,
since the problem was solved in iTIP, can we close this issue?

George

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 10:02:18 -0700

> since the problem was solved in iTIP, can we close this issue?

's not solved by iTIP at all. Frank made a proposal and
no one adopted it, no draft was written, no property registered,
that I can find.

I'll take what Frank said and send a 'registration' to this list.
It seems simple. It will be a 2445 registration with a note
on how it applies to iTIP.

PAT - BOB - Per 2445, We just register a new 2445 property
this way - correct? Or does it have to also be an accepted draft?
If no, then we will have to include this in CAP.