Subject: 2.2 Relationship of RFC-2446 (ITIP) and CAP: Taking no action

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 14:46:20 -0500

In 09-b-2, Section 2.2 Relationship of RFC-2446 (ITIP) and CAP is:

   The CUA could also decide not to book the object.  In which case the
   "UNPROCESSED" state objects could be deleted from the CS.  Or the CUA
   could set those object to the marked for delete state.

There is another option that should be added to the list since we are 
listing options.  The other option is the CUA decides to take no action 
and as such does NOT remove the "UNPROCESSED" objects from the CS.  Just 
because I open an email does not mean I have to take any action on it 
(unless its a posting from Doug).

Hmm, besides the grammar bug I already reported to Doug in the last line I 
think that the 3rd sentence says basically the same thing that the 2nd 
does.  Dont both say that the CUA can delete the entry??...

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: 
[email-masked]
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 13:22:10 -0700

> (unless its a posting from Doug).

I'll add.

> Hmm, besides the grammar bug I already reported to Doug in the last line 
> I think that the 3rd sentence says basically the same thing that the 2nd 

I'll make it clearer - in one case the object is marked for delete.
In the other - it is deleted.

-- 
-
Doug Royer                       Work: (208)612-INET
[email-masked]                   Fax:  (866)594-8574
http://INET-Consulting.com       Cell: (208)520-4044
http://Royer.com/People/Doug

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:45:23 -0700

Doug Royer wrote:
>> listing options.  The other option is the CUA decides to take no 
>> action and as such does NOT remove the "UNPROCESSED" objects from the 
>> CS.  Just because I open an email does not mean I have to take any 
>> action on it (unless its a posting from Doug).

I added the sentence:

	The CUA could also ignore objects for later processing.

to the end of the above paragraph - okay?

> I'll add.
> 
>> Hmm, besides the grammar bug I already reported to Doug in the last 
>> line I think that the 3rd sentence says basically the same thing that 
>> the 2nd does.  Dont both say that the CUA can delete the entry??...
> 
> 

The entire paragraph now reads:

	The CUA could also decide not to book the object. In which case
	the "UNPROCESSED" state objects could be removed from the CS or the
	CUA could set those object to the marked for delete state.
	The CUA could also ignore objects for later processing.