Subject: CAP-12

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 13:50:41 -0600

I have finished editing in the typos sent to me and the list.
I have clarified the paragraphs that were sent to this list.

The only open proposal is Bruce's proposal to break modify with
no proposed solution which I do not see as having any support.
Bruce's proposal at this time would need to have consensus
called by the chairs to make that kind of  changes.

There are no more action items.

I will post -12 to the IETF tomorrow if there are no more items posted.

-- 

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

                We Do Standards - You Need Standards

---

From: Harrie Hazewinkel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:39:20 +0200

> I have finished editing in the typos sent to me and the list.

a typo I found:
MODIFY command section -> "one ore more" should be "one or more"

> I will post -12 to the IETF tomorrow if there are no more items posted.

I have a more general issue which is not real technical, but more 
editorial/
clarifying.

In the section 10.1 Cap Commands.

For all commands the formal definition of a command is given, but not
for the associated request. This is in contrast to the responses which
are provided.

For a command the document only provides the CMD line defnition and the
parameters allow in this CMD line.
For the response the document specifies the complete
'BEGIN:VCALENDAR ..... END:VCALENDER' definition. And my impression is
that, for instance, the modify command does this half way.

OK, one can derive things from the examples, but that is not wished for 
I guess.

harrie