Subject: Re: How to use CAP for scheduling events.

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 14:34:26 -0700 (PDT)

> Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 21:29:11 +0000
> From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
> 
> Doug Royer wrote:
> 
> > So via a CUA the
> > iTIP message would be its iTIP meaning PLUS - use the authenticated
> > users access.
> 
> Makes perfect sense.  From 2446 (iTIP):
> 
>      The transport protocol will be responsible for providing
>      facilities for authentication and encryption using standard
>      Internet mechanisms that are mutually understood between the
>      sender and receiver.
> 
> I agree that the inbox would not impact interop.

I don't understand what you conclusion has to do with your example.

I do not want to mandate an INBOX - do you agree?

-Doug
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[email-masked]		http://playground.sun.com/~dougr
Pager:				[email-masked]
801 W. El Camino #131		Work:   (650)786-7599
Mountain View, CA 94040		Ham Radio: N6AAW, Aviation: PP-ASEL

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 14:03:10 +0000

> I don't understand what you conclusion has to do with your example.

Nothing; it was a reply to a bit of the original message that I had
already deleted.

> I do not want to mandate an INBOX - do you agree?

Yes.  That was what I meant: whether there's an inbox or not is irrelevant
to interop, so it shouldn't be part of the protocol.

--
/=============================================================\
|John Stracke    | My opinions are my own | S/MIME & HTML OK  |
[email-masked]|============================================|
|Chief Scientist | NT's lack of reliability is only surpassed |
|eCal Corp.      |  by its lack of scalability. -- John Kirch |
\=============================================================/