[Ietf-caldav] Re: [Ietf-calsify] Calsify list vs. CalDAV list?

[Lisa Dusseault]

That wasn't what I was trying to convey, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear 
enough about the purpose of the two lists.  The purpose of CALSIFY is 
only to revise the iCalendar, and possibly iMIP and iTIP RFCs, to go to 
draft standard, if that can be done and can improve interoperability 
and deployment.  Since you can't add features when going to draft 
standard, clearly any "server" feature, including notifications, is out 
of scope for CALSIFY.

The CalDAV group might decide that notifications is out of scope, but 
at least it's worth discussing whether notifications are a MUST, a 
feature to do later, or a feature to not even think about right now.  I 
suspect our job will be a lot simpler if we declare notifications out 
of scope for now, although I'd be happy to work on calendar event 
notifications next after CalDAV.

Lisa

On Aug 16, 2004, at 5:34 PM, TimHare at comcast.net wrote:

> Sorry for the cross-post but it seems relevant. Let me preface this by 
> saying that I haven't read all of CalDAV yet - and I suspect I need to 
> be up to speed on DAV first. That said - it seems to me some of the 
> discussion going on now on the CalDAV list re: notifications and 
> client/server complexity are issues (either "also" or "instead") for 
> the Calsify list?
>
> Tim Hare
> Interested Bystander, Non-Inc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-calsify mailing list
> Ietf-calsify at osafoundation.org
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-calsify