Subject: [Enum] comment on draft-ietf-enum-calendar-service-04

From: Alexander Mayrhofer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:21:41 +0100

Hi,

i'm a bit hesitant about the "sched" subtype being used for both iMIP 
and CalDAV. Essentially that would mean that any ical:sched capable 
client would need to support both protocols, because it must not select 
a NAPTR by looking at the URI scheme...

Is that intended?

An alternative would be to define seperate subtypes for iMIP and CalDAV 
scheduling protocols, so that a client which does not support CalDAV 
does not "run" into a URI scheme that it cannot use.

Actually this might even be a use case for those nasty "sub-sub-Types" 
("ical:sched:imip" and "ical:sched:caldav", but i'm pretty sure we don't 
want to go down this road, do we?

comments?

Alex
_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Duane <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 05:02:05 +1100

> does not "run" into a URI scheme that it cannot use.

there is sub-types to distinguish other url types and even duplicates of
some url types as sub-url types......

> want to go down this road, do we?

So things aren't messy enough for you, that you want to go and make a
new one? :)

-- 

Best regards,
 Duane