Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-royer-rid-ical-00.txt]

[email protected] wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doug, from what I read on Frank and Derik's replies and on other peoples
> comments on the list, I see a pattern evolving.  People are coding their
> applications using more of a fixed model.  Why do we have to have a
> complicated draft when all we need to do is remove the one sentence in
> 3.7.1, change examples to reflect that change and resubmit the draft.
 >
> So, my question to everyone on the list that has been active on the
> Recurrence-ID issue - does this sound like too simplistic an approach?  Am
> I missing something.  The arguments seem to lean towards Bruce's comments
> and attempt at a model.  His borad summary

When you read what I put in the draft, not all of the 'fixed' camp agree
on all of the details.  And they are NOT compatible with each other.

I have a list that I am not confident to send out yet as I re-read
the examples sent. It looks as if there are 4 distinct models and
not 2. This list will be included in the next rev of that draft.

Its not as simple as 'fixed' vs. 'non-fixed' which is one of the
points of the draft.


-- 

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

                 We Do Standards - You Need Standards