comment on draft-ietf-enum-calendar-service-04

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