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

Alexander Mayrhofer wrote:
> 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.

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

> 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?

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

-- 

Best regards,
 Duane