RE: status of wg specifications

> For the record, I think CPIM-MSGFMT and DATETIME are well done and
> good to go, as you put it, but I continue to think that CPIM is
> flawed.

To clarify, I am not declaring that CPIM is untouchable. I'm only saying
that before this exchange started, I was unaware of any substantial concerns
that people had wrt CPIM and I thought we were primarily blocked due to its
references to PIDF. See my Feb 20 message:
www.imppwg.org/ml-archive/IMPP-WG/200202/msg00020.html

Checking the archives carefully, I believe that I was confused about CPIM's
status and that it has not yet gone through working group last call. (I was
mistaking the most recent draft, which was a getting-ready-for-last-call
revision, for a just-finished-last-call revision.  These sorts of confusion
do tend to arise when you have multiple chairs getting swapped into and out
of working groups -- sorry). So I would think it's important to resolve any
identified problems in CPIM and move swiftly to WG last call on it.  If I'm
even more confused than I think, and people can show me that CPIM already
went through WG last call, please let me know.

Thanks,

--Mark



  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]