RE: comments on draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-05
"Adrian Bateman" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.impp |
|---|---|
| Organization | VisionTech Limited |
| Message-ID | <007701c24e07$1a303620$6405010a@ADRIANXP> |
On 27 August 2002 20:30, Peterson, Jon wrote: > > At the > > moment, I can't really think of a suitable example where the > > mustUnderstand attribute seems really useful, however. > > I've had some trouble with that myself, actually. I went back in the archives to see where this began: http://www.imppwg.org/ml-archive/IMPP-WG/200108/msg00017.html http://www.imppwg.org/ml-archive/IMPP-WG/200109/msg00003.html http://www.imppwg.org/ml-archive/IMPP-WG/200109/msg00005.html It doesn't seem like a specific case was held in mind. It was maybe a nice to have? Indeed, Hiroyasu Sugano made a comment at the time that 'even though the user agent cannot understand the "required" extension, it cannot respond with a rejection error across the CPIM gateway'. Can anyone think of a suitable example? Adrian.
smime.p7s
(application/x-pkcs7-signature, 3.1 KB) - not displayed