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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.