Subject: RE: iRIP and CAP

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:34:20 -0400

I think we should renew iRIP. At a minumum, it contains
good information should we want to include iRIP style
functionality in CAP.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Stracke [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 12:05 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: iRIP and CAP

[email-masked] wrote:

> So it sounds like 1 vote to let iRIP expire.  Or did I misread
> your meaning?

Mmm...I would actually prefer to see iRIP exist; I think
real-time iTIP has value.  But, if we can't do iRIP, then we
should do the subset.

Hmm.  OK, so Bruce and I want to finish iRIP.  I'm willing to
work on it; Bruce, are you? Does anybody have any objections to
seeing iRIP completed and standardized?

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Solipsists have all the fun.                 |
[email-masked]|                                             |
\==============================================================/

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 11:04:11 -0700

> good information should we want to include iRIP style

I think we already did that. That's why I am curious if
someone found something in iRIP that is not in CAP.

-Doug