Subject: iRIP and CAP

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 18:19:11 -0400

The iRIP (Real Time Processing)  calendar draft has expired.  This note is 
to query the list as to whether it needs to be re-opened or scrapped. 
There is an opinion that much of iRIP is in CAP and does not really need 
to be a separate draft.  Any one who thinks differently should post that 
opinion to the list and state why they feel iRIP should be reinstated.  If 
we do not hear anything from the list, we'll assume that iRIP is "RIP" . 
8-)    (couldn't resist)..

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 09:24:07 -0400

[email-masked] wrote:

> The iRIP (Real Time Processing)  calendar draft has expired.
> This note is to query the list as to whether it needs to be
> re-opened or scrapped.  There is an opinion that much of iRIP
> is in CAP and does not really need to be a separate draft..

It might be a good idea to have a draft specifying how to use CAP
for iRIP-like functionality.  I'm thinking of a profile document,
rather than a separate protocol, specifying a subset of CAP and
the security considerations for the subset.

My thinking here is that CAP has functionality that security
admins might not want to expose through the firewall; giving them
a safer subset would address that.

--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |Piscatorice non aristotelice.                |
[email-masked]|                                             |
\==============================================================/