Subject: RE: iRIP and CAP

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 15:51:56 -0400

I think we should renew iRIP as well.  I agree, we may want to include iRIP
functionality in CAP

[email-masked] on 07/18/2000 12:34:20 PM

                                                              

 To:      [email-masked], [email-masked]             
                                                              
 cc:      (bcc: Cengiz Satir/ON Technology)                   

 Subject: RE: iRIP and CAP                                    

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: xxx <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 22:23:13 -0400

> I think we should renew iRIP as well.  I agree, we may want to include iRIP

iRIP functionallity is already in CAP. Do you know of something that's not  in
CAP?

-
Doug Royer (On IETF terminal room computer)