"Michael W. Condry" wrote: > > At 02:45 AM 7/3/2001 +0100, Lloyd Wood wrote: > >I do like the 'extend [..] the iCAP protocol without being obliged to > >retain any level of compatibility with the current iCAP proposal.' > >Fine, since iCAP's just an individual draft -- but isn't extending > >without being compatible something only Microsoft is generally > >regarded as being capable of doing? > > That is not the intent. The intent is that the IETF process > will be followed with regard to iCAP (not some other organization's > process). Not ECMA's, for example? Brian
- Re: OPES charter proposal again. Paul Hoffman / IMC
- Re: OPES charter proposal again. Michael W. Condry
- Re: OPES charter proposal again. Brian E Carpenter
- Re: OPES charter proposal again. Michael W. Condry
- Re: OPES charter proposal again. Michael W. Condry
- Re: OPES charter proposal again. Michael W. Condry
- Re: OPES charter proposal again. James P. Salsman
- Re: OPES charter proposal again. Dave Crocker
- Re: OPES charter proposal again. Michael W. Condry
- Re: OPES charter proposal again. Micah Beck
- Re: OPES charter proposal again. Brian E Carpenter
- RE: OPES charter proposal again. Tomlinson, Gary
- RE: OPES charter proposal again. Ian Cooper