At 10:02 PM -0400 7/14/03, Allen Wyke wrote:
>I think you are making it a "requirement" (as defined by supporting
>MUSTs and SHOULDs) without meaning too.
No, I definitely meant to. I'm suggesting that the
message-management capabilities supported by the referenced elements
in CAP would be equally useful in the IB message... and that it would
be more appropriate to reuse existing components than to reinvent the
wheel. If SHOULD and MUST mean essentially the same thing in this
context then please feel free to read this proposal as a MUST.
>Don't get me wrong, I would love for CAP to be part of ICS, but I would
>caution the approach for v1.0.
That's not what's proposed. The proposal is merely that a particular
set of elements that also are used in CAP... those that provide for
message identification and management... are equally applicable to,
and can be reused in, the ICS messages.
- Art
