On Wed December 1 2004 17:07, ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
In the very unlikely event that this ever happens (Oh look! The pigs have
taken
wing!) the right thing to do IMO would be to sync the MIXER revision with
VPIM,
not the other way around. There are probably more VPIM systems in use now
than
there ever were MIXER gateways in their heyday. And I speak here as the
author
of a MIXER gateway who has never done a VPIM implementation.
There's another possible approach, based on general utility of the
functionality represented by the fields as used by both MIXER and
VPIM, viz. standardization of the fields for general use. Of course
that tends to run counter to RFC 2156 section 1.12.
Yep, that would be fine with me, but I do note that such efforts have
in the past had lots of trouble reaching consensus.
Ned