Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-calsch-many-xcal-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 11:15:57 -0400

I know there is another mailing list that discusses xCal.  However, since 
this draft says - "calsch-many", John is right - it is supposed to be 
discussed on this list as well - particularly if something gets submitted 
to the IETF.
___________________
Patricia Egen Consulting
www.egenconsulting.com
423-875-2652

John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
07/29/2002 10:38

        To:     [email-masked]
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-calsch-many-xcal-02.txt

[email-masked] wrote:

>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
>This draft is a work item of the Calendaring and Scheduling Working Group 
of the IETF.
So how come it got updated when it hasn't been discussed in the WG since 
February?

In any case, the presence of mapping tables in the draft is sufficient 
to demonstrate that the format specified by the draft is not isomorphic 
to text/calendar (the mapping tables have to be updated whenever 
text/calendar is extended), which means interoperability cannot be 
guaranteed, which means the format is a non-starter.

-- 
/===========================================================\
|John Stracke      [email-masked]                  |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com                |
|Centiv            |My opinions are my own.                 |
|===========================================================|
|We must be devious, cunning, inventive... too bad we're us.|
\===========================================================/

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:06:26 -0600

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> I know there is another mailing list that discusses xCal.  However,
> since this draft says - "calsch-many", John is right - it is supposed
> to be discussed on this list as well - particularly if something gets
> submitted to the IETF.

It is not a WG submission. It does not have to be discussed
on *this* list. The plan is to keep it going until we feel
it is ready - then ask he WG to endorse it.

I did not pick the name, I just bumped the revision :-)
I have no problem with changing the name of the draft.

There will probibaly be another revision out next month
with an updated DTD.

See:

	http://INET-Consulting.com/xcal-dev

I noticed that Pat and Bob we on the Cc list for part
of the discussion.

	http://INET-Consulting.com/xcal-dev/msg00129.html

-Doug

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 10:18:32 -0600

It is not a WG submission. It does not have to be discussed
on this list. The plan is to keep it going until we feel
it is ready - then ask he WG to endorse it.

There will probably be another revision out next month
with an updated DTD that Eric, Frank, and I have been
working on (Surendra is on a leave of absence until fall).

See:

Feel free to join the list, however it is not a CALSCH WG
list. It is used by the authors of the draft to communicate
and it is open and public. The purpose of the list
is for those interested in a 1:1 mapping between XML-iCal
and iCal. Some non-1:1 mapping is in the draft and we
are working to remove those from the DTD. However the
submission is supposed to be at this time, an individual
submission.

To join the list:

	[email-masked]

-Doug

---

From: Bob Mahoney <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:55:13 -0400

>it is ready - then ask he WG to endorse it.

A couple of small points:

In the current form, this is a revision of a WG draft.  The intent of 
the chairs was that a subset of interested and motivated folks work 
on the xcal issues, and come pack with one or more proposals for 
consider by the WG.  (essentially as a "design team" for these 
issues)   We encourage everyone with an interest to participate in 
these side discussions.

Renaming the draft to whatever that group might feel best suits their 
discussions is appropriate.  Please understand that the current title 
implies some process-related meaning that is not quite accurate at 
the moment.

The xcal work will certainly remain an interest of the WG, and even 
as an individual draft would probably be funneled back this way by 
the ADs as it matures.

We need to retain a sense of the -01 version of this title, as that 
is the "official" WG state.  This (probably quite obsolete) -01 draft 
will be what we revise, based on the xcal group's work and the sense 
at that time of the WG.  The chairs will work to combat confusion so 
that when we bring the design team's work back in for general 
discussion, we aren't too much more befuddled than usual...

The overall hope is that those most interested in this draft ,and 
related subjects, can hash out some of the issues off to one side, 
and later present the WG with a more mature/finished/whatever 
treatment, which will ease the search for consensus.

-Bob