Subject: CALSCH: Jabber full log (short)]

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 23:00:14 -0700

(22:18:50) hardie: We've started.
(22:18:53) hardie: Anyone remote?
(22:19:10) cyrus_daboo: yes
(22:19:14) DougRoyer: Remote from here - everywhere - I am in Idaho.
(22:19:59) hardie: Lisa volunteers to scribe into the jabber room
(22:21:19) Lisa D: Hello calsch'ers
(22:21:46) Lisa D: Slide: agenda includes WG status, proposed charter 
revision, CAP, other...
(22:22:31) Lisa D: Bob: sent charter to DL already
(22:23:21) Lisa D: Bob: charter includes finishing CAP, our main 
outstanding item
(22:24:15) Lisa D: Bob: need to find people to help complete that work
(22:25:00) Lisa D: Ted: we should definitely have charter milestones in 
future, not in past.
(22:25:11) Lisa D: Ted: but you need to make sure you have document 
authors for all milestones
(22:26:21) Lisa D: Ted: It would also be good to know if there are 
people actually wanting to implement CAP
(22:26:43) DougRoyer: I know that I, Novel, and Oracle are implementing.
(22:27:32) cyrus_daboo: I'm more interested in the WebDAV (CALDAV) 
solution in the short term and perhaps CAP later...
(22:28:11) DougRoyer: And I think Sun
(22:29:18) hardie: me: thanks.
(22:29:50) hardie: Lisa:  OSAF (her future employers) seems to feel that 
CAP is not suited to their client model (smart client)
(22:30:53) Lisa D: Bob also said (before my comment) that UWashington 
was implementing a server
(22:31:27) hardie: Nathaniel: IBM is not currently implementing, no 
indication that MSoft is.
(22:32:05) hardie: Are these all server implmentations?
(22:32:23) hardie: asks lisa
(22:32:26) DougRoyer: I will have clients
(22:33:19) Lisa D: Bob: So that's some implementations, tho perhaps not 
as much as we'd like
(22:33:47) Lisa D: Bob: a significant lack of implementors might lead us 
to decide not to continue work on CAP - I don't think this constitutes 
that lack.
(22:34:09) DougRoyer: Many will wait until the spec is RFC status.
(22:34:12) Lisa D: Bugzilla repository exists to manage CAP issues
(22:34:22) Lisa D: (that was still bob)
(22:34:56) Lisa D: Bob: it's hard to create a bugzilla bug that just 
says "there are major flaws"
(22:35:16) DougRoyer: Its harder to fix that bug.
(22:35:36) cyrus_daboo: So what are the major flaws?
(22:35:44) nsb: Yeah, it's actually pretty *easy* to create the bug 
report.  :-)
(22:35:45) Lisa D: Bob: Anybody want to raise further issues with CAP here?
(22:36:17) Lisa D: Bob: There are known CAP issues but they're on the 
list, I don't think they need to be repeated here.
(22:36:38) DougRoyer: Perhaps someone can accept the task of filing them?
(22:37:12) Lisa D: Nathaniel (NSB) is at the mic - "I feel Lisa put her 
finger on something important --  the lack of model"
(22:37:30) Lisa D: NSB: The more I think about it, the more I think the 
cal server is a simple store -- but that's nothing like what we've got 
(in CAP)
(22:38:17) Lisa D: Bob: I wasn't here when CAP was originally conceived 
-- I don't know if its state is due to deliberate design tradeoffs or 
accident. Mabye that doesn't matter much now
(22:38:20) nsb: My comments are only partly about CAP, by the way -- I 
think ical in general suffers from this lack of clarity
(22:39:22) DougRoyer: iCal (and CAP) are much more complex than 
'calendaring' what looks like bloat is the supported needed for real 
time scheduling (in CAP) and coordination in all of iCal
(22:39:27) Lisa D: Bob: I'm inclined to have a short last call in the WG 
and hand it to the IESG for future disposition.
(22:40:15) Lisa D: Bob: Unless the ADs want to comment on that readiness...
(22:40:51) Lisa D: Ted: To address a previous question, there is no 
requirement for demonstrated interoperability to go forward
(22:41:02) Lisa D: Ted: there is a requirement for real review, ideally 
by implementors.
(22:41:19) Lisa D: Ted: "Silence = consent" is problematic.  I encourage 
you to require a minimum of N reviews.
(22:41:44) Lisa D: Ted: and corral people into doing them. Make sure 
that what you send up, even if it's not the be-all-end-all in this 
space, there are contributions it can make to this.
(22:42:57) DougRoyer: CAP is so big, people want to wait until we say it 
is ready.
And I AGREE - implementors - those are the ones that will find issues.
(22:43:18) Lisa D: Bob: We're adjourned.

-- 

Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
-------------------------------|-----------------------------
[email-masked]                 | Office: (208)520-4044
http://Royer.com/People/Doug   | Fax:    (866)594-8574
                               | Cell:   (208)520-4044

              We Do Standards - You Need Standards

---

From: Tim Hare <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:15:11 -0500

I just received a message from "[email-masked]" which contains a 
zip file which appears to contain a script of some sort. I opened the 
archive but not the zip file...  I scanned it with Norton AntiVirus and it 
seems clean. Bob, did you send this to the list or is something/someone 
spoofing you as the sender?

Tim Hare
Interested Bystander, Non-Inc.

---

From: "RL 'Bob' Morgan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 14:58:00 +0900 (KST)

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Tim Hare wrote:

> I just received a message from "[email-masked]" which contains
> a zip file which appears to contain a script of some sort. I opened the
> archive but not the zip file...  I scanned it with Norton AntiVirus and
> it seems clean. Bob, did you send this to the list or is
> something/someone spoofing you as the sender?

There are a zillion of these going around now.  I believe it's the
"Bagle-J" virus or something like that.  Either this one does a better job
than previous ones of targeting mailing lists (by sending as a
subscriber), or it just sends out a lot of messages and happens to hit
lists.  Anyway if you look at the message headers this one came from a
dialup pool in New York, whereas I happen to be in Korea still.  So, just
another day on the Internet ...

 - RL "Bob"