Subject: Re: draft-07 - XML

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:29:51 -0400

Agreed Bernard. That's what we, the chairs have been saying! Glad to hear 
you have been listening.  My point, though, was that we will eventually 
need to make changes to the existing RFC's - and my suggestion was that we 
incorporate them all at the same time.
___________________
Patricia Egen Consulting
www.egenconsulting.com
423-875-2652

Bernard Desruisseaux <[email-masked]>
06/12/02 14:28

        To:     [email-masked]
        cc:     [email-masked]
        Subject:        Re: draft-07 - XML

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> I might be wrong, but if we are suggesting changing the format of the
> ABNF, then, indeed, we need to update the version of previous RFC's.
>  But, I think we may have to do that anyway.  There are things coming
> out of the interop testing that need to go into iCalendar.  Should we
> not try to get them in and incorporate any other "matters that arise".
>  Since it's an established RFC, and if we can prove that the changes
> are required and won't break (but rather fix) vendor implementations,
> and ... we get the list to approve them, then getting the RFC's
> through should not be that long of a process.  I believe the "getting
> the list to approve" will be the hard part.

Given that there are ways to implement CAP without having to
change RFC 2445 and RFC 2446, I believe that we should stay
focused on CAP and not work on these RFCs for now.

Cheers,
Bernard
-- 
Bernard Desruisseaux                    mailto:[email-masked]
Research & Development                  Tel.  : +1 514 733-8500 x4213
Steltor                                 Fax   : +1 514 733-8878

---

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:54:26 -0400

>focused on CAP and not work on these RFCs for now.

We should do the Right Thing for CAP.  Obsoleting 2445 would be a lot of 
work (it'd open up the chance for people to suggest "just one more 
thing"), but we can issue a small interim RFC that updates 2445.  Or we 
might be able to have the CAP RFC update 2445; but I'd guess it'd be 
simpler to isolate the update into a separate document.

/===============================================================\
|John Stracke                    |Principal Engineer            |
[email-masked]   |Incentive Systems, Inc.       |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.       |
|===============================================================|
|Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it.|
\===============================================================/

---

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:56:15 -0400

>My point, though, was that we will eventually need to make changes to
>the existing RFC's - and my suggestion was that we incorporate them
>all at the same time.

But, if CAP requires a change to 2445, then doing all the changes at once 
will mean putting off CAP until we have consensus on all the 2445 changes.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:05:32 -0400

Ah, true.  Don't want to do that.  So, maybe a mini draft is a thought.

"John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
06/12/02 14:56

        To:     [email-masked]
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: draft-07 - XML

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:05:00 -0400

Ok, I'm confused (easy to do). So, list, help me out here.  I think what 
Doug is saying is that what he wants to do is add another property.  And, 
if you read RFC2445 and the others, it says you can use either the 
properties defined in the three drafts (iCal, iTIP and iMIP) or any other 
IANA defined property.  So, if we do what you suggest, a mini draft to 
update RFC2445, wouldn't that work?  I think so, but want to make sure I'm 
reading this right. Any other lurkers on the list are welcome to respond! 
8-)
___________________
Patricia Egen Consulting
www.egenconsulting.com
423-875-2652

06/12/02 14:54