Subject: proposed revised charter for IETF calsch WG

From: "RL 'Bob' Morgan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 11:29:19 -0700 (PDT)

Obviously the calsch WG has needed an updated charter for some time.  The
chairs proposed a revision back in February (25 Feb 2004), about which
there was not much discussion.

The one substantive uncertain item on that proposed charter was the
inclusion of a work item to revise RFCs 2445, 2446, and 2447 (iCal, iTIP,
iMIP).  No one has formally stepped up to do this, though the chairs have
heard that some people may be interested.  In any case, at this point we
suggest that the best course is to complete CAP under the banner of this
WG, and to have the RFC 2445-7 revisions, if any, happen either as
individual work or in a new WG chartered for that purpose.  So, the
proposed charter below is as small as it can be, including just the item
of completing CAP.  This will be on the agenda for discussion at our
meeting in San Diego.

 - RL "Bob"

---

Calendaring and Scheduling (calsch)

Last Modified: 2004-07-30
Chair(s):
  Pat Egen <[email-masked]>
  RL Bob Morgan <[email-masked]>
Applications Area Director(s):
  Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
  Scott Hollenbeck <[email-masked]>
Applications Area Advisor:
  Scott Hollenbeck <[email-masked]>
Mailing Lists:
  General Discussion: [email-masked]
  To Subscribe: [email-masked]
  In Body: SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE
  Archive: http://www.imc.org/ietf-calendar/mail-archive/

Description of Working Group:

The calsch WG develops standards to enable heterogeneous calendaring and
scheduling products and systems to interoperate.  Completed
standards-track work includes a specification for calendar objects and an
associated MIME type (RFC 2445, iCalendar), a transport-independent
protocol for exchanging and operating on calendar objects (RFC 2446,
iTIP), a message-based transport for iTIP (RFC 2447, iMIP), and definition
and discovery of calendar URIs (RFC 2739).  An informational document
(RFC 3283) provides an overview of the calendaring standards.

An additional standard protocol in the suite provides access to and
management of calendar objects in a real-time client-server fashion; this
is the "Calendar Access Protocol" (CAP).  Submission of CAP as a Proposed
Standard is the remaining work item of the WG.

Goals and Milestones:

Sep 04	  	Submit Calendar Access Protocol document to IESG
                for consideration as a Proposed Standard.

---

From: Nathaniel Borenstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:23:27 -0400

I am opposed to rechartering the calsch group.  My preference would be 
to shut down the group entirely, and then start a new WG that is 
narrowly focused on revisions to RFCs 2445-7.  I  am particularly 
skeptical that work on CAP or any similar protocol based on those RFC's 
should be done in the same group that is in the middle of revising 
them.  I think progress will be much faster if we divide and conquer, 
and that the (substantial) revisions that are necessary in the base 
RFC's justifies a new group of its own.  -- Nathaniel

---

From: "RL 'Bob' Morgan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 12:47:48 -0700 (PDT)

> In any case, at this point we suggest that the best course is to
> complete CAP under the banner of this WG, and to have the RFC 2445-7
> revisions, if any, happen either as individual work or in a new WG
> chartered for that purpose.

Since someone asked, it's certainly my expectation that this list would
remain available indefinitely for discussions of all the calsch RFCs and
related calendaring stuff, including individual work, if any, on RFC
revisions.  So no need for new lists, at least not until a new WG is
chartered.

 - RL "Bob"

---

From: Harrie Hazewinkel <[email-masked]>
Date: 30 Jul 2004 22:06:57 +0200

> RFC's justifies a new group of its own.  -- Nathaniel

I would support this. It has been with other WGs a problem that
taking on new(extra) work gave the impression the orignal work 
was not done. Companies can use it as an excuse for not
implementing it and does not help progress.

If the CAP RFC is published and the WG is closed the signal to
implementors is clear.

Harrie

---

From: Nathaniel Borenstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:35:04 -0400

On Jul 30, 2004, at 4:06 PM, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:

> I would support this...

While I never want to argue with people who are agreeing with me, I 
have to say that I do NOT view my plan as implying that it's time for 
everyone to implement CAP.  For my part, I believe that iCal as it 
stands is sufficiently flawed that *no* CAP-like protocol can be made 
to work really well.  I believe that we need to go back and clean up 
iCal, and that if we do that right it will make possible a much cleaner 
real-time access protocol.  In that sense, I want to send precisely the 
opposite signal from the one you infer.

I will welcome the publication of CAP, but given the state of iCal it 
will be hard for me to view it as anything more than a useful 
experiment, to be re-evaluated (and probably simplified) once we clean 
up (and simplify) iCal.  For that reason I will also argue for its 
publication with a status of Experimental rather than Proposed 
Standard.  -- Nathaniel

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 17:08:18 -0600

Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:

> skeptical that work on CAP or any similar protocol based on those 
> RFC's should be done in the same group that is in the middle of 
> revising them.  I think progress will be much faster if we divide and 
> conquer, and that the (substantial) revisions that are necessary in 
> the base RFC's justifies a new group of its own.  -- Nathaniel

I agree. This WG needs to finish up. It has absorbed too many tasks that
conflict with each other. Many get upset when more than one task is
performed at a time and that is holding up individual submissions and other
ideas. I have been repeatedly asked NOT to submit the XML draft until 
after CAP.
Lets ship CAP and allow iCal to move forward.

In addition separate working groups can then focus on  specific tasks.

I do not think that RFC02445-7 have significant changes. They do however
have many typo's and a few corrections.

-- 

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