Subject: Re: proposed revised charter for IETF calsch WG

From: Nathaniel Borenstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 04:07:31 -0400

On Jul 30, 2004, at 7:08 PM, Doug Royer wrote:

> I do not think that RFC02445-7 have significant changes.

Alas, I disagree.  RFC 2026 spells out in detail the requirements for 
advancing a protocol to Draft Standard status, and the current RFCs 
don't even come close to fulfilling them.  A couple of relevant 
excerpts from Section 4.1.2:

    A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable
    implementations from different code bases have been developed, and
    for which sufficient successful operational experience has been
    obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level.
     .........
    The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable
    implementations applies to all of the options and features of the
    specification.  In cases in which one or more options or features
    have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
    implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard
    level only if those options or features are removed.

The just-concluded-today Interop of the Calendaring and Scheduling 
Consortium was interesting in many ways (as will be reported at the WG 
on Tuesday and to this list) but if there's one thing it showed very 
clearly, it was that there are multiple "options and features" that 
have not been demonstrated to interoperate, and possibly some that 
haven't yet been implemented once.

I hate to bear the gloomy message, but I think there is a lot of 
accumulated wisdom embedded in the IETF process.  We've got some 
serious work to do before iCal is worthy of Draft status, which 
(according to RFC 2026, same section) indicates "a strong belief that 
the specification is mature and will be useful."   As long as vendors 
are still writing new adapters to deal with each others' varying 
flavors of iCal, I find "mature and useful" to be a bit of a stretch.

The good news is that we can probably improve iCal greatly by 
simplifying it, rather than making it more complex.  More on that 
Tuesday, if not sooner.   I must sleep before yet another spam 
conference in the morning...  -- Nathaniel

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:19:06 -0600

Yes, I agree.

However I did not read 'some features were not implemented'
to mean '(substantial) revisions'

:-)

-- 

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: "RL 'Bob' Morgan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 14:52:35 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:

> 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

Nathaniel:  just to be clear, the proposed charter I submitted has just
the one item, completing CAP, and updates the several-year-old calsch
charter which is now entirely obsolete.  I might interpret your comment as
saying that this WG should not even adopt this amended minimal charter,
should not complete CAP, and should close immediately.  Or you might be
just disagreeing with the idea that 2445-7 revisions be in scope.  Can you
clarify?

 - RL "Bob"

---

From: Nathaniel Borenstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 18:46:16 -0400

I suppose I wouldn't have a major problem with the existing group 
staying around to finish CAP *if* there is critical mass to do so.  
What I myself am interested in doing, however, is starting a new group 
to revise iCal.

For my part, I am skeptical that CAP can succeed until iCal is cleaned 
up, and I believe that said cleanup would have a major effect on the 
design of CAP.  For that reason, I just don't see a lot of point to 
trying to finalize CAP now.  I wouldn't care to argue that others don't 
have the right to try, but I'm not sure that a WG is necessary even for 
that.  -- Nathaniel

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 19:38:58 -0400

Ah, this clarifies his position.  figures that as soon as I send out my 
note a reply comes back from Nathaniel.  8-)

Nathaniel Borenstein <[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked]
08/02/2004 18:46

To
"RL 'Bob' Morgan" <[email-masked]>
cc
IETF calsch WG <[email-masked]>, Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>, 
Scott Hollenbeck <[email-masked]>
Subject
Re: proposed revised charter for IETF calsch WG

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 19:37:46 -0400

Bob, I think Nathaniel is saying to keep CAP and the RFC revisions 
separate.  I don't think he meant not finish the CAP issue and get it to 
last call (soon!)

08/02/2004 17:52

To

 - RL "Bob"