Subject: Re: [Ietf-calsify] Final(?) agenda for CALSIFY tomorrow

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 10:57:04 -0600

There has been some misunderstanding here.

1) IANA does have the ability to register time zones and
    they said they want that role.

2) They do NOT want to be a time zone 'server', just
    a registration place.

After emaling IANA and Ted I sent an email to CALSCH (where
emails must go per 2445 for iCal registration processes) saying
the next revision of the draft will remove all HTTP and FTP
references making the draft an IANA registration process only.
Something IANA says they want to do.

And as soon as the ID submissions are allowed again (after meeting)
I will submit a new additional 2nd draft: tz-server-00.

And it would have been nice if Ted would have told me (the author
of the independent draft) rather than talking to Lisa. In my last
email to Ted I reminded him it was not a CALSIFY draft. Ted also
talked to me in email about 'other ways' to do this, he was not
specific. I want to move this draft forward. All communications
need to be done with all knowledgeable persons.

My 2nd 'SERVER' idea that is independent of the registration draft
is to allow vendors to set up servers to allow any client that
gets an iTIP message generated by their products to get
the latest TZ information. So when you send an iTIP invitation
to a user they will have the the ability to get the latest TZ
information as used by that vendor, and not a snapshot of what
was valid the time it was sent. As many in the U.S. know, our
TZ info may be changing soon. All static VTIMEZONE
entries sent with iCal object may be inaccurate soon for the US.

> 
> 10 min: Timezone Registry Requirements -- new agenda item
>    -  
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-royer-timezone-registry-02.txt
>    - Although this is not a WG chartered item, Ted Hardie (our Area  
> Director) and I discussed this
> draft briefly, and we need to hear from implementors  whether it's a  
> requirement to have a TZ registry
> and if so does it need to  be available in a format that's conducive to  
> clients automatically updating
> their timezone descriptions.
>    - I've also been told that IANA  doesn't have the ability to do a  
> registry with the features
> specified in  this document.
> 
-- 

Doug Royer                     | http://INET-Consulting.com
-------------------------------|-----------------------------

               We Do Standards - You Need Standards

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 08:08:08 +0200

At 10:57 AM -0600 8/1/05, Doug Royer wrote:
>T

Sorry for any confusion on this; I had just talked to the IANA folks
here on site in Paris when Lisa and I ran into each other and chatted.  I
did recommend  Lisa talk to you, but I thought she was doing so after
the IETF meeting and that I had time to talk to you about my discussions
with the IANA folk.  Obviously, I lost the race condition here, and I
apologize for not getting back to you faster,
				Ted

---

From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 10:52:20 +0200

Thanks for the clarifications Doug, and I can assure you there was no  
intent to avoid communicating with you on your draft.  I wanted to discuss  
timezone registries and services in CALSIFY independent of Ted's  
comments.  As the discussion in the WG meeting showed today, although  
CALSIFY's work may not block on timezone rationalization, timezone work  
certainly does affect CALSIFY work and the draft needed to be pointed out  
to CALSIFY participants.

I'm not sure what it means to say that IANA "wants to do" a registry.   
It's my understanding that IANA implements registries (provided they're  
technically able to) based on IETF recommendations resulting from IETF  
review of proposals.  So it would seem more important whether the IETF  
wants IANA to do a registry (and how) and the CALSIFY WG discussion raised  
a few important questions about that.

Lisa

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/