Subject: RE: iptel and iCalendar

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:48:50 -0500

Jonathan replied:
> I agree this would be the ideal goal; I don't want to give the 
impression
> that we don't want this. However, meeting our own requirements was first
> priority.

Im a bit late returning to this thread but Ive to keep up.  Perhaps there 
is some way to balance the iptel requirements with the IESG desire. 
Granted Im coming from the calsch side and have been actively working on 
our efforts but I see a slipery slope in saying "We wanted to used Group 
X's format except where it did not quite match our usage model so we 
changed it to suite us.  And by the way, the changes are into compatiable 
w/the original work.  However we did it for a good reason: to meet our 
requirements."  This could become the basis for yet other groups do 
justify doing it again and thats not so good.  Besides, sometimes 
requirements need to be revised or refined a bit.  After all, are there 
any developers out there who have not seen their product requirments 
change between starting and shipping the product??

> > I don't take any position on whether O(1) is needed or not (but I 
> > sure hear strong requirements from the IPTEL people).
> > 
> > I further don't want a fight here, and especially not via email.
> > 
> > Pat, can we use 15 minutes  if the CALSH agenda time to talk 
> > about this issue?
> > 
> > IPTEL people can you have some people there during the CALSH meeting?
> 
> We could; unfortunately it conflicts with avt. [Snip, snip] Another
> alternative is to hold the discussion during iptel. Our agenda is very 
light
> and there is sufficient time for a good discussion on this subject. 
iptel is
> meeting Monday morning.

Im not sure a fight is brewing here (unless volume of email recently on 
SKiCal is an indication, eh Greg) but I for one am quite interested in 
resolving this somehow.  Unfortuantely not all of us will be able to make 
it to this IETF so I would like to see as much done before (and after) on 
the mailing list.  (Besides I doubt 15 minutes would be sufficient to 
cover this.).   Ill try to get some spare cycles to re-read the iptel 
draft and see if some compromises can be proposed for discussion.

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: [email-masked]
Iris Associates                          Phone: 978.392.5335
Westford, MA, USA 01886                    FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:31:46 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Stracke [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 11:37 AM
> To: Jonathan Rosenberg
> Cc: 'Patrik Fältström'; Jonathan Lennox; 
> [email-masked]; Henning
> Schulzrinne
> Subject: Re: iptel and iCalendar
> 
> 
> > I agree this would be the ideal goal; I don't want to give 
> the impression
> Yeah, but there's a meta-question here: are they your 
> requirements, or your
> users'? 

Well, there is a chain of customers for the CPL specification. The first
level of customers are server vendors which implement a CPL interpreter and
execution environment. The next level are the end users that are able to
create services using CPL that run on these boxes. There are also the
developers of tools that generate CPL scripts.

The requirement for O(1) is from the first level of customer, the
implementors of CPL execution environments. 

> You (plural; i.e., iptel) had the key insight that it 
> would be useful
> to be able to share scheduling data between a calendar store 
> and a telephony
> switch; and I think you were right.  The question then 
> becomes, how important
> is that capability?

I think it is pretty important.

> 
> Personally, I think it's very important; and I also think 
> you've come up with a
> valuable subset of the iCalendar recurrence rules--valuable 
> enough that I want
> to see if we can adopt it for iCalendar proper.  Then 
> everything will be in
> harmony.

That would be ideal from my perspective.

-Jonathan R.

---
Jonathan D. Rosenberg                       72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist                             First Floor
dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com