Re: proposed IETF calsch WG charter revision

I glad that we are updating the charter. Thanks!

See my comments inline.

RL 'Bob' Morgan wrote:

> 
> Below is a proposal for a revised charter for this WG, reflecting our
> completed work, new milestones, and the proposal to revise iCalendar etc.
> It is obviously minimal, but is a starting point.  The milestone dates are
> a shot in the dark.  Comments please.
> 
>  - RL "Bob"
> 
> ---
> 
> Calendaring and Scheduling (calsch)
> 
> Last Modified: 2004-nn-nn
> Chair(s):
>   Pat Egen <[email protected]>
>   RL Bob Morgan <[email protected]>
> Applications Area Director(s):
>   Ned Freed <[email protected]>
>   Ted Hardie <[email protected]>
> Applications Area Advisor:
>   Ned Freed <[email protected]>
> Mailing Lists:
>   General Discussion: [email protected]
>   To Subscribe: [email protected]
>   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
> provides guidance for calendar system designers in using these protocols
> (RFC 3283).

  RFC 3283 is more of an overview of the calendaring standards and not
  necessary only for calendar system designers. How about:

    An informational document (RFC 3283) provides an overview of the
    above standards and of CAP.

> 
> 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 a key work item of the WG.
> 
> Since their publication, there has been considerable experience with the
> protocols and objects defined in RFCs 2445-2447.  The WG will update these
> RFCs as required to reflect changes based on this experience.
> 

  I am not sure if the goals of the working group are clear enough.
Is it only to finish CAP and to update the existing RFCs? What
goals would we have to achieve in order to close this working group?
Would finishing CAP be enough?

> Goals and Milestones:
> 
> Jun 04	  	Submit Calendar Access Protocol document to IESG
>                 for consideration as a Proposed Standard.


I think this may be optimistic, unless activity picks up, and we can agree on
the remaining open issues for CAP. Should we put out a 'last call' for open
issues? For instance, we can ask people to post their issues before a certain
deadline, so that we can compile a list. After the deadline, we would
only add new issues to this list by consensus or if they are clearly
important?

> 
> Jul 04	  	Submit Internet-Drafts for iCalendar, iMIP and iTIP
>                 revisions

Again we need a list of open issues. I believe someone used to maintain
such a list, but I do not know what has come of it.

> 
> Nov 04          Submit iCalendar, iMIP and iTIP revisions to IESG for
>                 consideration as standards-track.
> 

This one may be too optimistic. Do we need at least two independent
implementations that implement all the musts in these standards in
order for the docs to be standards-track?

George