CALSCH: Jabber full log (short)]
Doug Royer <[email protected]> Mon, 01 Mar 2004 23:00:14 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.calendar |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
(22:18:50) hardie: We've started. (22:18:53) hardie: Anyone remote? (22:19:10) cyrus_daboo: yes (22:19:14) DougRoyer: Remote from here - everywhere - I am in Idaho. (22:19:59) hardie: Lisa volunteers to scribe into the jabber room (22:21:19) Lisa D: Hello calsch'ers (22:21:46) Lisa D: Slide: agenda includes WG status, proposed charter revision, CAP, other... (22:22:31) Lisa D: Bob: sent charter to DL already (22:23:21) Lisa D: Bob: charter includes finishing CAP, our main outstanding item (22:24:15) Lisa D: Bob: need to find people to help complete that work (22:25:00) Lisa D: Ted: we should definitely have charter milestones in future, not in past. (22:25:11) Lisa D: Ted: but you need to make sure you have document authors for all milestones (22:26:21) Lisa D: Ted: It would also be good to know if there are people actually wanting to implement CAP (22:26:43) DougRoyer: I know that I, Novel, and Oracle are implementing. (22:27:32) cyrus_daboo: I'm more interested in the WebDAV (CALDAV) solution in the short term and perhaps CAP later... (22:28:11) DougRoyer: And I think Sun (22:29:18) hardie: me: thanks. (22:29:50) hardie: Lisa: OSAF (her future employers) seems to feel that CAP is not suited to their client model (smart client) (22:30:53) Lisa D: Bob also said (before my comment) that UWashington was implementing a server (22:31:27) hardie: Nathaniel: IBM is not currently implementing, no indication that MSoft is. (22:32:05) hardie: Are these all server implmentations? (22:32:23) hardie: asks lisa (22:32:26) DougRoyer: I will have clients (22:33:19) Lisa D: Bob: So that's some implementations, tho perhaps not as much as we'd like (22:33:47) Lisa D: Bob: a significant lack of implementors might lead us to decide not to continue work on CAP - I don't think this constitutes that lack. (22:34:09) DougRoyer: Many will wait until the spec is RFC status. (22:34:12) Lisa D: Bugzilla repository exists to manage CAP issues (22:34:22) Lisa D: (that was still bob) (22:34:56) Lisa D: Bob: it's hard to create a bugzilla bug that just says "there are major flaws" (22:35:16) DougRoyer: Its harder to fix that bug. (22:35:36) cyrus_daboo: So what are the major flaws? (22:35:44) nsb: Yeah, it's actually pretty *easy* to create the bug report. :-) (22:35:45) Lisa D: Bob: Anybody want to raise further issues with CAP here? (22:36:17) Lisa D: Bob: There are known CAP issues but they're on the list, I don't think they need to be repeated here. (22:36:38) DougRoyer: Perhaps someone can accept the task of filing them? (22:37:12) Lisa D: Nathaniel (NSB) is at the mic - "I feel Lisa put her finger on something important -- the lack of model" (22:37:30) Lisa D: NSB: The more I think about it, the more I think the cal server is a simple store -- but that's nothing like what we've got (in CAP) (22:38:17) Lisa D: Bob: I wasn't here when CAP was originally conceived -- I don't know if its state is due to deliberate design tradeoffs or accident. Mabye that doesn't matter much now (22:38:20) nsb: My comments are only partly about CAP, by the way -- I think ical in general suffers from this lack of clarity (22:39:22) DougRoyer: iCal (and CAP) are much more complex than 'calendaring' what looks like bloat is the supported needed for real time scheduling (in CAP) and coordination in all of iCal (22:39:27) Lisa D: Bob: I'm inclined to have a short last call in the WG and hand it to the IESG for future disposition. (22:40:15) Lisa D: Bob: Unless the ADs want to comment on that readiness... (22:40:51) Lisa D: Ted: To address a previous question, there is no requirement for demonstrated interoperability to go forward (22:41:02) Lisa D: Ted: there is a requirement for real review, ideally by implementors. (22:41:19) Lisa D: Ted: "Silence = consent" is problematic. I encourage you to require a minimum of N reviews. (22:41:44) Lisa D: Ted: and corral people into doing them. Make sure that what you send up, even if it's not the be-all-end-all in this space, there are contributions it can make to this. (22:42:57) DougRoyer: CAP is so big, people want to wait until we say it is ready. And I AGREE - implementors - those are the ones that will find issues. (22:43:18) Lisa D: Bob: We're adjourned. -- Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com -------------------------------|----------------------------- [email protected] | Office: (208)520-4044 http://Royer.com/People/Doug | Fax: (866)594-8574 | Cell: (208)520-4044 We Do Standards - You Need Standards
smime.p7s
(application/x-pkcs7-signature, 4.6 KB) - not displayed