Re: proposed revised charter for IETF calsch WG

On Fri, 2004-07-30 at 21:23, 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

I would support this. It has been with other WGs a problem that
taking on new(extra) work gave the impression the orignal work 
was not done. Companies can use it as an excuse for not
implementing it and does not help progress.

If the CAP RFC is published and the WG is closed the signal to
implementors is clear.


Harrie

> 
> On Jul 30, 2004, at 2:29 PM, RL 'Bob' Morgan wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Obviously the calsch WG has needed an updated charter for some time.  
> > The
> > chairs proposed a revision back in February (25 Feb 2004), about which
> > there was not much discussion.
> >
> > The one substantive uncertain item on that proposed charter was the
> > inclusion of a work item to revise RFCs 2445, 2446, and 2447 (iCal, 
> > iTIP,
> > iMIP).  No one has formally stepped up to do this, though the chairs 
> > have
> > heard that some people may be interested.  In any case, at this point 
> > we
> > suggest that the best course is to complete CAP under the banner of 
> > this
> > WG, and to have the RFC 2445-7 revisions, if any, happen either as
> > individual work or in a new WG chartered for that purpose.  So, the
> > proposed charter below is as small as it can be, including just the 
> > item
> > of completing CAP.  This will be on the agenda for discussion at our
> > meeting in San Diego.
> >
> >  - RL "Bob"
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Calendaring and Scheduling (calsch)
> >
> > Last Modified: 2004-07-30
> > Chair(s):
> >   Pat Egen <[email protected]>
> >   RL Bob Morgan <[email protected]>
> > Applications Area Director(s):
> >   Ted Hardie <[email protected]>
> >   Scott Hollenbeck <[email protected]>
> > Applications Area Advisor:
> >   Scott Hollenbeck <[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
> > (RFC 3283) provides an overview of the calendaring standards.
> >
> > 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 the remaining work item of the WG.
> >
> > Goals and Milestones:
> >
> > Sep 04	  	Submit Calendar Access Protocol document to IESG
> >                 for consideration as a Proposed Standard.
> >
> >
> >
>