Re: proposed revised charter for IETF calsch WG

On Jul 30, 2004, at 4:06 PM, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:

> I would support this...
>
> If the CAP RFC is published and the WG is closed the signal to
> implementors is clear.

While I never want to argue with people who are agreeing with me, I 
have to say that I do NOT view my plan as implying that it's time for 
everyone to implement CAP.  For my part, I believe that iCal as it 
stands is sufficiently flawed that *no* CAP-like protocol can be made 
to work really well.  I believe that we need to go back and clean up 
iCal, and that if we do that right it will make possible a much cleaner 
real-time access protocol.  In that sense, I want to send precisely the 
opposite signal from the one you infer.

I will welcome the publication of CAP, but given the state of iCal it 
will be hard for me to view it as anything more than a useful 
experiment, to be re-evaluated (and probably simplified) once we clean 
up (and simplify) iCal.  For that reason I will also argue for its 
publication with a status of Experimental rather than Proposed 
Standard.  -- Nathaniel