Re: proposed revised charter for IETF calsch WG

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 agree. This WG needs to finish up. It has absorbed too many tasks that
conflict with each other. Many get upset when more than one task is
performed at a time and that is holding up individual submissions and other
ideas. I have been repeatedly asked NOT to submit the XML draft until 
after CAP.
Lets ship CAP and allow iCal to move forward.

In addition separate working groups can then focus on  specific tasks.

I do not think that RFC02445-7 have significant changes. They do however
have many typo's and a few corrections.

-- 

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