Re: proposed revised charter for IETF calsch WG

Yes, I agree.

However I did not read 'some features were not implemented'
to mean '(substantial) revisions'

:-)

Nathaniel Borenstein wrote:

>
> On Jul 30, 2004, at 7:08 PM, Doug Royer wrote:
>
>> I do not think that RFC02445-7 have significant changes.
>
>
> Alas, I disagree.  RFC 2026 spells out in detail the requirements for 
> advancing a protocol to Draft Standard status, and the current RFCs 
> don't even come close to fulfilling them.  A couple of relevant 
> excerpts from Section 4.1.2:
>
>    A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable
>    implementations from different code bases have been developed, and
>    for which sufficient successful operational experience has been
>    obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level.
>     .........
>    The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable
>    implementations applies to all of the options and features of the
>    specification.  In cases in which one or more options or features
>    have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
>    implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard
>    level only if those options or features are removed.
>
> The just-concluded-today Interop of the Calendaring and Scheduling 
> Consortium was interesting in many ways (as will be reported at the WG 
> on Tuesday and to this list) but if there's one thing it showed very 
> clearly, it was that there are multiple "options and features" that 
> have not been demonstrated to interoperate, and possibly some that 
> haven't yet been implemented once.
>
> I hate to bear the gloomy message, but I think there is a lot of 
> accumulated wisdom embedded in the IETF process.  We've got some 
> serious work to do before iCal is worthy of Draft status, which 
> (according to RFC 2026, same section) indicates "a strong belief that 
> the specification is mature and will be useful."   As long as vendors 
> are still writing new adapters to deal with each others' varying 
> flavors of iCal, I find "mature and useful" to be a bit of a stretch.
>
> The good news is that we can probably improve iCal greatly by 
> simplifying it, rather than making it more complex.  More on that 
> Tuesday, if not sooner.   I must sleep before yet another spam 
> conference in the morning...  -- Nathaniel


-- 

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