minutes from calsch WG meeting at IETF 59, 2004-03-02

["RL 'Bob' Morgan" <rlmorgan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I sent the minutes below to the IETF secretariat earlier today for
inclusion in the official procedings, but they're still accepting updates
for a while, so please comment if anything needs to be fixed.

 - RL "Bob"

---

IETF calsch WG meeting
IETF 59, Seoul, South Korea
2004-03-02
submitted by RL "Bob" Morgan
  also thanks to Lisa Dusseault for Jabber scribing

The meeting was called to order at 1415 by co-chair RL "Bob" Morgan.

The first agenda item was WG status.  Bob noted that finishing CAP is the
main thing, and that a proposed charter revision reflecting this, with
some possible new work items, and new milestones, had been sent to the
list.  Ted Hardie, the WG's area director, said that accurate milestones
would be good, but that it is important to have identified authors for all
charter work items; it would also be good to know if people are actually
implementing CAP.

Doug Royer said (via Jabber) that he, Novell, and Oracle are implementing
CAP.  Cyrus Daboo (also via Jabber) commented that he is more interested
in caldav first, then CAP later.  Lisa Dusseault said that CAP is not
well-suited to the product of her new employer, the Open Source
Application Foundation, which prefers a smart client model.  Bob said that
the University of Washington is implementing a CAP server.  Nathaniel
Borenstein said that IBM is not implementing CAP, and that to his
knowledge Microsoft is not either.  Ted asked if these are all server
implementations.  Doug said that his implementation will include clients.

Bob said that a lack of CAP implementors might cause the WG to abandon
taking CAP to standardization, but that doesn't seem to be the situation.
Doug noted that some implementors will wait until CAP reaches RFC status.

Bob also noted that there are some who say that CAP has major flaws or is
unsuited for their use, but this is hard to express as an issue with the
CAP document per se.  What effect this type of comment should have on our
WG direction isn't clear.

Bob asked if there were new issues to raise regarding CAP at this time,
deferring discussion of items already raised on the list or via bugzilla.
Nathaniel expressed support for Lisa's comment about the CAP "smart
server" model being the wrong one, and that a model where the calendar
server is a simple store would be better.  He also expressed concern with
the iCal spec, that it suffers from ambiguity that makes interoperability
difficult to achieve in any but the simplest of cases.  Doug commented
that iCal and CAP are large because support for real-time scheduling and
coordination is complex.

Bob said that proceeding quickly to last call with CAP and handing some of
these assessments to the IESG might be the best way to get resolution
expeditiously.  Ted said that while there is no requirement for there to
be implementations for a doc to be a Proposed Standard, there is a
requirement for serious review, preferably by implementors.  So he urged
the chairs to require some number of real reviews before progressing the
doc.  Doug said that since CAP is big, many people want to wait until the
WG says it's ready.

There being no more comments on this or other topics, the WG adjourned at
1436.