[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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
-------------------------------|-----------------------------
Doug@xxxxxxxxx                 | Office: (208)520-4044
http://Royer.com/People/Doug   | Fax:    (866)594-8574
                              | Cell:   (208)520-4044

We Do Standards - You Need Standards


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature