Re: proposed revised charter for IETF calsch WG

[pregen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Bob, I think Nathaniel is saying to
keep CAP and the RFC revisions separate.  I don't think he meant not
finish the CAP issue and get it to last call (soon!)

"RL 'Bob' Morgan" <rlmorgan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: owner-ietf-calendar@xxxxxxxxxxxx

08/02/2004 17:52

To	Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc	IETF calsch WG <ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx>, Ted Hardie <hardie@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Scott Hollenbeck <sah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject	Re: proposed revised charter for IETF calsch WG

On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, 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

Nathaniel:  just to be clear, the proposed charter I submitted has
just
the one item, completing CAP, and updates the several-year-old calsch
charter which is now entirely obsolete.  I might interpret your comment
as
saying that this WG should not even adopt this amended minimal charter,
should not complete CAP, and should close immediately.  Or you might
be
just disagreeing with the idea that 2445-7 revisions be in scope.  Can
you
clarify?

 - RL "Bob"