Re: [Ietf-calsify] xCal - time to submit?

[Doug Royer <Doug@xxxxxxxxx>]

Aki Niemi wrote:
> [Speaking as an individual, not chair.]
>
> Hi,
>
> A couple of issues occured to me while reading the draft:
>
> First, the problem this draft is trying to solve seems approximately the 
> same that MMUSIC aimed at in its SDPng work, in which the idea was to 
> move from the current SDP into an XML based format. Even the core 
> difficulty seems to be the same, namely the huge installed base only 
> supporting the legacy format makes transition a bit hairy.

What move?

What transition?

> Secondly, if we think of xCal as being a next generation iCal format, 

Clearly you have not read the draft. It says:


 	This memo only provides an alternative, XML
   	representation for the standard syntax defined in [iCAL].

No 'Next generation' at all.

If you go to the CALSCH mailing list archives you can see that other
non-1:1 mappings of iCal were NOT desired and discouraged by the IESG.


> wouldn't it be more beneficial to design it from scratch instead of 
> simply doing a 1:1 syntactic transform?

Fell free to submit such a draft. The xCal draft allow iCal
data "as defined in iCal to be mixed with XML data.

The rest of your email seems to repeat your above point.

--

Doug Royer                     | http://INET-Consulting.com
-------------------------------|-----------------------------

              We Do Standards - You Need Standards

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