Subject: Subject: Comments: Draft-many-ical-ski -SKiCal position

From: "greg fitzpatrick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 03:40:59 +0100

Subject: Comments: Draft-many-ical-ski -SKiCal position

First of all I would like to thank Doug for taking the time to actually wade
through the first SKiCal draft and write down his reactions.  It is just
this kind of criticism which we are hoping for, the alternative being
silence (read -who cares).  I would like to answer the points on which we
differ.
Since there are so many issues raised, I and other members of our WG, will
bite them off on individual mails, and hope that this itemization makes it
easier to concentrate on the specific details of quite independent issues.
In this first message I would just like to reiterate once again the SKiCal
Point of view.
We came into the CALSCH environment quite late in the game, a lot of water
had already passed under the bridge, and even though we researched the
archives, we invariably tried to open some doors which were considered by
the group as definitely closed, e.g. embedding vCards in iCal objects.
Our SKiCal goal, was and is, considerably wider in scope than iCal's, and
sometimes one might question if iCal was the right place for SKiCal to be at
all.  But for this, the CALSCH WG just might share the blame, CALSCH members
can also not help from seeing iCal in a greater perspective than just the
ol' office meeting. Look at the examples of football (or is it basketball?)
games, and anniversaries in the RFCs, and see how both Doug and Frank rose
to the challenge of describing the operating hours of "Sam's bakery" with
2445 syntax.
We realize that the CALSCH WG is way behind "schedule" and it is out of
respect for that predicament that we have left you in peace, for the most
part anyway:-). Every time we have entered the fracas, it has just seemed to
slow things down.  We too, would like to see CAP put to bed.
But on the other hand, Doug wrote (in a very isolated spark of positivism in
his chow-down on the SKiCal draft) the following about one SKiCal property.
(3.2.4) Relative times.
 This is one I think is so important I wonder how we missed it
 in iCalendar.
Thanks for this acknowledgement Doug, but I believe that there is a lot more
in the SKiCal draft, though admittedly not very crisply written, which has
definitely been missed in iCalendar- even when limiting ourselves to humdrum
office meetings. And if we do wish to move on to cover football games and
theatre performances and opening times and so on, well then there are some
very majors discrepancies to clear up first.  To begin with the very essence
of the iCalendar object has a serious logical flaw.  See my next mail       
 Subject: Comments: Draft-many-iCal-ski - DIPS and DOPS

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 23:36:49 -0400

Greg, thank you for your comments.  I must, however, take exception to 
your comments regarding the Calsch group.  As you said, you came into this 
late in the game.  Therefore, I don't think it is appropriate for you to 
criticize the group.   Saying we should share the blame,  or that you 
stayed out of the fray to avoid our "predicament", etc, are all quite 
unnecessary.  Please keep to the topic at hand - determining whether or 
not your work is valid for inclusion on the CAP effort.   As we have 
stated, you are welcome to form a Working Group to proceed on your 
efforts.  The group, myself in particular, made efforts to ensure you had 
a chance to state your case in Olso.  Remember, you always have the option 
of forming your own working group to proceed if you feel you are not 
getting the support you need from the members of this list.

---

From: "greg fitzpatrick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 09:48:07 +0100

Pat and other friends.
Oh, I am so sorry - I never meant this as a criticism of the group. 
Elements of RFC 2445 yes - the group, no!  I love the group, they tend to be
a bit rough at meetings with new kids who don't know the ropes, but we have
had so much help from Frank and Doug and others who have come with help and
advice.  And I am sincerely thankful for time we were given in Oslo and your
personal effort towards that. This is a terrible misunderstanding.
"Share the blame" 
With this I mean, that not just the SKiCal people are tempted to expand the
circumference of iCal and that this shows up in the examples I named.  And
yes these examples inspired us.  Sharing the blame = sharing the vision!    
 
"The predicament"
We feel that there are a few conceptual faults and quite a few important
omissions in RFC 2445, but there is also a general impatience to get CAP
wrapped up.  At this stage there is an understandable reluctance to monkey
around with RFC2445, since it would entail changes in several other RFCs and
slowdown CAP. This is definitely a predicament for all.
We are very aware that we are talking about a new standard here.  But it
seems reasonable that the new standard, be it iCal 2 or SKiCal, has
to/should evolve dialectically out of RFC2445. 
Doug was commenting on the SKiCal draft and I was replying to those
comments.  He was helping us.  He pointed out several valid weaknesses which
we must speedily address.  And I am trying to clarify those ideas which we
have such a hard time communicating to Doug and others. 
Greg
Pat wrote:
Greg, thank you for your comments.  I must, however, take exception to your
comments regarding the Calsch group.  As you said, you came into this late
in the game.  Therefore, I don't think it is appropriate for you to
criticize the group.   Saying we should share the blame,  or that you stayed
out of the fray to avoid our "predicament", etc, are all quite unnecessary. 
Please keep to the topic at hand - determining whether or not your work is
valid for inclusion on the CAP effort.   As we have stated, you are welcome
to form a Working Group to proceed on your efforts.  The group, myself in
particular, made efforts to ensure you had a chance to state your case in
Olso.  Remember, you always have the option of forming your own working
group to proceed if you feel you are not getting the support you need from
the members of this list.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 13:33:03 -0400

Hi, Peter. We'd love to have the help.  Here's what you can do for a 
start.  Go to the IETF Calendar web site at 
http://www.imc.org/ietf-calendar/.  There are pointers to archives on that 
site.  Also, you may want to review the different RFCs and drafts that are 
available.  The same URL has links to these drafts. 

This is a pointer to a new draft we are working on called Guide To 
Internet Calendaring Implementors (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-calsch-imp-guide-00.txt)

Once you read the drafts and the archive (unfortnately, that may take a 
while), then you can start replying on the mailing list with your 
comments.  That's how most work should be accomplished.  The other thing 
you may want to do is join us at the IETF meeting in Washington on 
November 8th.  You can get the info about participation at the meeting at 
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/IETF-46.html.  We have a 2 hour session 
planned on Monday of that week.  You can meet the editors of most of the 
drafts as well as other interested parties. 
- - - - - - -
Peter Dickson wrote:
 
I would like to get involved but have not participated in this sort of
thing before.

I run a software company in the UK and we want to develop a
calendar/scheduling application (as part of a suite) that uses standard
protocols. I discovered this IETF working group through following links on
Cyrusoft's Mulberry (email client) web site.

How can I get up to speed with what's been happening and, more to the
point, how can I help with taking things forward?

Kind regards

---

From: "greg fitzpatrick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 21:39:59 +0100

Thanks Pat
The last thing I want is for anyone to think we are not grateful - we are.  
Our representative in Washington will be Johan Groth.  He is the sharpest
knife in our drawer, a doctor in Theoretical Physics :-) and the head of
ISOC in this country.  I hope you can arrange an informal social
get-together which he can take part in.
Greg
  
OK, now I feel better. I knew we were trying to help and I can understand
the language issues raised by Par.  We have the same issues trying to
understand Swedish.  Maybe we can figure out some way to help out.  I wish
we got more comments from other people besides Frank and Doug.  It's hard to
judge the response to a draft if no one makes suggestions.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 17:16:38 -0400

I got a note previously from Johan.  I'll make sure he gets invited to 
plenty of dinners so by the time he leaves he will know our group!

"greg fitzpatrick" <[email-masked]>
10/15/99 04:39 PM

        To:     [email-masked]
        cc:     [email-masked]
        Subject:        Re: Subject: Comments: Draft-many-ical-ski -SKiCal position

Thanks Pat

OK, now I feel better. I knew we were trying to help and I can understand 
the language issues raised by Par. We have the same issues trying to 
understand Swedish. Maybe we can figure out some way to help out. I wish 
we got more comments from other people besides Frank and Doug. It's hard 
to judge the response to a draft if no one makes suggestions.