Subject: Re: Participation In CAP

From: Bob Mahoney <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 18:36:48 -0500

Frank-

I'm very sorry to see you leave the CAP effort.  Your input and 
leadership will be sorely missed.

It would be very helpful to know exactly what aspects of the CAP 
technical direction you feel might be off-track- it's not apparent to 
me where your concerns lie.  Even if you will be unable to 
participate in their resolution, it would be very useful if you could 
explain where you think we have fundamental problems.

I personally believe that if CAP is worth doing, it is probably only 
worth doing with standards-track as the goal.  As long as there are 
interested people willing to work on the problem, and the ADs feel we 
can be useful as a WG, I'd like to see the work completed.

-Bob

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 18:31:21 -0500

Folks:

After some lengthly and careful thought, I would like to ask that my name
be removed as an editor for the current Calendar Access Protocol
specification. This is not a reflection on the other editors for this I-D.
They remain some of the most forward thinking experts on C&S in the
industry and hopefully, still my friends and colleagues!

However, it is apparent to me that the current CAP work effort is not
proceeding in the technical direction or with the schedule that I had
expected. The current draft is making presumptions about the technical
direction and the priority of features that ought to be included in the
initial version CAP. I disagree with these current directions and
priorities. In addition, I believe this current effort is draining the
resources and focus that SHOULD BE applied to iCalendar/iTIP/iMIP
interoperability testing.

I think that the current effort should be published as an Internet-Draft
but is not suitable for publication as an RFC.

I personally (and with Corporate sponsorship) remain _ever_ committed to my
responsibilities as editor for the iCalendar (RFC 2445), iTIP (RFC 2446)
and iMIP (RFC 2447) drafts and also the whole heartedly support the current
renewed focus on demonstrating interoperability between iCalendar/iTIP/iMIP
implementations and the progress of these three drafts within the IETF
document process.

Letting go of this responsibility will allow me to focus on what I believe
ought to be a higher C&S industry priority.

-- Frank Dawson

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 16:05:52 -0800

[email-masked] wrote:
> specification.

Ouch!

> This is not a reflection on the other editors for this I-D.

> expected. 

The speed if CAP is of concern to many of us. I do however think
we are making some progress and the pace is picking up.

> The current draft is making presumptions about the technical
> priorities.

I assume you have been busy lately - we missed your input.

> In addition, I believe this current effort is draining the

I do not see that CAP is slowing down iCalendar/iTIP/iMIP testing.
I see CAP as the reason that the vendors are starting to be concerned
about interoperability testing as CAP can't work if iCalendar/iTIP/iMIP
is not working.

> but is not suitable for publication as an RFC.

Why?

-Doug