Subject: [Sipping] SIP Calendaring Events doc

From: Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:17:11 -0700

Hi Aki,

I read your SIP calendaring draft.  I think this is a very good idea 
and very well written, especially for a -00 draft.  However, I don't 
think there is anything new here from a SIP perspective.  I think this 
work is firmly out of scope and would be much more suited to the 
calsify or caldav WGs.   To underscore this, all of the open issues 
relate to calendaring domain expertise (ex: subscription filters to 
select what parts of the calendar are "interesting").  I think your 
draft is in a similar position as my location package whose main issues 
deal with location (which I submitted with a geopriv prefix).

I would like to see this work continue.  While in Paris, please speak 
with the calendaring chairs and see if they are willing to host this 
work.

minor note: I think 1 day is fine for the default subscription

thanks,
-rohan

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments of core SIP

---

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 06:52:25 +0300

Hi Rohan,

ext Rohan Mahy wrote:
> Hi Aki,
> 
> I read your SIP calendaring draft.  I think this is a very good idea and 
> very well written, especially for a -00 draft.  

Thanks.

> However, I don't think 
> there is anything new here from a SIP perspective.  I think this work is 
> firmly out of scope and would be much more suited to the calsify or 
> caldav WGs.

This work _definitely_ needs calendaring folks' attention. However, it 
does fall into sipping's domain of expertise, since it defines two new 
event packages. And as far as I understand the SIP change process, they 
have to go through SIPPING.

>   To underscore this, all of the open issues relate to 
> calendaring domain expertise (ex: subscription filters to select what 
> parts of the calendar are "interesting").  I think your draft is in a 
> similar position as my location package whose main issues deal with 
> location (which I submitted with a geopriv prefix).

Agree.

> with the calendaring chairs and see if they are willing to host this work.

That's the idea.

Cheers,
Aki

---

From: Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:21:11 -0700

On Jul 26, 2005, at 20:52, Aki Niemi wrote:

>> and very well written, especially for a -00 draft.
>
> Thanks.
>
>> However, I don't think there is anything new here from a SIP 
>> perspective.  I think this work is firmly out of scope and would be 
>> much more suited to the calsify or caldav WGs.
>
> event packages. And as far as I understand the SIP change process, 
> they have to go through SIPPING.

According to the SIP Change Process, a SIP Event Packages can be 
defined in any IETF Working Group.  (Recall that SIMPLE defined the 
presence event package).

thx,
-r

>> To underscore this, all of the open issues relate to calendaring 
>> domain expertise (ex: subscription filters to select what parts of 
>> the calendar are "interesting").  I think your draft is in a similar 
>> position as my location package whose main issues deal with location 
>> (which I submitted with a geopriv prefix).
>
> Agree.
>