Subject: [Tzdist] Time Zone Distribution Protocol WG Milestones (tzdist)

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:06:44 +0200

Hi,

We are getting under way with the tzdist WG
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tzdist/charter/> [1]. This IETF working
group (WG) goal is to define time zone data distribution protocols. If you
want to join please the tzdist WG
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tzdist> [2].

These are the milestones we propose. If you have any comments, please feel
free to post them before Tuesday August 19 so we can consider them.

Milestones:
     - September 2014 Adopt time zone data distribution protocol draft as
WG document
     - September 2014 Adopt an CalDAV extension draft as WG document
     - January 2015 Submit time zone data distribution protocol draft for
WGLC
     - March 2015 Submit time zone data distribution protocol draft as
Standards Track RFC
     - March 2015 Submit CalDAV extension draft for WGLC
     - June 2015 Submit CalDAV extension draft as Standards Track RFC
     - September 2016 re-charter the WG

[1] http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tzdist/charter/
[2] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tzdist

-- 
Daniel Migault
Orange Labs -- Security
+33 6 70 72 69 58

---

From: Tobias Conradi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:06:16 +0200

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Daniel Migault <[email-masked]> wrote:
...
> free to post them before Tuesday August 19 so we can consider them.

2014-08-13 today
2014-08-19 the mentioned Tuesday
= 6 days

This seems rather short, see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tzdist/current/msg00004.html
2014-07-03 proposal to Mr. Daboo to change "timezone" to "time zone"

2014-08-08 this change has been done for the WG name

= 1 month, 5 days

But simple renaming not yet done for the drafts mentioned in the charter
--------------
The working group will use the following drafts as initial input for its
work:
draft-douglass-timezone-service-11
draft-daboo-caldav-timezone-ref-01
--------------

So, shall people use drafts with outdated terminology as basis for discussion?

I prefer to fix the drafts ASAP so that their contents can be
discussed using consistent terminology.

-- 
Tobias Conradi
Rheinsberger Str. 18
10115 Berlin
Germany

http://tobiasconradi.com

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:26:57 -0400

Tobias,

A draft's name is irrelevant. It will be gone once it gets published
as an RFC. Other than in the two drafts' names, "timezone" is absent
from the proposed milestone text so I don't see any terminology issue.

All,

My comments on the proposed milestones:

- I don't see the need for 2-3 months between WGLC and submission to
IESG. If issues are tracked tightly during the whole process
[RFC7282], WGLC becomes a formality and you can send to IESG right
away. In any case, I suggest removing the WGLC milestones: the "send
to IESG" milestones are sufficient.

- "September 2016 re-charter the WG": This should not be a milestone.
Rechartering is something that is done out of necessity in the present
moment, not something that a WG aims to do in the future. Not having
the milestone does not impact in any way the possibility of a
rechartering.

Simon

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Tobias Conradi <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Tzdist mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tzdist

---

From: Tobias Conradi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:58:55 +0200

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Simon Perreault <[email-masked]> wrote:
> A draft's name is irrelevant.
I would like to see the proof that any English language draft name is
irrelevant for any draft that is written in English for people that
can read English.

Since the name relates to the content, I assume the contrary (it is
relevant) to be true.

> It will be gone once it gets published
> from the proposed milestone text
And the presence of "time zone" in the milestone text is a further
reason to fix it in the places the proposal
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tzdist/current/msg00004.html
was referring to.

> so I don't see any terminology issue.

So your answer to

>> shall people use drafts with
>> outdated terminology as basis for discussion?
is YES?

-- 
Tobias Conradi
Rheinsberger Str. 18
10115 Berlin
Germany

http://tobiasconradi.com

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 13:15:28 -0400

Can we please stop with the editorial nits over "time zone" vs 
"timezone" vs "whatever" and focus on the technical aspects of the 
protocol in the existing draft?  Any draft that comes out of this 
working group will be named draft-tzdist-xxx-nn anyways so we can do any 
required renaming then.

Any further discussion/argument on the naming issue seems like a 
complete waste of time to me and is a distraction from what I would 
consider "real work".  If the naming has a direct effect on how the 
protocol interoperates, then by all means let's fix it. if "time zone" 
and "timezone" refer to two different things in the wild, then let's 
determine which this WG is talking about and run with it.  if this is 
purely one person's preference over another's, then I have confidence 
that the chairs will be able to determine WG consensus on the naming 
down the road.

-- 
Kenneth Murchison
Principal Systems Software Engineer
Carnegie Mellon University

---

From: Tobias Conradi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 19:37:15 +0200

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Ken Murchison <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Can we please stop with the editorial nits over "time zone" vs "timezone" vs
> "whatever" and focus on the technical aspects of the protocol in the
> existing draft?
The technical aspects of the protocol are given in drafts that use "timezone".

>  Any draft that comes out of this working group will be
> named draft-tzdist-xxx-nn anyways so we can do any required renaming then.
That doesn't help in the discussion about the protocol that takes
place before this event.

> Any further discussion/argument on the naming issue seems like a complete
> waste of time to me and is a distraction from what I would consider "real
> work".
If "real work" means any work defined at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-tzdist/
then the term "timezone" in drafts that are mentioned as "initial
input" for the work (of the WG) in the charter, is input to the "real
work".

> If the naming has a direct effect on how the protocol interoperates,
> then by all means let's fix it.
I suggest to remove any word from a document that defines a protocol
if it has no effect on "how the protocol interoperates".

> if "time zone" and "timezone" refer to two
> different things in the wild, then let's determine which this WG is talking
> about and run with it.
I see no evidence the terms refer to two different things. But that
people may think it could, as is suggested by your if-clause, is
reducing the ease of understanding the documents.

>  if this is purely one person's preference over
> another's,
As presented in the proposal
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tzdist/current/msg00004.html
it is not.

-- 
Tobias Conradi
Rheinsberger Str. 18
10115 Berlin
Germany

http://tobiasconradi.com

---

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 22:20:43 +0200

Hi Simon,

Thanks for the feed back.

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> I got your point. The time between WGLC and IESG submission has been
provisioned in case some issues/comments are lately reported on the mailing
list. However we hope this should not happen and encourage people to
comment as soon as possible.

> I am also fine with that.

-- 
Daniel Migault
Orange Labs -- Security
+33 6 70 72 69 58

---

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 22:38:45 +0200

Hi Tobias,

It has **already** been agreed with you to change "timezone" to "time
zone".  We got your point, the milestones already reflect this change and
the next version of the drafts should reflect this change. The purpose of
this thread is to discuss milestones, so please let's be focused on that
point-only.

Daniel

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Tobias Conradi <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> "timezone" vs

-- 
Daniel Migault
Orange Labs -- Security
+33 6 70 72 69 58

---

From: Paul Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:12:44 -0700

Daniel Migault wrote:
> we ... encourage people to comment as soon as possible.

Dumb question: should comments be sent to tzdist? 
draft-douglass-timezone-service-11 says to email comments to 
[email-masked] whereas draft-daboo-caldav-timezone-ref-01 merely lists 
its author's address.  Does adopting these drafts next month means 
comments should be emailed to [email-masked] next month?  (I'm always 
looking for excuses to delay reviewing of drafts....)

---

From: Tobias Conradi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 23:35:28 +0200

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Daniel Migault <[email-masked]> wrote:
> It has **already** been agreed with you to change "timezone" to "time zone".

> We got your point, the milestones already reflect this change and the next
> version of the drafts should reflect this change.
I suggested to have a next version ASAP. As said, it took 1 month and
5 days to change the WG name.

I see no milestone for "next version".

If "next" means 2014-09 as mentioned in the milestones
 - September 2014 Adopt time zone data distribution protocol draft as
WG document
 - September 2014 Adopt an CalDAV extension draft as WG document

this looks like several more weeks for a search/replace change.

If the change is not done before September 2014, it means that anyone
wanting to read the drafts before, which also means before the
milestone deadline 2014-08-19, would be faced with outdated
terminology.

Any related discussion could then use outdated terminology if people
copy text from the drafts. Some people may like to avoid using
outdated terminology if, to quote you

/It has **already** been agreed with you to change "timezone" to "time zone"./

They may not even like to read the drafts in that state, since any
text snippet they copy when taking notes, would use outdated
terminology.

If they decide not to read the drafts before the change occurs, it would mean
- losing time for working on the content, which could affect the milestones
- they might be limited to judge the feasibility of the time line in
the milestones itself

I am one of those that don't want to spend extra time on working with
documents only because they are not updated to use current instead of
outdated terminology.
-- 
Tobias Conradi
Rheinsberger Str. 18
10115 Berlin
Germany

http://tobiasconradi.com

---

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 11:12:03 +0200

Hi Paul,

Thanks for raising that point. Comments should be emailed on the
[email-masked] mailing list. The other lists where mentioned as the
current [email-masked] did not exist at that time. I copied the calsify
mailing list, so they should be also informed.

Either ways are fine: you can comment these drafts now, during the adoption
process or once adopted. So you still have some excuses for now... ;-)

BR,
Daniel

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Paul Eggert <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Dumb question: should comments be sent to tzdist? draft-douglass-timezone-service-11
> says to email comments to [email-masked] whereas
> draft-daboo-caldav-timezone-ref-01 merely lists its author's address.
>  Does adopting these drafts next month means comments should be emailed to
> [email-masked] next month?  (I'm always looking for excuses to delay
> reviewing of drafts....)
>

-- 
Daniel Migault
Orange Labs -- Security
+33 6 70 72 69 58

---

From: Tobias Conradi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 17:28:58 +0200

Eliot,

> Calm down.
How did you determine I am not?

Maybe you are mirroring your own feel and you are in need of calming down?

> The tzdist group is not a week old.
Not news. But the topic are the drafts, not the tzdist group.

When talking about age, the drafts exist since 2014-03-15.

The proposal to change one of them exists since

2014-07-03

> In the next month, if you have specific comments about the drafts that
> we expect to be the output of this group, now is a good time to write
> them down.

That's what I did:

Further inspection is blocked by:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tzdist/current/msg00016.html

"I am one of those that don't want to spend extra time on working with
documents only because they are not updated to use current instead of
outdated terminology."

Paul provided another blocking reason.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tzdist/current/msg00015.html

So there is on the one hand:
- outdated terminology
- outdated contact info

And one may wonder what else is outdated and triggers time wasting.

On the other hand:
- no update schedule

And then people shall give feedback on milestones.

Maybe someone can tell why the drafts are not fixed? Is it difficult
to just go and publish new drafts?

I only found
http://www.ietf.org/id-info/

"Internet-Drafts have no formal status, and are subject to change or
removal at any time"

Tobias

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Tobias,
>
> Calm down.
>
> The tzdist group is not a week old.  When a WG chair says that the text
> corrected, we expect you to accept that.  But more importantly:
>
> In the next month, if you have specific comments about the drafts that
> we expect to be the output of this group, now is a good time to write
> them down.
>
> Eliot
>
> On 8/13/14, 11:35 PM, Tobias Conradi wrote:

-- 
Tobias Conradi
Rheinsberger Str. 18
10115 Berlin
Germany

http://tobiasconradi.com

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 12:58:51 -0400

For someone who only recently joined this mailing list, exactly which 
drafts are being discussed? There currently are *no* drafts associated 
with this wg - either individual drafts or wg drafts.

Since there are no wg drafts, I presume it must be individual drafts 
that are being discussed. Individual drafts are under the editorial 
control of their authors. Those authors can spell "timezone" any way 
they wish, and are under no obligation to change that because somebody 
else doesn't like it.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Tobias Conradi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 19:27:18 +0200

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]> wrote:
> For someone who only recently joined this mailing list, exactly which drafts
> are being discussed? There currently are *no* drafts associated with this wg
> - either individual drafts or wg drafts.
Those mentioned in the charter
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-tzdist/01/

and proposed for terminology fixing at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tzdist/current/msg00004.html

> Since there are no wg drafts, I presume it must be individual drafts that
> are being discussed. Individual drafts are under the editorial control of
> their authors. Those authors can spell "timezone" any way they wish, and are
> under no obligation to change that because somebody else doesn't like it.

That might be true, but does not address the points made.

-- 
Tobias Conradi
Rheinsberger Str. 18
10115 Berlin
Germany

http://tobiasconradi.com

---

From: Tobias Conradi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 19:29:15 +0200

Someone shouting at me, related to list discussion:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 6:46 PM
Subject: Disruptive behavior
To: Tobias Conradi <[email-masked]>

I've been watching this conversation and biting my tongue because this
is only of passing interest to me. But I just can't take it any
longer.

For the moment I'm sending this reply to you privately. If necessary I
will send it to the list.

STOP BEING A DISRUPTION TO THIS GROUP!!!

I don't know if you have worked in an IETF WG before or not - I'm guessing not.

There is a difference between individual documents and working group
documents. There do not seem to yet be any working group documents in
the tzdist wg.

Individual documents are under the control of their author, who can
put whatever they want into them. If you would like someone to change
their private document, then ask them politely. Maybe they will, maybe
they won't. If they choose not to, then you have no recourse on that
document.

At some point, there will be a proposal to adopt an individual
document as the basis of a wg document to satisfy a wg milestone. At
*that* time, if you don't think the document is suitable, because you
don't like the spelling of "timezone" or for some serious reason, you
can object. If their is consensus, then you can prevent the adoption.
Or, if the document is adopted and you still object, then you can
propose your change. Then if there is consensus of the WG that change
will be made.

There are lots of important things worth discussing about the tz
database. Whether people use "timezone" or "time zone" is so far down
the list as to be irrelevant. Personally I happen to *like*
"timezone".

        Regards,
        Paul Kyzivat

-- 
Tobias Conradi
Rheinsberger Str. 18
10115 Berlin
Germany

http://tobiasconradi.com

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 13:39:46 -0400

You have taken my *private* message to you, and posted it publicly.
That is at least a violation of email etiquette.

I sent it to you privately precisely to avoid more list flaming.

	Paul

---

From: Tobias Conradi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 19:48:45 +0200

> That is at least a violation of email etiquette.
It was violation of email etiquette to send an email containing
shouting to me privately.

> I sent it to you privately precisely to avoid more list flaming.
You sent off-list shouting to avoid more of something that didn't exist.

I sent mine on-list, so others may learn what techniques some people
use off-list.

-- 
Tobias Conradi
Rheinsberger Str. 18
10115 Berlin
Germany

http://tobiasconradi.com

---

From: Tobias Conradi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 20:33:40 +0200

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Tzdist] Time Zone Distribution Protocol WG Milestones (tzdist)
To: Tobias Conradi <[email-masked]>
Cc: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>

<Chair hat on>

On 8/14/14, 5:28 PM, Tobias Conradi wrote:

Eliot,

Calm down.

That you have argued a point that is already well understood and agreed.

Our charter calls on us to consider draft-douglass-timezone-service-11
and draft-daboo-caldav-timezone-ref-01 as initial input to the working
group. You can expect a call for adoption of those drafts.  If you
agree, please say so.  If you have concerns, you should expect to be
asked to state them clearly.  That call for adoption will happen
shortly after we have agreed our milestones.

Once we have drafts that are adopted, they will be developed in the
working group.  You are welcome to provide whatever technical or
editorial comments you would like in a respectful way.  The chairs
will track your comments to see that they are addressed.  It is
possible that not all of your suggestions will be accepted, but all
must be addressed in order to move the documents forward.

2014-07-03

That's what I did:

I believe that Cyrus has already said that he would make those
modifications, and I expect him to either correct me or to make the
changes.

It is your choice to work on the documents or not.  We are an open
group, although as co-chair I expect all participants to engage in a
constructive manner.

On the other hand:
- no update schedule

Individual drafts are under control of the authors, and not this
working group.  As the authors don't work for you or for me, we should
be very careful about making demands on their time.

I only found

That's right.  Those drafts have no status, and authors of non-WG
documents may make whatever changes they want or don't want.  We may
choose to adopt those documents as working group documents. Once the
documents are adopted by the WG, all issues must be addressed prior to
the work advancing to proposed standard.

For your information, working groups operate under the guidelines of
BCP 25.  I bring to your attention Section 3.2 of that document, part
of which reads:

   As with face-to-face sessions occasionally one or more individuals
   may engage in behavior on a mailing list which disrupts the WG's
   progress.  In these cases the Chair should attempt to discourage the
   behavior by communication directly with the offending individual
   rather than on the open mailing list.  If the behavior persists then
   the Chair must involve the Area Director in the issue.  As a last
   resort and after explicit warnings, the Area Director, with the
   approval of the IESG, may request that the mailing list maintainer
   block the ability of the offending individual to post to the mailing
   list. (If the mailing list software permits this type of operation.)
   Even if this is done, the individual must not be prevented from
   receiving messages posted to the list.  Other methods of mailing list
   control may be considered but must be approved by the AD(s) and the
   IESG.

We have already received multiple complaints about your behavior.  I
urge you please to help us with the working group and improving the
documents.  My commitment to you in return is that we will see that
each issue that you respectfully raise will be addressed.

Regards,

Eliot
<chair hat off>
(I hate wearing hats indoors)

-- 
Tobias Conradi
Rheinsberger Str. 18
10115 Berlin
Germany

http://tobiasconradi.com

---

From: Ken Murchison <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 14:42:27 -0400

Hi All,

I'm fine with the proposed milestones, but I'm wondering if the two 
documents couldn't be worked on in parallel and go to WGLC at the same time.

On 08/13/2014 09:06 AM, Daniel Migault wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We are getting under way with thetzdist WG 
> <http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tzdist/charter/> [1]. This IETF 
> working group (WG) goal is to define time zone data distribution 
> protocols. If you want to join please the tzdist WG 
> These are the milestones we propose. If you have any comments, please 
> feel free to post them before Tuesday August 19 so we can consider them.
>
> Milestones:
>      - September 2014 Adopt time zone data distribution protocol draft 
> as WG document
>      - January 2015 Submit time zone data distribution protocol draft 
> for WGLC

---

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 18:35:51 +0200

Hi,

Thanks for raising this. Initially, the reason we set different milestones
is permit the WG to prioritize its resources first on the protocol itself,
and then to its CALDAV extension.

If the documents have enough consensus and commitment we would be glad to
send the two documents in march to the IESG. This would be a good scenario
for us!

BR,
Daniel
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Ken Murchison <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Tzdist mailing [email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tzdist
>
>
>
> --
> Kenneth Murchison

-- 
Daniel Migault
Orange Labs -- Security
+33 6 70 72 69 58

---

From: Cyrus Daboo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:52:53 -0400

Hi Tobias,

--On August 13, 2014 at 11:35:28 PM +0200 Tobias Conradi 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> We got your point, the milestones already reflect this change and the
>> next version of the drafts should reflect this change.

I have agreed to make the change to "time zone" (in fact I added it to the 
draft to-do list I maintain with my working copy after we agreed on that 
several months ago).

If this WG decides to adopt the current draft as a WG item, and decides 
that Mike and I should remain as authors/editors, then I will make the 
change for the first WG draft - not before (because it would be wasteful of 
IETF resources at this moment).

-- 
Cyrus Daboo

---

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 08:53:17 +0200

Dear friends and colleagues,

Thanks you for all comments you provided for the milestones. The milestones
we came to are as follows:

     - September 2014 Adopt time zone data distribution protocol draft as
WG document
     - September 2014 Adopt an CalDAV extension draft as WG document
      - January 2015 Submit time zone data distribution protocol draft for
WGLC
     - January 2015 Submit CalDAV extension draft for WGLC
     - March 2015 Submit time zone data distribution protocol draft as
Standards Track RFC
     - March 2015  CalDAV extension draft as Standards Track RFC

As some of you suggested, we are leading these two documents in parallel.

Some suggested to reduce the time between WGLC and IESG submissions. We
decied to keep WGLC as a milestone in order to keep the schedule tight and
the WG committed. We hope that will an unnecessary precautions.

We removed the re-chartering item as suggested.

Daniel and Eliot

-- 
Daniel Migault
Orange Labs -- Security
+33 6 70 72 69 58