[15:21:18] --- LOGGING STARTED
[22:47:01] --- cyrus_daboo has joined
[22:58:41] --- DougRoyer has joined
[22:59:13] <DougRoyer> Last time this did not allow me to send (bug at my end). Is this working?
[22:59:34] <cyrus_daboo> I saw your message. Hopefully you will see mine!
[22:59:39] <DougRoyer> yes
[23:05:14] --- reschke has joined
[23:06:06] --- reschke has left
[23:06:09] --- SAH has joined
[23:08:06] --- reschke has joined
[23:12:10] --- hardie has joined
[23:12:19] <hardie> We've started.
[23:12:22] <hardie> Anyone remote?
[23:12:39] <cyrus_daboo> yes
[23:12:43] <DougRoyer> Remote from here - everywhere - I am in Idaho.
[23:13:27] <hardie> Lisa volunteers to scribe into the jabber room
[23:14:17] --- rlbob has joined
[23:14:32] --- Lisa D has joined
[23:14:48] <Lisa D> Hello calsch'ers
[23:15:15] <Lisa D> Slide: agenda includes WG status, proposed charter revision, CAP, other...
[23:16:00] <Lisa D> Bob: sent charter to DL already
[23:16:11] --- rlbob has left
[23:16:50] <Lisa D> Bob: charter includes finishing CAP, our main outstanding item
[23:17:44] <Lisa D> Bob: need to find people to help complete that work
[23:18:29] <Lisa D> Ted: we should definitely have charter milestones in future, not in past.
[23:18:40] <Lisa D> Ted: but you need to make sure you have document authors for all milestones
[23:19:50] <Lisa D> Ted: It would also be good to know if there are people actually wanting to implement CAP
[23:20:12] <DougRoyer> I know that I, Novel, and Oracle are implementing.
[23:21:01] <cyrus_daboo> I'm more interested in the WebDAV (CALDAV) solution in the short term and perhaps CAP later...
[23:21:40] <DougRoyer> And I think Sun
[23:22:47] <hardie> me: thanks.
[23:23:19] <hardie> Lisa: OSAF (her future employers) seems to feel that CAP is not suited to their client model (smart client)
[23:24:22] <Lisa D> Bob also said (before my comment) that UWashington was implementing a server
[23:24:56] <hardie> Nathaniel: IBM is not currently implementing, no indication that MSoft is.
[23:25:34] <hardie> Are these all server implmentations?
[23:25:37] --- nsb has joined
[23:25:52] <hardie> asks lisa
[23:25:55] <DougRoyer> I will have clients
[23:26:48] <Lisa D> Bob: So that's some implementations, tho perhaps not as much as we'd like
[23:27:16] <Lisa D> Bob: a significant lack of implementors might lead us to decide not to continue work on CAP - I don't think this constitutes that lack.
[23:27:38] <DougRoyer> Many will wait until the spec is RFC status.
[23:27:41] <Lisa D> Bugzilla repository exists to manage CAP issues
[23:27:51] <Lisa D> (that was still bob)
[23:28:25] <Lisa D> Bob: it's hard to create a bugzilla bug that just says "there are major flaws"
[23:28:45] <DougRoyer> Its harder to fix that bug.
[23:29:05] <cyrus_daboo> So what are the major flaws?
[23:29:13] <nsb> Yeah, it's actually pretty *easy* to create the bug report. :-)
[23:29:14] <Lisa D> Bob: Anybody want to raise further issues with CAP here?
[23:29:46] <Lisa D> Bob: There are known CAP issues but they're on the list, I don't think they need to be repeated here.
[23:30:07] <DougRoyer> Perhaps someone can accept the task of filing them?
[23:30:41] <Lisa D> Nathaniel (NSB) is at the mic - "I feel Lisa put her finger on something important -- the lack of model"
[23:30:59] <Lisa D> NSB: The more I think about it, the more I think the cal server is a simple store -- but that's nothing like what we've got (in CAP)
[23:31:46] <Lisa D> Bob: I wasn't here when CAP was originally conceived -- I don't know if its state is due to deliberate design tradeoffs or accident. Mabye that doesn't matter much now
[23:31:49] <nsb> My comments are only partly about CAP, by the way -- I think ical in general suffers from this lack of clarity
[23:32:51] <DougRoyer> iCal (and CAP) are much more complex than 'calendaring' what looks like bloat is the supported needed for real time scheduling (in CAP) and coordination in all of iCal
[23:32:56] <Lisa D> Bob: I'm inclined to have a short last call in the WG and hand it to the IESG for future disposition.
[23:33:43] <Lisa D> Bob: Unless the ADs want to comment on that readiness...
[23:34:20] <Lisa D> Ted: To address a previous question, there is no requirement for demonstrated interoperability to go forward
[23:34:31] <Lisa D> Ted: there is a requirement for real review, ideally by implementors.
[23:34:48] <Lisa D> Ted: "Silence = consent" is problematic. I encourage you to require a minimum of N reviews.
[23:35:13] <Lisa D> Ted: and corral people into doing them. Make sure that what you send up, even if it's not the be-all-end-all in this space, there are contributions it can make to this.
[23:36:26] <DougRoyer> CAP is so big, people want to wait until we say it is ready. And I AGREE - implementors - those are the ones that will find issues.
[23:36:47] <Lisa D> Bob: We're adjourned.
[23:36:53] --- hardie has left
[23:36:54] --- SAH has left
[23:37:02] --- nsb has left
[23:37:12] --- reschke has left: Disconnected
[23:37:32] <cyrus_daboo> what if any interest is there in CALDAV?
[23:39:30] <DougRoyer> I am. I am sure Lisa is. Are you in Korea?
[23:40:06] <cyrus_daboo> No - Pittsburgh - flying to the UK for vacation tomorrow....
[23:42:50] <DougRoyer> Odd that the WG did not talk about CalDav
[23:44:22] <cyrus_daboo> I didn't know they had got as far as adjournment - I wanted to bring up CalDav in other business. Oh well - so much for remote participation....
[23:50:46] --- rlbob has joined
[23:51:36] <rlbob> sorry, I asked about other items, and no one spoke up ...
[23:52:39] <DougRoyer> Yes - the non-attendees get little attention.
[23:54:33] <rlbob> well, it was hard for me to follow the chat and also display from my laptop
[23:54:38] <cyrus_daboo> right - I should have spoken when the agenda was discussed - my fault...
[23:55:29] <rlbob> so, here we are, and Lisa's still listed ... so did you have some comments on caldav, Cyrus?
[23:57:18] <rlbob> I suppose one question I've wanted to ask is whether webdav has been used as a substrate for other applications as is being proposed for calendar ...
[23:58:08] <DougRoyer> It is used in other places. I have a WebDAV client and server. And Apache has a mod_webdav. It is a real transport.
[23:58:58] <rlbob> sure, I know it's used for what it was designed for, but has it been used for carrying something with higher-level semantics as is being proposed in caldav?
[23:59:01] <cyrus_daboo> Yes - I think caldav can be a light weight easy to implement calendar/schedule solution that could have buy-in from existing implementations. After all, many existing clients already do simple publish/subscribe with webdav - adding smart reports, an iTip mode etc should be easier for them than doing CAP frtom scratch.