IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tzdist] AD review of draft-ietf-tzdist-caldav-timezone-ref-03

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 28 August 2015 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tzdist@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tzdist@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EF181B2F3C; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:46:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KFMl0oJtH10U; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:46:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2664F1B2FA8; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:46:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2561; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1440776814; x=1441986414; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=/YpYKeCs7VCxqdhAj+rsgsxa2x3XJSWw6A2DJ1eSNVU=; b=TS4oC0EiZ/kfgOSyTh2LKdkrfVEgrYpFxZ2ZaAS771mZT7G9y4s7GHr0 hnEbv0WJN341rulxfaKHMmDaFCbo9A2jY0+Eb4FJzeWHsao0jymsstcR5 S9Zp0nLlDya/bvMeVhZuaFolD9Pw2V1V8Q25pg6+ZnHJbIZd9qE/FTdFi c=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0B6AwCTgeBV/xbLJq1eDoRKgyO6XgqEO4M4AoF0FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQkAQEEI1UBEAsYCRYLAgIJAwIBAgFFBgEMBgIBAYgqsA6UYgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEZi2KEQEsHgmmBQwEEjG6IUYJAgVyIV4FKhy6JOog1JoNBQDwzgk0BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,425,1437436800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="611244392"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Aug 2015 15:46:50 +0000
Received: from [10.61.173.195] ([10.61.173.195]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7SFko8X026248; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 15:46:50 GMT
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
References: <CALaySJKAephrJS=XHfMSM3C3qpH4_Monn+Ear1vhCjMtqVZ+4w@mail.gmail.com> <4733A6EDE125B3121612FE24@caldav.corp.apple.com> <CALaySJLy-yoCwGaeOvr1F+2t7ZOApvtNurN3Bfsq6eQGSDVf7Q@mail.gmail.com> <55DBFCD3.4060703@cisco.com> <7F54FB4C7591CBD0A4C19BD8@caldav.corp.apple.com> <ABF86F9F2D7866DEFC1F5CFE@caldav.corp.apple.com> <55E07137.2020704@andrew.cmu.edu> <CALaySJ+-pcYdp+H56RnmXWpG8-Z1PFboZhvMGN0mJQSajeriGQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <55E08269.1080605@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:46:49 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJ+-pcYdp+H56RnmXWpG8-Z1PFboZhvMGN0mJQSajeriGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="JJKdQA9RQsdVcKBm8VilhueOV0tUvSCMk"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tzdist/u7psIi_uuvb4TaP-w0UJgshJcsg>
Cc: Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>, tzdist@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tzdist-caldav-timezone-ref@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Tzdist] AD review of draft-ietf-tzdist-caldav-timezone-ref-03
X-BeenThere: tzdist@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <tzdist.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tzdist>, <mailto:tzdist-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tzdist/>
List-Post: <mailto:tzdist@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tzdist-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tzdist>, <mailto:tzdist-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 15:46:56 -0000

And that's where I am.

On 8/28/15 5:13 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> I'm with Ken here: mild preference for the default being as things
> were, but not a strong preference.  You guys know the actual
> deployment issues.
>
> Barry
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>> On 08/28/2015 10:29 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
>>> Hi Eliot, Barry,
>>>
>>> --On August 25, 2015 at 5:18:02 PM -0400 Cyrus Daboo <cyrus@daboo.name>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In summary, two choices for the WG (with #1 being the currently defined
>>>> behavior):
>>>>
>>>> 1) In the absence of the new request header, by default the server does
>>>> not send VTIMEZONE components, but it SHOULD provide an option to
>>>> override that behavior for specific clientsE, based on User-Agent, that
>>>> always require a VTIMEZON.
>>>>
>>>> 2) In the absence of the new request header, by default the server always
>>>> sends VTIMEZONE components, but it MAY provide an option to override that
>>>> behavior for specific clients, based on User-Agent, that are known to
>>>> ignore VTIMEZONEs in the data.
>>>
>>> Any comment on this before I update the spec? In the absence of any
>>> preference I will leave the spec as is (i.e., choice #1).
>>>
>> I believe that choice #2 would be the norm for new behavior (opt-in), but I
>> don't have a strong opinion either way since it appears that most, if not
>> all, clients use their own VTIMEZONE data anyways.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kenneth Murchison
>> Principal Systems Software Engineer
>> Carnegie Mellon University
>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email