Re: [VCARDDAV] IETF 81 minutes

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

Those are very thorough, thanks!

On 8/4/11 8:29 AM, Simon Perreault wrote:
> All,
> 
> These are the draft minutes of the meeting. Let me know if there's any
> adjustment to be made.
> 
> Simon
> 
>> IETF 81, Québec
>> VCARDDAV
>> 2011-07-26 17:10-18:10
>>
>> draft-cauchie-vcarddav-oma-cab-extensions
>> Barry Leiba
>> - Goal is to take the things in OMA that don't already exist in vCard and to
>>   create properties for them.
>> - Agreed to take the very OMA-specific stuff out of the document.
>> - Need to explain better the difference with base vCard properties in some
>>   cases.
>> - Will eventually have a permanent URL to the OMA spec.
>> - Enough guidance to make a new revision.
>> - Propose adoption as working group item.
>> Alexey Melnikov: Don't forget to take into account Chris Newman's review.
>> Berry: We will.
>> Barry: There is also some duplication between this and the next document. We'll
>> sort this out.
>>
>> draft-george-vcarddav-vcard-extension
>> Barry Leiba
>> - This one is less straightforward. Needs effort.
>> - Based on the FOAF project.
>> - Needs more input, needs to be fleshed out. Needs collaborators.
>> Alexey Melnikov: There is overlap between this and the previous one. Can be just
>> get one?
>> Barry: It's a bad idea to put all in a single document. But we need to eliminate
>> duplication.
>> Alexey: What's the IANA procedure for properties?
>> Barry: There's a template. A new spec can update the registry for the other
>> property.
>> Alexey: There is an expert review.
>> Cyrus Daboo: We want people to post this to the mailing list to get reviews.
>> Simon Perreault: There is no designated expert.
>> Barry: There is none yet.
>> Alexey: IANA will ask for one to be designated when it needs one.
>> Barry: I think it would be good for the WG to adopt this. But we need energy to
>> put into this draft.
>> Cyrus: Social networking properties are important. People are doing this with X-
>> properties in vCard 3.
>> Peter Saint-Andre: We can't do all properties in this working group.
>> Barry: We can start with this and then people can make extension drafts or
>> revisions. We can put some text saying that this is a first pass.
>>
>> draft-li-vcarddav-vcard-id-property-extensions
>> Barry Leiba
>> - Had good reviews, everybody is happy with it.
>> - This one and Peter's draft are the test cases for the IANA registration
>>   process.
>>
>> draft-daboo-vcard-service-type
>> Cyrus Daboo
>> - A way of tagging properties with a service provider identifier such as
>>   Facebook, Twitter, etc.
>> - Can be rolled into draft-george-vcarddav-vcard-extension. Happy to see Barry
>>   take over that behaviour.
>>
>> draft-cal-resource-schema
>> Cyrus Daboo
>> - Defines a schema for scheduling stuff (rooms, resources, ...).
>> - LDAP properties and attributes.
>> - Needs vCard reviews, LDAP reviews, as well as calendaring reviews. Spans many
>>   different areas.
>> - Had an LDAP review from Chris Newman.
>> - LDAP mapping is already on the charter. This draft does that for the items it
>>   defines.
>> - There are more problems from LDAP to vCard than the other way.
>> Joe Hildebrandt: It's useful to have LDAP to vCard mapping. The other way is
>> less useful because it assumes you're able to write to the LDAP server.
>> Alexey: There is no better place than this WG for this work.
>>
>> draft-saintandre-vcarddav-thing
>> Peter Saint-Andre
>> - No longer about things, this is now about "application".
>> - In pretty good shape, pretty much done.
>> Cyrus Daboo: The cal resource schema uses a kind that does not map to
>> application. Do we need to define a new kind?
>> Peter: What is a calendar resource? Something about which there is a schedule?
>> Cyrus: Something that can be scheduled that is not a person, a group, or a room.
>> There are four CU types in iCalendar: individual, group, location, and resource.
>> We would like to map those to vCard.
>> Peter: Scheduling is something that you do with something. I would prefer to
>> look at it from a taxonomy perspective rather than just "something I can
>> schedule".
>> Joe Hildebrandt: Make sure "other" is in the registry, go on with our lives.
>> Barry: Making a "schedule" KIND is reasonable.
>> Peter: Can one vCard have multiple kinds? I wouldn't want a vCard with kind
>> "room" and kind "schedule".
>> Barry: There can be more than one kind for a single vCard.
>> Cyrus: I'll take that back to the CalConnect folks.
>> Peter: I looked at the LDAP spec and X.200. "device" is a piece of hardware. I
>> would be fine with defining that if it is useful.
>> Cyrus: Is "application" a kind of "device"?
>> Peter: No.
>> Cyrus: Will you add "device" to your draft?
>> Peter: No I won't. We should have one little one for each.
>> Barry: This could go in the LDAP document.
>> Cyrus: Yes we could do that.
>>
>> Charter discussion
>> Simon Perreault: We have 2 drafts ready and 4 needing work.
>> Barry: Ready meaning ready to pass to the IESG, but the WG still needs to adopt
>> them so that when they go to the IESG they are WG drafts rather than
>> AD-sponsored. We're talking about 6 drafts to adopt.
>> Simon: draft-daboo-vcard-service-type would be dropped.
>> Simon: Who would be interested on working on social networking stuff?
>> (draft-cauchie- and draft-george-)
>> (a couple hands)
>> Simon: Who will be implementing it?
>> (two hands)
>> Joe Hildebrandt: Depends on whether it gets mapped into LDAP. LDAP is becoming
>> more and more important to us. We may need to define new LDAP schemas to capture
>> this stuff.
>> Cyrus: I'm surprised that you think social networking will be part of a
>> corporate LDAP directory. I don't see that.
>> Joe: This is not from a corporate deployment model. This is for another thing
>> that we have not announced yet.
>> Cyrus: So do we want to write the LDAP schema for that?
>> Peter: Change the name from VCARDDAV to VCARDDAP.
>> Simon: How about LDAP and scheduling? How many people would be willing to work
>> on that?
>> (a couple hands)
>> Simon: Implementing?
>> (two hands)
>> Simon: How many people feel like they know LDAP well enough to have an expert
>> advice on these drafts?
>> (one hand)
>> Peter: Joe's raising his hand because he is a proxy to people who know LDAP.
>> Peter: We do have an LDAP directorate. Whenever I poke them, nothing comes back.
>> Alexey: I know four people in the directorate. I don't know how much time they
>> spend in the IETF.
>> Peter: Is there LDAP energy elsewhere?
>> Simon: If we were to be stuck with a dead technology and we wanted to import it
>> into vCard, would we need experts to help us?
>> Barry: LDAP has enough depth that having people who understand LDAP is enough.
>> But we can scare up a person or two to help us.
>> Alexey: At least half of my co-workers are working on LDAP schema.
>> Simon: Any other question I should be asking?
>> Joe: Would we need to recharter significantly? Does this require extraordinary
>> measures or is this within the process of recharter?
>> Peter: We finished a lot of the stuff in the old charter. There is still the
>> LDAP item. The charter doesn't need updating. It's good to reach out to LDAP
>> folks to at least review our work.
>> Alexey: How many reviews do you want?
>> Peter: I would like more than one interoperable implementation of the review
>> process. Two would be much better than one.
>> Cyrus: I'd like to see actual LDAP implementors.
>> Simon: Do authors have all the guidance they need to make new revisions?
>> (yes)
>> Barry: What does the new charter look like? Do we also include future
>> extensions? How long do you as chair see this WG continue?
>> Simon: As shortly as possible. We don't need a WG for new extensions. We have a
>> mailing list and an expert review. So only these 6. No need to leave it open.
>> Peter: We've gotten interest in these 6 documents. Others might come along but
>> we don't need to keep the WG around to do that.
>> Simon: This cycle has been helpful. You guys have received a lot of feedback
>> from this WG and you're going to get WG document status. If during the next
>> cycle there is a bunch of new documents that come along, we'll do the same
>> thing.
>> Barry: Who is responsible for the new charter?
>> Simon: I guess I am.
>