►
From YouTube: IETF101-CALEXT-20180322-0930
Description
CALEXT meeting session at IETF101
2018/03/22 0930
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/proceedings/
B
B
B
C
B
A
B
B
D
So
this
document
went
wise,
G
is
G,
basically
signed
off
on
it,
and
then
there
was
a
follow
up,
which
he
reviews
and
joven
raised
lots
of
questions,
and
he
basically
said
such
a
horrible
design.
It
violates
all
sort
of
HTTP
recommended
things
we
downloaded
it
to
information
about.
The
race
is
still
a
list
of
outstanding
issues.
E
F
I
need
to
add
more
text
describing
why
we've
gone
informational,
which
is
basically
outlining
Gillian's
objections
to
the
current
design,
and
we
need
to
find
a
way
to
allow
content-disposition
to
be
used
as
a
request
header.
Do
we
just
make
an
a
an
a
request
to
do
that
or
give
any
recommendations,
I.
D
F
D
G
D
D
B
Well,
I
think
that
we
should
well
if
there
are
major
revision.
My
opinion
would
be
that
we
go
through
the
working
group
and
we
do
a
last
call
so
that
we
can
agree
within
the
working
group
and
then
contact
the
other
working
group,
including
HTTP
bists,
and
see
because
well,
there
is
no
way
to
go
around
that
so
sooner
or
later,
so
that
we're
ready
when
you
do
the
Shepherd
right
up
where
we
have
where
we
have
good
feeling
that
it's
going
to
go
through
the
process
and
being
published
yeah
okay.
B
B
Right,
okay,
good,
so
the
action
point
is
that
can't
provide
a
new
provision
and
then
we
move
back
to
the
working
group.
We
go
to
Alaska
contact
the
HTTP
working
group
and
then
see
where
we
go.
Okay,
so
thank
you
can
now
the
to
next
draft.
So
Michael,
can
you
give
us
a
status
of
where
we
are
and
how
close
we
are
from
the
working
group?
Let's
go.
D
B
A
B
So
my
understanding
of
these
two
graph
drafts
is
that
we're
pretty
close
to
working
group
lascall
some
implementation
are
in
progress,
but
what
I
would
like
you
know?
Well,
what
would
be
helpful
is
that
least
we
get
more
review
on
that,
so
that
we
can
send
them
being
a
relatively
confident
that
we
have
made
a
good
work
on
that,
because
currently
we're
really
missing
some
of
the
reviews.
B
B
So
now,
what
I'm,
asking
to
the
working
group
on
sister
people
online
and
here
in
the
room,
is
that
to
provide
some
review,
because
this
is
actually
what
we're
missing
and
when
I'm
writing
the
Shepherd
write-up.
Usually
you
have
to
admit
that
it's
not
clear
to
me
how
much
review
have
been
done.
I
mean
it's
not
here
if
it
has
been
reviewed
outside
the
ITF
or
even
implemented
outside
the
ITF,
and
it's
well
working
and
I'm
not
very
happy
about
sending
my
ad
saying,
yeah
I
reviewed
the
draft,
but.
D
B
H
D
B
D
G
B
B
B
So
we
expect
to
have
at
least
three
reviews
so
I
hope
that
my
plan
is
to
send
those
to
the
isg
to
the
ad
by
the
end
of
April.
Is
that
a
correct
milestones,
I
think
so?
Okay,
so
now
the
new
work
so
by
end
of
April's.
That
should
be
the
only
one
remaining
about
an
hour
least
yes
calendar
and
we
will
have
a
presentation
right
now.
J
C
B
J
Outlets
on
each
slide,
so
I
think
you're,
fine,
okay,
okay,
so
Jays
calendar
the.
What
are
the
goals
chase?
Canada
attempts
to
define
a
new
calendar
in
data
format
and
exchange
format
using
I
Jason
when
someone
thinks
about
calendaring
and
Jason?
Typically
RFC
is
7265
comes
to
mind
with
use
Jake
L,
which
was
the
initial
attempt
to
represent
I
can
in
the
data
in
Jason.
J
J
That
respect
the
goal
is
are
to
define
types
for
calendar
events,
tasks
and
groups,
with
groups
being
a
small
wrapper
around
tasks
and
events,
notably.
What
isn't
here?
What
is
defined
in
ieee
calendar
is
be
eternal.
We
deliberately
took
that
out
of
scopes
in
the
sins
in
in
our
experience.
It's
not
very
well
supported
anyway,
and
it's
not
actually
much
related
to
calendaring
data
in
a
more
narrow
sense.
J
The
goal
is
to
use
it
as
an
alternative
to
AI
calendar,
which
means
that
we
are
deliberately
not
restricting
ourselves
to
the
current
semantics
of
the
icon
of
the
data
data
model.
Of
course,
we
are
aiming
at
a
very
large
useful
overlap
in
semantics,
but
we
also
took
the
liberty
to
omit
parts
or
add
new
semantics,
very
appropriate
next
slide.
Please.
J
J
So
there
are
a
couple
of
implementations
of
variants
of
the
earlier
RFC
proposes
flying
around
one
of
them,
and
the
most
recent
in
my
understanding
is
the
implementation
in
the
open-source
iris
I
met
project.
There
are
other
vendors
using
earlier
variants
of
this
RFC
proposal
in
their
products
and
was
it
fast
mail.
We
are
using
a
production
earlier
variant
of
the
proposed
data
model.
J
So
in
terms
of
the
of
the
RFC,
we
are
quite
confident
following
the
review
feedback
that
we
got
over
the
last
years
that
we
are,
we
are
covering
most
of
the
ground.
There
are
probably
still
a
few
changes
coming
and
following
this
ITF
meeting
I
will
upload
a
new
RFC
draft,
based
on
the
latest
experience
of
bringing
Cyrus
I
map
up
to
the
latest.
Spec
I,
don't
foresee
any
big
changes.
Nevertheless,
of
course,
if
there
are
any
there
is
any
feedback,
big
or
small,
we
will
be
very,
very
happy
to
receive
input
on
that
one.
J
B
B
B
Okay
right,
so
this
is
something
I
can
do
on
my
side,
so
I
will
do
that
as
soon
as
possible
and
we
need
additional
review
so
I
think
the
document
is
my
understanding.
Is
that
it's
pretty
stable,
it's
not
going
too
well.
We
do
not
expect
major
change
from
the
current
version
to
the
working
of
last
goal.
So
what
do
we
need
now
is
to
have
confirmation
from
the
ITF
perspective
that
everything
is
well
structured
and
okay
and
then
we
need
also
I
mean
the
the
vendors
experience
saying
yeah
we
have
implemented
it.
H
On
so
that's
my
front,
Gondwana
I
have
written
an
independent,
an
independent
implementation,
the
one
that
Roberts
done
so
Roberts
written
the
C
implementation
of
written
and
implementation
in
Perl
of
not
quite
up
today
with
the
spec
and
I
will
certainly
do
that
before
I.
Send
my
final
review
through
but
I
have
that
running
in
the
gem,
a
proxy
code
and
it
works
correctly
with
a
client
that's
been
written
for
it,
and
Neil
has
written
a
client
for
okay.
I,
said
it
library
as
well
yeah.
B
So
so
yeah,
please
indicate
those
and
I
mean
if
that's
not
open
source,
if
it's
open
source
put
the
link
to
that
yeah,
because
we
have
a
code
stand
thing
so
I'd
like
to
have
the
mapping
between
the
this
RFC
and
the
codes.
If
it's
not
open
source
provide
the
necessary
details,
so
I
can
also
feel
the
code
stamp
thing,
and,
and
so
people
are
aware
of
that
and
I
think
that
would
be
helpful.
B
J
Probably
one
more
thing
to
add
here
that,
as
we
are
using
the
iCal
and
the
data
format
for
storage
of
calendar
and
data
in
Syrus
I'ma,
we
have
a
working.
But
all
we
have
a
working
use
case
for
translating
between
these
four
two
formats,
and
there
is
also
discussion
with
the
lip
I
Kelsey
library,
the
open
source,
the
open
source,
iCal
library
written
in
C.
In
my
opinion,
that
we
integrate
the
chaise
calendar
translation.
So
that
would
benefit
other
implementers
to
translate
between
these
two
formats.
Back
and
forth.
B
D
B
D
F
D
F
Think
the
the
the
main
point
is
that
the
large
majority
of
the
people
that
are
in
the
calendaring
space
do
a
lot
of
the
work
within
Cal
Connect
and
we're
not
looking
to
necessarily
fast-track
things
through
the
ITF,
because
we,
the
ITF,
brings
valuable
reviews
to
the
table,
but
we're
looking
for
a
tighter
integration,
where
we
can
maybe
speed
up
the
process
of
moving
where
products
out
of
Cal
connect
through
the
review
process
and
into
our
RFC
format.
I
guess
that'd
be
the
one
liner
right.
D
Would
you
like
me,
as
a
area
director,
to
try
to
find
a
person
who
can
be
liaison
to
call
connect?
I
mean
there
are
sort
of
two
paths
straight.
There
is
a
possible
procedural
stuff
with
what
IB
needs
to
do
on
their
end
or
not.
You
know,
depending
what
they
decide
to
do,
which
is
I
cannot
control,
but
there
is
also
question
is
if
there
is
official
liaison,
you
know
who
the
person
should
be
and
I
think
you
suggested
the
person,
but
I
haven't
talked
to
him
yet.
F
F
D
I
This
is
very
so
I
do
I,
am
the
liaison
from
IETF
to
mob
and
I
actually
serve
in
both
directions,
not
officially,
but
in
fact
that's
how
it
works
the
that
they
don't
have
any
particular
need
to
send
anybody
as
a
liaison
the
IETF,
because
I
move
information
in
both
directions.
The
traditional
thing
that
a
liaison
does
is
that
if
I'm,
if
I'm,
really
a
Zhaan
to
nog
I,
would
make
sure
the
IETF
learns
about
things
that
happen
in
MOG,
they
need
to
know
about,
and
their
liaison
would
pull
the
other
way.
I
I
The
only
processes
that
you
need
to
ask
the
IAB
to
do
it
in
my
case,
with
mod
back
in
Lisa,
do
sales
time.
Lisa
Lisa
asked
the
IAB
to
create
a
liaison
to
Marg
and
suggested
me
as
the
person,
and
they
deliberated
for
about
seven
milliseconds
and
then
did
it
and
do
then
they
assign
a
liaison
Shepherd
for
you
and
that's
it.
D
I
D
You
think
you
can
so
I'll
try
to
talk
to
IB
in
particular
that
hottie
I
here
this
week
and
see
what
we
can
do,
because
the
reason
why
erases
this
would
actually
hopefully
help
with
getting
information
back
and
forth
and
getting
more
review.
So
it
is,
you
know,
for
somebody
in
I
didn't
well
idea
world
how
connect
people
should
just
participate
directly
on
ITF
mailing
this,
it's
an
open,
a
mailing
list,
and
they
should
just
post
comments
here.
I
I
It
would
just
be
Ken
or
whoever
saying
I
think
this
work
is
ready
to
bring
to
the
IETF.
Now
we
should
do
it
sooner
rather
than
later,
which
is
the
main
issue
that
we
have,
that
we
get
stuff
too
late
and
I.
Think
there
probably
be
very
little
that
you
need
to
pull
in
the
other
direction,
but
IETF
is
working
on
this
Cal
Cal
connect.
You
ought
to
know
about
it.
It's
probably
going
to
be
fairly
minimal.
B
Yeah
yeah,
because
we're
one
thing
is
for
us
to
be
able
to
move
forward
the
documents
so
have
an
understanding
and
how
much
it
has
been
discussed,
and
but
that's,
but
the
other
thing
is
that
if
we
have
finalized
document,
then
I
mean
the
the
margin
for
changing
is
becoming
very
narrow
and
we
can
also
be
in
deadlock
situation.
So
that's
that's
what
we
would
like
to
avoid
so
as
soon
as
possible.
B
I
I
Issue
of
saying,
saying
to
Falcon:
Act
I
am
saying
to
Cal
Kinect
that
this
work
is
mature
enough.
Let's
get
it
into
the
IETF,
while
they
can
still
help
us
get
it
and
then
the
other
direction,
the
IETF
stock
ument
is
ready
for
working
group.
Last
call
Cal
connect
people,
you
please
review
it
also
and
post
your
reviews
to
the
Calix
mailing
list,
so
that
that
would
be
mostly
what
the
flow
would
be.
Yeah.
B
F
Yeah
I've
been
doing
my
best
to
get
the
Calcutta
members
to
do
exactly
what
Woodberry
suggested
that
one
impediment
that
I
see
be
running
into
is
some
of
the
Cal
connect
members,
especially
some
of
the
larger
vendors,
and
you
could
probably
guess
who
I'm
talking
about
our
leery
of
posting,
their
acceptance
of
certain
things
on
a
public
mailing
list,
because
they
fear
that
it's
it's
leaking
out.
What
they're
currently
working
on
and
I'm,
not
sure
how
to
get
around
that
barrier.
I
guess.
I
The
only
thing
I
would
suggest
for
that
is
to
tell
them
that
it's,
it's
certainly
very
clear
to
everybody
who
works
in
the
IETF,
that
your
review
of
a
document
is
your
personal
technical
review
of.
What's
there
and
not
any
commitment
from
your
company
to
implement
it,
and
if
you
know,
if
you
say
that
often
enough,
maybe
they'll
get
it
yeah.
F
D
If
not,
if
we
will
continue
not
to
have
any
reviews
and
documents,
then
what
I
should
be
doing
as
a
director
is
closing
the
Working
Group
and
send
all
of
your
documents
to
independent
stream
editor,
and
then
you
will
have
to
convince
independent
stream
editor
that
they
need
to
be
published
as
RFC
I'm.
Just
saying
you
know
this
is
this:
is
an
option
and.
F
F
H
H
The
front
pages
of
tech
news
with
big
company
is
doing
this
in
a
way
that
they're
not
allowed
to
say,
and
then
it
comes
back
to
individual
developer
wrote
this
thing:
individual
developer
gets
in
very
hot
water
through
no
fault
of
their
own
and
story
no
fault
of
this
process,
but
because
the
tech
media
going
to
just
do
crap
like
that.
So.
I
We
haven't
seen
that
happen.
We
people
post
reviews
in
the
ietf
all
the
time
and
their
companies
never
get
this
showing
up
in
the
press.
I
guess
somebody
could
always
preface
their
review
with
I
have
no
idea
whether
my
company
will
implement
this
or
not.
But
here
are
my
technical
comments
on
the
content.
D
B
F
D
Hard
to
say
whether
the
process
is
young
or
not,
you
have
to
the
way
it
works.
You
talk
directly
to
independent
stream,
editor,
which
is
at
the
NFL.
He
has
a
review
panel.
He
will
have
to
find
at
least
couple
of
reviewers
who
also
reviewed
himself
and
decide
whether
it's
worth
publishing
the
process
might
or
might
not
be
quick
or
longer.
I
think
it
depends
on
the
document,
but
I
think
he
would
struggle
with
the
same
thing.