<div dir="ltr">Hi Simon, <br><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Thanks for the feed back.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Simon Perreault <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sperreault@jive.com" target="_blank">sperreault@jive.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Tobias,<br>
<br>
A draft's name is irrelevant. It will be gone once it gets published<br>
as an RFC. Other than in the two drafts' names, "timezone" is absent<br>
from the proposed milestone text so I don't see any terminology issue.<br>
<br>
All,<br>
<br>
My comments on the proposed milestones:<br>
<br>
- I don't see the need for 2-3 months between WGLC and submission to<br>
IESG. If issues are tracked tightly during the whole process<br>
[RFC7282], WGLC becomes a formality and you can send to IESG right<br>
away. In any case, I suggest removing the WGLC milestones: the "send<br>
to IESG" milestones are sufficient.<br>
<br></blockquote><div>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. <br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
- "September 2016 re-charter the WG": This should not be a milestone.<br>
Rechartering is something that is done out of necessity in the present<br>
moment, not something that a WG aims to do in the future. Not having<br>
the milestone does not impact in any way the possibility of a<br>
rechartering.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></blockquote><div>I am also fine with that. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
Simon<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Tobias Conradi <<a href="mailto:tc@tobiasconradi.com">tc@tobiasconradi.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Daniel Migault <<a href="mailto:mglt.ietf@gmail.com">mglt.ietf@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> ...<br>
>> These are the milestones we propose. If you have any comments, please feel<br>
>> free to post them before Tuesday August 19 so we can consider them.<br>
><br>
> 2014-08-13 today<br>
> 2014-08-19 the mentioned Tuesday<br>
> = 6 days<br>
><br>
> This seems rather short, see<br>
> <a href="http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tzdist/current/msg00004.html" target="_blank">http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tzdist/current/msg00004.html</a><br>
> 2014-07-03 proposal to Mr. Daboo to change "timezone" to "time zone"<br>
><br>
> 2014-08-08 this change has been done for the WG name<br>
><br>
> = 1 month, 5 days<br>
><br>
> But simple renaming not yet done for the drafts mentioned in the charter<br>
> --------------<br>
> The working group will use the following drafts as initial input for its<br>
> work:<br>
> draft-douglass-timezone-service-11<br>
> draft-daboo-caldav-timezone-ref-01<br>
> --------------<br>
><br>
> So, shall people use drafts with outdated terminology as basis for discussion?<br>
><br>
> I prefer to fix the drafts ASAP so that their contents can be<br>
> discussed using consistent terminology.<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Tobias Conradi<br>
> Rheinsberger Str. 18<br>
> 10115 Berlin<br>
> Germany<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://tobiasconradi.com" target="_blank">http://tobiasconradi.com</a><br>
><br>
</div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> _______________________________________________<br>
> Tzdist mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Tzdist@ietf.org">Tzdist@ietf.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tzdist" target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tzdist</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Daniel Migault<br>Orange Labs -- Security<br>+33 6 70 72 69 58
</div></div>