[ih] "how better protocols could solve those problems better"

[Miles Fidelman]

On 10/1/20 10:04 AM, Steve Crocker wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 9:55 AM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history 
> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org 
> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>
>
>     For a long time, I've maintained that we need a new generation of
>     application layer protocols, for things like:
>
>     ...
>
>     But we could start by actually fixing things like calendaring - where
>     the protocols exist, but nobody seems to implement them well.
>
>
> What do you have in mind that needs to be fixed re calendaring?  I 
> frequently have trouble with the calendaring.  Changes sometimes don't 
> propagate properly, and changes to recurring meetings get mangled.
>
Well, for one, Google stopped supporting standard protocols - they 
insist on syncing via their proprietary mechanisms. (It always amazes me 
that the cleanest, most reliable, most interoperable implementation is 
built into Microsoft Excange).

For another - which may have to do with the varying implementations - 
it's really easy to have calendar entries duplicate, or to accept an 
invitation only to get messages like "not found" or, as happened to me 
yesterday, I moved an event from one calendar layer to another, and 
suddenly that propagated as a new invite to 246 people.

Which leads to another problem - the fully distributed model leads to 
both privacy & traffic issues when you have large invitee lists (like 
for a webinar or something).

And then, it would sure be nice to extend the current protocols to do 
things like:  Negotiate a time & venue, build & manage agendas, and so 
forth.

> Some time ago I noticed there was a calendar working group, calisfy.  
> I joined it because I wanted to suggest that in addition to the 
> details re formats, etc., the specification should also say something 
> about expected time to propagate changes.  There was zero response 
> within the WG.  I stopped paying close attention but I remained on the 
> mailing list.  The protocol seems extremely complicated and I would 
> not be surprised if the result from the WG turns out to be better but 
> nonetheless still broken in various ways.

Likewise, the group seems to be mostly inactive, and mostly different 
big vendors who really don't want to do much.

Miles

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown