Re: CAP-12 - interm version 'A'

[pregen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Bruce, thanks for taking the trouble to do the diff.  And, thank you for
sending me a copy of the entire diff document.  I've put it out on the
following link so people can read it - I understand it was too big to go
through the email engine at imc.org.  I don't have a problem hosting it on
my site. The link is http://www.egenconsulting.com/ietf/Diff-10-12a.txt

I agree that if there are so many changes/differences, if they are not
white space changes, we need to know what they are.  We know there should
be quite a few, but it is always a good idea to post some sort of short
summary when a document changes that dramatically.  In fact, several months
ago Doug brought up exactly this issue regarding changes made to CAP after
we put in the BEEP work.  Knowing that,  I am sure Doug will respond
appropriately.

In one of your comments below, you said Doug changed the footer to be
Royer, et al.  In searching through IETF archives of RFC's and drafts, it
appears there is a precedent for doing that when there are more names than
will fit on one footer line.  I'm not sure that's the case on this draft,
but I leave that up to the other authors to "yell and scream" if their
names only appear at the top of the draft and not on every line.  Either
way is "Ok" according to the RFC that details how to set up RFC's.

As for the boiler plate changes, I think a boiler plate is supposed to be
just that - I am not sure we have much leverage to change things.  However,
I must admit I don't know if the boiler plate has recently changed.  I will
be looking into that as we speak.

And finally, I'm not sure your "colors" came across.  For security reasons
I have turned off allowing HTML in incoming emails and other's may have as
well.
Bruce said:

Doug wrote on 08/30/2003 03:48:52 PM:
> I have placed the latest edit of CAP for your review at:
>
> ? ?http://inet-consulting.com/draft-ietf-calsch-cap-12-a.txt

Since the editor is busy revising CAP and reshashing some iCalendar issues
I thought Id take a shot at doing the DIFFs between CAP-10-17-FEB-03 and
CAP-12-A. ?Once I did I think I know why Doug was reticent to do it for the
WG.

Here is a windiff view of the changes:

with CAP-10-17-FEB-03 being the red and CAP-12-A being the yellow. ?This is
a LOT of changes. ?According to diff, there were 707 changes. ?This
includes 1 very big change for the TOC and ~140 changes for the
headers/footers. ?That leaves ~565 changes between CAP-10 and CAP-12-a.

In looking a bit closer I see that CAP-12a is ~7 pages shorter than
CAP-10. ?I also see some new sections in the TOC so Im very curious to know
where all the changes came from? ?I dont recall seeing much WG traffic
related to CAP issues lately and I certainly dont recall any WG discussion
on some of the bigger issues (at least to the point of concensus). ?Did I
miss something or are these just changes created by the editors for WG
review??

Some of the changes are pure whitespace changes. ?The first content diff
was:
===========================================================================
************************** e:\draft-ietf-calsch-cap-10-17Feb03.txt, Line 23
? ?Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. ?Note that
? ?other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
? ?Drafts.
******************************** e:\draft-ietf-calsch-cap-12-a.txt, Line 23
? ?Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
? ?groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

Since this is IETF boilerplate I dont know why any change, let alone
spacing, happened. ?We already know that there are problems with the
XML->HTML/text converter and so Im more than a bit concerned that there are
changes that creep (additions or omissions) that should not.

One of the other changes Im leary of was the change in the footers:

===========================================================================
************************ e:\draft-ietf-calsch-cap-10-17Feb03.txt, Line 1174
Royer, Babics, Hill, Mansour ? ?Expires May 4, 2003 ? ? ? ? ? ?[Page 21]
♀
Internet-Draft ? ? ? Calendar Access Protocol (CAP) ? ? ? ?November 2002
****************************** e:\draft-ietf-calsch-cap-12-a.txt, Line 1117

Royer, et al. ? ? ? ? ?Expires February 28, 2004 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? [Page 20]
♀
Internet-Draft ? ? ? Calendar Access Protocol (CAP) ? ? ? ? ?August 2003

The list of editors was replaced by just the current editor name and "et
al." ?Im not sure that the new format is correct given that Dougs only been
the editor for a couple revisions compared to others who have been involved
longer or on more versions of the draft but I could be wrong. ?It just
looks like an attempt to give Doug more prominence than the other editors
given that the format only just changed before a push for Last Call.

Has anyone else been able to get a more accurate picture of what changed
than just using diffs? ?I for one am more than a little leary of changes
between the drafts since there are known problems in the XML converter
tool, there are seemingly unnecessary changes in whitespace/biolerplate,
there are new sections to the draft yet the draft is ~7 pages _shorter_,
that CAP-12 and 12-a came out so quickly after CAP-11 and we have not
really discussed CAP that much recently.

Doug: Since you should have an accurate idea of what changed thats more
reflective of substantive changes, can you please provide the ?list with
that so we can feel better about the more recent drafts and we can foucs on
them rather than playing Hunt the Snipe?

Bruce