Doug, thanks for responding so quickly to Bruce's note. However, I am
concerned about the tone of the note - we need more productive responses to
questions and not challenges and verbal abuse.
I have just sent out a note that says we do indeed need to know what
changes our in our recent draft. That's typical for an editor to post
summaries to a list when changes are made. What we see from you are lots
of line noise - but when you post a draft - very little comments regarding
what went into the drafts as text and changes. On 8/18 you sent out a note
pointing up to Bugzilla (http://INET-Consulting.com/bugzilla). That's a
great start - this is a good place to track draft changes. However, your
bugzilla report only shows typo changes. That does not account for a
reduction of 7 pages nor new sections found by Bruce when he ran the
windiff. If there are new sections or reductions, shouldn't they be in the
bugzilla report as well?
I believe that's one of the reasons we are struggling to get this draft to
last call - every time someone challenges one of your ideas, you bombast
them with a verbal harrange such that only those with skins of steel will
continue the dialog. That is not what an editor should do. An editor
should put into the draft what the list feels should be there. And, it is
the chairs responsibility to call concensus on items and ensure that they
make it to the list. I will stand up and take responsibility for not doing
that more proactively.
However, I spent an entire weekend going through all the recent emails so
that I can post my own "summary" of recent items showing what I see are
"for/against" types of responses. I will be curious to see if my summary
of comments matches your summary of changes to the CAP draft. If they do,
I will be pleased and comfortable that we have done the right things. If
they do not, we need to take steps to get that rectified.
Therefore, we do need a summary from you, the current editor, of changes
you have made to the most recent draft that you submitted. I appreciate
your hard work on this draft - I want to come to last call - but only with
a draft that everyone on this list (who is interested) agrees with.
Doug Royer
<Doug@xxxxxxxxx> To: "ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx" <ietf-calendar@xxxxxxx>
Sent by: cc:
owner-ietf-calendar@m Subject: Re: CAP-12 - interm version 'A'
ail.imc.org
09/04/2003 12:41 PM
Please respond to
"ietf-calendar@xxxxxx
g"
Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> 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.
Thanks for finally agreeing that you could indeed help and that
your repeated claims that you did not have time or ability to do
your own diff were just silly.
> Here is a windiff view of the changes:
>
>
> 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??
Burce you have a bad habit of declaring abusive conclusions and not
without yourself doing the work to see if it is true.
If you have specific issues - post them so they can be fixed,
backed up, or removed. So far there have been no issues in
this email that effect the CAP protocol at all.
If you do not want to do that work, then please stop your unfounded
whining claims.
> 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.
Please read the IETF INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS - I simply
followed the instructions. Read the formatting requirements
as to page width. And make a guess as to how things
are being reformatted.
Hyphenation is NO longer allowed at the end of a line. Do you
feel this is one of those additions or omissions that should
not happen? I mean the horrible example you site above has
no technical meaning to the CAP protocol.
Double spaces after a period are not longer allowed. Do you
feel the missing single spaces are of such technical merit
that it changes the meaning of CAP to the point that you
want to declare on the WG list that I have been creeping
things into and out of CAP as you have claimed in your
comment about those changes above?
***********************************************************
-- AND so as there will be NO more shocking claims, the release process
-- will result in MANY formatting changes before RFC status.
***********************************************************
> One of the other changes Im leary of was the change in the footers:
Please read the IETF INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS - I simply
followed the instructions.
And it is a NEW requirement from the IETF. The new XML2RFC
tool just enforces it now. The hack to add the other
authors to the footer was *mine* - the IETF rejected it.
I did talk to Pat about this -months- ago and she was aware
of this NON-TECHNICAL issue. I *did* talk to Steve about this
when he first noticed. Did you bother to find out before
declaring on this this it was horrible change?
> 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.
Bruce - your simply being a whiner - you insult me and yet
in the same paragraph declare '..but I could be wrong. ...'
Well - you are wrong.
Please read the IETF INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS.
And as to longer - you do not have a clue. I was part of the few
that started CAP prior to Dallas and you really need to get your facts
correct before you start to embarrass yourself farther. I was
one of the original authors and did much of the work as did
others. The IETF made that an RFC rule - not me.
If you have an issue or problem - state it. Please keep your insults
to yourself.
> 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,
Please read the IETF INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS, when you do you will
understand that these NON-TECHNICAL changes are MANDATED by the IETF
as formatting requirements for submission to the last call process.
> 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.
And -b will come out this weekend with this weeks WG fixes as
discussed on this WG list.
> 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?
No, as it is time for a snipe hunt. Diffs mean that people do not
read the entire text in context. It is time to read the entirety
of CAP in context so we can go to WG last call.
Overlall 11 or 12-a have not had that many technical issues.
My issue list had ZERO items on it when 12-a came out. We
are getting close to last call.
--
Doug Royer | http://INET-Consulting.com
-------------------------------|-----------------------------
Doug@xxxxxxxxx | Office: (208)612-INET
http://Royer.com/People/Doug | Fax: (866)594-8574
| Cell: (208)520-4044
We Do Standards - You Need Standards
(See attached file: smime.p7s)
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: Binary data