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.
Then please stop Bruce from his unfounded insults and claims. That email he sent out did NOT include ANY comments on the protocol and made unsubstantiated claims as to my motives. It is politics and I am going to respond.
> That's typical for an editor to post summaries to a list when > changes are made.
It is not typical, I am on several ietf mailing lists, and it is DARN RARE. (see end of this post for more on this topic).
>.. 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.
STOP DECLARING THAT EVERYTHING IS *MY* IDEA we had this talk at the SF IETF meeting and I told you and Ned in San Francisco that I was going to oppose ANY AND ALL changes to CAP so that we can get it out. You *BOTH* supported me in the FACE to FACE meeting. Ned told us that the only way to finish CAP was to not let ANY more changes to CAP be done without an *OVERWELMING* request to change AND you made that announcement in the SF meeting. Ned told you and I both that is what needed to be done, else they were going to close down the WG. As a result we took out sort (and something else?). I simply have been doing what YOU and NED asked me to do - to STOP ALL CHANGES without an *OVERWELMING* request to change. I told you both the techniques I would use and we ALL agreed it was needed. I told you thatthose that delcare a problem without posting any facts are were going to get bambarded by email from me to ether post the issue or stop claiming there is one.
People keep claiming there 'are technical issues', you keep saying you think there are issues with CAP. Bruces email claimed motive but failed to support his claims. Your a chair - post the technical issues.
I *WILL* continue to respond to insults and unfounded claims about my motives. And I hope that the senders of that noise do not like my response to their insults. Bruce has a bad habit of declaring what he fears as my motive, then for some reason feels that it is not an insult to say "or I may be mistaken" as if that justifies the insult. Go re-read Bruces email and tell me if he has posted even ONE post that backs up (some in recent posts);
(a) ...I certainly dont recall any WG discussion on some of the bigger issues ...
(b) ...Im more than a bit concerned that there are changes that creep (additions or omissions) that should not. ...
(c) One of the other changes Im leary of was the change in the footers: It just looks like an attempt to give Doug more prominence ...
Now do YOU honestly see ANY details in his post to substantiate his assertions? I see him as claiming injury or my motive, without ANY facts or substantive facts to back up his posts. I think it is just politics and I am going to call him on those claims when he makes them.
In (a) he does not point out what he is talking about. But he has asserted there are 'bigger issues'.
In (b) he claims that things are creeping in (or out). Yet the example he sites is THE SAME TEXT reformatted.
In (c) he claims my motive. Then discards it as an insult by saying "..but I could be wrong". What was the point of posting his fear about my motive? Why not a question like you asked when it first came up?
> 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.
I have no problem with constructive feedback. I do have a problem with comments about my motives.
> 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.
I kept no summary. I simply printed out the -10 version of the draft, looked at the date, started looking in the WG archive from a month or so before -10 released and started using a markup pen to the printed version as I read each post. The result was edited into -11.
And -12-a is simply typos as posted to this list or logged by others into the bugtrack system I posted.
The only other things that changed were formatting issues and fixes as a result in a bug in xml2rfc that for some reason left out about 3 sentences and did some odd formatting. Bruce found one of them, no one had noticed the other two.
These kinds of rabble rousing claims about motive and secret changes have been made since -00 of CAP. Yet NO post or private email found them substantive. This is part of the IETF process.
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
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature