Re: CAP-12 - interm version 'A'

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
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: 
[email protected]
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...