Re: CAP-12 - interm version 'A'

Doug fired back on 09/04/2003 02:49:13 PM:
>  > 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).

Not its not and you've done it before on other drafts we've worked here on 
so dont act as if the request is totally out of left field and new to you.

>                         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.

If you are simply opposing any and all proposals made to fix CAP in an 
effort to get it shipped rather than actually considering them then there 
is something very wrong here. 

I seriously seriously doubt that the ADs or the co-chairs just want to 
pass a draft thats got identifiable problems that are fixable just to get 
the draft done and the group closed down.  If progress is being made then 
I suspect they would give us a chance to fix things before pulling the 
plug.

If CAP was just going to be pushed out in its current form then what need 
did the ADs/co-chairs have of an editor?  None really.  They could have 
just issued it and been done with it.   Why ask you to be the editor if 
there was going to be no further changes at all?

If CAP 1.0 goes out as it, it will have plenty of known flaws or 
shortcomings that will result in indeterminate behaviour in several cases. 
 This is NOT the way to get CAP 1.0 adopted in products.  Im not as 
concerned about fixing each and every gramatical error as I am in making 
sure that the larger design issues get addressed first.  If you're not 
sure what Im referring to, read on...

> 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.

Ive posted an issue.  Several in fact.  Ive even posted ideas for WG 
discussion on solving them.

Instead of looking at them you've tried to use email flooding and 
digression to disusade WG discussion.  I seriously doubt this is what 
Pat/Ned or anyone else expected or wanted.  I would be willing to be that 
they really wanted to disuade any new features unless there was a large 
outcry for them and that fixes were not part of the prohibition.

> 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. 

Ive questioned your recent reluctance to do things you've done before as 
editor and the changes I found in comparing 2 versions of CAP.  Given what 
I found I dont think that my suspicions are necessarily unfounded.  They 
may be incorrect but NOT unfounded.

However if you want to know why I question your motives read on still...

> 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 ...

Please point to the WG thread(s) where we discussed and resolved the issue 
of scoping on SEARCH?

Please point to the WG thread(s) where we discussed and resolved the issue 
of busytime querying and maintenance?  (For which I twice posted a 
proposed solution but you have refused to acknowledge it let alone discuss 
it.)

Please point to the WG thread(s) where we resolved the issue of stored 
queries?  (For which Andrea and I have proposed a solution as well.)

We've had CAP-11, CAP-12 and CAP-12-a in very quick succession over the 
span of a couple months.  Why so many revisions if we didn't 
discuss/resolve the issues raised in the months just prior to them?  Even 
if the pageful of grammar/typos in your Bugzilla were factored in  that 
does not account for 3 revisions in such a short a span of time.

> (b)   ...Im more than a bit concerned that there are changes that creep
>      (additions or omissions) that should not. ...

diff reports 707 changes between CAP-10 and CAP-12-a.  Not some custom 
tool; generic diff.  If I remove the TOC (1 big difference) and the ~140 
headers/footers that leaves ~565 other changes of _some_ kind.  If we were 
not discussing CAP issues over the past month or two, just where did all 
these changes come from?  Some are pure whitespace but others are NOT. 
Either there were LOTS and LOTS of typos or grammar errors or changs were 
made.

The TOC for CAP-12-a says there are 7 fewer pages.  Unless you did some 
unusual reformatting there is no way typos and small grammar changes can 
account for this!  Combine this with the results from diff and its easy to 
call changes into question (especially given your reticence to provide a 
summary of the changes yet you have time to spin out several extra CAP 
related drafts).

Instead of providing a summary of the changes in the drafts you say I 
should do it.  When I do and I question the results you complain that Im 
not reading the drafts.  As editor you should be able to tell us what 
changes you made using your custom XML based tool rather than making us 
all try to find them.

> (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? 

Its hard to see the details if you dont read the posts Doug.

The footer change was coincidental with Dougs great desire to go to Last 
Call and was not something done on ANY previous version of the draft, 
excluding the CAP-11 I never saw nor can I find the URL for, and was not 
an unreasonable change to notice or question.  After all, it didnt happen 
on any previous CAP-10 drafts that Doug edited so it looked suspicious...

> 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.

Umm, which version of CAP-10 was this?  We had several in Dec/Jan/Feb. 

You clearly missed the issue of stored queries that was in active 
discussion in Nov/Dec 2002 under the thread "What good are stored 
VQUERYs?" of which you were a participant even.

You also missed the scoping issue from the thread "How do you get the 
METHOD property on a SEARCH" in April 2003.

You also did not cover the issue of busy time creation/searching/updating 
that I raised under "CAP & busytime?" in March 2003 and "CAP / Busytime 
Restart" in April 2003.

Oh yeah, if that went into CAP-11 then what was the need for a CAP-12 and 
CAP-12-a so soon after CAP-11??

> 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. 

Then why are there so many whitespace changes unrelated to anything else? 
The boilerplate text alone had more than just 1 change in whitespace:

===========================================================================
************************** e:\draft-ietf-calsch-cap-10-17Feb03.txt, Line 
29
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
******************************** e:\draft-ietf-calsch-cap-12-a.txt, Line 
28
   time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
===========================================================================
******************************** e:\draft-ietf-calsch-cap-12-a.txt, Line 
51
   (CALSCH) Working Group.  More information about the IETF CALSCH
******************************** e:\draft-ietf-calsch-cap-12-a.txt, Line 
59
   (CALSCH) Working Group. More information about the IETF CALSCH
===========================================================================
************************** e:\draft-ietf-calsch-cap-10-17Feb03.txt, Line 
63
   www.ietf.org/html.charters/calsch-charter.html [1].  Refer to the
******************************** e:\draft-ietf-calsch-cap-12-a.txt, Line 
62
   www.ietf.org/html.charters/calsch-charter.html [1]. Refer to the

There are plenty of other non-typo changes to be found by diff too. Either 
they came from the Dougs fingers or from his non-standard XML tool thats 
admittedly munges content.  Either way, there is no simple way to not see 
them using the diff tool that Doug suggested we use.

So, if you only did typo changes an other minor grammar changes then why 
is CAP-12-a 7 pages shorter but ~2K larger??  7 pages/~2K is a LOT for no 
acutal substance changes no matter how you cut it.

You want facts Ill give you some to consider in questioning Dougs motives:

1: Doug has not been shy about his desire to get CAP to Last Call.  Even 
though he's "on several ietf mailing lists" he seemed to think making Last 
Call was his perogative rather than the chairs.
2: Doug has consistanly refused to provide a change list for CAP-11, 
CAP-12 or CAP-12-a unlike previous iterations or drafts where hes done 
exactly that.
3: The sheer volume of changes between CAP-10-17-FEB-03 and CAP-12-a is 
astounding.  Over 500K edited down to remove the TOC and many 
headers/footers.  707 changed blocks of text (TOC and headers/footers 
included)  Thats much more than typical for supposedly typos and grammar 
changes.
4: There are 7 fewer pages in CAP-12-a than CAP-10-17-FEB-03.  Again thats 
much more than would be reasonably expected for typos and grammar changes 
alone.
5: Dougs been the editor for a while now and only for CAP-12-a do I see 
that the footers changed to be "et al." instead of the list of editors. 
Unless your XML tool changed and automagically rewrites footer content I 
have to doubt that it was a tool bug.  It could be that Doug forgot to 
make the change this time and he made it in previous versions but he didnt 
say that so I wont assume that to his benefit.
6: None of the CAP-10 drafts Doug put out had the seemingly minor changes 
in them between versions (ie: no whitespace changes).
7: Instead of engaging in constructive dialog about issues in CAP, Doug 
has chosen to ignore postings by those not afraid of him (ie: Michael 
Fair) or try to digress the thread off topic (ie: my postings)

All of these put together I think show why I raised the question of 
motivation.  Only Doug can say with 100% certainty what his motives are, I 
have to rely on what I observe.  The observed 7 facts above (plus other 
OOB info) are why I questioned him. 

If Im totally off base then I appologize but from what I've observed (see 
above) I'd have to say that Dougs motives dont look all that pure.  Couple 
that with your admitted intent to "to oppose ANY AND ALL changes to CAP so 
that we can get it out" and the questioning now appears even less 
unwaranted.

> 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.

Umm, I havent questioned you or any editor since CAP-00 (until now).  I 
don't recall anyone else doing it either.  Now you are just being paranoid 
Doug.

There is no way any email (public or private) will be able to prove or 
disprove your motives since we are not inside your head. 

However, it is possible to observe a pattern of behaviour and from there 
deduce motives or at least potential motives.  If you combine the facts 
above like I did then you should be able to see that they collectively 
paint a questionable picture.  To test this out I asked 7 random folks 
here to read the list above and asked them for their impression of the 
person described.  Each and every one came to the same conclusion that I 
did.

> When I want to see what changed - I do a diff.

Since you know you didnt make that ~700 changes (right??) you should be 
somewhat curious why there were so many differences.  Well, you _should_ 
have been curious...

Given that CAP-10-17-Feb-03 was ~242K and CAP-12-a is ~244K you should 
have been more than a little curious when the diff is over 500K and 
reports 707 changes!  I certainly am and among them are some that 
reasonably can call your motives into question.

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...