Re: CAP-12 - interm version 'A'

Doug seemed confused on 09/04/2003 09:59:42 PM:
> >  > 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?
> 
> Go re-read my post (a) was not about SEARCH. It was was in response
> to the text you sent. Your mis quoting me again.

Hello!  McFly!!  Your (a) was a citation from one of my emails and your 
charge was I didnt describe "bigger issues" I was referring to.  I did 
that.  I listed 3 even (of which you only how include 1)!

> >  > (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.
> 
> Your own assertions above conclude that you still do not know. Why
> are you posting there is a problem and in the same post declaring
> you did not know if there is a problem - whitespace inside of 
paragraphs?

INCONSISTANT whitespace changes inside the text (contrary to the actual 
RFC Authors guidelines even!).  NOT every sentence after a period was 1 
blank instead of 2.  So clearly it was not a consitant change done by the 
tool or the editor.

(b) is a concern that there is a problem w/the editor and/or his tools 
given the inconsistancy of the changes (among other changes) between 
CAP-10-17-FEB-03 and CAP-12-a.  My info about diff (an IETF standard tool) 
reveals all kinds of changes and with no consistantcy to them.  This is 
cause for concern (plus the fact your XML tool admittedly losses content). 
 If it does not concern you then Id be even more concerned about you being 
sole editor of CAP now.

> There are lots of changes because there were lots of changes including
> formatting of the text.

Why are you reformatting the draft?  It only makes the process of finding 
changes HARDER, not easier.  Is that another goal you have?

> > 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).
> 
> The 7 pages concerned me also. So looking at YOUR diff that Pat has 
hosted.
> I found the answer in less than a minute. Your questions are answered
> in your own diff.

Of course, you say there is an answer but you wont provide it.  Typical. 
You did that for all discussion over the past 4 months.  "I dont have to 
prove anything." (loosely paraphrased).  Well in the IETF if you cant back 
up your statements then but the other folks can then yours dont hold much 
water...

> > 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.
> 
> And no consensus was called.

So it is an issue then...  Funny, you didnt list that a known one when you 
tried to go to Last Call over the summer.

> > You also missed the scoping issue from the thread "How do you get the 
> > METHOD property on a SEARCH" in April 2003.
> 
> It was covered on the WG list. If you do not like what it does,
> do you have a proposal?

It was NOT resolved. Another issue you conveniently forgot for CAP-11 or 
to acknowledge lately.

> > 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.
> 
> Did it reach consensus? I did not see it called.

I made a proposal and you did not disagree.  In fact noone did so I would 
say that we did reach concensus.  Ill leave it to you to go get the final 
text from that discussion and include it in the next version of CAP-12.

> > 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??
> 
> To post the changes so people could see what changed.

Minor typo fixes rarely call for an entirely new version so soon.  After 
all we had 4+ versions of CAP-10 and we've already had 2 versions of 
CAP-12.

> >  > 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:
> 
> As covered in the previous email. Please read the instructions
> to RFC authors and RFC 2223.

2 things:

1: You clearly misunderstood that 1 line in RFC 2223.  Had you actually 
read RFC 2223 you would have seen that _it_ uses 2 spaces after a period 
so thats not what that 1 sentence meant.  Also, the current RFC Authors 
guidelines clearly has boilerplate in it that has 2 spaces after a period. 
 Furthermore if you read the "Instructions to RFC Authors" (
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/instructions2authors.txt) 
from the RFC Editors site you would clearly see:

       (7) Spaces at the End of a Sentence

           When a sentence ended by a period is immediately followed by
           another sentence, there should be two blank spaces after the
           period.  This rule provides clarity when an RFC is displayed
           or printed with a fixed-width font.

2: Not every sentence in CAP-12-a was changed to have 1 space after the 
period; only some.  This is clear from just just searching for ".  " so 
either you didnt check to see that it got changed uniformly or the changes 
were dont seemingly at random in an attempt to make finding actual changes 
harder.  Ill give you the benefit of the doubt again and say the former... 
 Now for CAP-12-b please follow the guidelines above and restore the 
spacing.

> > You want facts Ill give you some to consider in questioning Dougs 
motives:
> > 
> (Your non-productive comments and personal opinions deleted. And I did
> not sort through them to see if there was anything useful).

Of course not.  That would mean you'd have to acutally read the contents 
of posting of someone who wont back down from you on the list.  Given all 
those separate facts (that you didnt read) its not hard to see why your 
motives could be called into question.  You may not like it but thats just 
how I interpret the actions I see.

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...