Subject: Re: CAP-12 - interm version 'A'

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 13:41:46 -0400

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                                                                                                           
                      <[email-masked]>             To:       "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>                               
                      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                                                                                                    
                      "[email-masked]                                                                                                
                      g"                                                                                                                   

[email-masked] 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
  -------------------------------|-----------------------------
  [email-masked]                 | 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)

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 12:49:13 -0600

> 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
 > 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?

 > 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.

Also - the RECURRECE-ID issue is not a CAP issue.

 > 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.

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:53:17 -0400

> 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

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...

> 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.

> 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...

> (a)   ...I certainly dont recall any WG discussion on some of the bigger

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.

>      (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.

> 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...

> 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??

> 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.

> 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-masked]
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 19:44:06 -0600

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
>
> 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.
> 
> effort to get it shipped rather than actually considering them then 
> there is something very wrong here.  

Removal of something that has been in CAP for YEARS is not a typo.
You have no right to assert that I have not considered them.

> shortcomings that will result in indeterminate behaviour in several 

So you have pointed out one case and some typos since -11,
stored queries that you want removed. You did not site it as busted.
Your assertion is that it does not meet what you (and others) feel
was what ever the original needs were.

The typos are getting fixed and the word smithing as you called
it are being done because of thousands WG and private emails.
And I do not place those in the same category as issues that will
"result in indeterminate behavior".

If you have a list of bugs, compatibility issues - please post it.

Without such an issue list - your claims are just bits of noise.

If you have proposals - make them. Many have made proposals
that are in CAP. They have proposed solutions, text, and
ABNF. That is helpful. Simply declaring there are un-named
issues is not helpful.

--

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 19:59:42 -0600

[email-masked] wrote:

> 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.

> 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?

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

> 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.

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

Is this really one of the "issues" that you fell is going to make CAP
ship before it is ready?

> VQUERYs?" of which you were a participant even.

And no consensus was called.

> 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?

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.
> 
> 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.

Look in your diff - you initiated the change on this WG list that
resulted in most of that 7 pages missing.

> 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).

--

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 20:27:32 -0600

[email-masked] wrote:

> don't recall anyone else doing it either.  Now you are just being 
> paranoid Doug.

Bruce as far as I can tell you are the only one to have made claims
that the editors have a motive to sneak in changes in each and every
release/version of CAP, iTIP, iMIP, and iCAL.

Your feed back is *very* useful. But your assertions of negative
motives is at the best, not helpfull.

--

---

From: Tim Hare <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 06:36:15 -0400

I may be muddying the water here, I am about to leave on un-connected 
travel, so I hate to start a discussion since I don't have time to search 
RFC2445 for details until Monday, but this occurred to me this morning and 
so I submit it to the group.

RFC2445 allows for x-comp and iana-comp in 4.6.   This allows any CS / CUA 
that wants to to support stored queries as x-comp members within the CS 
unless I'm overlooking something else (see above for time shortage).

I propose that we drop all stored query items from CAP (and for that matter 
iTIP / iMIP and any other CUA protocols). Any implementation which wants to 
do so can support them via the x-comp facility. It looks to me as though 
you can still search for the objects with VQUERY.

The X- stands for 'experimental', so this would allow us to wait until some 
"real world" experience has developed around stored queries before we make 
it a non-experimental part of the RFC; it also removes the burden (from us) 
of figuring out the CAP handling of such items in detail, moving the CAP 
closer to being done.

Tim Hare
interested bystander, non-inc.

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 13:01:16 -0600

There are really (3) issues:

	(A) Can you store a VQUERY in CAP?
	(B) Can you fetch a VQUERY in CAP?
	(C) Can you tell a CS to auto-execute a stored query?

         Others?

Everyone knows my opinion on these three, yours?

Tim Hare wrote:
> travel, so I hate to start a discussion since I don't have time to 
> search RFC2445 for details until Monday, but this occurred to me this 
> morning and so I submit it to the group.
> 
> RFC2445 allows for x-comp and iana-comp in 4.6.   This allows any CS / 
> CUA that wants to to support stored queries as x-comp members within the 
> CS unless I'm overlooking something else (see above for time shortage).
> 
> I propose that we drop all stored query items from CAP (and for that 
> matter iTIP / iMIP and any other CUA protocols). Any implementation 
> which wants to do so can support them via the x-comp facility. It looks 
> to me as though you can still search for the objects with VQUERY.
> 
> The X- stands for 'experimental', so this would allow us to wait until 
> some "real world" experience has developed around stored queries before 
> we make it a non-experimental part of the RFC; it also removes the 
> burden (from us) of figuring out the CAP handling of such items in 
> detail, moving the CAP closer to being done.
> 
> Tim Hare

--

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 15:06:55 -0400

Doug replied on 09/04/2003 09:44:06 PM:
> >  > I was going to oppose ANY AND ALL changes to CAP so that we can get 

> > it out.

> You have no right to assert that I have not considered them.

You practically said as much when you wrote "I was going to oppose ANY AND 
ALL changes to CAP so that we can get it out.".  Thats your direct quote 
yes?

> was what ever the original needs were.

If you want to whine and nit pick over the original intent of stored 
queries then I'll just the attempt.  You tacitly agreed to the intent I 
described in earlier emails and now you are trying to dispute them.  Go 
ahead.  If anyone bothers to check previous discussions on stored queries 
(including the thread of ~Jan/Feb/Mar 2002 where we wanted to simplify the 
query lingua) they will see you using PDAs and Cell phones as part of the 
discussion.

Stored queries have some use now but they are far short of what we 
originally intended.  The proposal to remove them is still on the table 
and so far the ONLY objection to it is you; the avowed change opposing 
editor.

> it are being done because of thousands WG and private emails.

Thousands?  I somehow doubt it.  I know the ones I sent (for CAP-10 mind 
you) and Ive seen the 2 pages from others in Bugzilla and the list.  Are 
you saying that after 10+ versions (CAP-10 had 4+ versions alone!) we 
still have "thousands" of typos.  Ahh, hehehe.  Must be some attempt at 
levity...

> If you have a list of bugs, compatibility issues - please post it.

Ive done that 3 times now.  If you cant see them then either get glasses 
or get someone to help you.

Bruce

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 15:33:36 -0400

> 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)!

> 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

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

> I found the answer in less than a minute. Your questions are answered

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...

> 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.

> It was covered on the WG list. If you do not like what it does,

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

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 14:02:13 -0600

[email-masked] wrote:
> You practically said as much when you wrote "I was going to oppose ANY 
> AND ALL changes to CAP so that we can get it out.".  Thats your direct 
> quote yes?

Do you see the word TYPO in that?

--

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 14:03:50 -0600

[email-masked] wrote:
> Hello!  McFly!! 

I am deleting the rest of your email - unread. Learn manners.

--