Subject: [Fwd: CAP-12 - interm version 'A']

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 17:37:23 -0600

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> 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)!

I have seen you LIE on this list many times. At what point will the
chair of this working group stop this trouble maker?

You ether do not have a clue what he sent or your just lying.

You seem to think that just because you post that means consensus and it
does not.

You got upset because his name is on the footer of the doc and make
that a BIG issue. Are you just jealous?

You clam that one space and not two is a BIG issue. Do you know how to
use a computer and read? Get a life!

With the RECURRENCE-ID issue you and Robert have changed your mind
several times, yet claim
he is the one that is pig headed. Your so arrogant you will not even
admit that
you changed your mind or opinion and you still slam him with lies and
insults.
You started the RECURRENCE-ID issue by declaring that it was fixed
forever.
Now you say it changes with the set, you changed your mind to be mostly
compatible with the non-fixed model, admit it and stop slamming him or
anyone simply because you changed your mind to agree with them.

Your said:

> 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... 

Not only was that on a non-CAP topic. IT HAD NOTHING WHAT SO EVER TO DO
WITH WHAT HE SENT OR CAP. Is your mail tool busted? Or are you?

I looked at your diff and never having seen CAP until -08, I figured
it out in a couple of minutes  - go hire someone competent if you can
figure it out.
This is a technical mailing list, not a list of people who subscribed
just to hear Bruce
demand other do his work.

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

Did you bother reading his post? He CAN NOT change such things until the
chair calls consensus. Because CAP IS going to ship soon (are you
now going to claim I made a last call?)

The chair chastised him for making changes, and you chastise him for not
making changes
some of which only you seem to want. How about thanking him for what
seems to be lots
of abuse from you and a couple of others that do not seem to know how to
act professionally.
Or at the very least post your item list (I do not think you have one).

Do you have an issue list? Or is there just one item on your issue list
that
is to slow down CAP until you can ship your product?

> 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.

You did not make a proposal at all. You declared you did not like
something. Have you read
the real proposals made by many that I read about on the list archive?

Yet you are the FIRST to scream when what you want is not in CAP.
Or when you want something removed from CAP.

There WAS NO CONSENSUS - who do you think you are to demand it change? 
If you want to know the consensus - ask the chair and don't declare it
yourself.

I see you post nothing useful most of the time, you RARELY post
suggestions
or useful comments. Your only contribution to this list seems to be that
you have an opinion that you badly document.

You claimed that if you just had a diff then things would be wonderful.
Then after you had your own diff you scream because you have to
read it. Grow up.

> 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.

If I call you an idiot will you listen to me? If  I call you a moron
will you then help me?

If you are incapable of posting technical issues. Why do you bother
posting?

WILL THE CHAIR PLEASE STOP BRUCE FROM HIS ENDLESS CRYING, LYING, AND
ABUSE OF OTHERS!! It takes for ever to read the archives and I am 
finding that a HUGE percentage of Bruce's posts are inflated self ego
with
no technical contribution, but its lots of text.

> 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...

Subject: Re: CAP-12 - interm version 'A'
From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 15:35:36 -0600

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> 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)!

I have seen you LIE on this list many times. At what point will the
chair of this working group stop this trouble maker?

You ether do not have a clue what he sent or your just lying.

Are you getting paid to keep CAP from being published?
I mean you call everyone names that disagrees with you.

Your said:

> 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... 

Not only was that on a non-CAP topic - IT HAD NOTHING WHAT SO EVER TO DO
WITH WHAT HE SENT
IN THE REPLY YOU ARE POSTING TO OR CAP.

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

Did you bother reading his post? He CAN NOT change such things until the
chair
calls consensus. CAP IS going to ship soon. 

> 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.

Yet you are the FIRST to scream when what you want is not in CAP.
Or when you want something removed from CAP.

There WAS NO CONSENSUS - who do you think you are? 

I see you post nothing useful, you RARELY post suggestions or useful
comments.

> 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.

If you are incapable of posting technical issues - why do you bother
posting.
If I call you an idiot will you listen to me?

WILL THE CHAIR PLEASE STOP BRUCE FROM HIS ENDLESS CRYING, LYING, AND
ABUSE OF OTHERS!!

> 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: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 12:56:47 -0400

> he is the one that is pig headed. Your so arrogant you will not even

We did not change are minds.  The scope of the original discussion was 
changing an instance of a repeat set.
It was than asked is there ever a case where the recurrence-id's can be 
reset.
The response was, If the CHAIR sends out a REQUEST with no RECURRENCE-ID 
the REQUEST applies to the entire repeat set.

In that case the CHAIR is resetting the RULE/RDATE/EXRULE/EXDATE 
information for the set and thus resetting the RECURRENCE-ID's for the 
entire set.  The recipient of such a REQUEST must obsolete/delete or move 
the existing set and accept the new information from the CHAIR.  This 
procedure has been referred to as NUKING the recipients calendar store.

Mark Smith <[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked]
09/06/2003 07:37 PM

To
[email-masked]
cc

Subject
[Fwd: CAP-12 - interm version 'A']

Your said:

> 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

> Ill leave it to you to go get the final text from that discussion and 
include it in the next version of CAP-12.

> from you on the list.  Given all those separate facts (that you didnt 
read) its not hard to see why your motives could be

> Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

----- Message from Mark Smith <[email-masked]> on Sat, 06 Sep 2003 
15:35:36 -0600 -----
To:
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject:
Re: CAP-12 - interm version 'A'

Your said:

> 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

> Ill leave it to you to go get the final text from that discussion and 
include it in the next version of CAP-12.

> from you on the list.  Given all those separate facts (that you didnt 
read) its not hard to see why your motives could be

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2003 12:33:30 -0600

[email-masked] wrote:
>  > admit that you changed your mind or opinion and you still slam him
 >  > with lies and insults. You started the RECURRENCE-ID issue by declaring
 >  > that it was fixed forever.  Now you say it changes with the set,
 >  > you changed your mind to be mostly compatible with the non-fixed
 >  > model, admit it and stop slamming him or anyone simply because
 >  > you changed your mind to agree with them.

> It was than asked is there ever a case where the recurrence-id's can be 

Re-read the archives, You declared that it never changed.

You said on May 19:

 > I disagree, the recurrence-id must always refer to the original date.
 >
 > of the meeting.  Lets say i had a 5 day repeating meeting. However I 
invited > you to just Monday Tuesday to start with, but for some reason you 
have not
 > received the mail yet.
 > I now reschedule Thursday Friday to a later time in the day and add you
 > to the invitee list.
 > You now get a sequence 2 invite for Thursday Friday
 > Later you finally receive the meeting for Monday Tuesday with sequence of 1.
 > If I allow recurrence dates to reset on a reschedule, I can not tell if the 
 > Monday Tuesday invitee was rescheduled to Thursday Friday or if this is a
 > separate invite.

Now you claim that it changes under some circumstances.
And you have later admitted that because you got the sequence 2 before
the sequence 1 that you would know to do a REFRESH.

Marks comment is on the mark :-)

-- 

  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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 15:40:13 -0400

It does not change as long as you are changing just instance dates.
It only changes if you change the entire rule.

We were originally discussing changing instance dates.  My response was in 
that scope.
_____________________
Note: new email address

[email-masked]

Doug Royer <[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked]
09/07/2003 02:33 PM
Please respond to
[email-masked]

To
[email-masked]
cc

Subject
Re: [Fwd: CAP-12 - interm version 'A']

 > of the meeting.  Lets say i had a 5 day repeating meeting. However I 
invited > you to just Monday Tuesday to start with, but for some reason 
you 
have not

--

---

From: Mark Swanson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 10:58:34 -0400

> chair of this working group stop this trouble maker?

The process for calling someone a liar is to state the instance (perhaps 
recurring) <pun intended> where you thought the individual lied so they have 
the opportunity to defend. It's only fair.

Heck, even I (no, it's true!) have been known to change my mind and even learn 
something from the posts on this list. I know I would like the chance to 
defend or explain a previous post if someone thought I was lying.

Cheers.

-- 
Schedule your world with ScheduleWorld.com
http://www.ScheduleWorld.com/
Java Web start (JNLP):
http://www.ScheduleWorld.com/sw/ScheduleWorld.jnlp

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 14:52:33 -0400

Mark mused on 09/06/2003 07:37:23 PM:
>>>>> (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

I just have to laugh.  I find it quite funny that Mark says I "LIE" when 
the citation Doug used were my own quotes and I was responding to their 
use. 

Doug claimed that I failed to back up any of my recent 'claims' with facts 
and cited (a) - (c).  In response I sent back details supporting each 
reference and I separated them out in response to each point.

In response to Dougs (a) citation from one of my emails (above) I provided 
not 1 but 3 actual references to "back up" that comment.  The first one 
being:

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

Dougs response?  He ignored 2 of the 3 references and simply said:

Well I dont know what he thought I was referring to in (a) (it was my 
comment he was quoting after all) but the undiscussed and unresolved issue 
of scoping results on a SEARCH is certainly a larger CAP issue that we 
recently found but NEVER actually discussed NOR has Doug acknowledged it 
in his rush to get to Last Call.

Instead of any actual discussion, Mark proceeds to meander around, making 
lots of disparaging comments and totally unrelated or unfounded comments 
like:

> several times, 

Sorry Mark, simply not true.  Ive never changed my answer for the 
scenarios we discussed. 

Furthermore my answer was corroborated by both an analysis of the model in 
iTIP and eventually by the authors themselves.

> You started the RECURRENCE-ID issue by declaring that it was fixed

The scenario we were discussing was the case of simple instance 
reschedules.  For that the RECURRENCE-ID never changes.  No change of 
answer there.

If you change the change the _recurrence_set_defintion_ then the 
RECURRENCE-ID "might also change" (iCalendar, Section 4.8.8.4).  This 
however was not the scneario we were discussing.  Perhaps you would have 
preferred if I qualified my answer with text unrelated to the discussion 
at the time so would have just confuse folks.  No matter, my answer is 
still the same: RECURRENCE-ID does NOT change on an instance reschedule.

> now going to claim I made a last call?)

If he cant change things in CAP then why are there 707 changes reported by 
diff?  Whats the rush to have CAP-12 and CAP-12-a so soon after CAP-11 if 
nothings changed?  If you honestly believe there were "thousands" of typos 
and grammar changes then I have some land to sell you...

Instead of discussing the issues raised you perfer to waste time and 
cycles with personal attacks.  Gee, you sound so much like Doug you could 
be his twin brother.  Misquoting or misunderstanding so often I have to 
laugh...

> Or at the very least post your item list (I do not think you have one).

Already done twice.  Better learn to read the postings before you reply to 
them.

> is to slow down CAP until you can ship your product?

I dont need to do Dougs job for him do I?  He's the editor so he's 
supposed to keep the issues list.  In fact he claimed to have done that 
already but he failed to list the 3 that I mentioned already.  On that 
same note I wouldn't dream of doing Dougs job of stalling CAP any more 
than hes already done by derailing discussion and haranguing those who try 
to raise issues; hes done a pretty good job of that so far.

Im not working on any CAP product like Doug is; I merely am making sure 
there are no glaring issues in CAP 1.0 that should be resolved before it 
goes to Last Call.

> the real proposals made by many that I read about on the list archive?

Hehehe, you must be very blissful Mark.  I made a clear proposal at least 
4 times so far.  You managed to miss that and the posted issues so either 
you are missing them intentionally like Doug or you just ignored them in 
an attempt to fire off your posting and distract from the WG from the real 
questions at hand.

> or useful comments. 

Here a suggestion just for you Mark: read the postings before you respond. 

Ive posted both suggestions, comments and proposals.  Both you and Doug 
seem to have a flair for ignoring them. 

> WILL THE CHAIR PLEASE STOP BRUCE FROM HIS ENDLESS CRYING, LYING, AND

Oh, another funny.  Just gotta laugh again since Im not the one whose 
stated goal is to use email bombarding to silence folks from discussing 
changes to CAP. 

Ive been a voice regarding the misinterpreting of iCalendar/iTIP and Im 
making sure that Doug does not just ignore raised issues with CAP in an 
attempt to get it out the door ASAP rather than fixing it first.  Im not 
the only one nor am I going to just wither under some comic personal 
attack that reads much like one of Dougs digressions. 

>                    It takes for ever to read the archives and I am 

Hehehe, that describes your posting to a letter. 

Now, why dont you actually read some of the proposals and issues that have 
raised before you come back and waste more cycles?  Or are you just 
interested in providing some comic distraction and deflection from 
discussion of the issues??

Bruce
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 13:42:55 -0600

[email-masked] wrote:

> If he cant change things in CAP then why are there 707 changes reported 
> by diff?  Whats the rush to have CAP-12 and CAP-12-a so soon after 
> CAP-11 if nothings changed?  If you honestly believe there were 
> "thousands" of typos and grammar changes then I have some land to sell 
> you...
> 
> cycles with personal attacks.  Gee, you sound so much like Doug you 
> could be his twin brother.  Misquoting or misunderstanding so often I 
> have to laugh...

Robert I think that Mark made his point again. You obviously did not read
the post or you would know why.

--

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 15:31:41 -0600

[email-masked] wrote:

> If he cant change things in CAP then why are there 707 changes
> reported by diff?  Whats the rush to have CAP-12 and CAP-12-a so soon
> after CAP-11 if nothings changed?  If you honestly believe there were

Just looking at your own diff file and doing some math:

Some one cut out many diffs and header/footer from your diff so I am
guessing to some of these numbers.

(142) were footer changed and would have changed
anyway because the date of the draft changed.
That Bruce finds it necessary to comment about on this list.

(147) were because the expire date changed on header
and elsewhere and would have changed anyway.
That Bruce finds it necessary to comment about on this list.

The TOC is 3 pages, so I'll assume that is (3) changes in your diff
count.
That Bruce finds it necessary to comment about on this list.

(1) changed because the name of the draft version.

That is about (293) utterly nontechnical changes so far that would
have changed anyway just by releasing a new version.
That Bruce finds it necessary to comment about on this list.

That leaves about (414) changes.

About (100) typos that were fixed - double words, missing words,
spelling
errors and wrong words.
And Bruce does not comment on or care about on this list.

That leaves about (314) changes.

(1) added explanation about the ordering of properties and parameters.
    And Bruce does not comment on or care about on this list.

(13) abnf fixes (5 misspelled names fixed).
     That Bruce does not comment on or care about on this list.

(1) fix to the name of valid/recommended components.
    And Bruce does not comment on or care about on this list.

(2) changes to remove that mysterious missing text that you can not 
    seem to find.
    And Bruce does not comment on or care about on this list.

(1) change to the security considerations.
    And Bruce does not comment on or care about on this list.

Conclusions (based on your 707 number):
  About 118 changes that if done incorrectly would effect the protocol
  And Bruce does not comment on or care about on this list.

  And about 589 changes that Bruce seems to focus on that have no
  effect on the protocol. Again, get a life! It sure looks to me
  as if Bruce is trying to stall CAP.

> Whats the rush to have CAP-12 and CAP-12-a so soon after CAP-11 i
> nothings changed?

So you want to complain if he waits for lots of changes.
And you want to complain if he does not wait for lots of canges.
You want me to take you seriously?

> If you honestly believe there were "thousands" of typos

Yet another dishonest (sorry Pat, it is a lie. Enthusiasm is for
children)
statement from Bruce. Doug said "thousands WG and private emails" not
thousands of typos. Now who is the one trying to mislead this list?

Mark

---

From: "Michael Fair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 15:50:19 -0700

Mark, thank you for your analysis of the diffs,
this is exactly the kind of thing we were trying
to get Doug to do but he wouldn't.

Bruce was simply saying that a lot has changed and
given Doug's track record of late he has reason to
be suspicious of this many changes in what should have
just been minor changes.

I agree with Bruce.
Very few of us (you being one major exception) have the
time to go through every page of CAP and figure out what
changed from one draft to the next.  Bruce asked Doug
on several occasions to please provide a list, or do a
diff that we could all see so those of us invested in
understanding the draft don't have to reinvest in
reunderstanding the draft from scratch.  Doug told Bruce
to do the diff.  Ultimately, Bruce did the diff and found
the results to be unusable as too many things had changed
and there was no context for the changes.  Without going
through the whole set of changes (as you did) there was
no way for anyone to know what had changed in that rat's
nest.  Doug was wrong about eliminating the double spaces
after sentence periods and rather than just admit that,
he's trying to cover his ass and defend how he's in the
right.  Fine if he misunderstood, admit he misunderstood
and move on.  Doug doesn't do this, hasn't done this,
and the demonstrated propensity by him to defend himself
rather than just admit his fault and move on has been
the damaging source of productivity on the list.

Bruce, myself, and others are tired of fighting with
Doug over what are very reasonable and provable items
and requests.  Doug currently has me on his ignore list
because I demanded he prove his assertions and wouldn't
stop asking him to prove it (he never even made an
attempt to provide such proof, and the evidence against
his position would have continued to mount).  I was sick
and tired of hearing him claim something, but whenever
any of us tried to actually do what he said was possible
and failed, he wouldn't tell us what went wrong.  We were
forced to conclude that nothing went wrong except that
Doug's claims were wrong to begin with.  Trying to get
the answer to the question of whether or not he, or we,
were wrong using reason and documentable evidence has
proven impossible thus far.

All we're looking for in this thread is an organized list
of changes, completion on the known issues raised (which
Doug has not declared as "known" or "raised" but instead
berates those who attempt to get thier official status),
and security in knowing what has changed so that we, as
reviewers and authorizers, can do our self appointed jobs.

If Doug was going to strip out a single space from every
sentence, that should a rev all by itself, should be the
only thing that changes and should take place all at once.
Finally, we should be forewarned its about to happen and
why it's going to happen so we're prepared and can verify
its necessity.  In this case we would have shown the need
for such a change to be inaccurate and we wouldn't even
be having a discussion about it.

Even if it was needed, by being its own rev we would know
that the new rev says the exact same thing the old rev did,
but the whitespace would be all different.  That gives us
security in knowing what we are reviewing.

Then typos and simple ommissions should be listed as just
that, typos and ommisions, and if there are a significant
number of them, make those their own rev as well.  Again,
we keep our confidence in what we are reviewing.  Knowing
that only simple fixes to what was already there were the
only things that changed.  We should also be given an
expectation as too how many of these we should expect.
This way if expect 550 of them, and the diff says something
similar then we can be confident that's all that what was done.

By doing this, when we start actually adding and deleting
text, a simple diff makes those changes apparent and they
aren't going to get confused with the simple typos.  Having
a dozen or even more typos and ommisions corrected is fine,
we can wade through those, but certainly not hundreds of them.

Doug did all of the above arbitrarily, all at once, and won't
tell us what he did.  That's where we have a problem.  We are
left with zero confidence that what we had before is still the
same document.  So the simple way to restore confidence is to
have the editor tell us what was done.  The editor in question
(Doug) won't do that.  So people like Pat and yourself and
others have to take out their own time to duplicate the effort
of finding out what the heck Doug did so that we can restore
our confidence in knowing what we are editing.  This confidence
is extremely important, now even more so, that we've recently
just gone through a painful 2 months of debate over things that
iTIP should never have had in it to begin with.  iTIP didn't
go through the proper scrutiny before being last called and
we've wasted weeks worth of man hours trying to clean up the
mess on this list alone (not too mention anyone who actually
tries to implement the draft).

>   And Bruce does not comment on or care about on this list.

Thanks, now all we need to do is figure how to separate these
188 from the other 589.

>   effect on the protocol. Again, get a life!

We have lives - which is why going through 589 changes of which
none of them are important is considered a waste of our time.

> thousands of typos. Now who is the one trying to mislead this list?

If you believe that Doug has actually received thousands of
emails about this between Cap-10 and now then I have some
land to sell you...

Wading through 589 typo-class changes out of 700+, in our
resource limited time frames is not a reasonable request.

Also, if Doug were on the reverse end of this deal and he
was committed to having confidence that he knew what he
was reviewing and what had changed and the editor seemed
to be trying to skim over important issues in favor of
getting CAP last called I'm sure he'd feel the same way.
If he didn't then he didn't have a resource limited time
frame, or at least doesn't have any respect from whoever
he has to steal time from in order to wade through them.

-- Michael --

---

From: Nathaniel Borenstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 19:10:54 -0400

What Mark did simply proved that it is possible to do what Bruce had  
asked for.  It is silly for more than one person to have to do this,  
and I always understood this to be a part of the job of the document  
editor.

BTW the whole problem can be simplified a bit if the editor uses a tool  
like xml2rfc and produces diffs using the relevant component files...   
-- Nathaniel

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 17:25:58 -0600

> to get Doug to do but he wouldn't.

How much does Doug get paid to find out for you?

> changed from one draft to the next.

It took me about 20 minutes looking at Bruce's diff.
If you do not have that much time to spend on the
CAP draft your waisting eveyones time by posting your
opinions.

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 17:37:34 -0600

> and I always understood this to be a part of the job of the document

When I read a draft after reading some previous version of the draft
I do a diff. I do not know of any other IETF list that has produced
diffs of draft versions. I also can not find a list of differences
for versions of any draft except the ones that Doug used to publish.
Check for yourself. I could not find any.

The process seems to be that there is debate then at random times a
new version shows up. I have looked in several IETF lists and web pages
and I think you have been misled by someone on this list that is making
more false statements or is just trying to disrupt this list. It does
not
seem to be normal process. 

There also seems to be a lack of chair participation on this list.
It is very hard to find any consensus called even when there is a
overwhelming agreement.

> like xml2rfc and produces diffs using the relevant component files...

If you noticed he also published the XML source on calsch.org and
his web site. And again I could not find any XML diffs published.
Do you know of any?

Mark

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 17:57:19 -0600

> emails about this between Cap-10 and now then I have some

I just checked the list, there were  1580 emails on the list
from the announcement of -10 (end of Feb) until now.

He said he went back a month before editing -11, and  feb
had 280 (est), total 1860.

If he went back to Jan that is about 150 (est) more.
Bringing the total to 2010.

Now assuming he got any private emails, 2,000 is 'thousands'.
Minus some number between -11 (or -12) and now.

How much for that bridge? :-)

---

From: "Michael Fair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 18:18:54 -0700

> Minus some number between -11 (or -12) and now.

Oh come on, how many of those actaully had 
proposed changes in them or did the threads even warrant
reading for proposed changes?

On Feb. 28th Doug announced the availability
of -10.  Since then I can only find 1095 emails to 
the list.  Of which 376 (roughly 25%) have been 
directly related to the July 28th RECURRENCE-ID 
discussion where the disagreements over 
RECURRENCE-ID really starting flying and none of 
that discussion has had one sugestion in about 
CAP yet.

On June 30th, Doug announced what was going 
in the -11 rev changes, so we expected those, but he 
flat out refused to tell us what went into -12 and 
its successor -12-a or -12-b.  

On August 18th, he mentioned 75 typos, grammar fixes,
and requests for clarification.  No one commented on 
his proposals for the security changes from the same 
day so I wouldn't expect those to be in there.  He did 
say thanks to some people for submitting typos and 
grammatical errors on -12, -12-a, and -12-b.  

How those became 700+ changes and his sudden flip in 
behavior towards not giving out information that he'd 
previously been forthcoming with is definitely cause 
for investigation.  Investigation is not in itself an
accusation, it's being responsible on our part.  Doug
as our trusted editor suddenly being defiant about our
questioning of a certainly out of the ordinary changeset
didn't help matters any.

However in the interst of moving forward I'll
take this one back.  Doug, even though you won't read
this because have decided to ignore me, I apologize 
for asserting that you hadn't actually had changes 
from over 2000 emails.  I had made the inappropriate 
but I think reasonable assumption that the "this" 
we were talking about were actual textual change 
recommendations after a bunch of people said "I agree" 
or simple typo and ommission/duplicate fixes and not 
"total number of emails sent to the list and Doug personally."

-- Michael --

---

From: "Michael Fair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 18:31:06 -0700

"Mark Smith" <[email-masked]> wrote in message
news:[email-masked]...
> How much does Doug get paid to find out for you?

He doesn't have to "find out" he made the changes,
and if there's so many that even he doesn't know
what all happened, then we need his help and
participation even more and its that much more
unreasonable for us to do it without his assistance.

> If you do not have that much time to spend on the

Agreed, but the 20 minutes you spent wasn't even half
the time it would require to do a real analysis.

Ensuring that significant changes (of which you
didn't even give a real count as I saw about 200
changed items left unaccounted for in your 20 minute
examnination), can take time, and no one knows how
long it is going to take them to wade through 700+
changes especially since most of them shouldsn't
count but might which requires you to at least
double check (since looking at lots of the similar
kinds of things makes it easy to miss a simple MAY
that became a MUST and such).

I have since the original post taken back my argument
that Doug actually had thousands of recommended changes
to make.  I consider this whole tangent unproductive
and way off-topic from all of our purposes here.

Pat has stepped in and is organizing a lot from these
past discussions and I plan on picking this up again
once she has posted what she has put together.  I figure
we can all then work from that list and add anything
should it be missing at that time.

-- Michael --

---

From: Nathaniel Borenstein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 08:53:49 -0400

FWIW, I've always published such diffs -- preferably high level 
explanations, alternately actual diffs -- whenever I've authored such a 
document.  -- N

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 09:23:10 -0400

> guessing to some of these numbers.

I said I sent the trimmed diff output to Pat which she hosted.    I also 
said how I calculated my numbers so go reread the postings again.

The unedited diff output is ~614K.  The trimmed down (no TOC & fewer 
headers/footers) one is ~505K.  In order to be clear about all of the 
changes Ive sent Pat the unedited copy to host also.  Both should be 
available once Pat has a chance to put it up on her web site and post the 
URL.

> That Bruce finds it necessary to comment about on this list.

Since you had time to go thru the diff output at least to do some math on 
the changes, why is that so hard for Doug to do it? 

Its easier to make progress if he did it for everyone instead of asking 
everyone to do it individually and then comment on the changes they may or 
may not find.

One thing though, the footer/headers counted together actually:

===========================================================================
***************************** draft-ietf-calsch-cap-10-17Feb03.txt, Line 
54
Royer, Babics, Hill, Mansour    Expires May 4, 2003             [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       Calendar Access Protocol (CAP)        November 2002
*********************************** draft-ietf-calsch-cap-12-a.txt, Line 
54
Royer, et al.          Expires February 28, 2004                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft       Calendar Access Protocol (CAP)          August 2003

so no double dipping out of the count there...

> That leaves about (414) changes.

Actually its 707 - 3 for the TOC and - ~148 for the headers/footers which 
leaves ~550 changes.

> And Bruce does not comment on or care about on this list.

Thats because the first non-TOC / header / footer changes were either LWSP 
changes (to the boilerplate) or all of Section 1 and a block of 1.1 were 
considered 1 diff:

===========================================================================
**************************** draft-ietf-calsch-cap-10-17Feb03.txt, Line 
247
********************************** draft-ietf-calsch-cap-12-a.txt, Line 
227
1. Introduction

   This document specifies how a Calendar CUA interacts with a CS to
[Snip,snip, snip]
   capitalized, quoted-strings of text. For example, "REPLY" refers to
   the method for replying to a "REQUEST".

When I see large blocks of reported changes I just have to step back and 
wonder what the heck changed.  Im not about to play "hunt the change" in 
~50 lines of text just to find if its LWSP changes or content changes. 

> That leaves about (314) changes.
[Snip, snip]
>     And Bruce does not comment on or care about on this list.

Good.  You managed to identify 18 actual changes out of the 450+ 
differences let that were not TOC / header / footer (assuming your 100 
count above was correct) .  Thats a good start although not a very good 
ratio for signal to noise, about 4%.

Why is it that Doug could not have given us this tally?  You should ask 
him next time you talk w/him since he is not keen on actually answering 
questions about it here.

> So you want to complain if he waits for lots of changes.

Did I?  Actually Ive been questioning the frequency of revision w/the 
amount of discussed and resolved issues and thats just the opposite of 
what you claim.

I have merely raised a flag at the amount of changes reported by diff (as 
requested be used by Doug).  Considering the lack of discussion on the 
real technical issues and the number of changes found it was not 
unwaranted.  Unliked by you and Doug yes but not unwaranted.

You are merely Dougs proxy (or his alter ego) and are taking the focus off 
the issues in CAP and Doug.  How about focusing on the raised issues for a 
while since you have so much energy? 

I stand by my diff output and the concerns Ive raised. 

Oh by the way, would you mind posting citations of the 18 actual changes 
to the group for the benefit of those who dont have the cycles to find 
them?

Bruce

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 10:38:32 -0400

> from the announcement of -10 (end of Feb) until now.

Actually Doug posted his notice of the final CAP-10 draft to the WG at 
02/28/2003 05:49:21 PM MST (about 7:50PM EST or the middle of the night 
for Europe on a Friday) so for real purposes it wasnt really seen until 
3-Mar-03.

Also, several hundred of the postings recently have been TOTALLY unrelated 
to CAP: there were about Dougs insistance on the delta model for 
RECURRENCE-ID.   So dont try to factor those into your inflated count.  A 
quick check gives me a rough count of just over 350 RECURRENCE-ID related 
postings alone between CAP-11 and CAP-12.

If you plan to inflate your numbers to try and justify your claims, make 
sure you at least try to stick to relevant messages so its not so 
blatently off.

Doug reported on 18-Aug-03:

I have received about 75 typos, grammar, and requests for clarification
to the -11 version of CAP. So I could not get them all in this weekend.

He did not report any reason for the quick release of CAP-12-a so soon 
after 12. 

> Bringing the total to 2010.

The stored query issue was still in discussion until mid/late Jan so that 
should have appeared on the CAP issues list then.  However doing so would 
require discussion on the issue that Doug did not want to have.  My guess 
is he has other motivations for wanting to keep it in since there appears 
to be WG concensus on removing stored queries until after CAP 1.0.

Back on 4-Aug-03 Doug replied to my request for a change list with:
> 1: Is there a diffs of CAP-10 (17-Feb) to CAP-11?  I for one have no 
> time to reread CAP from cover to cover looking for changes.

I'll put one up and then post its location to the WG.

but this never materialized.  The list for CAP-10 to CAP-11 changes should 
have been pretty simple since we spent most of May/June on RECURRENCE-ID 
and not on CAP and there was little WG traffic

A quick count of the WG postings between the 22-Jul-03 annoucement of 
intent to release CAP-11 and 1-Feb-03 reveals ~670 postings.  Of those:

~180 were RECURRENCE-ID related
~110 were iCalendar / UTF-8 / charset related
~30 were "Is CAP-10 ready for Last Call" discussion (not actual issue 
discussion)
~15 were IETF meeting logistics related
~20 were DTEND / DURATION interchange related
~20 were iCalendar / BYDAY / YEARLY related
~10 were iSIP related

If you subtract just the non-CAP related counts above from the total 
postings you will find we had only ~285 postings _potentially_ related to 
CAP (or otherwise uncounted above).  Hardly anywhere near a thousand.

Stop trying to distract our attention Doug and lets get to work on CAP. If 
your intent is still "to oppose ANY AND ALL changes to CAP" then I fear we 
can make no progress and CAP will never get fixed and shipped.

Bruce

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 10:13:16 -0600

> reading for proposed changes?

Who cares? 

> that discussion has had one sugestion in about

My list shows 1580, I wonder where the difference is.
I copied the archive to a local file, made a 2nd copy
deleted all of the messages prior to 28 feb, then loaded
the result in netscape, it had 1580 email in it.
Then just by looking I estimated the Feb ad Jan emails.

You did not read all of the RECURRENCE-ID issues did you?
They were not all only about RECURRENCE-ID. There were
messages where people did not change the subject line
or mixed multiple topics in the message.

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 10:20:03 -0600

> the time it would require to do a real analysis.

I feel confident that I understand the changes after 20 minutes. After
looking at them I also feel confident that anyone that has been
following
CAP can figure it out from just a file diff in 20 or so minutes.

If you are talking about comparing the mailing list to the changes
then yes that will take time. I have not seen anyone ever produce
a diff that contained cross references to mailing list archive entries.

Where you said:

> once she has posted what she has put together.

I think that if this had been done in the past then these
conspiracy theories would have not escalated.

I applaud Pat for this work and am anxiously awaiting the results.

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 10:24:56 -0600

[email-masked] wrote:
> Since you had time to go thru the diff output at least to do some math
> on the changes, why is that so hard for Doug to do it?

Why is is so hard for you to admit that your posts of late
have no technical content or CAP protocol issues in them.

> Oh by the way, would you mind posting citations of the 18 actual
> changes to the group for the benefit of those who dont have the cycles
> to find them?

I did not make some management report to publish. I simply
looked at the file and had a note book next to me. Something
I think Doug has been saying you should do for yourself.

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 10:26:16 -0600

[email-masked] wrote:
> 02/28/2003 05:49:21 PM MST (about 7:50PM EST or the middle of the
> night for Europe on a Friday) so for real purposes it wasnt really
> seen until 3-Mar-03.

Which is relevant in what way to anything?

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 10:41:24 -0600

[email-masked] wrote:

> 
> Stop trying to distract our attention Doug and lets get to work on CAP. 
>  If your intent is still "to oppose ANY AND ALL changes to CAP" then I 
> fear we can make no progress and CAP will never get fixed and shipped.

Mark is right, you do not misunderstand what your read, your just lying
when you imply that is the context of that quote.

--

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:35:15 -0400

Hi Mark.  You are indeed correct there is a lack of chair participation. 
Some of that is on purpose to make sure dialog continues.
Some of that is because we too, Bob and I, can not keep up with the deluge 
of emails, in particular over the last several
months. 

As for concensus, as I have stated many many times, one person making a 
comment does not mean concensus.
Without feedback from people to the list it's hard to get concensus.  I 
have exchanged some emails with people
to get their "read" on whether or not concensus has been reached.  When 
there has been one - i have put it on the list. 
However, one person saying no one responded so we have "concensus" is not 
concensus.  I will say that again and continue
saying that.

So, read into that what you may - I take responsibility where needed. 
However, I do read each and every note and respond
when appropriate.

09/08/2003 19:37

To
Nathaniel Borenstein <[email-masked]>
cc
[email-masked]
Subject
Re: [Fwd: CAP-12 - interm version 'A']

Mark

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:31:35 -0400

> have no technical content or CAP protocol issues in them.

Thats because you and Doug continue to detract from actual discussions by 
claiming no remaining issues or insinuating that without a proposed 
solution any issue is not an issue.

I have and will continue to point out the problems with CAP.  Unlike you 
and Doug, I _have_ proposed changes but neither of you has opt'd to 
discuss them or propose alternatives of your own.

I proposed the removal of the stored query from CAP 1.0 with general 
agreement from the WG.  I see that this was reflected in CAP-12-c so thats 
goodness (albeit with some residuals that need removal still).

I noted and then proposed a fix for the issue of busytime handling in CAP. 
 Neither you nor Doug opt'd to discuss it; in fact neither of the 2 times 
I proposed it.  The proposal is still on the table.

Neither of you seem to think that Prestons issue about accesssing data 
outside the scope of a query is an issue but many of us do.  This is a 
non-trivail concern thats gotten no WG discussion at all.  In case you 
missed it, go back to early April 2003 and look for the "How do you get 
the METHOD property on a SEARCH" thread.  As Ive tried to point out (and 
will continue to until its resolved), this needs to be fixed if CAP is to 
function properly.  I dont have a proposed solution so dont ask me for one 
and say "Well if you dont have a proposal its not an issue."  Raising 
issues does not obligate one to proposing a solution and besides I didnt 
raise it originally.

Why not put some of your engergy into solving the issues rather than 
distracting us from getting CAP polished for prime time?...

Bruce

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:12:44 -0600

[email-masked] wrote:
> Thats because you and Doug continue to detract from actual discussions
> by claiming no remaining issues or insinuating that without a proposed

What is your list?