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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 12:49:44 -0400

Bruce, thanks for taking the trouble to do the diff.  And, thank you for
sending me a copy of the entire diff document.  I've put it out on the
following link so people can read it - I understand it was too big to go
through the email engine at imc.org.  I don't have a problem hosting it on
my site. The link is http://www.egenconsulting.com/ietf/Diff-10-12a.txt

I agree that if there are so many changes/differences, if they are not
white space changes, we need to know what they are.  We know there should
be quite a few, but it is always a good idea to post some sort of short
summary when a document changes that dramatically.  In fact, several months
ago Doug brought up exactly this issue regarding changes made to CAP after
we put in the BEEP work.  Knowing that,  I am sure Doug will respond
appropriately.

In one of your comments below, you said Doug changed the footer to be
Royer, et al.  In searching through IETF archives of RFC's and drafts, it
appears there is a precedent for doing that when there are more names than
will fit on one footer line.  I'm not sure that's the case on this draft,
but I leave that up to the other authors to "yell and scream" if their
names only appear at the top of the draft and not on every line.  Either
way is "Ok" according to the RFC that details how to set up RFC's.

As for the boiler plate changes, I think a boiler plate is supposed to be
just that - I am not sure we have much leverage to change things.  However,
I must admit I don't know if the boiler plate has recently changed.  I will
be looking into that as we speak.

And finally, I'm not sure your "colors" came across.  For security reasons
I have turned off allowing HTML in incoming emails and other's may have as
well.
Bruce said:

Doug wrote on 08/30/2003 03:48:52 PM:
> I have placed the latest edit of CAP for your review at:
>
> ? ?http://inet-consulting.com/draft-ietf-calsch-cap-12-a.txt

Since the editor is busy revising CAP and reshashing some iCalendar issues
I thought Id take a shot at doing the DIFFs between CAP-10-17-FEB-03 and
CAP-12-A. ?Once I did I think I know why Doug was reticent to do it for the
WG.

Here is a windiff view of the changes:

with CAP-10-17-FEB-03 being the red and CAP-12-A being the yellow. ?This is
a LOT of changes. ?According to diff, there were 707 changes. ?This
includes 1 very big change for the TOC and ~140 changes for the
headers/footers. ?That leaves ~565 changes between CAP-10 and CAP-12-a.

In looking a bit closer I see that CAP-12a is ~7 pages shorter than
CAP-10. ?I also see some new sections in the TOC so Im very curious to know
where all the changes came from? ?I dont recall seeing much WG traffic
related to CAP issues lately and I certainly dont recall any WG discussion
on some of the bigger issues (at least to the point of concensus). ?Did I
miss something or are these just changes created by the editors for WG
review??

Some of the changes are pure whitespace changes. ?The first content diff
was:
===========================================================================
************************** e:\draft-ietf-calsch-cap-10-17Feb03.txt, Line 23
? ?Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. ?Note that
? ?other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
? ?Drafts.
******************************** e:\draft-ietf-calsch-cap-12-a.txt, Line 23
? ?Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other
? ?groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.

Since this is IETF boilerplate I dont know why any change, let alone
spacing, happened. ?We already know that there are problems with the
XML->HTML/text converter and so Im more than a bit concerned that there are
changes that creep (additions or omissions) that should not.

One of the other changes Im leary of was the change in the footers:

===========================================================================
************************ e:\draft-ietf-calsch-cap-10-17Feb03.txt, Line 1174
Royer, Babics, Hill, Mansour ? ?Expires May 4, 2003 ? ? ? ? ? ?[Page 21]
♀
Internet-Draft ? ? ? Calendar Access Protocol (CAP) ? ? ? ?November 2002
****************************** e:\draft-ietf-calsch-cap-12-a.txt, Line 1117

Royer, et al. ? ? ? ? ?Expires February 28, 2004 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? [Page 20]
♀
Internet-Draft ? ? ? Calendar Access Protocol (CAP) ? ? ? ? ?August 2003

The list of editors was replaced by just the current editor name and "et
al." ?Im not sure that the new format is correct given that Dougs only been
the editor for a couple revisions compared to others who have been involved
longer or on more versions of the draft but I could be wrong. ?It just
looks like an attempt to give Doug more prominence than the other editors
given that the format only just changed before a push for Last Call.

Has anyone else been able to get a more accurate picture of what changed
than just using diffs? ?I for one am more than a little leary of changes
between the drafts since there are known problems in the XML converter
tool, there are seemingly unnecessary changes in whitespace/biolerplate,
there are new sections to the draft yet the draft is ~7 pages _shorter_,
that CAP-12 and 12-a came out so quickly after CAP-11 and we have not
really discussed CAP that much recently.

Doug: Since you should have an accurate idea of what changed thats more
reflective of substantive changes, can you please provide the ?list with
that so we can feel better about the more recent drafts and we can foucs on
them rather than playing Hunt the Snipe?

Bruce

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 11:25:39 -0600

> my site. The link is http://www.egenconsulting.com/ietf/Diff-10-12a.txt

Thanks.

> way is "Ok" according to the RFC that details how to set up RFC's.

The tool takes them out, I plan to manually hack them back in for
the final RFC - and thanks for your support!

> be looking into that as we speak.

See my other post on the above issue. Hint - compare the text
and not the formatting of the text. NOTHING CHANGED except
the formatting as mandated by the IETF.

> I have turned off allowing HTML in incoming emails and other's may have as

What Bruce posted came to me as a LARGE JPG looking object that was
unreadable. I assumed it was an error. Perhaps it requires a vendor
specific tool that I did not have to view.

AND - Bruce's diff - as I can see it from your web page (thanks again),
is a diff from (-10) to (-12a) (not from -11 to -12a and not a diff
of -10 to -11).

So PLEASE BE SURE the issue was not already covered before posting !!!

And many of the bugs/fixes where covered in the few bugs filed
(of which had many entries):

I track many of the issues with the MOZILLA/BUGZILLA tool:

	http://INET-Consulting.com/bugzilla

	IETF Drafts and RFCs / draft-ietf-calsch-cap

-- 

 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: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 15:00:35 -0400

Pat replied on 09/04/2003 12:49:44 PM:
> just that - I am not sure we have much leverage to change things. 

Perhaps I was not clear when I described the change.  It was not the 
change like the year in the copyright, it was whitespace changes like:

===========================================================================
************************** 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.
===========================================================================
************************** 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

Notice that just the whitespace changed in a couple sentences (2 spaces 
down to 1 space).  This isn't an IETF change that I can verify in other 
recent drafts. 

I suspect its likely related to the XML converter that Doug uses; the one 
that lost at least 3-4 blocks of text in the past.  I dont get warm fuzzys 
about doing diffs if stuff that should not change does, it makes weeding 
the wheat from the chaff very very tedious.

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 13:54:14 -0600

[email-masked] wrote:
> ************************** e:\draft-ietf-calsch-cap-10-17Feb03.txt, Line 29
> ******************************** e:\draft-ietf-calsch-cap-12-a.txt, Line 28
> I suspect its likely related to the XML converter that Doug uses; the 
> one that lost at least 3-4 blocks of text in the past.  I dont get warm 
> fuzzys about doing diffs if stuff that should not change does, it makes 
> weeding the wheat from the chaff very very tedious.

No, the instructions say:

       Use single spaced text within a paragraph, and one blank line
       between paragraphs.

I have been told that also means you can not have two spaces after a
period using the new interpretations.

And yes, it is a pain as I have to compare what I change to
look for typos myself in the editing process.

And if you did not notice my note:

   -->>>>>>> There are going to be more formatting changes to come.

Because the RFC editors take the ENTIRE file and reformat it using
their tools. Feed it back, loop, repeat until everyone is happy.

--

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 16:28:23 -0400

> the formatting as mandated by the IETF.

Somehow I dont think the IETF mandated you remove a space or two from the 
biolerplate or from some random sentences in the drafts.

Im not hand comparing the 140+ page drafts to find content differences 
just because your tool mangles whitespace!  Im using diff and windiff (a 
GUI diff for those w/Windows) and relying on them to do the right thing 
just like the WG relys on the editor to provide drafts that do not contain 
undiscussed changes.

> specific tool that I did not have to view.

Actually its the graphical differences that windiff uses in conjuction 
with displaying content.  For those of us w/Windows its a handy way to 
judge overall changes; the less color you see, the less changes there 
were. 

As I said before, diff (not some custom tool) reported 707 differences and 
windiff shows it graphically (as well as side by side but I didnt include 
that). 

> I track many of the issues with the MOZILLA/BUGZILLA tool:

Umm, I just checked that bugzilla and it doesnt have lots of comments or 
issues listed that were raised here nor does it have several of the OOB 
typos/fixes I sent you over the past year or so.  I saw George Barnes 
postings (2) and a couple questions by Satay (2) and some non-CAP related 
posts (Bugs 26-28).

I do not see any of the comments / issues such as stored queries, scoping 
of searches, busytime searches, etc. that were raised in the past few 
months. 

In addition, discussion of issues is done on the list and typically its 
the editors job to track raised issues to ensure they get addressed; not 
the WG's job to use a tool like bugzilla to report and track them.  If you 
want to make use it to track issues, great.  But I thinks its unreasonable 
to expect those that raise issues on the list to also have to put them 
into your bugzilla in order for them to be addressed.

Bruce

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 15:08:16 -0600

[email-masked] wrote:
> Somehow I dont think the IETF mandated you remove a space or two from 
> the biolerplate or from some random sentences in the drafts.

Did you bother to see if what you just sent is true?
There was a debate on another WG list about the usage of
two spaces after a period. The IETF editors wanted exactly
one space and not two.

> postings (2) and a couple questions by Satay (2) and some non-CAP 
> related posts (Bugs 26-28).

It is where I asked this WG list to file 'typos'. And I have closed 2 bugs
where people filed technical issues telling them it is the wrong forum.

Those few bugs had over 100 typos, grammar, ... type bugs.

> I do not see any of the comments / issues such as stored queries, 
> scoping of searches, busytime searches, etc. that were raised in the 
> past few months.  

That is because they are where they belong - on the mailing list.

> the WG's job to use a tool like bugzilla to report and track them.
> If  you want to make use it to track issues, great.  But I thinks its 
> unreasonable to expect those that raise issues on the list to also have 
> to put them into your bugzilla in order for them to be addressed.

Bruce - you have complained about every list I have ever submitted.
Text - you wanted words changed to fit what you wanted,
html - you did not like the colors and column names chosen
and now bugzilla. Oh well..

--

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 15:20:02 -0600

> scoping of searches, busytime searches, etc. that were raised in the 

There was busytime searches fix it was bug #30.

And I close the bugs as I fix them, I just closed the last of the
CAP bugs. You can open closed bugs. And I agree not that many
were filed. I just started using the tool a month or so ago
just after (or before) -11 was released. Nothing before that
is included.

--

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 14:37:37 -0400

> period using the new interpretations.

Then how come not all text was changed like this? 

I think you misundertood the text above from RFC 2223.  I think they are 
talking about not using LWSP to format text inside of paragraphs, not 
actually formatting them using normal English punctionation and spacing 
rules.  After all, _that_ RFC uses 2 spaces after a period...

Also, I just checked the currenty RFC guidelines doc at 
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt and it has no such text.  This 
is the direct link off the RFC Editors site and its dated 5-Sep-2002 (well 
after RFC 2223, Oct 1997).  I found the boilerplate and it clearly shows 2 
spaces so unless they forgot to update the guidelines the RFC Editors site 
(a possibility) then you got incorrect instructions.  Heres the current 
boilerplate I found:

The following verbatim statement must follow the optional opening
sentence:

     Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
     Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
     other groups may also distribute working documents as
     Internet-Drafts.

     Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
     months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
     documents at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-
     Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as
     "work in progress."

I also looked at "Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors" (
draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-06.txt, Obsoletes RFC 2223, 
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/instructions2authors.txt ) 
and it definitely contradicts the sentence you cited:

       (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.

So Im guessing you just misunderstood the intent of that single line in 
RFC 2223.  Can we get a 12-b with the normal 2 spaces back (so there will 
be far fewer LWSP diffs!)??

Bruce

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 14:00:23 -0600

> Then how come not all text was changed like this?  

Not done.

> rules.  After all, _that_ RFC uses 2 spaces after a period...

1) A draft does not obsolete an RFC until it is released.

2) It does look as if that is the new direction.

3) The draft is at -07 (not -06).

--

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 13:01:45 -0400

> > Then how come not all text was changed like this? 

They why did you release CAP-12 and CAP-12-a if that change was not done?

> 1) A draft does not obsolete an RFC until it is released.

If you actualy read RFC 2223 then you'd see that it uses 2 spaces after a 
period, just like normal English.  Guess you ignored that and 
misinterpreted that 1 line in the guidelines you cite.  Had RFC 2223 meant 
for a single space to be used, _it_ would have used them...

> 2) It does look as if that is the new direction.

The only new direction I see is your change.  The RFC editors are working 
to make it clearer I think by replacing that 1 line in RFC 2223 with the 
paragraph that expressly says how spacing should be.

> 3) The draft is at -07 (not -06).

And did that paragraph get removed between -06 and -07?.. 

So if the RFCs after 2223 have 2 spaces AND RFC 2223 uses 2 spaces after a 
period AND the new draft  "Instructions for RFC Authors" guidelines the 
editorspoint you to (from http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html) says:

I think our draft should follow their guidelines use 2 spaces after a 
period.

It would make for a smaller diff than 707 changes so finding actual 
content changes would be easier for everyone.  Unless you dont want folks 
to be able to easily find the changes...

Bruce

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 12:23:29 -0600

> They why did you release CAP-12 and CAP-12-a if that change was not done?

So that you would not complain about not kowing what was done.

And -12-b is ready.
This next weekend I expect 12-c.

--