MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] CAP-related Comments
Hi Folks,
Having been privy to the discussions on ICS 201, which overlapped
some of Walid's CAP items list, and now having read Carl's and Art's
responses to Walid's list, and considering that we have conducted two
kinds of tests, I believe we have fulfilled the measures under which
we voted to recommend CAP as a Committee Specification. In fact we
have well and truly exceeded OASIS TC process guidance in doing such
tests. I don't think we need another vote on record.
To be honest, there are areas where I am sure we could tighten,
tweak, and refine CAP, but we would still be facing a 30-public
comment period, so beyond mentioning that an Implementation Guide is
forthcoming, and adding a couple of explanatory statements such as
Carl has suggested, I think we should proceed. On the lat/long issue,
I think punting at this point makes more sense. Noting that
referenced specs should be followed according to the current practice
pending comment on the candidate Committee Specification should be
sufficient.
I say this because we are bound to discover more issues during the
30-day public comment period, and CAP will not actually become a an
official Committee Specification until we have a vote after after we
have dealt with each of the public comment issues as a whole TC. Some
of what has turned up in Walid's list may need to be dealt with in
this process, so we are not abandoning or ignoring any currently
unresolved issues.
Once the 30-day public comment period has passed, then we deal with
each of the issues that have turned up to a resolution, voting on
these item by item if needs be. Since I know how rigorous this
process needs to be, believe me when I say that we will have
thoroughly gone over everything, probably twice or three times as we
go through the issues after the first round of public comment is done.
We can't know what it will look like then, no matter how satisfied or
dissatisfied any of us are now. And the same would apply if we tried
to anticipate all possible known or hypothetical contradicitons,
exceptions, misstatements, misunderstandings, etc. Like any battle
plan, it won't last past the first engagement. So I think we should
go for it rather than wait, and, as I said, we have already voted up
on Committee Spec status with minor revisions, which is what we have
right now.
That's my $.02.
Ciao,
Rex
At 12:53 AM -0400 10/15/03, emtc@nc.rr.com wrote:
>Great work Walid - thanx for pulling these together.
>
>TC: at this point, its time for our next decision. We have to decide
>on whether or not to address this information now or after the
>Public Comment. Doesn't mean that 100% has to be addressed now -
>just a decision on whether to edit the current doc now or to wait
>until Public Comment. If not, then we send to OASIS. If there is a
>need to edit now (or after the Public Comment for that matter), we
>will need to look at each of these items and determine what to do
>with them. We can basically decide to amend the spec, reject the
>comment, debate the comment, or postpone the comment (for a future
>spec version consideration for instance). There are some variations,
>but you get the idea.
>
>At this time consider the list open to general comments on these
>issues and how to proceed. We will do this until EOD next Tuesday,
>at which time I will create a voting ballot on whether to edit or
>not before we send to OASIS.
>
>Allen
>
>