Subject: Re: Consensus? BEEP commands

From: Bernard Desruisseaux <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:32:49 -0500

Dear chairs,

The motivation behind Doug's recent posts is to reduce the
number of bytes in BEEP messages (see original proposal
"Byte reduction in BEEP commands").  Naturally, this can
be done in many different ways.

It should be noted that Doug's proposals introduce a lot of
changes to the protocol, and will require considerable time
and effort from this working group to review (the new examples
contains numerous errors and inconsistencies).  Furthermore,
some of the changes that are part of the proposal, are not
only unrelated to the reduction of bytes in BEEP messages,
but on the contrary, increase the number of bytes by enforcing
duplication of information in messages.

I think the working group needs clear directions from their
chairs, on this issue, to ensure that we achieve forward
progress and meet our milestones.

If reducing the number of bytes in BEEP messages is what
matters, the only modification necessary to substantially
reduce the number of bytes in BEEP messages is to change all
the examples to use the CDATA format as used in Doug's proposal
instead of using the media type multipart/related.  Doing so
would allow us to minimize the changes to the protocol and
the time and effort required to review the examples, and not
compromise the extensiblity of the protocol.

So before we go any further, we need to know where the
members of this working group should put their efforts:

a) Work on Doug's proposal;

b) Reduce number of bytes in BEEP messages (by changing
   the current draft to use CDATA instead of 
   multipart/related);

c) Status quo (i.e., stay with the current proposal).

Best regards,
Bernard
-- 
Bernard Desruisseaux                    mailto:[email-masked]
Research & Development                  Tel.  : +1 514 733-8500 x4213
Steltor                                 Fax   : +1 514 733-8878

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 13:33:27 -0700

> duplication of information in messages.

First - It is NOT a new proposal.

Second - It has been debated.

Third - You did object to some of the details and they
        have been changed.

Fourth - There were changed in 06 that have not reached
         consensus and they have been fixed/removed.

> c) Status quo (i.e., stay with the current proposal).

About 99% of the changes I sent is what it takes
to move the data back into the consensus reached iCalendar
objects stored in a CDATA section  as you describe above.
What is your point?

What changes have I made that have not been discussed
on this list?

I took and merged the CDATA section and wrapped it
with the command. This WAS talked about on the WG list.

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 15:05:53 -0700

Bernard Desruisseaux wrote:

> ... Furthermore,

100% of the new examples are smaller - I am confused
as to why you think that. Most are 1/3 of the original
size.

---

From: Bernard Desruisseaux <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:29:35 -0500

> > duplication of information in messages.

I think you've misunderstood my message.

>          consensus and they have been fixed/removed.

I don't understand, my message does not even allude
to any of these points.

> objects stored in a CDATA section  as you describe above.

Per my message, I was simply requesting the chairs to help
us achieve forward progress and meet our milestones.

> What changes have I made that have not been discussed

Sorry, my message did not make reference to any such changes.

> with the command. This WAS talked about on the WG list.

Again, my message didn't say otherwise.

Regards,
Bernard

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:06:07 -0700

> > > compromise the extensiblity of the protocol.

Patrice (I think) came up with the idea of a CDATA section.
I moved the data into a CDATA PLUS the other changes that
this WG has discussed - nothing new - nothing that has
not been debated on this list. It is simply time
to incorporate them into the draft and do a last call.

Are you agreeing and asking the chairs to push the
latest into cap and ship it? If so, then yes I did
misunderstand.