[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Rex Brooks wrote:
> 1. It is difficult to sound reasonable while saying
> on the one hand, "Yeah I mostly agree with you,"
I recognize that and appreciate your quandary. Also, I know
that either publicly or privately, many of the members of the OASIS
CAP TC have also said that they recognize that many of my criticisms
are valid. However, it is clear that the TC members as a whole valued
having a standard -- even one that is flawed and contains "non-truths"
-- as more important than accepting the delay of cleaning up the mess
and voting on a less flawed document. In the context of this specific
discussion, I think it is clear that it was massively easier for such
thinking to prevail in a loose and non-rigorous environment like OASIS
then it would have been in other standards forums (like ISO or IETF)
which value more highly the quality, correctness and utility of their
specifications. (Yes, I know that even others have made mistakes...)
> True, yes, but mostly spilt milk and yesterday's papers. Bob
> didn't get sufficiently involved to affect the course of how
> this standard came into being until after the public review
Whether or not I became involved in a timely fashion is
irrelevant. The point is that I identified numerous severe problems
with the specification prior to its acceptance as a standard by OASIS.
In virtually any other standards organization, at least some of the
problems I found would have been considered "show-stoppers." What
mystifies me is how the review process could have been so flawed that
it was possible for an XML "amateur" like myself to find so many flaws
in this spec. (I am not an XML expert! Many of the members of *this*
list will readily and happily attest to that!) Clearly, the public
review was inadequate. This is simply another indictment of both the
OASIS process and the CAP process. Little details like the fact that
the CAP XML Schema uses "prohibited" elements in at least 10 places
should never have lived through any proper review process. Similarly,
I find it impossible to accept that a well run public review process
would not have had at least one person wonder: "If CAP claims to
provide encryption and signature facilities, where are they?"
I have received much comment on my criticism of CAP. Some have
suggested that I have some commercial agenda to push. I do not. Some
have suggested that I am simply a "gadfly" who loves to attack these
things. I am not. Others have suggested that it is "unkind" to
criticize the work of others so publicly. Well, life in the standards
world ain't pretty... I have even received veiled threats from a
prominent member of the TC who claims that the OASIS lawyer has
suggested that my criticisms are somehow inappropriate...
Nonetheless, as flawed as CAP is, I recognize that the goal of
the CAP effort is a good one and will do everything in my power to
clearly identify not only problems but also productive ways to move
ahead. But, don't expect me to be quiet or even polite in this
process. CAP is a "life and death" protocol upon which *my* life, the
life of my daughter and others who I love, may one day depend. I will
not take it lightly. Nor be silent so as to be "sporting" or appear to
be a "good guy." Certainly, I will not treat it as lightly, as
irresponsibly, and as casually as OASIS appears to be prepared to have
it treated.
bob wyman
|
