Re: [xcbf] Interpretation of the CS under ballot

["Phillip H. Griffin" <phil.griffin@asn-1.com>]

Title:

Alessandro Triglia wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Phillip H. Griffin [mailto:phil.griffin@asn-1.com] 
> > Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 00:51
> > To: Alessandro Triglia
> > Cc: '[OASIS XCBF]'
> > Subject: Re: [xcbf] Interpretation of the CS under ballot
> >
> >
> > Allesandro,
> >
> > If you read the comment resolutions document that I posted to 
> > this list prior to the current ballot, you will see that the 
> > comment you refer to 
> > below was rejected. 
> >   
>
> 1) Phil Griffin made that comment, which proves that he was as confused
> as I am, with regard to the use of BASE-64 in messages being exchanged.
If you read the comment resolutions document that I posted to this
list prior to the current ballot, you will see that in several instances
as editor I rejected comments. These were all of an editorial nature 
that did not ask for any specific change to be made to the document, 
or which did not provide any specific correction or substitute text. All
are marked with "REJECTED: Editorial comment. No recommended 
corrections were specified."

> 2) The comment was not rejected by the TC, it was rejected by the Chair.
Yes and no. The comment was rejected by the editor.

> I haven't seen any resolution of the TC accepting/rejecting the comments
> to the previous ballot.  Indeed, the current ballot will decide if the
> document resulting from those rejections/acceptances is approved or not
> by the TC.
Yes, the TC decides in this ballot whether to accept or reject the 
editors comments. The just prior ballot passed, and recommended
to send the CS forward to OASIS members for consideration as 
an OASIS Standard.

But there were comments associted with that ballot, especially yours,
that I felt it could improve the document in a minor way. But the CS 
was already approved to move forward by the TC, so I asked the 
TC for this additional vote to approve these latest edits.

If these latest edits are accepted and approved, we will have a new
CS, and this new CS document will move forward. If the edits are
not accepted, the document without these corrections has been 
approved to move forward.

Phil

> > Instead, the more simple approach offered by 
> > member Ed Day was adopted.
> >   
>
> Again, it was not adopted, yet.
>
>
> > As Ed pointed out, in using his approach there will be no 
> > backwards compatibility problems with existing 
> > implementations if we should adopt your "encoding control" 
> > idea in the future - assuming the solution you 
> > now propose actually becomes a part of the ASN.1 standards.
> >
> > Your approach would cause problems later with existing applications 
> > of XCBF. By adopting Ed's solution, users can deploy today with 
> > confidence that future XCBF work will not cause problems for 
> > their customers.
> >   
>
> Let's wait and see what the TC decides about this.
>
> Alessandro