Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

[Patrik Fältström <paf at swip.net>]

--On 2000-01-04 13.20 -0800, Ed Gerck <egerck at safevote.com> wrote:

> Further, reading NSI's RFC and Karl's comments here, I am grateful that
> neither the RAB  nor its members were mentioned in the RFC, nor a
> cknowledged, even though the RFC is on the very same Shared
> Registry Protocol we were called to help verify and provide free but
> otherwise professional advice.

If RAB was mentioned, I would have been more careful with the document, but 
as the RAB only had limited input to the actual design of the protocol, the 
RAB should not, and is not, mentioned.

In this case though, the document will specify "the NSI R-R protocol", 
nothing else. It is often organizations do present and make specifications 
available of their private inventions through publications of Informational 
RFCs, so this is nothing special.

The IETF in this case must differentiate between input to the NSI on 
whether the protocol is good or bad, and maybe on how to make the protocol 
better in the future, and whether the document specifies what is currently 
in use.

The last call in the IETF is regarding the latter, not the quality of the 
protocol.

The IESG can still make a recommendation to NOT publish the (private) 
protocol as informational RFC, for example if the protocol damages the 
functionality of the Internet. In this case, where we talk about one 
specific application, that is probably not the case.

So, you are talking about (like we did in the RAB) the quality of the 
protocol, while I now as AD and member of the IESG is asking whether this 
document is correctly describing what is in use.

I ask you Ed, and all others, to please differentiate between those two 
issues, and come with comments on the correctness of the document. Comments 
on the protocol can be sent directly to NSI.


   Patrik Fältström
   Area Director, Applications Area