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

[Karl Auerbach <karl at CaveBear.com>]

> I am glad that NSI has published the I-D for their protocol, now does it
> need to go beyond that and become an RFC, IMHO, no.

Since I-Ds still officially vanish after a while, we need to move it to
RFC to maintain its visibility.  <Let's defer comments on the I-D fade out
policy.>

> The IETF does not need to publish broken implementations of one companies 
> view of the shared gTLD registration process.

We can learn from the flaws of the past.  And this RRP certainly gives us
a lot to learn from.

I would hope that having an Informational RFC on the RRP would motivate
some folks to think up, write down, and publish "A Better RRP".  Your own
work on the representing the whois data using XML is perhaps a good start.

(I can imagine that many sites with big zone files might find it useful to
have a tool using "A Better RRP" to distribute the administration of their
zone.)

By-the-way, I think that the IETF has already jumped through enough hoops
regarding the mis-perception by some that the letters "RFC" are some sort
of seal of approval.

		--karl--