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

[Rick H Wesson <wessorh at ar.com>]

Paul,

In short you are suggesting that the I-D be published to document a
bad but current practice? It seems counter-intutative but I am certainly
not "in the know" as to how these things work.

think the IESG could at least put a "bad bad protocol" sitcker on it when
they its published, or better yet give it a negative RFC number starting with 
negative RFC numbers would at least put it firmly into the minds of
readers that the RFc should *not* be followed.

I doubt I'd implement RFC -1 ;-)

regards,

-rick


On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:

> At 03:05 PM 1/4/00 -0800, Rick H Wesson wrote:
> >The IETF does not need to publish broken implementations of one companies
> >view of the shared gTLD registration process.
> 
> True. They don't need to do anything. They have the *option* of continuing 
> the tradition of approving publication of Informational RFCs that document 
> interesting (for some value of interesting) protocols that were not 
> developed in the IETF but are of interest to the Internet community. In my 
> mind NSI's RRP certainly qualifies. As long as the protocol does not 
> directly harm the Internet on a technical level (not a political level; 
> they all do that), the IESG might want to see it published.