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

["David R. Conrad" <David.Conrad at iengines.com>]

Rick,

> I hate to add a "me too" but I must. I believe that the RAB minutes would
> be very useful if they were published. 

Has any other organization interested in publishing an informational RFC
needed to also publish the internal discussions that led to the implementation
of their proprietary protocol?

> 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.

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

Then you were unhappy that (oh, say) Cisco submitted RFC 2281 as an
informational RFC (not saying HSRP is "broken", but I'm sure someone would).

> Having an AD that sat on the
> RAB  promote the I-D and offer no reasoning as to why it
> *should be* published as an Informational RFC reminds me of the bad taste
> left by the IAHC and all the processes related.

I find this offensive.  I was among those who encouraged NSI to publish the
RRP as an informational RFC as I felt it would be in the best interests of
everybody to have the RRP protocol publically examined and I feel NSI should
be commended for documenting their protocol.  However, INFORMATIONAL RFCS DO
NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT.  The draft is a representation of an existing, in use
proprietary protocol.  No further justification should be necessary for
documenting it as an informational RFC.
 
Rgds,
-drc