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

[Ed Gerck <egerck at nma.com>]

"David R. Conrad" wrote:

> 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.

I too encouraged NSI to publish the RRP protocol, and I believe I was actually
the first that said so to NSI.  This is however IMO irrelevant here -- the issue is what
is being presented by NSI to be an informational IETF RFC, not whether we should
commend  NSI for doing or not doing anything in their own benefit.  This is yet not
the Internet Marketing Study Group.

Given the secret (but not private) nature of the RAB Meeting Minutes, I am effectively
barred to comment further  -- even though I would just be repeating my own comments.
However, to anyone versed in technical work it is clear that if the references to a work
are missing, and if those references actually *deny* the work being presented, then
there is  something basically wrong with the entire process. This is what happens here
and that is why I am not convinced that the NSI RFC should be published by the IETF
unless the very references to that work which resulted from a US Government contract
be made available and public as well, as "supporting" documentation missing in the
RFC.

Note also that the RAB, its meeting Minutes and its Action Points are also not the
result of an NSI private initiative as we know, Conrad, but an obligation upon NSI by
an  oversight body and a regulating US agency in a legal contract.  I imagine that the
Freedom of Information Act could be used to make those notes public since they
were mandated by the direct act of a US agency, who also has copies of them.  And I
see no benefit to the Internet community if they continue to be secret to some (RAB,
NSI, USG, ICANN) while the  RRP that they comment on intends to be published by
the IETF -- without the comments!  So, on a more humorous tone, this is not a RFC as a
"Request For Comments" ...  this is a "Requiem For Comments" ;-)

Cheers,

Ed Gerck