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

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

David,

I appologise if you found my comments offensive, they were not intend to
be. I'm gald you encouraged NSI to publish RRP, I'm gald they published
it. I also needed to discuss with the RAB issues about RRP durring the
testbed but was prevented by NSI by NDA. Remember in Berlin I asked if I
could talk to the RAB and that the testbed registrars have some problems
with RRP?

We all know that the entire development of rrp was sub-optimal and yes
Informational does not implay Endorsement but that is a fact that most of
the world does not understand and is an entirely different thread.

I have atempted as have others to outline many issues we have had with the
RRP protocol and its developemnt. I realy can't do more than that. 

-rick


On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, David R. Conrad wrote:

> 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.