Re: Back to the drawing board, was Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

[Ed Gerck <egerck at nma.com>]

Patrik Fältström wrote:

> --On 2000-01-04 20.24 -0800, Ed Gerck <egerck at nma.com> wrote:
>
> > The technical aspect here is that the RRP protocol documented in the
> > RFC proposed by NSI to the IETF is *not* what is being used by NSI
> > and is also *not* what should be used.
>
> If this is your view, please let me know, as AD, what the differences and
> errors are in the document.
>
> As you say, this is the showstopper, nothing else.

Yes. There are two separate points in this issue.

1. The proposed RFC is not what is being used as NSI's RRP:
Catch22 -- if I point it out I may be seen to be infringing NSI's
NDA, even though I would be mostly quoting myself.  To solve
this potential problem and to avoid controversy, I just resent to
NSI the following request which intends to allow me to freely
answer your question:

 On ocasion of NSI's publication of the RFC with the
 Shared Registry Protocol, per enclosed copies, I
 hereby request my formal release from any Non-Disclosure
 obligations to NSI.  Please send me the release declaration
 by mail, and confirm by email.

Alternatively, you may verify your mailbox of RAB messages and
decide by yourself.  Also, NSI may verify the discrepancies by
themselves.

2. The proposed RFC is not what should be used:
This has become rather obvious here.  But, alternatively, I may be
released of the NDA and then comment, or you may verify your
RAB mailbox and decide by yourself, or NSI may verify it by
themselves.

I hope thus to have answered the question to your satisfaction.

Cheers,

Ed Gerck