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 2000-01-05 02.37 -0800, Ed Gerck <egerck at nma.com> wrote:
>
> > What we have in the
> > proposed RFC is thus an outdated spec -- problems that were actually
> > reported *solved* in the March-October 1999 timeframe appear again
> > *unsolved* in the December 1999 timeframe.
>
> In real life, I have not checked whether NSI really _uses_ what we talked
> about in the timeframe March-October, and in some cases (timestamps for
> example) it is already clear that they use what is specified in the I-D and
> NOT what the RAB proposed, i.e. what is in the email archives of RAB.

How can you say " in some cases (timestamps for example) it is already
clear that they use what is specified in the I-D"?  Did you test it? Have you
been using the protocol that is in use today?

If not, I ask myself how you can state that the protocol is what is specified
in the I-D.

Cheers,

Ed Gerck