Hi Jay, On 13/08/13 9:28 AM, "Jay Daley" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I really do not mean to cause any offence by this so apologies in advance >if I do, but is this a case of ICANN mistaking its position here? No offence taken, and certainly a good question to ask. >Yes you are the excellent operator of a key part of the public >infrastructure but that doesn't mean that every protocol you develop >related to your technical function automatically becomes an RFC when >documented to a sufficient standard. I am not sensing that ICANN is mistaking its position here at all. There are no demands for the document to become an RFC via the ISE. It is a respectful thought, on my part, to offer the documentation of the technical portion first to the IETF, and should the IETF choose to not to absorb that then ICANN has done the appropriate action. In that case then ICANN might publish the documentation as a whitepaper on a website somewhere. But the effort has been made to be clear and transparent to the broader technical community, and not hide nor bury anything. Cheers Terry
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
