--On 2000-01-04 20.24 -0800, Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
The whole RRP process and many others that NSI has had (with USG,
Registrars etc) led to a protocol which NSI has designed, and one which do
(I claim) contain architectual mistakes, bugs, security flaws and what not.
The process is though completely irrelevant at this stage in time. Can
people _please_ try to understand that.
NSI have approached the IETF and asks for publication of an informational
RFC specifying their private Registry-Registrar protocol.
To be sure (I could, as AD, skipped this step!) that the protocol specified
is what is in use, I asked for a last call to explain exactly this.
I therefore ask for input on this last question:
- Do the specification specify the protocol which NSI is using?
All responses so far has been "yes" until I found this sentence in an email
by Ed, with no explanation at all.
I thereofore ask Ed to come with explicit references to paragraphs in the
specification which is wrong, explanation what is happening in the protocol
which is in use, and suggested new wording which explains the way the
protocol works.
Without this input, I have to ignore the mail from Ed.
All other discussions is completely irrelevant, and will be ignored.
As Paul wrote, there are some ideas (separated from this discussion) on how
to come up with _THE_ RRP which IETF endorses, and the process for that is
to ask relevant organisations to create a buissness level functional
requirement on such a protocol, and then develop the protocol in the IETF.
That work has been initiated, and I see a lot of discussions here, now,
have to do with design of a protocol, and not review of a soon-to-be
informational RFC.
Because of that, please hold your horses!
As Dave Crocker wrote, this discussion has taken just far to much bandwidth
already with irrelevant stuff.
We are neither discussing the quality of the NSI RRP, nor are we discussing
how NSI ended up with that version of the protocol.
Patrik F�ltstr�m
Area Director, Applications Area, IETF
