Lets see if I understand what Is now being debated on the IETF list. NSI makes shared data base and gets panel of outside experts to comment on the code and protocols designed to implement the data base. The experts tell NSI that what they have designed is a bunch of crap that will lead to numerous people's domain names being lost or otherwise mis handled mis registered etc. NSI chooses not to listen to its own experts, implements a system it knows or should know is flawed and then refuses to let the comments of its own experts warning it about what it is doing be published. ICANN of course does nothing. >Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 17:37:48 -0800 >From: Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >X-Accept-Language: en >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: "David R. Conrad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >CC: Rick H Wesson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Patrik F�ltstr�m" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], > Scott Hollenbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], > Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to > Informational > > > >"David R. Conrad" wrote: > > > 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. > >I too encouraged NSI to publish the RRP protocol, and I believe I was actually >the first that said so to NSI. This is however IMO irrelevant here >-- the issue is what >is being presented by NSI to be an informational IETF RFC, not >whether we should >commend NSI for doing or not doing anything in their own benefit. >This is yet not >the Internet Marketing Study Group. > >Given the secret (but not private) nature of the RAB Meeting >Minutes, I am effectively >barred to comment further -- even though I would just be repeating >my own comments. >However, to anyone versed in technical work it is clear that if the >references to a work >are missing, and if those references actually *deny* the work being >presented, then >there is something basically wrong with the entire process. This is >what happens here >and that is why I am not convinced that the NSI RFC should be >published by the IETF >unless the very references to that work which resulted from a US >Government contract >be made available and public as well, as "supporting" documentation >missing in the >RFC. > >Note also that the RAB, its meeting Minutes and its Action Points >are also not the >result of an NSI private initiative as we know, Conrad, but an >obligation upon NSI by >an oversight body and a regulating US agency in a legal contract. >I imagine that the >Freedom of Information Act could be used to make those notes public since they >were mandated by the direct act of a US agency, who also has copies >of them. And I >see no benefit to the Internet community if they continue to be >secret to some (RAB, >NSI, USG, ICANN) while the RRP that they comment on intends to be >published by >the IETF -- without the comments! So, on a more humorous tone, this >is not a RFC as a >"Request For Comments" ... this is a "Requiem For Comments" ;-) > >Cheers, > >Ed Gerck and and earlier comment from ed gerck in the same thread Patrik: "If I remember correctly from a presentation NSI have had for me" is a good name for the RAB [1] meetings we attended I presume, in the euphemisms that these discussions have turned into. However, IMO it would be unfitting to the IETF to proceed discussions on NSI's proposed RFC without NSI disclosing and making public all the RAB meeting minutes, as "supporting" documentation. Further, reading NSI's RFC and Karl's comments here, I am grateful that neither the RAB nor its members were mentioned in the RFC, nor a cknowledged, even though the RFC is on the very same Shared Registry Protocol we were called to help verify and provide free but otherwise professional advice. You will recognize in Karl's comments a rerun of some of my own comments and also of Stef's and Steve's, I am sure, just to cite a few. Race conditions, log traces, actions on log traces, reliable timestamps, the need for well-defined states with well-defined variables, slamming precautions, transfer problems, correct internationalization, UTC time, message text limit, etc. were also all mentioned and advised about more than once; and they are in the RAB Minutes. They need to be made public since NSI is requesting public comments. They are also part of the mandates of Amendment 11, which I wish to interpret technically -- no politically by euphemisms of a "presentation NSI have had for me". Cheers, Ed Gerck [1] http://www.nsiregistry.com/history/rab.html : Mission Statement The Network Solutions Registry Advisory Board (RAB) was formed to provide Network Solutions with independent external advisory review of the design and testing of the NSI Shared Registration System. Members of the RAB were selected to provide a balance of diverse technology and regional perspectives. The Board existed through 30 September 1999 to review, participate, and advise in testing of the technology aspects of the Shared Registration System, and to suggest improvements to Network Solutions to better meet the mandates of Amendment 11. Members External Members David Conrad Patrik F�ltstr�m Katherine Fithen Dr. Edgardo Gerck Dr. Johan Hjelm Michael Rotert Einar "Stef" Stefferud Dr. Stephen Wolff NSI Members David Holtzmann Aristotle Balogh Scott Hollenbeck Neeran Saraf **************************************************************** The COOK Report on Internet Index to seven years of the COOK Report 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) Is ICANN an IBM e-business ? [EMAIL PROTECTED] See also Lessig's Code: and Other Laws of Cyberspace http://cookreport.com/lessigbook.shtml ****************************************************************
