The IESG writes ("Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to
Informational"):
The IESG has received a request to consider Registry Registrar Protocol
(RRP) Version 1.1.0 draft-hollenbeck-rrp-00.txt as an Informational
RFC. This has been reviewed in the IETF but
I maintain my drafts (such as they are) in HTML, and I use
a couple of Perl scripts to turn the Lynx output into something
digestible for the I-D directories, including TOC generation and
pagination.
FWIW..
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coarhttp://Web.Golux.Com/coar/
Apache Software
Patrik Fältström wrote:
--On 2000-01-04 17.21 +, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
* The TRANSFER command, when used to approve a transfer, does not
specify to which registrar the domain is to be transferred.
If I remember correctly from a presentation NSI have had for me, the
--On 2000-01-04 13.20 -0800, Ed Gerck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
[resent from subscribed address, my apologies
if the TO list receives it twice]
Patrik Fältström wrote:
--On 2000-01-04 17.21 +, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
* The TRANSFER command, when used to approve a transfer, does not
specify to which registrar the domain is to be
Patrik Fältström wrote:
So, you are talking about (like we did in the RAB) the quality of the
protocol, while I now as AD and member of the IESG is asking whether this
document is correctly describing what is in use.
I ask you Ed, and all others, to please differentiate between those two
IESG:
I hate to add a "me too" but I must. I believe that the RAB minutes would
be very useful if they were published. Having participated with many
Registrars and participated in changes and suggestions to the RRP protocol
through the ICANN Testbed process I welcome Ed's comments.
I am glad
Alan,
I'll send you my internet-draft nroff macros under separate cover.
(There's probably some internet obscenity law forbidding the
unsolicited transmission of nroff source.)
Matt
I am glad that NSI has published the I-D for their protocol, now does it
need to go beyond that and become an RFC, IMHO, no.
Since I-Ds still officially vanish after a while, we need to move it to
RFC to maintain its visibility. Let's defer comments on the I-D fade out
policy.
The IETF
Paul,
In short you are suggesting that the I-D be published to document a
bad but current practice? It seems counter-intutative but I am certainly
not "in the know" as to how these things work.
think the IESG could at least put a "bad bad protocol" sitcker on it when
they its published, or
Rick,
I hate to add a "me too" but I must. I believe that the RAB minutes would
be very useful if they were published.
Has any other organization interested in publishing an informational RFC
needed to also publish the internal discussions that led to the implementation
of their proprietary
Alan Blount [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been using the simple set of nroff macros, as described by
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/2-nroff.template
While this works, I'd like to be able to autogenerate section numbers
and table of contents entries. This draft doesn't give any
David,
I appologise if you found my comments offensive, they were not intend to
be. I'm gald you encouraged NSI to publish RRP, I'm gald they published
it. I also needed to discuss with the RAB issues about RRP durring the
testbed but was prevented by NSI by NDA. Remember in Berlin I asked if I
Ed,
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.
Nor is it the Internet Inquisition ("No one expects the Internet
"David R. Conrad" wrote:
NSI should be treated no differently than others who publish proprietary
protocols as an informational RFC.
Conrad:
Of course. The IETF process is IMO actually a way of providing for
controlled release of private information into public knowledge and use --
thus,
15 matches
Mail list logo
