Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

At 3:05 PM -0800 1/4/00, Rick H Wesson wrote: >The document exists as an I-D, >the cat is out of the bag, why should it be an RFC? Well, to continue the Request For Comment, I suppose. The ideas in an RFC are not cast in stone. The words may not change, but that doesn't mean the ideas can't ev

Back to the drawing board, was Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

"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

Re: I-D nroff macros

Glen Zorn wrote: > > 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 content

Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

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 Interne

Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

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

oh merde! Patrick F. and ICANN board error

Wiping red face. I carry a lot of ICANN data around in my head and I am generally pretty good at it. However my attention has been called to the fact that I screwed up on my association with Patrick as an ICANN board member. Following a few URL trails I see that he and Goeff Huston w

Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

At 04:29 PM 1/4/2000 , David R. Conrad wrote: > > 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

Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

OK Paul, lets give you the benefit of the doubt and say that your assertions below are absolutely right. Please explain then why it should become an informational RFC without having the comments of the RAB members attached to it? (Even though as Patrick said it is not common practice to do th

Re: I-D nroff macros

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

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 encour

Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

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

Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

At 03:05 PM 1/4/00 -0800, Rick H Wesson wrote: >The IETF does not need to publish broken implementations of one companies >view of the shared gTLD registration process. True. They don't need to do anything. They have the *option* of continuing the tradition of approving publication of Informatio

Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

At 03:58 PM 1/4/00 -0800, Rick H Wesson wrote: >In short you are suggesting that the I-D be published to document a >bad but current practice? A review of the Informational RFCs issued in the past few years would reveal a few RFCs that match that description quite well. > It seems counter-intu

Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

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 bett

Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

> 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. > The IETF does not need to publish broken implementations

Re: I-D nroff macros

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

Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

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 th

Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

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

Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

[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

Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

--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

Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

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 fo

Re: I-D nroff macros

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 Coar Apache Software

I-D nroff macros

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 guidance. I tried the -ms macros, as described

Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

--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 transfer is always to the r

Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational

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 as an Informational > RFC. This has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an