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 better yet give it a negative RFC number starting with
negative RFC numbers would at least put it firmly into the minds of
readers that the RFc should *not* be followed.
I doubt I'd implement RFC -1 ;-)
regards,
-rick
On Tue, 4 Jan 2000, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
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 Informational RFCs that document
interesting (for some value of interesting) protocols that were not
developed in the IETF but are of interest to the Internet community. In my
mind NSI's RRP certainly qualifies. As long as the protocol does not
directly harm the Internet on a technical level (not a political level;
they all do that), the IESG might want to see it published.