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
Inquistion..."). NSI was under no obligation to publish the RRP. That they
have done so is to the benefit of folks who are interested in this sort of
thing. Requiring anyone who submits a proprietary protocol to the IETF for
publication as an informational RFC to also publish the minutes of internal
discussions that led to the development of that protocol sounds like a really
good way to keep anyone from publishing proprietary protocols.
NSI should be treated no differently than others who publish proprietary
protocols as an informational RFC.
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.
You might want to acquaint yourself with the process before declaring it
"wrong".
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.
While it is true, Gerck, that the RRP is a requirement of the Amendment 11, I
do not believe NSI was under any obligation to publish _anything_ outside of a
license agreement with NSI and, in fact, the USG is required "to protect the
confidentiality of such data, software and documentation so delivered".
Rgds,
-drc