ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2000-01-05 07:10:02

I think it is important to the openness of the process to maintain the
tradition of a relatively light editorial hand on Informational RFCs
that document non-IETF protocols.  The minimal substantive part of
this review increasingly seems to be done by the IESG instead of the
RFC Editor.

From:  Gordon Cook <cook(_at_)cookreport(_dot_)com>
Message-Id:  <v04210102b49844c2f1c5(_at_)[192(_dot_)168(_dot_)0(_dot_)1]>
In-Reply-To:  
<4(_dot_)2(_dot_)1(_dot_)20000104152158(_dot_)00a867e0(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org>
References:  <38727013(_dot_)DAF0AE16(_at_)nma(_dot_)com>
             
<4(_dot_)2(_dot_)1(_dot_)20000104152158(_dot_)00a867e0(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org>
Date:  Tue, 4 Jan 2000 20:43:21 -0500

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 this with an informational rfc). ....

Although extremely brief RFC-Editor/IESG comments (as in one or two
sentences) are sometimes included in a non-IETF Informational RFC, I
know of no case in which some third party's general comments have been
included.  Such third parties can write up their comments as a
separate Informational document and submit it to the RFC Editor for
publication if they want.

Is it really the position of the IESG that they have NO obligation to 
do anything to inform the unwary that this protocol is an invitation 
for lawsuits against NSI, against ICANN, and possibly against the 
IETF on the grounds that the RFC publication was perceived by the 
clueless party  as an endorsement?

To the extent that the IESG undertook to do a detailed quality review
of non-IETF Informational RFC protocols and includes the results of
such a review in the RFC, it would thereby assume legal liability.
The way to avoid such liability is maintain as minimal a review as
possible.

....

Donald
===================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1 914-276-2668   
dee3(_at_)torque(_dot_)pothole(_dot_)com
 65 Shindegan Hill Rd, RR#1
 Carmel, NY 10512 USA



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>