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

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 02:39:23 +0100

I support the publication of this document, but think that the title should 
be "The NSI Registry Registrar Protocol, version 1.1.0", to avoid confusion 
with any competing Registry/Registrar protocol that may appear later.

                    Harald A

At 14:22 30.12.99 -0500, The IESG wrote:

>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 is not the product of an
>IETF Working Group.
>
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
>[email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by January 13, 2000.
>
>Files can be obtained via
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-rrp-00.txt

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 02:39:23 +0100

Harald A

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 14:09:39 +0100

--On 99-12-31 02.39 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> but think that the title should be "The NSI Registry Registrar Protocol,
> version 1.1.0", to avoid confusion with any competing Registry/Registrar
> protocol that may appear later.

Agreed!

  paf

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 14:09:39 +0100

Agreed!

  paf

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 08:24:12 -0800

> > protocol that may appear later.

Likewise.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 08:24:12 -0800

Likewise.