--On Thursday, November 26, 2020 14:11 -0500 Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/26/20 12:08 PM, John Levine wrote: > >> If you're wondering if there's an RFC for it, nope. RFC 5781 >> specifies the rsync: URI but refers back >> tohttp://rsync.samba.org/ for details on rsync. >> >> I don't suppose anyone would object if we made an RFC out of >> the spec but given that the tech report, thesis, and multiple >> implementations are widely available without restriction >> (other than GPL on some of the code) it doesn't seem worth a >> lot of effort. > > I remember when IETF cared about making standards and > promoting broad interoperability. Of course, there would be another way to do this, one that would create an RFC but not a standard. One could cobble a document together that described what rsync was all about in the abstract and introduction, include the references that have popped up in this thread (and probably including a lot of text by reference), and then hand it over to the ISE for publication of a description of a protocol that is widely used in the community for the information of the community. If the IESG then wanted to take such a document over and classify it as standards track, I presume no one would object as long as they did not create a working group that had the goal of either hanging bags on the side of the thing or improving it enough that it was not interoperable with deployed implementations. But there is not much evidence, in this case, that anyone cares even enough to do that... and, if no one wants to invest even that level of effort, then I think we need to agree with John Levine's conclusion. john
