Hi Paul, on 2006-07-18 22:31 Paul Hoffman said the following: > At 8:27 PM +0200 7/18/06, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >>Should we require that the current availability through rsync and ftp >>is continued? > > Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic here, but there is no RFC (or even > Internet Draft) describing rsync. Of course, running an rsync server > is trivial and certainly useful to the IETF community, but maybe we > shouldn't be mandating a protocol we haven't even started to > standardize. I'm sorry, but in this case I think pragmatism beats purity. It really doesn't matter a whit to me in this case that rsync hasn't been standardized in the IETF -- it's a good tool, and the functionality is desirable. I guess that in this case, I don't understand your attitude. Should we barter away good current functionality because there's not an RFC for rsync? Should we require all the bright ideas and application protocols in the world to be funnelled through the IETF? Henrik _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf