Hi Paul, on 2006-07-19 00:28 Paul Hoffman said the following: > At 12:14 AM +0200 7/19/06, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >>\>> Should we >>>>barter away good current functionality because there's not an RFC for >>>>rsync? >>> >>> Nope. I would hope that the RFC Editor would have an rsync server >>> available. But that's different than mandating one when we can't >>> really say what an rsync server is at any particular point in time >>> (the protocol has changed over time). >> >>I think that in a contractual situation, 'hope' isn't enough to keep us >>out of trouble. > > Good point. > >>And I'd be reasonably happy if we specified 'any version of rsync greater >>than X.Y.Z', or some such. The current debian stable version (2.6.4-6) >>would work for me. > > Saying "rsync version 2.6 or later" works for me, as long as we > understand the "can't eat our own dogfood" aspect of this requirement. Works for me. Henrik _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf