Hi Paul, on 2006-07-19 00:02 Paul Hoffman said the following: ... >>on 2006-07-18 22:31 Paul Hoffman said the following: ... >>> 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. > > I think you missed the part about "certainly useful to the IETF community". Hmm. I saw it, but didn't see that it seemed to influence your preferred resolution. >> 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. 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. >>Should we require all the bright ideas and application protocols in the >>world to be funnelled through the IETF? > > Of course not, and I didn't say anything like that. Given that a fair > amount of my bandwidth usage goes to rsync and BitTorrent, I would > never want any such thing. Ok, that's fair. Regards, Henrik _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf