>Ok. So I'm not sure what you propose here - should we not require >rsync and ftp mirroring capability, or should we ask for it, and not >specify chapter and verse regarding version etc.? I'd certainly be >very unhappy completely abandoning the rsync capability. I think that RFCs should be available via [at least] rsync, ftp and www. I think that a provider who provided less than what we have now [hint: we currently have more than that] would be exercising bad judgement and would probably lose the contract at renegotiation time - so are we trying to protect against someone getting the contract who doesn't actually want to provide services, or doesn't actually want the long-term business, or is actively malicious to the IETF, or what? Bill _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf