On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ted: > >> Just out of curiousity, why is this registering it as provisional, >> rather than permanent scheme? > > There is not a rsync protocol specification and URI scheme. The protocol is > widely deployed. In fact the IETF depends on it everyday. This document is > intended to provide a citable specification for the URL scheme, but not the > protocol. Without the protocol specification, provisional seemed like the > best choice based on RFC 4395. > Fair enough; thanks for the explanation. I think adding something to the IANA considerations documenting that logic couldn't hurt, e.g: "A provisional registration is being sought as there is no citable rsync protocol specification at this time, despite its widespread deployment". regards, Ted Hardie _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf