----- Original Message -----
From: "S Moonesamy" <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 10:16 PM
> Hi Joel,
> At 09:36 AM 30-10-2017, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> >Two further comments on this rsync example:
> >
> >1) As written, and to conform to our general notion of stable
> >reference, if we want a normative reference to rsync, it would have
> >to be a reference to a specific version, with a reliable way that
> >folks could get to the definition of that version.
>
> From what I recall the rsync case was a URI registration. The RFC
> for that registration was referenced by an IETF RFC from SIDR.
sidr-arch
had
[RSYNC] Tridgell, A., "rsync", March 2008,
<http://rsync.samba.org/>
as an Informative Reference which became
[RSYNC] rsync web pages, <http://rsync.samba.org/>.
in RFC6480 and then a Normative Reference in RFC6481.
Tom Petch
> >2) As written, and something I think is important, it would take a
> >further exception to treat the code as a specification. Code is NOT
> >a specification for interoperable implementation. And I would
> >consider it a serious flaw if the only acceptable implementation
> >came from a single source, even if that source was an open one.
>
> Were there any objections during the Last Call [1]?
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
> 1. Please see the rsync case.
>