At 11:53 PM +0200 7/18/06, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
Hi Paul,
on 2006-07-18 22:31 Paul Hoffman said the following:
At 8:27 PM +0200 7/18/06, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
Should we require that the current availability through rsync and ftp
is continued?
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".
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).
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.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf