ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

2006-07-18 19:03:02
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 mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>