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 mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf