Just out of curiousity, why is this registering it as provisional,
rather than permanent scheme?
Also, I didn't see any discussion about this on uri-review. This may
be because it dropped during my recent mailbox moves, but if it hasn't
been seen there it might be a reasonable idea. Support for a
permanent registration might even emerge there.
regards,
Ted
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 7:31 AM, The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'The rsync URI Scheme '
<draft-weiler-rsync-uri-01.txt> as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2009-10-28. Exceptionally,
comments may be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case,
please
retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-weiler-rsync-uri-01.txt
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=18880&rfc_flag=0
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf