On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Russ Housley
<housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com> wrote:
Ted:
Just out of curiousity, why is this registering it as provisional,
rather than permanent scheme?
There is not a rsync protocol specification and URI scheme. The protocol is
widely deployed. In fact the IETF depends on it everyday. This document is
intended to provide a citable specification for the URL scheme, but not the
protocol. Without the protocol specification, provisional seemed like the
best choice based on RFC 4395.
Fair enough; thanks for the explanation. I think adding something to
the IANA considerations documenting that logic couldn't hurt, e.g:
"A provisional registration is being sought as there is no citable
rsync protocol specification at this time, despite its widespread
deployment".
regards,
Ted Hardie
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf