Re: Last Call: draft-weiler-rsync-uri (The rsync URI Scheme) to Informational RFC
I think the point is that the IESG should probably refer the doc to the uri-review team to look for any red flags. Mistakes in URI specs are common (speaking has one that has made some). The editors asked the uri-review list for feedback in July of this year, as required by RFC 4395. -- Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-weiler-rsync-uri (The rsync URI Scheme) to Informational RFC
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-secret...@ietf.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@ietf.org mailing lists by 2009-10-28. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.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_iddTag=18880rfc_flag=0 ___ IETF-Announce mailing list ietf-annou...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-weiler-rsync-uri (The rsync URI Scheme) to Informational RFC
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. Russ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-weiler-rsync-uri (The rsync URI Scheme) to Informational RFC
Russ, I think the point is that the IESG should probably refer the doc to the uri-review team to look for any red flags. Mistakes in URI specs are common (speaking has one that has made some). Eliot On 9/30/09 9:51 PM, Russ Housley 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. Russ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-weiler-rsync-uri (The rsync URI Scheme) to Informational RFC
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: draft-weiler-rsync-uri (The rsync URI Scheme) to Informational RFC
At 4:41 PM -0700 9/30/09, Ted Hardie wrote: 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. +1 --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Last Call: draft-weiler-rsync-uri (The rsync URI Scheme) to Informational RFC
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 i...@ietf.org mailing lists by 2009-10-28. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.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_iddTag=18880rfc_flag=0 ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
