Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

[Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org>]

At 11:53 PM +0200 7/18/06, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> on 2006-07-18 22:31 Paul Hoffman said the following:
> >  At 8:27 PM +0200 7/18/06, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> > > Should we require that the current availability through rsync and ftp
> > > is continued?
> >
> >  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".

>   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).

> 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.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf