Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

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

At 12:14 AM +0200 7/19/06, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> \>>   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).
>
> I think that in a contractual situation, 'hope' isn't enough to keep us
> out of trouble.

Good point.

> And I'd be reasonably happy if we specified 'any version of rsync greater
> than X.Y.Z', or some such.  The current debian stable version (2.6.4-6)
> would work for me.

Saying "rsync version 2.6 or later" works for me, as long as we 
understand the "can't eat our own dogfood" aspect of this requirement.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

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