Re: Last Call: draft-weiler-rsync-uri (The rsync URI Scheme) to Informational RFC

[Ted Hardie <ted.ietf at gmail.com>]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Russ Housley <housley at 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