Hi Paul,
on 2006-07-19 00:28 Paul Hoffman said the following:
> 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.
Works for me.
Henrik
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
