Hi Bill, on 2006-07-19 02:51 Bill Fenner said the following: >>A contractual requirement at this level of detail seems totally >>crazy. > > I'm afraid I agree. I see this in our other kinds of process > specifications too -- we write rules for which you need to exercise > sensible judgement, and then fret about what happens when someone uses > bad judgement and try to write rules to prevent it. While it would > be possible for a provider to win the RFC Editor contract, and fail > to provide rsync, that'd be an exercise in bad judgement since they'd > probably not get the contract when it was time to renew. > > While it's possible to tie down most (I dare not say all) > loose ends in a protocol description, I can't imagine that you > can do it in a process document or contract, and think you'll > go crazy trying.
Ok. So I'm not sure what you propose here - should we not require
rsync and ftp mirroring capability, or should we ask for it, and not
specify chapter and verse regarding version etc.? I'd certainly be
very unhappy completely abandoning the rsync capability.
Henrik
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
