without
it you may not be able to get SIDR drafts passed IESG or general
IETF last-call review (but I'm not sufficiently versed in IETF RFC
publication requirements to be certain how big of an issue it is).
It depends on which draft you're talking about, and whether that draft
makes normative or informative reference to rsync. There are two drafts
that refer to rsync right now:
draft-ietf-sidr-res-certs-01 makes normative references to rsync, e.g.
"An rsync URI MUST be present in the DistributionPointName set.".
draft-ietf-sidr-arch-00 makes only informative references to rsync, e.g.
"Current efforts to implement a repository system use RSYNC [9] as the
single access protocol. RSYNC, as used in this implementation, provides
all of the above functionality."
It seems to me like the former draft will probably get hung up on the
issue, while the latter is less likely to.
--Richard
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Sandy Murphy wrote:
Sandy: check "rsync:" as a registered URI type.
There is no "rsync:" URI scheme listed on the IANA registry:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html
For what it's worth, there also is no "rsync:" URN listed on the IANA
URN registry:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces
--Sandy
_______________________________________________
Sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________
Sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
_______________________________________________
Sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
