On 12/08/2008, at 11:58 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote:
A social aspect that I'm cognisant of is that there appeared to be
reluctance by some parties to accept the rescerts draft because it
had a non-ietf reference implementation which potentially could
raise issues about interoperability between releases. This draft
should nullify those as it does provide an IETF standard for
retrieval - so with luck allowing the pivotal draft in question to
gain adoption faster.
Sorry for the late reply, I missed this remark.
The objections I've heard raised about rsync are (1) it has NO
specification beyond the code, which of course changes daily,
leading to interoperability issues, should anyone else attempt to
implement and (2) there's this license issue (formerly GPL v2, now
GPL v3) [IANAL, YMMV]. Lack of *IETF* spec, or reference
implementation of same, has not been a problem.
--Sandy
Thanks for the clarification Sandy, I'll step back from the "non-ietf"
point of view. (although in some ways it still drags on me, but it
isn't a defining factor) I think your two points are far more salient
in the broader view of the SIDR system architecture.
Cheers
Terry
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
