Re: what is rsync, was Call for Community Feedback: Retiring IETF FTP Service

[George Michaelson <[e-mail]>]

In hindsight, this has been a problematic decision. rsync is highly
exploitable for DOS and unexpected outcomes. Pragmatically it got us
somewhere. Its a bad fit for the CDN world we live in now.

https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/slides/slides-89-sidr-6.pdf

https://blog.apnic.net/2020/10/27/rpki-qa-the-trouble-with-rsync/

RPKI (sidrops) is trying to define a delta protocol up into more
normative state, and a deprecate-rsync draft is in hypothesis.

-G

On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 9:03 PM tom petch <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On 26/11/2020 22:00, John C Klensin wrote:
> >
> > --On Thursday, November 26, 2020 14:11 -0500 Keith Moore
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/26/20 12:08 PM, John Levine wrote:
> >>
> >>> If you're wondering if there's an RFC for it, nope. RFC 5781
> >>> specifies the rsync: URI but refers back
> >>> tohttp://rsync.samba.org/  for details on rsync.
> >>>
> >>> I don't suppose anyone would object if we made an RFC out of
> >>> the spec but given that the tech report, thesis, and multiple
> >>> implementations are widely available without restriction
> >>> (other than GPL on some of the code) it doesn't seem worth a
> >>> lot of effort.
> >>
> >> I remember when IETF cared about making standards and
> >> promoting broad interoperability.
> >
> > Of course, there would be another way to do this, one that would
> > create an RFC but not a standard.  One could cobble a document
> > together that described what rsync was all about in the abstract
> > and introduction, include the references that have popped up in
> > this thread (and probably including a lot of text by reference),
> > and then hand it over to the ISE for publication of a
> > description of a protocol that is widely used in the community
> > for the information of the community.  If the IESG then wanted
> > to take such a document over and classify it as standards track,
> > I presume no one would object as long as they did not create a
> > working group that had the goal of either hanging bags on the
> > side of the thing or improving it enough that it was not
> > interoperable with deployed implementations.
> >
> > But there is not much evidence, in this case, that anyone cares
> > even enough to do that... and, if no one wants to invest even
> > that level of effort, then I think we need to agree with John
> > Levine's conclusion.
>
> Back in 2008, sidr chose rsync as the foundation of its protocol.  It
> referenced rsync.samba.org.  See, for example, RFC6480.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >      john
> >
> >
> > .
> >
>