[sidr] Terry Manderson's No Objection on draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-07: (with COMMENT)

["Terry Manderson" <[e-mail]>]

Terry Manderson has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-delta-protocol/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for this work, it is clear and well written. While I have never
(ever) been enamoured by RSYNC, and I much prefer this direction on a
personal level, the updates to the existing RFCs regarding RSYNC does two
things. The first is it demotes RSYNC to 'just another access mechanism',
and the second is it appears to remove the quality of a mandatory to
implement retrieval mechanism. Am I reading that correctly? If this is
intentional and has workgroup consensus so be it and onwards we move..