Re: [Uri-review] I-D Action:draft-weiler-rsync-uri-00.txt

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Tue, 07 July 2009 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: uri-review@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2427A28C4F7 for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 09:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.368
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.368 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.231, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Kb6VEH0buec for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 09:23:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (properopus-pt.tunnel.tserv3.fmt2.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f04:392::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 074B828C4D7 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 09:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.158] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n67GNSbk057280 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Jul 2009 09:23:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0624082fc67925a8c2d4@[10.20.30.158]>
In-Reply-To: <20090706211501.6BAB13A68AC@core3.amsl.com>
References: <20090706211501.6BAB13A68AC@core3.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 09:23:27 -0700
To: weiler@tislabs.com, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, dward@cisco.com
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:30:09 -0700
Cc: uri-review@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] I-D Action:draft-weiler-rsync-uri-00.txt
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:23:08 -0000

The registration calls "rsync" both a protocol and an application. I believe that only the latter is true, given that the protocol is not specified anywhere stable other than in the code of the application. This is a sore point for many people, myself included.

Please update the URI request to change "protocol" to "application" in the two places it is used. At that point, the URI reviewers can decide whether or not they want to approve the registration for an application-specific URI. I am generally against such registrations, but in this case is makes sense.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium