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

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 09:23:27 -0700

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

---

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:08:16 -0400 (EDT)

> 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.

Fair enough.

> 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.

Given the draft lockdown, presume that change will be made.

URI reviewers: feel free to take on the draft as it stands, knowing 
that the change Paul requested will be made.

-- Sam