Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Ross Callon) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

In section 2, should "rsyncurl" be "rsyncuri" ?

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

I agree with Pasi about specifying transports.

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Pasi Eronen) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

I commend the brevity of this I-D.
The Abstract is, however, very terse.
http://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines.html says...
   An Abstract will typically be 5-10 lines, but an Abstract of more 
   than 20 lines or less than 3 lines is generally not acceptable.

How about adding...
   An rsync URI describes a source or destination for the rsync
   application including a hostname, path, and optional user and port.

---

There are several mentions of "the rsync application." While "we all
know what resync is", it would be nice to include a couple of lines to
say what it is.

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

Alexey Melnikov (was Discuss) No Objection

Nit: This is missing a normative reference to RFC 5234 (ABNF).
Otherwise this looks good to me.

(Tim Polk) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection

(Russ Housley) Recuse