[Ballot discuss]
I really think we need an informative reference to the rsync algorithm.  I suggest

Andrew Tridgell and Paul Mackerras TR-CS-96-05 "The rsync algorithm" (The
Australian National University Joint Computer Science Technical Report Series), June 1996.

BTW, the URL is http://cs.anu.edu.au/techreports/1996/TR-CS-96-05.pdf

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot discuss]
I have reviewed draft-weiler-rsync-uri-01, and have a couple of
concerns that I'd like to see addressed before recommending approval
of the document (an RFC editor note would be fine):

1) Since Rsync is commonly run over different transports, it would be
good to explicitly say that this URI scheme is for the direct TCP
transport only, and does not support any other transports (like SSH or
TLS).

2) Section 4 probably needs to say that security considerations
of the Rsync protocol itself are not covered in this document.

IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA will make the following
assignment in the "Provisional URI Schemes" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html

URI Scheme Description Reference
--------- ---------- ---------
rsync RSync Protocol [RFC-weiler-rsync-uri-01]

We understand the above to be the only IANA Action for this document.

PROTO writeup by Dave Ward:

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
      Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document
      and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready
      for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Russ Housley.  Yes.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
      the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd
      have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
      have been performed?

Review was requested from the URI-review list in early July.  RFC4395
says a four-week review is adequate for permanent registrations; it
makes no statement about provisional registrations, which is all this
document requests.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
      needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g.,
      security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,
      internationalization or XML?

See 1.d.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
      issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
      and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or
      she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has
      concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if
      the interested community has discussed those issues and has
      indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
      those concerns here.

This document was developed without input from the rsync developers
and may not fully reflect the code.  Even so, the consensus on the
need to formalize this registration is strong.

(1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
      this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
      individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
      community as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is strong consensus on the need for this document.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
      discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
      separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
      should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
      entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
      document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
      and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
      not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met
      all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor,
      media type and URI type reviews?

Yes.  As in 1.b, this document has had over four weeks of review on
the uri-review list.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
      informative? Are there normative references to documents that are
      not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
      If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their
      completion? Are there normative references that are downward
      references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward
      references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure
      for them [RFC3967].

There are only two cited references, both normative.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
      consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of
      the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are
      reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the
      IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new
      registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the
      registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations?
      Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See
      [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the document
      describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the
      Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed
      Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

This document is primarily an IANA assignment document.  All is in order.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
      document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code,
      BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an
      automated checker?

            Yes.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
      Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
      Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the
      "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
      announcement contains the following sections:

  Technical Summary

      This document specifies the rsync Uniform Resource Identifier
      (URI) scheme.

  Working Group Summary

      This is not the product of an IETF working group.

  Document Quality

      This URI scheme is already in active use in the world, but it
      has never been registered with IANA.  This document makes a
      provisional registration of the URI scheme that's already in use.

PROTO writeup by Dave Ward:

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
      Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document
      and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready
      for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Russ Housley.  Yes.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
      the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd
      have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
      have been performed?

Review was requested from the URI-review list in early July.  RFC4395
says a four-week review is adequate for permanent registrations; it
makes no statement about provisional registrations, which is all this
document requests.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
      needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g.,
      security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA,
      internationalization or XML?

See 1.d.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
      issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
      and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or
      she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has
      concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if
      the interested community has discussed those issues and has
      indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
      those concerns here.

This document was developed without input from the rsync developers
and may not fully reflect the code.  Even so, the consensus on the
need to formalize this registration is strong.

(1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
      this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
      individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
      community as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is strong consensus on the need for this document.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
      discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
      separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
      should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
      entered into the ID Tracker.)

No.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
      document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
      and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
      not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met
      all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor,
      media type and URI type reviews?

Yes.  As in 1.b, this document has had over four weeks of review on
the uri-review list.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
      informative? Are there normative references to documents that are
      not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
      If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their
      completion? Are there normative references that are downward
      references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward
      references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure
      for them [RFC3967].

There are only two cited references, both normative.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
      consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of
      the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are
      reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the
      IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new
      registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the
      registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations?
      Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new registry? See
      [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If the document
      describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the
      Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed
      Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

This document is primarily an IANA assignment document.  All is in order.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
      document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code,
      BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an
      automated checker?

            Yes.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
      Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
      Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the
      "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
      announcement contains the following sections:

  Technical Summary

      This document specifies the rsync Uniform Resource Identifier
      (URI) scheme.

  Working Group Summary

      This is not the product of an IETF working group.

  Document Quality

      This URI scheme is already in active use in the world, but it
      has never been registered with IANA.  This document makes a
      provisional registration of the URI scheme that's already in use.