The rsync URI Scheme
RFC 5781
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14 |
01 | (System) | Notify list changed from housley@vigilsec.com, dward@cisco.com, weiler@tislabs.com, draft-weiler-rsync-uri@ietf.org to (None) |
2012-08-22 |
01 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Pasi Eronen |
2012-08-22 |
01 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk |
2010-02-12 |
01 | Cindy Morgan | State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan |
2010-02-12 |
01 | Cindy Morgan | [Note]: 'RFC 5781' added by Cindy Morgan |
2010-02-12 |
01 | (System) | RFC published |
2009-12-23 |
01 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2009-12-23 |
01 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2009-12-23 |
01 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2009-12-22 |
01 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2009-12-22 |
01 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2009-12-21 |
01 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2009-12-21 |
01 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2009-12-21 |
01 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2009-12-21 |
01 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2009-12-20 |
01 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed by Ross Callon |
2009-12-18 |
01 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-12-17 |
2009-12-17 |
01 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2009-12-17 |
01 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alexey Melnikov has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Alexey Melnikov |
2009-12-17 |
01 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] Nit: This is missing a normative reference to RFC 5234 (ABNF). Otherwise this looks good to me. |
2009-12-17 |
01 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot discuss] |
2009-12-17 |
01 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Tim Polk |
2009-12-17 |
01 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to Undefined from Discuss by Tim Polk |
2009-12-17 |
01 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Pasi Eronen has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Pasi Eronen |
2009-12-17 |
01 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko |
2009-12-17 |
01 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault |
2009-12-17 |
01 | Lisa Dusseault | [Ballot comment] I agree with Pasi about specifying transports. |
2009-12-17 |
01 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings |
2009-12-17 |
01 | Tim Polk | [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" … [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 |
2009-12-17 |
01 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2009-12-17 |
01 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2009-12-17 |
01 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2009-12-17 |
01 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
2009-12-17 |
01 | Adrian Farrel | [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, … [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. |
2009-12-17 |
01 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund |
2009-12-16 |
01 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot comment] In section 2, should "rsyncurl" be "rsyncuri" ? |
2009-12-16 |
01 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms |
2009-12-16 |
01 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
2009-12-16 |
01 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2009-12-14 |
01 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2009-12-14 |
01 | Pasi Eronen | [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 … [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. |
2009-12-14 |
01 | Pasi Eronen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Pasi Eronen |
2009-11-28 |
01 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot discuss] Nit: This is missing a normative reference to RFC 5234 (ABNF). Otherwise this looks good to me. |
2009-11-28 |
01 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov |
2009-11-25 |
01 | Ross Callon | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ross Callon |
2009-11-25 |
01 | Ross Callon | Ballot has been issued by Ross Callon |
2009-11-25 |
01 | Ross Callon | Created "Approve" ballot |
2009-11-25 |
01 | Ross Callon | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-12-17 by Ross Callon |
2009-11-25 |
01 | Ross Callon | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Ross Callon |
2009-11-02 |
01 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: David McGrew. |
2009-10-28 |
01 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2009-10-26 |
01 | Amanda Baber | 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 … 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. |
2009-10-03 |
01 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to David McGrew |
2009-10-03 |
01 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to David McGrew |
2009-09-30 |
01 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2009-09-30 |
01 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2009-09-29 |
01 | Ross Callon | Last Call was requested by Ross Callon |
2009-09-29 |
01 | Ross Callon | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation by Ross Callon |
2009-09-29 |
01 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2009-09-29 |
01 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2009-09-29 |
01 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2009-09-29 |
01 | Ross Callon | PROTO writeup by Dave Ward: (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version … 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. |
2009-09-29 |
01 | Ross Callon | PROTO writeup by Dave Ward: (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version … 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. |
2009-07-29 |
01 | Ross Callon | State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Ross Callon |
2009-07-29 |
01 | Ross Callon | Draft Added by Ross Callon in state Publication Requested |
2009-07-27 |
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-weiler-rsync-uri-01.txt |
2009-07-06 |
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-weiler-rsync-uri-00.txt |