Just out of curiousity, why is this registering it as provisional, rather than permanent scheme?
Also, I didn't see any discussion about this on uri-review. This may be because it dropped during my recent mailbox moves, but if it hasn't been seen there it might be a reasonable idea. Support for a permanent registration might even emerge there. regards, Ted On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 7:31 AM, The IESG <[email protected]> wrote: > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider > the following document: > > - 'The rsync URI Scheme ' > <draft-weiler-rsync-uri-01.txt> as an Informational RFC > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > [email protected] mailing lists by 2009-10-28. Exceptionally, > comments may be sent to [email protected] instead. In either case, please > retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > The file can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-weiler-rsync-uri-01.txt > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=18880&rfc_flag=0 > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
