Re: Interest in reviving WG on FTP(maybe ext?)
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 15 July 2009 22:10 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB7D13A6F4A for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.236
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.236 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.237, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KtqNjh7ejAkl for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:10:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DA2F3A6F3E for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:10:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1MRCfm-000HA7-D2 for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:09:59 -0400
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:09:56 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Interest in reviving WG on FTP(maybe ext?)
Message-ID: <B4E92CC4D461EA49604A3B94@PST.JCK.COM>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="==========54E3A0C1A66145FB9DBB=========="
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:10:57 -0000
As promised, I'm attaching my note and Lisa's from before Dublin. The existence of work on a charter at the end of October indicates that there may have been some further discussion in Minneapolis (IETF 73) but I have no recollection of any substantive decisions. john
--- Begin Message ---The Apparea open meeting will have some time allocated to discuss FTP extensions -- Monday July 28 at 9:00 am in Dublin. John Klensin suggested the topic so I've asked him to be on the hook for leading those 10 or more minutes. We'll be discussing what work needs to be done on FTP and for what deployed communities (e.g. what extent), and if the conclusion is that the IETF needs to do some work we may even get to discussing how. Current, unexpired I-Ds relating to FTP: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-peterson-streamlined-ftp-command-extensions-05 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts-01 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosenau-ftp-single-port-04 As always, meeting attendees are expected to read meeting documents before getting to the meeting! Advance discussion on this list is very welcome. Lisa On Jul 12, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote: > Martin Duerst wrong: > >> John has mentioned a long list, is that what you thought about > > Yes, I think he saw more points then I saw, and I wasn't sure if > he proposed an effort to get a 2640bis as DS, or something else. > > I never before looked into this RFC, I checked the four "updated > by" in RFC 959, after looking in Paul's last ftp URI draft. Any > 0xFF in memos about telnet / ftp / UTF-8 attracts my attention, > once bitten... > > Frank > > > _______________________________________________ > Apps-Discuss mailing list > Apps-Discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---Subject: FTP Extensions and Updates Hi. We have proposals for a number of FTP extensions at various places in the queue, including draft-peterson-streamlined-ftp-command-extensions-04 and the long-overdue "TYPE U" proposal that was the original impetus for what is now RFC 5198. I have first-draft I-Ds for TYPE U and for an IANA registry for FTP Extensions ready to go up as soon as the pre-IETF blackout window closes. The question now is how people would like to process these extensions. Mark Peterson and Doug Papenthien think their document is just about ready to go and have implementation and running code for its features. "TYPE U" is essentially trivial now that the format itself is defined. If enough people are interested, it might be sensible to move toward a (hopefully short-lived) WG. If not, it would probably make sense to handle them as individual submissions, probably folding the substance of my two documents into draft-peterson... in the hope of handling everything through one Last Call. FWIW, I don't have any particular personal investment in any of this. The "TYPE U" document was prepared as the last step of what I seem to have volunteered for when I started the Unicode stream discussion several years ago and the registry document was started because it seemed to be the right thing to do. If people decide they want a WG, I will be looking for someone who wants to take over or share editing responsibilities on the two new drafts. If it is ok with Chris and Lisa, and especially if anyone has opinions in the interim, I'd like to spend a couple of minutes on FTP strategy at the Apps Area meeting. john _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss--- End Message ---
- Interest in reviving WG on FTP(maybe ext?) William F. Maton Sotomayor
- Re: Interest in reviving WG on FTP(maybe ext?) tom.petch
- Re: Interest in reviving WG on FTP(maybe ext?) William F. Maton Sotomayor
- Re: Interest in reviving WG on FTP(maybe ext?) John C Klensin
- Re: Interest in reviving WG on FTP(maybe ext?) William F. Maton Sotomayor
- Re: Interest in reviving WG on FTP(maybe ext?) William F. Maton Sotomayor
- Re: Interest in reviving WG on FTP(maybe ext?) Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: Interest in reviving WG on FTP(maybe ext?) John C Klensin
- Re: Interest in reviving WG on FTP(maybe ext?) John C Klensin