Re: Interest in reviving WG on FTP(maybe ext?)
"William F. Maton Sotomayor" <wmaton@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> Fri, 10 July 2009 18:07 UTC
Return-Path: <wmaton@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
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 B009828C38E for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 u2ZpOmurmfKx for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:07:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca (ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca [IPv6:2001:410:9000:127::10]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 283FC28C384 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:07:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n6AI833R028042 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:08:08 -0400
Received: from localhost (wmaton@localhost) by ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) with ESMTP id n6AI82uT028039; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:08:03 -0400
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:08:02 -0400
From: "William F. Maton Sotomayor" <wmaton@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
To: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: Interest in reviving WG on FTP(maybe ext?)
In-Reply-To: <000701ca0178$c300e700$0601a8c0@allison>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0907101403330.12664@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0907011537130.11066@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> <000701ca0178$c300e700$0601a8c0@allison>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: wmaton@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca
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: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:07:54 -0000
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, tom.petch wrote: > In October last, there was a thread on > "Subject: Followup on IETF72 discussion of FTP protocol extensions and > updates". > > I cannot recall seeing any conclusion to it; may be this time? Ah, thanks for that pointer. I was in DUblin and had not realized at the time that there were discussions in progress...Alas, that was prior getting involved in the issue in the first place. I don't see one in the archives either. I think a Bar BoF may be planned for it though? > > Tom Petch > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William F. Maton Sotomayor" <wmaton@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> > To: <apps-discuss@ietf.org> > Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:53 PM > Subject: Interest in reviving WG on FTP(maybe ext?) > > >> >> All, >> >> Over the past several months a colleague at a university and >> myself have revived work on the WU-FTPD daemon. Through researching the >> various RFCs and such, it's become apparent that there are a small number >> of drafts as well as a potential number of others that could significantly >> contribute to the protocol. (So my voyage has gone from operator, >> developer and implementor to protocol spec.) But, ftpext wound-up and it >> seems there's no specific venue to flesh these out amongst like-minded >> FTP people. >> >> I suppose what I'm looking for from the Apps Area folk is to test >> the waters on establishing a BoF (if I have read the Apps website >> correctly) that will lead to establishing some kind of group that will >> further the possible work remaining or possibly poending to be done, or >> not. Discussions amongst a couple of authors of long-expired drafts seem >> to favour some kind of venue. >> >> Thanks, >> >> wfms >> _______________________________________________ >> Apps-Discuss mailing list >> Apps-Discuss@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss > wfms
- 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