Re: Interest in reviving WG on FTP(maybe ext?)

"tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com> Fri, 10 July 2009 17:10 UTC

Return-Path: <cfinss@dial.pipex.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 A4AD128C349 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.341
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.341 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.411, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069, 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 vZuMmZ8pVvFT for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:10:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mk-outboundfilter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-outboundfilter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A90428C2FC for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:10:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Trace: 265706427/mk-outboundfilter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com/PIPEX/$PIPEX-ACCEPTED/pipex-customers/62.188.105.121/None/cfinss@dial.pipex.com
X-SBRS: None
X-RemoteIP: 62.188.105.121
X-IP-MAIL-FROM: cfinss@dial.pipex.com
X-SMTP-AUTH:
X-MUA: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-IP-BHB: Once
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Au4EAAMTV0o+vGl5/2dsb2JhbABFgmc8HIt/wGgJg38FgTs
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,379,1243810800"; d="scan'208";a="265706427"
X-IP-Direction: IN
Received: from 1cust121.tnt2.lnd9.gbr.da.uu.net (HELO allison) ([62.188.105.121]) by smtp.pipex.tiscali.co.uk with SMTP; 10 Jul 2009 18:11:01 +0100
Message-ID: <000701ca0178$c300e700$0601a8c0@allison>
From: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
To: wmaton@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca, apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0907011537130.11066@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
Subject: Re: Interest in reviving WG on FTP(maybe ext?)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:52:48 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
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 17:10:36 -0000

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?

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