Re: [ftpext] WG Status (was: Re: Fwd: Re: ftpext2 review of FTP HOST command?)

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,
At 07:10 13-03-2012, John C Klensin wrote:
>Let me say something slightly more optimistic than the above,
>even though I don't think it helps the WG very much.  I think we
>have several implementers out there, each with a client/customer
>base.  While those clusters of customers probably overlap enough
>in their properties and needs to be different from a
>niche-per-implementer/ vendor, they are different.  The result
>is that vendor X wants extensions A, B, and C (which they may
>have developed, implemented, and deployed in some form).  Vendor
>Y wants extensions D, E, and C', where C' is functionally more
>or less like C but not identical.  Maybe we could get them
>together to work on a common C-approximation (although there
>hasn't been evidence of that so far).  But X sees no commercial
>value in working on, or even reviewing D or E and Y sees no
>commercial value in working on A or B.
>
>Worse from our point of view, X's main interest, as a server
>vendor, in bringing A and B to the IETF is to get them
>standardized so they can beat up client vendors who haven't
>implemented what would otherwise be a perfectly good proprietary
>feature.  That not only gives them no incentive to invest energy
>on D or E, it gives them significant incentive to push back on
>any changes to their already-implemented versions of A and B
>(using "running code" as an excuse).

It's up to X and Y to figure out what's in their mutual 
interest.  Otherwise, one ends up with the classic scenario of a 
non-working group.

>p.s. On looking at the charter, I discovered that one of the
>things the WG committed to do was
>
>         "* Review and confirm or reject errata of current FTP
>         RFCs"
>
>Circa 18 months after we got serious about chartering the group
>(longer than that if one uses other criteria), that task hasn't
>been started.  Another entry in the "not a good sign" list, IMO.

The WG doesn't have any RFC to show since it was chartered in 
November 2010.  That's not a good sign.

Regards,
-sm