Re: [ftpext] FTP64 LANGuage [was RE: [BEHAVE] one week WGLC, draft-ietf-behave-ftp64-05]

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Wed, 05 January 2011 23:40 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ftpext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ftpext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 384173A6E23; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:40:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.527
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 w9W8H-IUB5qU; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:40:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F23D3A6D0E; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:40:35 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUFANOQJE2rR7Hu/2dsb2JhbACDd5M3jG5zplGKU41PgSGDN3QEhGg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,280,1291593600"; d="scan'208";a="396523978"
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Jan 2011 23:42:42 +0000
Received: from dwingWS ([10.32.240.194]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p05Nggew006185; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 23:42:42 GMT
From: "Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com>
To: "'Iljitsch van Beijnum'" <iljitsch@muada.com>, "'Dave Thaler'" <dthaler@microsoft.com>
References: <0cac01cb58ea$32d19a60$9874cf20$@com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF65343005F2@TK5EX14MBXW601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <B166ACF7-FA96-4954-8411-A86BC7923A76@muada.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653447D195@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653447ECAF@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <8B73074C-5B7E-425F-B8B2-C28757FB7CD6@muada.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653447F40D@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653447F599@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <049901cba2cc$238f67e0$6aae37a0$@com> <101F87C4-F714-48C2-852A-67332B712DD1@muada.com> <04a401cba2ce$fdba5180$f92ef480$@com> <B1535EAD-802E-4EF6-ACA5-7F66BCFED987@muada.com> <015d01cbab86$3aa832a0$aff897e0$@com> <4AFCA9F5-CA3A-48EF-87AB-7ADC165956B2@muada.com> <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF6534487CCF@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <1BF1B9D6-B649-48A5-B B4A-F31F2BCC4E72@muada.com>
In-Reply-To: <1BF1B9D6-B649-48A5-BB4A-F31F2BCC4E72@muada.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 15:42:41 -0800
Message-ID: <097701cbad32$3e8bf200$bba3d600$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcutIUtb5iuicnTUQjqT4jyoTusjawAEKWaA
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: draft-ietf-behave-ftp64@tools.ietf.org, ftpext@ietf.org, 'Behave WG' <behave@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ftpext] FTP64 LANGuage [was RE: [BEHAVE] one week WGLC, draft-ietf-behave-ftp64-05]
X-BeenThere: ftpext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ftpext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ftpext>, <mailto:ftpext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ftpext>
List-Post: <mailto:ftpext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ftpext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ftpext>, <mailto:ftpext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 23:40:36 -0000

> On 5 jan. 2011, at 17:11, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 	And I agree with Iljitsch's
> 	implication that the recommendation for FTP64 ALGs should be the
> same
> 	as whatever the recommendation for other FTP ALGs (e.g. in
> NAT44's) is.
> 
> 
> 
> Failing to quit while I'm ahead...
> 
> Are there any FTP44 ALG recommendations?

I am only aware of
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3027#section-4.1

-d