Re: [ftpext] WG Status

[TJ Saunders <[e-mail]>]

>     *) the HOST document

Given the paucity of IPv4 addresses (and their widespread use), I still 
consider name-based virtual hosting support in FTP, via the proposed HOST 
command, to be of considerable value.

I will be implementing this command in proftpd for the next RC release; as 
such, I have been reading closely many of the comments on this topic.

My impression is that the HOST command proposal will end up being 
implemented whether or not the WG continues to exist.  Without the WG 
pushing the proposal through to Standard status, however, those 
implementations are more likely to differ.  To ameliorate that 
possibility, I for one would like to see the WG continue.

I am not much for document formatting and scheduling and such, but if the 
perceived lack of progress on the HOST draft is due to lack of 
implementations, then I can do my part to address that need for an 
implementation.  I suspect others have already implemented HOST, however.

There have been, and will continue to be, questions about how to handle 
HOST edge cases (REIN, close the connection, etc), and how it will 
interact with e.g. TLS SNI.  These are excellent questions, and should be 
addressed -- but please do not let the lack of resolution on these 
questions cause the HOST draft to be stopped altogether.  "Don't let the 
perfect be the enemy of the good", as it were.

Just my thoughts on this particular topic.

Cheers,
TJ
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   Drink to me only with thine eyes,
   And I will pledge with mine;
   Or leave a kiss but in the cup
   And I'll not look for wine.

   	-Ben Jonson

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~