Re: [ftpext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ftpext2-ftp64-01.txt

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Mon, 11 July 2011 09:09 UTC

Return-Path: <evnikita2@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ftpext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ftpext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F090021F875E for <ftpext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 02:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.729, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_PROLOSTOCK_SYM3=1.63]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jM0gZOIcePd3 for <ftpext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 02:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0628321F86EE for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 02:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by bwb17 with SMTP id 17so3580707bwb.31 for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 02:09:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8hGSJ3NKLYBCR0Ex/YNK6Aw9UQD4t2bvADEvbLDsyO0=; b=CLxsqM+kPmxOivxmcM9u+w8+54nbq5tCxQBtDAW0CdRVx0dAHpGHbes/Kd/NywtMLo 6Z2afXICDuY35U4WVvUtnrukhrTMD+91ea0eYqRrzHge5gVpu5yDxkSmuCcCui5vK1Af mjA3a5hR80jU6FkQiod/2yZhkANX5ghbCyY64=
Received: by 10.204.17.8 with SMTP id q8mr1019462bka.77.1310375342418; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 02:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o25sm963470bkf.18.2011.07.11.02.09.00 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 11 Jul 2011 02:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E1ABDDB.1090707@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:09:47 +0300
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ftpext@ietf.org
References: <20110711021824.28949.30520.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110711021824.28949.30520.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [ftpext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ftpext2-ftp64-01.txt
X-BeenThere: ftpext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ftpext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 09:09:06 -0000

Hello,

I'd like to provide some comments on this draft.  (Sorry John if I 
hijack some of what you wanted to say.)

>     RFC 2428 defines IPv6
>     extensions of FTP, introducing EPRT and EPSV command.

The EPRT and EPSV commands are really scoped mainly to IPv6 addresses, 
but not only.  It uses the RIP address family identifier 
(http://www.iana.org/assignments/address-family-numbers/address-family-numbers.xml) 
to allow addresses in the format other that used with IPv4.  So I think 
the aforementioned statement should be corrected.  The same applies to 
Introduction.

Section 1:

>     It should be noted that in some scenario, the FTP client that running
>     on the IPv6 host maybe legacy IPv4 FTP client.

There is no explicit explanation of what does the "legacy IPv4 FTP 
client" mean.  Moreover, no explicit statement on what should be 
considered to be "IPv4/IPv6 client/server" is provided as well.

Section 5:

>     This document argues that since FTP is a protocol that could avoid
>     ALG by slightly adjusting the operation of the IPv6 FTP client it is
>     not recommended the translation box to implement FTP ALG.

Your document does not explain what does the "ALG" mean.

Section 6:

>     The extension that
>     defines in this document will not impact FTP security.

First, s/defines/is defined/ (this is not an only instance of such 
mistakes in the document).  Second, I don't see the "extension" in your 
document.  (This also applies to title).

The intended status is Informational.  However, I'd better like BCP, 
since your document tries to make normative recommendation.  Moreover, 
in Abstract you say:

>     This document proposes to update
>     IPv6 FTP client's specification

What document is the "IPv6 FTP client's specification"?

Also, some conclusion summarizing the document's recommendation will be 
useful.

Thanks,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

11.07.2011 5:18, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the FTP Extensions, 2nd edition Working Group of the IETF.
>
> 	Title           : FTP extension for IPv4/IPv6 transition
> 	Author(s)       : Dapeng Liu
>                            Iljitsch van Beijnum
>                            Zhen Cao
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-ftpext2-ftp64-01.txt
> 	Pages           : 7
> 	Date            : 2011-07-10
>
>