Re: [ftpext] FTP Host Draft

On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Paul Ford-Hutchinson wrote:

> My 2c - after submitting what became RFC4217 as an independent submission
> (no FTP based WG existed at the time) - I'd wholly recommend doing it via
> a WG if at all possible - you get guaranteed time and focus in the process
> stages.

+1

It would be nice to get a mix of current implementors as well as veterans 
to also gain insights into what the intentions behind the current RFCs 
were, to keep an eye on the bigger picture.

> That was a few years ago, things may have changed.
>
> Paul
>
> -- 
>
> Paul Ford-Hutchinson CISSP - Tivoli Security Consultant
> IBM UK Ltd. - NHBR - 1PH - North Harbour - Portsmouth - PO6 3AU
> IBM Certified Deployment Professional - Tivoli Compliance Insight Manager
> V8.5
>
> Tel +44 (0)7500 078379  (internal: 37269105)
>
> ftpext-bounces@ietf.org wrote on 09/09/2010 08:51:49:
>
>> [image removed]
>>
>> Re: [ftpext] FTP Host Draft
>>
>> Alexey Melnikov
>>
>> to:
>>
>> Robert McMurray
>>
>> 09/09/2010 08:55
>>
>> Sent by:
>>
>> ftpext-bounces@ietf.org
>>
>> Cc:
>>
>> "ftpext@ietf.org"
>>
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> Robert McMurray wrote:
>>
>>> If we're unsure about the timing of the WG formation, then I'd
>> think that it's probably best to pursue as an ID.
>>>
>>> Alexey, what are your thoughts? Do you have any objections to
>> continuing this draft as an ID?
>>>
>> I think I need to know if there is a desire to form a WG first.
>> Then we can discuss timing of finishing your draft in relationship to
>> estimated timing of creating the WG.
>> If there is no energy to form a WG any time soon, I will progress your
>> draft independently.
>>
>> I don't want to impose lots of process on you (and cause a delay), but I
>
>> would prefer this be a WG document.
>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Anthony Bryan [mailto:anthonybryan@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 5:19 PM
>>>> To: William F. Maton
>>>> Cc: Robert McMurray; ftpext@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [ftpext] FTP Host Draft
>>>>
>>>> it's already gone through IETF LC, not WGLC.
>>>>
>>>> Robert, as the author of the most mature FTP ID, would you want to
>>>> wait for WG formation? you probably have the least to gain. your draft
>>>> is 3 years old, and HOST was in the ID that became RFC 3659 in 1998,
>>>> so HOST has had some time to stabilize.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Robert McMurray wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The FTP HOST command draft completed last call in May and Alexey
> Melnikov
>>>>> signed off in June, but we put it on hold for the IETF meeting in
>>>>> Maastricht.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts/
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any reason why it cannot continue to move forward at this
> time?
>>>>> Should it continue as an individual submission?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert McMurray
>>>>> US-IIS Product Unit
>>>>> Email: robmcm@microsoft.com
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ftpext mailing list
>> ftpext@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ftpext
>

wfms