[ftpext] RFC959 update WAS Re: NAT64 client/server document

["William F. Maton" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

[snip]
>not when there is a 229 response. I also worry that an overhaul of RFC 
>959 and rolling in stuff from later FTP RFCs would take quite a long time 
>because all kinds of other stuff would find its way into the document, 
>too.

IANAWGCC [*], but in my voyages through the 'heritage' that is the wu-ftpd 
experience, one downside is having to wade through a lot of RFCs to 'get' 
the protocol.  In my mind, there are two approaches to updating RFC959:

a) As you said, update it and allow for creeping featurism;
b) Tightly scope the update to RFC 959 to just being an updated version
    of the protocol as it stands today according to RFCs only (not drafts,
    not even practices out there on the Internet) and look to fixing it
    later...much later.

There is always the third option and that is to do nothing.

[On the BCP vs STD idea]

Given that this is addressing an issue related to the burgeoning 
deployment of IPv6, at the very least it should be a BCP.  Ideally a STD 
but I admit I don't know what weight that would really carry either.

wfms

[*] I am Not a Working Group Co-Chair.