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

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Wed, 05 January 2011 19:30 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@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 7898B3A6C74; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 11:30:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.415
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.415 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.184, 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 fl0pjo4Na55j; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 11:30:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2EF13A6AB5; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 11:30:28 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,278,1291593600"; d="scan'208";a="310715506"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Jan 2011 19:32:36 +0000
Received: from stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com [10.32.244.218]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p05JWVsC021966; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 19:32:35 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 05 Jan 2011 11:32:36 -0800
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com on Wed, 05 Jan 2011 11:32:36 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF6534487CCF@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 11:32:19 -0800
Message-Id: <FAD7A121-4EE5-40B0-8232-26429AE033C9@cisco.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>
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 11:31:51 -0800
Cc: "draft-ietf-behave-ftp64@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-behave-ftp64@tools.ietf.org>, "ftpext@ietf.org" <ftpext@ietf.org>, 'Behave WG' <behave@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ftpext] [BEHAVE] FTP64 LANGuage [was RE: 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 19:30:30 -0000

On Jan 5, 2011, at 8:11 AM, Dave Thaler wrote:

> 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.

Yes.