Re: [ftpext] Followup on FTPEXT2 BOF in Maastricht

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Anthony Bryan wrote:

>On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 5:13 AM, Alexey Melnikov
><[e-mail]> wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi Anthony,
>>
>>Anthony Bryan wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 4:05 AM, Alexey Melnikov
>>><[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>2). Propose and agree on WG charter on the mailing list.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>thanks, Alexey. I agree we need more participants, and I will continue
>>>to invite relevant people.
>>>
>>>I've never worked on an IETF charter, but here's what I had, borrowing
>>>from other charters and the BOF proposal.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Thanks for proposing an initial version. Some quick feedback with my Area
>>Director hat on.
>>    
>>
>
>thanks! is there more info on charters/WGs/rechartering somewhere?
>
If you want to know about the process, there is BCP 25 
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp25.txt) It might have some advice 
about charters, I don't remember of the top of my head.

>>>because of the maturity of HOST, I would say it deserves an
>>>accelerated schedule.
>>>
>>>FTP Extensions, 2nd edition (ftpext2) Charter
>>>
>>>Description of Working Group:
>>>
>>>The Standard File Transfer Protocol specification in RFC 959
>>>has been updated several times with command extensions of one
>>>sort or another, including those based on the extension
>>>mechanism of RFCs 2389 (a complete list appears in RFC 5797 and
>>>the corresponding IANA registry at
>>>
>>>http://www.iana.org/assignments/ftp-commands-extensions/ftp-commands-extensions.xhtml
>>>).
>>>
>>>The following are active FTP related drafts:
>>>
>>>  draft-bryan-ftp-hash
>>>  draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts (completed IETF Last Call in May)
>>>  draft-ietf-behave-ftp64
>>>  draft-preston-ftpext-deflate
>>>
>>>The Working Group will:
>>>* Review and finalize already mature drafts that are close to
>>> completion.
>>>* Continue work on other drafts that are already in progress.
>>>* Identify additional areas of FTP that need extending, such as
>>> unofficial FTP commands that need documentation or new commands.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>In general IESG doesn't like openended charters ("we will work on anything
>>that has FTP in its name"). It is much better to have a specific set of
>>deliverables (especially for a new WG, with no prior history of successful
>>completion of any work), and recharter later to take on additional
>>documents. Rechartering is a much easier process, especially if a WG has
>>some proof that it is making progress.
>>    
>>
>
>makes sense.
>  
>
>>>* Review and confirm or reject errata of current FTP RFCs.
>>>      
>>>
>>This one is fine. I actually like that.
>>    
>>
>
>thanks. I think it's important. as you've seen I've filed about 5 and
>had 1 verified so far. and there are others unverified.
>
Yes, I've noticed :-).

>>>* Discuss the differences between FTP in theory (current RFCs)
>>> and practice.
>>>      
>>>
>>This sounds a bit openended as well. Is this item trying to motivate future
>>work? So maybe "Investigate the differences between FTP in theory (current
>>RFCs) and practice, and recommend future work to align them"?
>>    
>>
>
>that sounds great.
>  
>
>>>The Working Group's specification deliverables are:
>>>* A document that specifies the HOST command (Proposed Standard).
>>>* A document that specifies the HASH command (Proposed Standard).
>>>
>>>The Working Group must not introduce a new version of FTP, e.g.
>>>an incompatible FTP 2.0.
>>>
>>>The following issues are specifically omitted from the working group's
>>>charter, but may be added by the Area Directors if time permits,
>>>once the above goals have been acheived.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Area Directors typically don't do that. I can provide more feedback (for
>>example if you list too many documents), but it is ultimately up to the
>>group to decide what to work on and in which order.
>>    
>>
>
>Ok, that was taken from the original ftpext charter.
>
>how else can I list something like that as a possibility, from
>discussions so far, but not as a definite deliverable? is
>"...recommend future work to align them." enough?
>
Something along the lines of "Once the main deliverables are completed, 
the WG might work on ..."

>or just wait &
>recharter?
>
That works as well.

>Mark noticed that I accidentally forgot to list his draft. please
>speak up if I'm missing anything else.
>
>you'll also see that I only list HOST/HASH as deliverables/goals. this
>is only because I'm most familiar w/ these, and they seem to have the
>most consensus, from my biased POV as author of one :) again, speak up
>if you think someone else is not included that should be.
>
>here is my 2nd stab at the charter:
>
Thanks, this is much better.

>FTP Extensions, 2nd edition (ftpext2) Charter
>
>Description of Working Group:
>
>The Standard File Transfer Protocol specification in RFC 959
>has been updated several times with command extensions of one
>sort or another, including those based on the extension
>mechanism of RFCs 2389 (a complete list appears in RFC 5797 and
>the corresponding IANA registry at
>http://www.iana.org/assignments/ftp-commands-extensions/ftp-commands-extensions.xhtml
>).
>
>The following are active FTP related drafts:
>
>    draft-bryan-ftp-hash
>    draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts (completed IETF Last Call in May)
>  
>
I would omit the text in (), as this is not really relevant. This 
information gets dated very quickly and it can be sent to IESG directly.

>    draft-ietf-behave-ftp64 (behave WG)
>    draft-peterson-streamlined-ftp-command-extensions
>    draft-preston-ftpext-deflate
>
>The Working Group will:
>* Review and finalize already mature drafts that are close to
>  completion.
>  
>
This is probably Ok, but I would rather rephrase this as something like 
"Review and finalize drafts listed above".
There is a question of whether draft-ietf-behave-ftp64 should be done 
here or in BEHAVE. I think the current plan is to review it in FTPEXT, 
but otherwise handle it in BEHAVE.

>* Continue work on other drafts that are already in progress.
>* Review and confirm or reject errata of current FTP RFCs.
>* Investigate the differences between FTP in theory
>  (current RFCs) and practice, and recommend future work to align them.
>
>The Working Group's specification deliverables are:
>* A document that specifies the HOST command (Proposed Standard).
>* A document that specifies the HASH command (Proposed Standard).
>
>The Working Group must not introduce a new version of FTP, e.g.
>an incompatible FTP 2.0.
>
>Goals and Milestones
>Sep 2010    Submit 'File Transfer Protocol HOST Command for Virtual
>Hosts' as working group item (draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts will be
>used as a starting point)
>Sep 2010    Submit 'File Transfer Protocol HASH Command for
>Cryptographic Hashes' as working group item (draft-bryan-ftp-hash will
>be used as a starting point)
>XXX 2010    Working group Last Call of HOST document
>XXX 2010    Submit 'File Transfer Protocol HOST Command for Virtual
>Hosts' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
>XXX 2010    Working group Last Call of HASH document
>XXX 2010    Submit 'File Transfer Protocol HASH Command for
>Cryptographic Hashes' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed
>Standard
>XXX 2011    Close or recharter
>