IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ftpext] FWD: ftp/959 reboot

"William F. Maton" <wmaton@ottix.net> Tue, 10 August 2010 10:08 UTC

Return-Path: <wmaton@ottix.net>
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 EED443A686E for <ftpext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 03:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 2FbpMyMgH5oS for <ftpext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 03:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iskra.ottix.net (iskra.ottix.net [IPv6:2001:410:90ff::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F173A680D for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 03:08:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iskra.ottix.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by iskra.ottix.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o7AA9C6F026674 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 10 Aug 2010 06:09:12 -0400
X-DomainKeys: Sendmail DomainKeys Filter v1.0.2 iskra.ottix.net o7AA9C6F026674
Received: from localhost (wmaton@localhost) by iskra.ottix.net (8.14.4/8.14.3/Submit) with ESMTP id o7AA99kD026668; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 06:09:09 -0400
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 06:09:09 -0400
From: "William F. Maton" <wmaton@ottix.net>
To: Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimT=OU4m-Kza1wEUrw7A5eQLK8+KxOCgB5pO9Ou@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008100607500.24469@iskra.ottix.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008051641520.24282@iskra.ottix.net> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008052249300.11871@tvnag.unkk.fr> <AANLkTi=1ePodG=2G9Ta-=5Fut6x-bQxvq8eLXsVgaUjh@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008092256460.10815@tvnag.unkk.fr> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008091957430.24469@iskra.ottix.net> <AANLkTimT=OU4m-Kza1wEUrw7A5eQLK8+KxOCgB5pO9Ou@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-406846748-283837737-1281434949=:24469"
Cc: ftpext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ftpext] FWD: ftp/959 reboot
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: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:08:44 -0000

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Anthony Bryan wrote:

>> I'm wondering how big an exercise it would be to determine the applicability
>> of these types of RFCs relating to FTP?  But anyways...
>
> which RFCs besides 1123?

Speaking generally of course.

> I haven't applied 1123 to what I'm working on yet.
>
> do you mean "Obsoletes: 1123"? if so, I don't think that's possible.
> "Updates:" might be more correct, as 1123 contains much more than
> those few pages on FTP.

I'm grasping at appropriate IETF terminology, but yes, something along the 
line of either obsoletes just that part of RFC 1123, or updates 1123, 
whichever conveys the idea best.

wfms

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email