[ftpext] WG Status (was: Re: Fwd: Re: ftpext2 review of FTP HOST command?)

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Monday, March 12, 2012 10:42 -0400 Tony Hansen
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> I received the following review this weekend about the HOST
> command draft.
>...

Tony,

I've got several comments on both the draft and on Patrik's
comments, but I also have a prerequisite question.  Put in the
broadest possible way, "Is the WG actually sufficiently
functional to process drafts and, if so, which drafts is it
serious about processing?"

Even if I were more convinced that "HOST" was needed rather than
being something whose functionality should be embedded in USER
or ACCT (I'm a lot closer on that topic today than I was a few
years ago), I'm not convinced that it is inherently more
important than ...-hash, ...-typeu, or even ...-ftp64 (I believe
the latter is seriously defective).  I'd consider it
procedurally obnoxious and probably unacceptable if the only
draft the WG is willing to process is one on which the co-chair
is a co-author.

So:

	Is the WG really functional?
	
	If I update and re-post ...-typeu (today or after the
	25th) are enough people willing to review it to permit
	generating a WG Last Call?
	
	Do we have commitments to implement whatever the WG
	comes up with?

If the answer to some or all of the above is "no", should people
really spend time reviewing this document or should we be
thinking about concluding that FTP's detractors are correct
about level of interest and hence give up on this effort?

Overworked people who are trying to figure out where to spend
their time would like to know.

best,
   john