[ftpext] Fwd: FTPEXT BOF

[Anthony Bryan <[e-mail]>]

I haven't seen this here yet, & the IETF meeting in Maastricht is
about a month away so I figured I'd post it. I won't be able to attend
but I plan to help as much as I can otherwise. I'm more fitted to
outreach or administrative type work.

I've already reviewed 1 of the previous 20 or so abandoned drafts. can
some of the implementers voice their opinion?

I know at least one person was thinking of submitting a totally new draft...


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 1:57 PM
Subject: [apps-discuss] FTPEXT BOF
To: [e-mail]


Peter and I received a request to hold FTPEXT BOF in Maastricht. I am
the sponsoring AD for it:

BOF Chairs: Barry Leiba
Length of session: 1 hour
Goal: See if there is enough interest and energy to form a WG
Draft Charter, Goals:
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/attachment/wiki/WikiStart/ftp-bof.txt>
Mailing list:  [e-mail]
To subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ftpext> or
<mailto:[e-mail]?body=subscribe>
Mailing list archive:
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ftpext/current/maillist.html>
Related Drafts:
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bryan-ftp-hash/> and
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts/>
(others might follow)

_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss


--------------------

[Tentative] BOF Proposal: FTP Extensions, 2nd edition (ftpext2)

Chair: TBD (see "Conditions" note at end)
Application Area Directors:
   Alexey and Peter


Description and Background

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).  In the last several years, a
series of additional Internet Drafts (listed below) have been
posted and suggested for processing as individual submissions;
of those, only draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts has made it to
IETF Last Call although several others have been discussed
extensively.  A registry now exists for command extensions (RFC
5797).

Those Internet-Drafts are:

Active drafts:
	draft-bryan-ftp-hash
	draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts

Expired individual submission drafts.  This list is derived
from a quick search of the I-D database.  Some of them have
been superceded by other work; others were abandoned long ago
by the authors.  Posting dates are listed from the index;
expiration dates six months later.

    draft-bonachea-sftp-00 Protocol Negotiation Extensions to Secure
FTP 1999-06-18
    draft-casey-url-ftp-00 A FTP URL Format 1997-01-09
        (presumably superceded by draft-hoffman-ftp-uri)
    draft-chin-dnftp-01 Distributed New File Transfer Protocol 2006-05-02
    draft-dilip-ftpext-safe-transfer-00 Safe GET & Safe PUT options
for FTP 2006-01-17
    draft-fordh-ftp-ssl-firewall-07 FTP/TLS Friendly Firewalls 2005-10-21
    draft-hoffman-ftp-uri-04 The ftp URI Scheme 2005-01-03
    draft-klensin-ftp-typeu-00 FTP Extension for Internationalized
Text 2008-07-27
    draft-metz-spasv-00 Short Passive (SPASV) Command for FTP 1998-01-13
    draft-mityok-macbin1-01 Adopt MacBinary II Mac File Encoding for
FTP Transfers 1996-07-30
    draft-peterson-streamlined-ftp-command-extensions-06 Streamlined
FTP Command Extensions 2008-08-29
    draft-preston-ftpext-deflate-03 Deflate transmission mode for FTP 2005-01-14
    draft-rajeshs-ftpext-rec-arch-transfer-01 FTP Extensions for
recursive and archived file transfers 2005-04-29
    draft-rosenau-ftp-single-port-05 FTP EXTENSION ALLOWING IP
FORWARDING (NATs) 2008-09-18
    draft-saul-ftp-plus-00 FTP Plus 2000-08-29
    draft-somers-ftp-mfxx-03 The 'MFMT', 'MFCT', and 'MFF' Command
Extensions for FTP 2008-07-28
    draft-stewart-ftp-client-mib-00 FTP Client MIB 1998-11-17
    draft-twine-ftpmd5-00 The 'MD5' and 'MMD5' FTP Command Extensions 2002-05-14

The following additional drafts were work products of the old
FTPEXT WG that do not appear to have been replaced by RFCs:

    draft-ietf-ftpext-data-connection-assurance-00 FTP Data Connection
Assurance 2002-05-24
    draft-ietf-ftpext-restart-00 REST Command and Extensions to FTP 1997-03-21
    draft-ietf-ftpext-utf-8-option-00 UTF-8 Option for FTP 2002-05-24

In addition, draft-ietf-behave-ftp64 may need additional review
from an FTP-focused group.


BOF Purpose/Charter

This BOF has three purposes:

	(1) To triage the lists above and determine which of the drafts
	have been, or should be, permanently abandoned and which ones
	need further attention.  It is expected that those who are
	interested in this work will go through that list and post
	opinions prior to the BOF session.  Additional drafts may be
	added to the list if they were accidentally overlooked.

	(2) To identify additional areas in which FTP may be in
	need of extension.

	(3) To make a plan about how to proceed.  Such a plan might be
	the formation of a WG, some FTP-specific directorate or review
	team for oversight of drafts related to FTP, or a conclusion
	that handling FTP drafts as uncoordinated individual
	submissions is appropriate.

The BOF's purposes do not include a discussion of why FTP is
obsolete and no one should be using it.  Those who hold that
position should hope that the BOF concludes that there is no
interest in the IETF; if there is interest, work should proceed
in some form if only to maximize interoperability with
extensions that will be made anyway.  The BOF leadership is
expected to rule those out of order anyone who wants to argue
that FTP should be abandoned or deprecated (without letting
them get started if they have already taken that position on
the obvious mailing lists).

 -----------------

Conditions:

While it would be good to schedule this BOF, it is time to make
a determination as to whether there is actually critical mass
in the IETF to progress work on FTP.  If no one cares enough to
review drafts carefully other than their authors, we should
just encourage the ISE to publish descriptions of implemented
protocol extensions as Informational, make sure the extension
keywords and parameters are in the registry, and move on.  On
the other hand, if people do care (and the recent responses on
the IETF and Apps-Discuss lists to the hethmon-mcmurray and
bryan drafts indicates that there might be), then we ought to
be able to organize a systematic IETF review process and
possibly even some strategic work on what is needed.  Evidence
of "someone cares" would be reflected by pre-IETF postings of
proposed evaluations of I-Ds from the lists above and
volunteers, from the FTP development and/or deployment
communities, to lead the BOF or otherwise convince the ADs of
intent to actively participate.







-- 
(( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ]
  )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads