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

Anthony Bryan <> Tue, 13 March 2012 19:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 027E221F8644 for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.666
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.666 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iTeCxmBcYFyW for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1310221F863E for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so1110925ghb.31 for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wpHW8wPeqA3jvm870e48lA6kmeLDc89raKcFAyH3na0=; b=ujEZNIPlaUyoWFON5+HtcACRPzgLJZ5eJRTUpsXMDKh+vYaItN1UC95SK8xdTY/iee hxDsAM7to54++PDm/j2QDBZ7DsD2HDt42i+BvwkYsRvEPhLWkav4j71cp7T9CWosV2BA wffTiEQY+XXn/nTSunleCFuLNW3K6utqcGzrWXGWAsqteQ4ucjuptcFcSB3shiucL645 QDIG7JG9mN0ess5ZQc+/3dtfy3WCrnsfADTWChBZGM/bmnonxnuodoY+iNIcwd2AXy7i iM13KpNq+CmFpSHi3u8CQgWriCqAKjO4NfiTH3mU0/gTDKHZ/a5Jh8fse3hqqN3pw5hS zxYg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id d34mr5822497ano.19.1331668512702; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8050883FA9D9EB809D8E848C@PST.JCK.COM>
References: <> <> <8050883FA9D9EB809D8E848C@PST.JCK.COM>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:55:12 -0400
Message-ID: <>
From: Anthony Bryan <>
To: John C Klensin <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [ftpext] WG Status (was: Re: Fwd: Re: ftpext2 review of FTP HOST command?)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:55:14 -0000

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:32 PM, John C Klensin <> wrote:
> --On Monday, March 12, 2012 10:42 -0400 Tony Hansen
> <> 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?"

I would like to hear your comments on both, John...

this WG may not be functional enough, but as I understand it we will
still have the mailing list (if the WG is closed) & drafts could
progress through individual submission.

so, either way, your comments will improve the draft - despite your
concerns, wouldn't you rather it be as good as possible?

here are the drafts on our charter.

FTP consideration for IPv4/IPv6 transition
FTP TYPE Extension for Internationalized Text
HASH Command for Cryptographic Hashes
HOST Command for Virtual Hosts

> 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.

no one is saying one is more important than the other, but some have
more interest than others.

I can see how my draft progressing would be annoying but don't worry
about that, there either will be a WG or there won't.

> 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?

I have reviewed it but I don't know enough about this subject matter
to comment unfortunately.

please, everyone who is knowledgeable on it, review typeu!

>        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?

HOST has 6 or more implementations already.
HASH, where I did a good deal of advocacy, has a number of
implementations ready to upgrade from similar previous non-standard

I don't think I have read of implementations for the other 2 drafts.

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

I hear you - I'm publicly apologizing for where I've dropped the ball
in this WG. we all have real life to deal with & things come up.

all volunteer work is appreciated & I think we are doing useful work
that will be used by people. :)

(( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ ]
  )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads