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

[Anthony Bryan <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:32 PM, John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> --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?"

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
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ftpext2-ftp64
FTP TYPE Extension for Internationalized Text
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ftpext2-typeu
HASH Command for Cryptographic Hashes
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ftpext2-hash
HOST Command for Virtual Hosts
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ftpext2-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
commands.

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 [ http://www.metalinker.org ]
  )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads