Re: [ftpext] Submitting new drafts

Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com> Mon, 18 October 2010 06:18 UTC

Return-Path: <anthonybryan@gmail.com>
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 82D233A6A63 for <ftpext@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Oct 2010 23:18:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.323
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.323 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.276, 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 Y5aXcHPYfG2v for <ftpext@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Oct 2010 23:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F5EE3A683F for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Oct 2010 23:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn10 with SMTP id 10so859242iwn.31 for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Oct 2010 23:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gtwyBYc7DulNwM+D+dvFaezh3OLZoP3L0XgHt01DfNw=; b=h8R7vdGAGCmBejFQ9wSEuHuUQon6vCdZ4ieqJTJjaMIv+JOyJOm9hfagmGoq4bkucl KGVVGlM5SU4FHJBVCKDd4M9WbemjSVybXFNBL5vvHkCZOIT5jDGeNvefH9vVFgURVsS7 TagBqIHPWrTTCimiqA243z+bGe3/pdmkL+MV8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=qEi3xYr4q8dOaUNpEUwDzeKcTtoDf9WaLzPemqOzPhMZpv8qUaBGQHmneM5uyGv5DF pokWLtCfHhkrzYgSx4dEHFozx4WVm8bMEpmlfVqcnxIkOi5DRHnpOqTFltN6eqR87Jpk hr5M33Pk7HXpL/RyOEeCIn128n2tgfeJd8cpI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.192.80 with SMTP id dp16mr2905704ibb.39.1287382781425; Sun, 17 Oct 2010 23:19:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.12.72 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Oct 2010 23:19:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1010171017300.14040@iskra.ottix.net>
References: <A5FC996C3C37DC4DA5076F1046B5674C431FD205@TK5EX14MBXC127.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1010171017300.14040@iskra.ottix.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 02:19:41 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTimFkMmNnpAWWwx9xmJzGoJCHAwqvMrOMoZ-bHZ+@mail.gmail.com>
From: Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com>
To: "William F. Maton" <wmaton@ottix.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "ftpext@ietf.org" <ftpext@ietf.org>, Robert McMurray <robmcm@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [ftpext] Submitting new drafts
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: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 06:18:16 -0000

I think the problem is that there isn't a FTPEXT WG yet & it doesn't
seem definite that there will be one.

I've been posting a draft charter (included here) but...not sure what
the next step is.

I added draft-liu-ftp64-extension, which I just saw turn up.

somewhat on topic, does anyone know how to change the WG in xml2rfc?



FTP Extensions, 2nd edition (ftpext2) Charter

Chair(s):
     TBD

IETF Area:
     Applications Area

Applications Area Directors:
     Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
     Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>

Responsible Area Director:
     Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>

Mailing list:
     General Discussion: ftpext@ietf.org
     Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ftpext/current/maillist.html

Description of Working Group:

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 RFC 2389 (a complete list appears in RFC 5797 and
the corresponding IANA registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ftp-commands-extensions/ftp-commands-extensions.xhtml
).

The following are active FTP related drafts:

    draft-bryan-ftp-hash
    draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts
    draft-liu-ftp64-extension
    draft-peterson-streamlined-ftp-command-extensions
    draft-preston-ftpext-deflate

The Working Group will:
* Review and finalize drafts listed above.
* Continue work on other drafts that are already in progress.
* Review and confirm or reject errata of current FTP RFCs.
* Investigate the differences between FTP in theory
  (current RFCs) and practice, and recommend future work to align them.

The Working Group's specification deliverables are:
* A document that specifies the HOST command (Proposed Standard).
* A document that specifies the HASH command (Proposed Standard).
* A document that specifies FTP extensions to support IPv4/IPv6
translation scenario.

The Working Group must not introduce a new version of FTP, e.g.
an incompatible FTP 2.0.

Goals and Milestones
Oct 2010    Submit 'File Transfer Protocol HOST Command for Virtual
Hosts' as working group item (draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts will be
used as a starting point)
Oct 2010    Submit 'File Transfer Protocol HASH Command for
Cryptographic Hashes' as working group item (draft-bryan-ftp-hash will
be used as a starting point)
TBD 2010    Working group Last Call of HOST document
TBD 2010    Submit 'File Transfer Protocol HOST Command for Virtual
Hosts' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
TBD 2011    Working group Last Call of HASH document
TBD 2011    Submit 'File Transfer Protocol HASH Command for
Cryptographic Hashes' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed
Standard
TBD 2011    Close or recharter

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 10:18 AM, William F. Maton <wmaton@ottix.net> wrote:
>
> Punt it into ftpext2 please, otherwise there's not much point to having one.
>
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010, Robert McMurray wrote:
>
>> I'd like to submit a new draft (see attached) that is unrelated to my
>> other draft - should we be using FTPEXT2 as the WG? Or should continue to
>> submit as individual drafts to the Applications Area?


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