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
- [ftpext] Submitting new drafts Robert McMurray
- Re: [ftpext] Submitting new drafts William F. Maton
- Re: [ftpext] Submitting new drafts Anthony Bryan
- Re: [ftpext] Submitting new drafts Robert McMurray
- Re: [ftpext] Submitting new drafts Anthony Bryan
- Re: [ftpext] Submitting new drafts Robert McMurray
- Re: [ftpext] Submitting new drafts liu dapeng
- Re: [ftpext] Submitting new drafts liu dapeng
- Re: [ftpext] Submitting new drafts Anthony Bryan
- Re: [ftpext] Submitting new drafts Anthony Bryan