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

Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se> Tue, 13 March 2012 07:32 UTC

Return-Path: <daniel@haxx.se>
X-Original-To: ftpext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ftpext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB89B21F886B for <ftpext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 00:32:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q5tR5O76Gkxd for <ftpext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 00:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from giant.haxx.se (www.haxx.se [IPv6:2a00:1a28:1200:9::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7257821F8865 for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 00:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from giant.haxx.se (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by giant.haxx.se (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2) with ESMTP id q2D7WJ9r023739 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:32:19 +0100
Received: from localhost (dast@localhost) by giant.haxx.se (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) with ESMTP id q2D7WISj023729; Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:32:18 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: giant.haxx.se: dast owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 08:32:18 +0100 (CET)
From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
X-X-Sender: dast@giant.haxx.se
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <8050883FA9D9EB809D8E848C@PST.JCK.COM>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1203121734130.18227@tvnag.unkk.fr>
References: <8CC6BE90-16F4-41DB-835B-B8BC9722156A@frobbit.se> <4F5E0B4F.2080401@att.com> <8050883FA9D9EB809D8E848C@PST.JCK.COM>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
X-fromdanielhimself: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: ftpext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ftpext] WG Status (was: Re: Fwd: Re: ftpext2 review of FTP HOST command?)
X-BeenThere: ftpext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ftpext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 07:32:27 -0000

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, John C Klensin wrote:

> 	Do we have commitments to implement whatever the WG
> 	comes up with?

If server softwares would implement HOST and if server admins would configure 
their servers to use it, then I'd be inclined to add support for it (in curl).

A lot of ifs in there and given history I'd say we're a loooong way from that 
situation.

> 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?

I'm sorry to agree: this is not a very functional WG. To me, it looks like 
there's not enough interest from implementors to update FTP.

-- 

  / daniel.haxx.se