Re: [ftpext] RFC Errata for consideration

Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com> Thu, 05 August 2010 21:31 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 76D8E3A6B4D for <ftpext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 14:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, 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 AjIvFfVMYC+u for <ftpext@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 14:31:15 -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 F22693A6A91 for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 14:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn36 with SMTP id 36so514077iwn.31 for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Aug 2010 14:31:45 -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=KrwoaLdxjj33sJ1lQn0aucPWrlgzSRU6u6iQSzvfsBw=; b=sntw3UQLGLgSdlDMPsKOCujzzIFcMjzlbkA4YChlapJnnjyBZXLLepVZHRLv0t/9FP MB8iX3UOHNgayUmRJiT/2bAC/yUe8MXzrJ29oRRlnSPBYmCfErIjIMtjB8T9g1u5iGiY c79PaswevbAVCaIbCAOyL9GCTS5HKVPe7YFrY=
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=sfXuTBHT4OfknaebkYg4t4tLpzefHIT12U3U0X6uIzyUV8+68yw0QA4jCMnA0LLe2w xLzR5AYlZRgYkUV8LJcby4Sij1kCo3Vgh2q/PE8cZ0fJZZaqhpyRuxKbFfRu0caPiHD8 tz+Vo3VZCEbpb61bGaMD4qJI8NlJlzwCeqC5k=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.146.141 with SMTP id h13mr12834012ibv.1.1281043905458; Thu, 05 Aug 2010 14:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.159.143 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 14:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008051551490.24282@iskra.ottix.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1007301540330.15461@iskra.ottix.net> <AANLkTimqJxcTzH2BQM+NhGixM5Z+kpSVnUBauQSiqftJ@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008031843520.2300@iskra.ottix.net> <AANLkTi=+ZKwug2+czAAMWxFqFqo3hP3_4vng_yX0ydpV@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008051551490.24282@iskra.ottix.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 17:31:45 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTim8sAApTKopDozzPTkAM3SJ6FLD45=azyJ_HJwF@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
Subject: Re: [ftpext] RFC Errata for consideration
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: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 21:31:20 -0000

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 3:54 PM, William F. Maton <wmaton@ottix.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Anthony Bryan wrote:
>
>> I'm hoping someone who knows more about the policy will provide some
>> guidance...
>
> +1
>
>> RFC 1123 doesn't come up on a search for "FTP" on the RFC editor site
>> ( http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html ). is it authoritative?
>> that is, does it update/supersede RFC 959? I brought it up because I
>> might as well apply the changes to the RFC 959bis I'd been working on
>> here are the RFCs that I found that could be added to RFC 959's
>> Appendix III "RFCs on FTP" (aka a list of all FTP RFCs).
>
> Now the interesting question to ask is this:  GIven the listing of RFCs,
> which ones have actually been adopted for use versus partially versus
> ignored?  For that, we'd need more implementor participants I think, plus a
> survey of archives from the old ftpext to determine that.

I know people from curl, FileZilla, IIS, SmartFTP, Serv-U/FTP Voyager,
and others are on this list.

I've contacted others too. who else do we need to engage?
-- 
(( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ]
  )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads