From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Wed Oct 1 15:48:47 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 432623A6980; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:48:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 107C83A69A7 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:41:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 5CFC6mpM8UIg for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:41:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org (laweleka.osafoundation.org [204.152.186.98]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0838B3A6998 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:41:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6B4C142207; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:41:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and clamav at osafoundation.org Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NeJ2+7wp7eHw; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:41:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.1.130] (unknown [157.22.41.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFDAA142204; Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:41:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: Lisa Dusseault To: Apps Discuss , Lisa Dusseault's Chairs Subject: Lisa's Apps Area Activity Report for September Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:41:39 -0700 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:48:46 -0700 X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1305281274==" Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org --===============1305281274== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-18--219436359 --Apple-Mail-18--219436359 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit News, updates Potential WGs/BOFs: ALTO: the p2pi@ietf.org list has proposed a charter in IETF-wide review ESDS: esds@ietf.org has requested a second BOF on discovery services for arbitrary identifiers. OAUTH: mailing list and spec available at http://oauth.net/ Document Status and Progress Active Documents: my action - draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header (Proposed Standard, aka PS): Publication Requested. Need to do AD review. - draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto (PS): Ready for IESG Evaluation? I need to check diffs and put on an agenda. Stalled, in review, waiting on other: - draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl (PS): Waiting on author to decide changes from AD review. - draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject (PS): Waiting on author for revised ID after IESG Evaluation. - draft-ietf-calsify-rfc2445bis (PS): Revised ID needed after AD evaluation - draft-ietf-calsify-rfc2446bis (PS): Revised ID needed after AD evaluation - draft-ietf-lemonade-msgevent (PS): Revised ID needed after IESG evaluation - draft-snell-atompub-bidi (PS): A couple changes needed after IESG Evaluation. - draft-ietf-usefor-usepro (PS): Finished IETF Last Call. Authors and chairs need to decide whether/what changes to make. - draft-sanchez-webdav-current-principal (PS): Finished last Call. Now I'm waiting to hear back from authors on next steps. - draft-wilde-sms-uri (PS): IESG Evaluation found a number of issues. Author needs to revise or respond. Finished Processing -- new in RFC Ed queue and new RFCs - RFC 5328, Informational "A Uniform Resource Name (URN) Namespace for the Digital Video Broadcasting Project (DVB)" - RFC 5337, Experimental "Internationalized Delivery Status and Disposition Notifications" WG Status CALSIFY: Plugging away on issues. HTTPBIS: Plugging away on issues. IDNABIS: Discussing contents of rationale document and Bidi rules SIEVE: Finishing up some docs. USEFOR: Finishing up last doc after IETF Last Call. --Apple-Mail-18--219436359 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
p2pi@ietf.org list has proposed a = charter in IETF-wide review
ESDS: esds@ietf.org has requested = a second BOF on discovery services for arbitrary = identifiers.
OAUTH: mailing list and spec available at http://oauth.net/

= Document Status and = Progress

Active Documents: my action
 - draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header = (Proposed Standard, aka PS): Publication Requested.  Need to do AD = review.
 - = draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto (PS):  Ready for IESG Evaluation? I = need to check diffs and put on an = agenda.

Stalled, = in review, waiting on other:
 - = draft-ietf-sieve-refuse-reject (PS):  Waiting on author for revised = ID after IESG Evaluation.
 - = draft-ietf-calsify-rfc2445bis (PS):  Revised ID = needed after AD evaluation
 - = draft-ietf-calsify-rfc2446bis (PS): Revised ID = needed after AD evaluation
 - = draft-ietf-usefor-usepro (PS): Finished IETF Last Call.  Authors = and chairs need to decide whether/what changes to make.
 - draft-sanchez-webdav-current-principal (PS): = Finished last Call. Now I'm waiting to hear back from authors on next = steps.
 - draft-wilde-sms-uri = (PS): IESG Evaluation found a number of issues. Author needs to revise = or respond.

Finished Processing -- new in RFC Ed queue and = new RFCs
 - RFC 5328, Informational
"A Uniform Resource Name (URN) = Namespace for
the Digital Video Broadcasting = Project (DVB)"
 - RFC 5337, = Experimental

     "Internationalized Delivery = Status and Disposition Notifications"


WG Status
  CALSIFY: Plugging away on issues.
  HTTPBIS:   Plugging away on = issues.
  IDNABIS: =  Discussing contents of rationale document and Bidi rules
  SIEVE: Finishing up some = docs. 
  USEFOR: =  Finishing up last doc after IETF Last Call.
X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 300183A6C57; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:18:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 331EC3A6C57 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:17:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6] 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 AJijepbZUPz3 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:17:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D84153A6A64 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:17:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1KvzVA-0004S9-56; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:17:44 -0400 Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:17:42 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: apps-discuss@ietf.org Subject: Followup on IETF72 discussion of FTP protocol extensions and updates Message-ID: X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="==========2EA52458161376B218FF==========" Cc: Robert McMurray , Barry Leiba , martin@rosenau-ka.de, dsomers@omz13.com, "Mark P. Peterson" X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org --==========2EA52458161376B218FF========== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi. Some notes were circulated prior to the Dublin meeting and we had a brief discussion there about how (or if) to progress a number of proposals for FTP extensions and clarifications. The conclusion was that Barry and I should try to get a preliminary draft charter together. It is attached. While I won't try to reprise the information in the charter or the discussion in July (see archives of this list with "FTP" in the subject lines), let me give a personal impression of where things stand at the moment. I, and I believe Barry, are willing to invest some time in this if others are interested and willing to work. With possibly one exception, we are much less willing to try to twist arms to persuade anyone that they should be interested. We also don't see much point in standardizing anything for which multiple implementations are unlikely, i.e., for any given one of the proposals, we would expect any possible WG to determine whether it is just an interesting idea or whether there is real, multi-vendor or multi-implementer, interest in it. On the other hand, if there are going to be multiple implementations of the same general idea, I believe there is merit in doing enough work in the IETF --presumably including standardization-- to increase the odds that those implementations will be interoperable. So, at least in my case, the threshold for an FTP extension effort being worthwhile is well below a conviction that something is a great idea that everyone should immediately implement. The schedule shown in the attached draft charter is very aggressive, but based on the assumption that there really is a core group of people who want to make this happen and will make an investment in it. If that is not the case, I would personally argue against getting a WG started -- this impresses me as something we can either find the energy to do quickly or cannot do at all. As a personal comment, I believe that there is a significant opportunity for IETF to add value to these proposals because they are not the only way to do what they propose to accomplish. To take two handy examples, it is not clear to me that a single-stream FTP is FTP any more -- such a thing, if needed, might better be modeled on TFTP, HTTP, SMTP with BDAT,or some other arrangement. Similarly, when we discovered that we needed to reduce the number of turnarounds in SMTP, we invented pipelining, rather than, e.g., a MAILRCPT command that took a list of addresses. Anyway, comments welcome. My hope is to hold a brief discussion during the Apps Area meeting and, if there is interest (i.e., people willing to work), that we organize a bar-BOF, tune the charter, and get it back in the hands of the ADs before the IETF week is over. That implies that anyone who is interested in participating and willing to work but will not be in Minneapolis, and anyone who can shed light in the implementation status of these various proposals, should say so on this list well before Nov 17. john --==========2EA52458161376B218FF========== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; name="ftp-charter-20081031.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ftp-charter-20081031.txt"; size=1886 File Transfer Protocol Extensions (ftpext) Last Modified: 2008-10-30 (JcK, preliminary draft) Chair(s): # To be determined Applications Area Director(s): # Chris Newman # Lisa Dusseault Applications Area Advisor: # To be determined Mailing Lists: General Discussion: To be determined To Subscribe: To be determined Archive: To be determined 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 described in RFCs 2228, 2640, 2773, and 3659. In = the last year or so, a series of additional Internet Drafts (listed = below) have been posted. This WG will examine the outstanding = proposals, determine which ones are worth pursuing, and bring the relevant = ones to Proposed Standard or, if more appropriate, Experimental. If time and energy permit, the WG will also review the Proposed Standard specifications identified above, revise and advance = them to Draft Standard as appropriate, and review and, if needed, = update, the FTP URI specifications. Goals and Milestones: January 2008 WG formation March 2009 Decision on form and structure of the WG document set, including which documents will be addressed.=20 June 2009 WG Last Call on WG document set August 2009 IETF Last Call on WG document set Internet-Drafts: Streamlined FTP Command Extensions draft-peterson-streamlined-ftp-command-extensions-05.txt FTP Extension for Internationalized Text draft-klensin-ftp-typeu-00.txt FTP Extension Registry draft-klensin-ftp-registry-00.txt File Transfer Protocol HOST Command draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts-01 FTP Extension Allowing IP Forwarding (NATs) draft-rosenau-ftp-single-port-04 No Request For Comments --==========2EA52458161376B218FF========== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss --==========2EA52458161376B218FF==========-- From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Oct 31 12:33:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C5B3A68B6; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:33:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 569E93A68B6 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:33:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.046 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 LzHrmpOYP2Mc for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:33:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-ea-mail-2.sun.com (sca-ea-mail-2.Sun.COM [192.18.43.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9B5D3A682A for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:33:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dm-central-01.central.sun.com ([129.147.62.4]) by sca-ea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m9VJXldA004043 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:33:47 GMT Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM [129.153.128.104]) by dm-central-01.central.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL, v2.2) with ESMTP id m9VJXk0G032836 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:33:46 -0600 (MDT) Received: from binky.central.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m9VJPaCj106170; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:25:36 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.central.sun.com (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id m9VJOwUD106169; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:24:58 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: binky.central.sun.com: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:24:58 -0500 From: Nicolas Williams To: John C Klensin Subject: Re: Followup on IETF72 discussion of FTP protocol extensions and updates Message-ID: <20081031192458.GY102869@Sun.COM> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i Cc: Robert McMurray , apps-discuss@ietf.org, Barry Leiba , martin@rosenau-ka.de, dsomers@omz13.com, "Mark P. Peterson" X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 03:17:42PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: > Streamlined FTP Command Extensions > draft-peterson-streamlined-ftp-command-extensions-05.txt -05 is expired; -06 is available. > FTP Extension Allowing IP Forwarding (NATs) > draft-rosenau-ftp-single-port-04 -05 is available. _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Oct 31 13:12:38 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 295CF3A6817; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:12:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA4383A68B6 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:12:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, 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 6q80aEzGgnfl for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:12:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2D8C3A6817 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:12:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Kw0MD-00060A-IE; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:12:33 -0400 Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:12:32 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Nicolas Williams Subject: Re: Followup on IETF72 discussion of FTP protocol extensions and updates Message-ID: <5D00E5A69936A53B985D2E41@p3.int.jck.com> In-Reply-To: <20081031192458.GY102869@Sun.COM> References: <20081031192458.GY102869@Sun.COM> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Cc: Robert McMurray , apps-discuss@ietf.org, Barry Leiba , martin@rosenau-ka.de, dsomers@omz13.com, "Mark P. Peterson" X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org --On Friday, 31 October, 2008 14:24 -0500 Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 03:17:42PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: >> Streamlined FTP Command Extensions >> draft-peterson-streamlined-ftp-command-extensions-05.txt > > -05 is expired; -06 is available. > >> FTP Extension Allowing IP Forwarding (NATs) >> draft-rosenau-ftp-single-port-04 > > -05 is available. Thanks. I've updated my working copy of the draft. Shows how long I/we have been working on this. john _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Oct 31 13:35:49 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DEBD3A6778; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:35:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FAC33A6778 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:35:48 -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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id big0STwQLCvV for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:35:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from balder-227.proper.com (properopus-pt.tunnel.tserv3.fmt2.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f04:392::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CF963A6359 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:35:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.152] (dsl-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m9VKZeFC009292 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:35:42 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from phoffman@imc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:35:39 -0700 To: apps-discuss@ietf.org From: Paul Hoffman Subject: Re: Followup on IETF72 discussion of FTP protocol extensions and updates X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org At 3:17 PM -0400 10/31/08, John C Klensin wrote: >We also don't >see much point in standardizing anything for which multiple >implementations are unlikely, i.e., for any given one of the >proposals, we would expect any possible WG to determine whether >it is just an interesting idea or whether there is real, >multi-vendor or multi-implementer, interest in it. That seems like the crux of the question. In your charter you list RFCs 2228, 2640, 2773, and 3659; of those, I am not sure any are implemented in "common" FTP clients and servers. Given that parts of the world have moved on to SCP and FTPS and SFTP and whatever for moving files using stronger authentication and encryption, I'm not sure if this WG should be spun up unless it deals with security. I am perfectly happy with "FTP over TLS" or "FTP over SSH", but if the IETF is going to make more extensions but doesn't have a standard way for securing files moving around, we're not helping. _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Oct 31 14:08:38 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F1F23A6AD5; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:08:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F9903A6A64 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:08:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.046 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 TyYbnXkZeh41 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:08:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-ea-mail-2.sun.com (sca-ea-mail-2.Sun.COM [192.18.43.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B48613A679C for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:08:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dm-central-02.central.sun.com ([129.147.62.5]) by sca-ea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m9VL8UuD026636 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:08:30 GMT Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM [129.153.128.104]) by dm-central-02.central.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL, v2.2) with ESMTP id m9VL8Tea016580 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:08:29 -0600 (MDT) Received: from binky.central.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m9VL0OhZ106286; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:00:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.central.sun.com (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id m9VL0BIL106285; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:00:11 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: binky.central.sun.com: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:00:11 -0500 From: Nicolas Williams To: Paul Hoffman Subject: Re: Followup on IETF72 discussion of FTP protocol extensions and updates Message-ID: <20081031210011.GB102869@Sun.COM> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 01:35:39PM -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote: > That seems like the crux of the question. In your charter you list > RFCs 2228, 2640, 2773, and 3659; of those, I am not sure any are > implemented in "common" FTP clients and servers. RFC2228 is certainly supported by multiple implementations, as is RFC4217 (though often only RFC2228 with the GSS-API Kerberos V mechanism, or RFC4217, but not both, are found in any given implementation). I'd not heard of any of the others though. > Given that parts of the world have moved on to SCP and FTPS and SFTP > and whatever for moving files using stronger authentication and > encryption, I'm not sure if this WG should be spun up unless it deals > with security. I am perfectly happy with "FTP over TLS" or "FTP over > SSH", but if the IETF is going to make more extensions but doesn't > have a standard way for securing files moving around, we're not > helping. RFC2228 and RFC4217 work just fine for security, thank you. Personally, I'd rather see SFTP (or FTP over SSH) improved enough to make FTP go away. But I don't think I mind this proposed WG. Nico -- _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Oct 31 14:35:07 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20C6A3A6359; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:35:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F3E63A6C40 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:35:06 -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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zLJKfGXNAb-h for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from balder-227.proper.com (properopus-pt.tunnel.tserv3.fmt2.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f04:392::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E0AB3A6359 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:35:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.30.152] (dsl-63-249-108-169.cruzio.com [63.249.108.169]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m9VLYxYV020201 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:35:00 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from phoffman@imc.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20081031210011.GB102869@Sun.COM> References: <20081031210011.GB102869@Sun.COM> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:34:57 -0700 To: Nicolas Williams From: Paul Hoffman Subject: Re: Followup on IETF72 discussion of FTP protocol extensions and updates Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org At 4:00 PM -0500 10/31/08, Nicolas Williams wrote: >RFC2228 is certainly supported by multiple implementations, That's good to hear; I had heard the opposite a few years ago. > as is >RFC4217 (though often only RFC2228 with the GSS-API Kerberos V >mechanism, or RFC4217, but not both, are found in any given >implementation). RFC 4217 would be my preference, but I don't see it in the clients I use. Maybe they call it something else. >RFC2228 and RFC4217 work just fine for security, thank you. Fully agree. >Personally, I'd rather see SFTP (or FTP over SSH) improved enough to >make FTP go away. But I don't think I mind this proposed WG. Yep. _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Fri Oct 31 19:19:56 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-discuss-archive@ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-apps-discuss-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33B8F3A69A0; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:19:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E773A69A0 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:19:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001] 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 H2k0KkzyPWSS for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:19:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rhinosoft.com (mail.rhinosoft.com [209.242.232.34]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B615A3A6937 for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:19:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DOUGSNOTEBOOK ([192.168.1.20]) (authenticated user doug@rhinosoft.com) by rhinosoft.com (rhinosoft.com [209.242.232.34]) (MDaemon PRO v9.6.6) with ESMTP id md50007173394.msg for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:13:30 -0500 X-Spam-Processed: rhinosoft.com, Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:13:30 -0500 (not processed: spam filter heuristic analysis disabled) X-Authenticated-Sender: doug@rhinosoft.com X-MDRemoteIP: 192.168.1.20 X-Return-Path: doug@rhinosoft.com X-Envelope-From: doug@rhinosoft.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: apps-discuss@ietf.org Message-ID: <88DDA3A298D44C648419EE352C0651E7@rhinooffice.net> From: "Douglas J. Papenthien" To: "Nicolas Williams" , "Paul Hoffman" References: <20081031210011.GB102869@Sun.COM> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Followup on IETF72 discussion of FTP protocol extensions andupdates Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:10:09 -0500 Organization: Rhino Software, Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049 X-MDAV-Processed: rhinosoft.com, Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:13:30 -0500 Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org >>RFC2228 is certainly supported by multiple implementations, > > That's good to hear; I had heard the opposite a few years ago. RFC2228 has been implemented in our FTP server and client products since 2002. I'm quite sure that many of our major competitors included it around the same time. The same can be said about RFCs 2640 and 3659. The addition of the MLST and MLSD commands were very welcome by us and many others in our field. >>Personally, I'd rather see SFTP (or FTP over SSH) improved enough to >>make FTP go away. But I don't think I mind this proposed WG. > > Yep. I don't know that I particularly agree with this sentiment. Much like the "transition" to IPv6, I think you're going to be hard pressed to have much luck stamping out FTP in favor of anything else regardless of the pros and cons. Douglas J. Papenthien - Vice President http://www.RhinoSoft.com Voice: +1(262) 560-9627 FAX: +1(262) 560-9628 _______________________________________________ Apps-Discuss mailing list Apps-Discuss@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss