Subject: Ftp-WG: FTP evolution...

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 13:04:30 -0500

------- Forwarded Message

From:    Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date:    Fri, 5 May 2000 00:06:57 GMT
Subject: I can't figure out who would love this as it deserves...

- ----- Begin Included Message -----

Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 10:02:08 -0700
From: Mark Filipak <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Evolution of FTP - Obsolete those bastards & orphans

Hello.

I've created an evolutionary diagram for FTP and uncovered some loose ends you 
may want to clean up. Specifically, I found 3 bastards and 7 orphans that reall
y should be obsoleted. In my notation "+" indicates that the RFC updates the RF
C above (preserving column significance) and ":" is used merely to keep things 
tidy and coherent. If you really can't figure this stuff out, you can email me 
or you can call me at 408-287-2961 AM/PM.

Best Regards -- Mark Filipak, San Jose, California

(Note: this is formatted for 80 chars/line.)

=== Evolution of FTP ===

Status of some loose ends (see // comments below):

114 (Status: BASTARD)
141 (Status: BASTARD)
238 (Status: ORPHAN)
269 (Status: ORPHAN)
294 (Status: ORPHAN)
385 (Status: ORPHAN)
414 (Status: ORPHAN)
607 (Status: ORPHAN)
614 (Status: ORPHAN)
624 (Status: BASTARD)

0114 File Transfer Protocol. A.K. Bhushan. Apr-10-1971. (Not online) (Updated
     by RFC0141, RFC0172, RFC0171) (Status: UNKNOWN)

     // 114 & 141 are bastards: 114 was updated by 141 and by 172, but 172 was
     // obsoleted by 265, which was in stages obsoleted by 354, by 542, by
     // 765, and by 959. Q: considering that 114 and 141 were never obsoleted:
     // Q1 [rhetorical]: how did 959 become the standard? Q2: Shouldn't 265
     // have obsoleted 114 & 141 also?

+ 0141 Comments on RFC 114: A File Transfer Protocol. E. Harslem, J.F.
       Heafner. Apr-29-1971. (Format: TXT=3512 bytes) (Updates RFC0114)
       (Status: UNKNOWN)

+ 0959 File Transfer Protocol. J. Postel, J.K. Reynolds. Oct-01-1985. (Format:
       TXT=151249 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC0765) (Updated by RFC2228, RFC2640)
       (Also STD0009) (Status: STANDARD)

  :    0765 File Transfer Protocol specification. J. Postel. Jun-01-1980.
            (Format: TXT=146641 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC0542) (Obsoleted by
            RFC0959) (Status: UNKNOWN)

            // 607 & 614 are orphans: 614 updated 607, which updated 542, but
            // 542 was obsoleted by 765. Q: shouldn't 765 have obsoleted 607
            // & 614 also?

  :         0542 File Transfer Protocol. N. Neigus. Jul-12-1973. (Format:
                 TXT=100666 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC0354) (Obsoleted by RFC0765)
                 (Also RFC354, RFC454, RFC495) (Status: UNKNOWN)

                 // 385 & 414 are orphans: 414 updated 385 which updated 354,
                 // but 354 was obsoleted by 542. Q: shouldn't 542 have
                 // obsoleted 385 & 414 also?

  :         :    0354 File Transfer Protocol. A.K. Bhushan. Jul-08-1972.
                      (Format: TXT=58074 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC0264, RFC0265)
                      (Obsoleted by RFC0542) (Updated by RFC0385) (Status:
                      UNKNOWN)

                      // 294 is orphan: 294 updated 265, but 265 was obsoleted
                      // by 354. Q: shouldn't 354 have obsoleted 294 also?

  :         :    :    0265 THE FILE TRANSFER PROTOCOL. A. Bhushan, B. Braden,
                           W. Crowther, E. Narslem, J. Heafner, A. McKenzie,
                           J. Melvin, B. Sundberg, D. Watson, J. White,.
                           Dec-17-1971. (Format: TXT=3914 bytes) (Obsoletes
                           RFC0172) (Obsoleted by RFC0354) (Updated by
                           RFC0294) (Status: UNKNOWN)

                           // 238 & 269 are orphans: 269 updated 238 which
                           // updated 172, but 172 was obsoleted by 265. Q:
                           // Shouldn't 265 have obsoleted 238 & 269 also?

  :         :    :    :    0172 The File Transfer Protocol. A. Bhushan, B.
                                Braden, W. Crowther, E. Harslem, J. Heafner,
                                A. McKenzie, J. Melvin, B. Sundberg, D.
                                Watson, J. White. Jun-23-1971. (Format:
                                TXT=21328 bytes) (Obsoleted by RFC0265)
                                (Updates RFC0114) (Updated by RFC0238)
                                (Status: UNKNOWN)

  :         :    :    :    + 0238 Comments on DTP and FTP proposals. R.T.
                                  Braden. Sep-29-1971. (Format: TXT=2735
                                  bytes) (Updates RFC0171, RFC0172) (Updated
                                  by RFC0269) (Status: UNKNOWN)

  :         :    :    :      + 0269 Some Experience with File Transfer. H.
                                    Brodie. Dec-06-1971. (Format: TXT=5961
                                    bytes) (Updates RFC0122, RFC0238) (Status:
                                    UNKNOWN)

  :         :    :    + 0294 The Use of "Set Data Type" Transaction in File
                             Transfer Protocol. A.K. Bhushan. Jan-25-1972.
                             (Format: TXT=3924 bytes) (Updates RFC0265)
                             (Status: UNKNOWN)

  :         :    + 0385 Comments on the File Transfer Protocol. A.K. Bhushan.
                        Aug-18-1972. (Format: TXT=13030 bytes) (Updates
                        RFC0354) (Updated by RFC0414) (Status: UNKNOWN)

  :         :      + 0414 File Transfer Protocol (FTP) status and further
                          comments. A.K. Bhushan. Dec-29-1972. (Not online)
                          (Updates RFC0385) (Status: UNKNOWN)

  :         :   0624 Comments on the File Transfer Protocol. M. Krilanovich,
                     G. Gregg, W. Hathaway, J.E. White. Feb-28-1974. (Format:
                     TXT=10105 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC0607) (Status: UNKNOWN)

                     // 624 is bastard: 614 updated 607, but 607 was obsoleted
                     // by 624. Q1: Did 614 then update 624? Q2: If 614 did
                     // not then update 624, shouldn't 624 have obsoleted 614
                     // also? BIG-Q3: If 624 should have obsoleted 614 also,
                     // then what about 614's relationship to 542? BIG-Q4:
                     // What is 624's relationship to 542? -- Note: I do
                     // realize that this is all probably obsoleted by 765,
                     // but that is not indicated, and for historical reasons,
                     // this should be cleaned up (as suggested above?).

  :         :        0607 Comments on the File Transfer Protocol. M.
                          Krilanovich, G. Gregg. Jan-07-1974. (Format:
                          TXT=8652 bytes) (Obsoleted by RFC0624) (Updated by
                          RFC0614) (Status: UNKNOWN)

  :         +        + 0614 Response to RFC 607: "Comments on the File
                            Transfer Protocol". K.T. Pogran, N. Neigus.
                            Jan-28-1974. (Format: TXT=11409 bytes) (Updates
                            RFC542, RFC0607) (Status: UNKNOWN)

  + 2228 FTP Security Extensions. M. Horowitz, S. Lunt. October 1997. (Format:
         TXT=58733 bytes) (Updates RFC0959) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

  + 2640 Internationalization of the File Transfer Protocol. B. Curtin. July
         1999. (Format: TXT=57204 bytes) (Updates 959) (Status: PROPOSED
         STANDARD)

2389 Feature negotiation mechanism for the File Transfer Protocol. P. Hethmon,
     R. Elz. August 1998. (Format: TXT=18536 bytes) (Also RFC0959) (Status:
     PROPOSED STANDARD)

2428 FTP Extensions for IPv6 and NATs. M. Allman, S. Ostermann, C.
     Metz. September 1998. (Format: TXT=16028 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED
     STANDARD)

- ----- End Included Message -----

------- End of Forwarded Message

---

From: "Mark Symons" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 17:32:58 -0500

Is anyone aware of any clients/servers that have implemented FTP Security
Extensions (RFC 2228)? Specifically, anything that is not mentioned on Marc
Horowitz's (rather old) page at:

	http://www.mit.edu/people/marc/ftpsec

I am particularly interested in anything that has been done for the MS
Windows environment.

Thanks

Mark Symons
Ipswitch, Inc
Augusta, GA

---

From: Sergey Ayukov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 05:19:30 -0500

> Extensions (RFC 2228)? Specifically, anything that is not mentioned on Marc

I did my own implementation (PKFA) which is not based on RFC2228 (I didn't
knew about that RFC when I designed it). You can find details at

http://www.ayukov.com/essays/pkfa.html

NFTP supports PKFA (make sure you get 1.62.b3, NOT 1.61), and patches to
wuftpd and FreeBSD ftp[d] are provided. The crypto source originates in
SSLeay and can be used in free (except GPLed) and commercial projects. If
you are interested in using, extending or changing PKFA please write me.

In short, PKFA uses public key algorithm (DH or RSA) to send passwords in
encrypted form. It does not encrypt data or control connection. I am not
aware of any RFC2228-compliant developments.

-- 
Dr. Sergey Ayukov       | NFTP:   Spell differently. Work faster.
http://www.ayukov.com   |
mailto:[email-masked]   | runs on:  BeOS * OS/2 * Unix * Windows

---

From: KUSANO Takayuki <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 06:35:34 -0500

At Thu, 11 May 2000 17:32:58 -0500,
> I am particularly interested in anything that has been done for the MS

  SafeTP seems to implement RFC 2228 and run on Windows and UNIX.

  <http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~smcpeak/SafeTP/>

  KUSANO Takayuki <URL:http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~AE5T-KSN/>