Subject: Ftp-WG: Moderation?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 05:32:52 -0500

Gregory A Lundberg wrote:

>Personally, I think the time has come for a supercedes-959 RFC.  Once
both
>MLST and HOST are published, and assuming FTP-SSL is published,

The current state of FTP-SSL is that I have started to splice it into 2
docs and will be going through the process with the co-authors to issue
the non-RFC228 conformant stuff as Infromational.  At the same time I am
preparing a 2228 compliant draft that will go onto Standards Track - I
would very much like this group to sponsor that draft rather than publish
it as an individual.  This approach is very similar to that taken by
https, where there is a 'how it works today' Informational RFC (2818) and
a 'how it should work' Standards Track one (2817).

I believe that the charter of this group includes this type of work, as
well as the HOST stuff etc... and so to wind it up to start another seems
a little pointless.

As far as the spam level goes - I guess it's an annoying noise to signal
ratio, but that's really because of the lack of signal at the moment.

Cheers,
Paul

--
Paul Ford-Hutchinson :  eCommerce application security :
[email-masked]
MPT-6, IBM , PO Box 31, Birmingham Rd, Warwick, CV34 5YR +44 (0)1926
462005

---

From: Alun Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 07:28:26 -0500

>a 'how it should work' Standards Track one (2817).

Is it ever going to work "how it should work", or is it more likely that 
the "how it works today" will be the way it'll always work?  I guess what 
I'm asking is whether this will create unnecessary confusion, publishing 
two somewhat contradictory RFCs, leading one to suspect that the Standards 
Track version is the one new developers should comply with, but turning out 
that everyone uses the Informational one?

>well as the HOST stuff etc... and so to wind it up to start another seems

I think also that even if the working group gets wound up, there needs to 
be some form of mailing list continuing for discussion of more general 
FTP-related issues - there are some topics that I've been holding back, 
waiting for the new-RFC-related work to conclude, before discussing.

>ratio, but that's really because of the lack of signal at the moment.

Agreed - the noise level is constant (and actually, fairly small).  It's 
the signal level that is lacking.

Perhaps what's needed at this point is a procedural reminder - what is the 
purpose of the working group (as opposed to just a general FTP developers 
mailing list), what durations does it have placed on it, and what is the 
procedure for extending that purpose and/or those durations?  Sadly, I 
don't know the answers to that.

Alun.
~~~~
P.S. Paul, FYI, I'll be working on an SSL implementation of my FTP server, 
WFTPD Pro, just as soon as I can get the new release bolted down and shipped.
--
Texas Imperial Software   | Try WFTPD, the Windows FTP Server. Find us at
1602 Harvest Moon Place   | http://www.wftpd.com or email [email-masked]
Cedar Park TX 78613-1419  | VISA/MC accepted.  NT-based sites, be sure to
Fax/Voice +1(512)378-3246 | read details of WFTPD Pro for NT.

---

From: "Gregory A Lundberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 09:29:22 -0500

> that everyone uses the Informational one?

I think I agree with what I this Alun is saying here: one or the other,
please, but not both.

From what I've seen "how it works today" is best summed up by saying "not
very well".  If you feel the best-current-practice should be documented, do
that in the introductory section, make it clear the discussion is an
analysis of why it doesn't do what's required, and leave it at that.

> waiting for the new-RFC-related work to conclude, before discussing.

http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ftpext-charter.html

What it looks like to me as if the charter is the problem.  It's been out
there for so long it's gotten stale.  What's needed is a more-current
charter.

---

From: "Brad Clements" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:14:12 -0500

On 6 Oct 2000, at 7:28, Alun Jones wrote:

> WFTPD Pro, just as soon as I can get the new release bolted down and
> shipped. -- 

I'm also looking to add SSL support to my FTP server for NetWare. 
Where can I get the draft documents?

Thanks

Brad Clements,                [email-masked]   (315)268-1000
http://www.murkworks.com                          (315)268-9812 Fax
netmeeting: ils://ils.murkworks.com               AOL-IM: BKClements