Subject: Ftp-WG: SSL, was moderation

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 11:54:31 -0500

http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-murray-auth-ftp-ssl-06.txt

--
Paul Ford-Hutchinson :  eCommerce application security :
[email-masked]
MPT-6, IBM , PO Box 31, Birmingham Rd, Warwick, CV34 5YR +44 (0)1926
462005
w3 - http://dandare.inedi.warwick.uk.ibm.com/~pfh/mine.html

Please respond to FTPEXT Working Group <[email-masked]>
To:     FTPEXT Working Group <[email-masked]>
cc:      (bcc: Paul V Ford-Hutchinson/UK/IBM)
Subject:        Ftp-WG: SSL, was moderation

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

> 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. --

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

---

From: Alun Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:40:22 -0500

At 11:54 AM 10/6/2000, [email-masked] wrote:
>Currently the draft indicates how b), c) and d) should work and explains
>how they are not mutually exclusive, despite b) and c) being in direct
>conflict with 2228.  I think there is some value in that discussion being
>documented.  I also think that the draft is confusing in that it doesn't
>contain a single implementation path.  Therefore I feel there is a need to
>publish two.  This is the exact model that http has gone down and I think
>there is good reason to follow their precedent.  For those of you familiar
>with the draft, I propose to leave all the discussion stuff and the timing
>diagram stuff (which should have been in 959 in the first place) in the
>Informational draft and put the bare bones of the AUTH TLS, PBSZ and PROT
>comands into a small simple Standards track document that is easy to
>follow and implement.

Sounds far better, and more appropriate, than I was imagining.  Sorry, but 
when you talk (esp. in this WG) about "how web is supposed to work, and how 
it actually works", you frequently come up against things like the old 
chestnut of the ftp: URL specification - it's documented in RFC 1738 as a 
relative path, and yet it's implemented everywhere as an absolute path, 
with the rather peculiar "ftp://host/./foo" to get foo from the current 
directory after login!

I was concerned that we might be heading towards an even more confusing 
state of having two contradictory RFCs, one stating "this is how it should 
be done, in theory", and the other saying "but instead, this is how it is 
done, in practice".  What it sounds like you're proposing is "this is how 
it should be done, in theory and in practice", and an informational RFC to 
say "and some historical implementations may do it like this".

Alun.
~~~~

--
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.