Subject: Re: draft-klensin-ftp-registry-00

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:10:41 -0400

Alfred,

Good point.  I will try to clarify in the next version.

FYI, the status of this is that a couple of us took an action
item away from Dublin to create a charter for a new WG.   I
haven't gotten around to it, but hope to do so this month.  I
probably won't post an updated draft until after that charter is
at least in the IESG's hands.

    best regards,
     john

--On Tuesday, 09 September, 2008 10:52 +0200 "Alfred H?nes"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hello,
> I'd like to send a few comments on your recent I-D,
>        draft-klensin-ftp-registry-00.
> 
> First of all, I appreciate this idea.
> 
> The major problem with the proposal seems to be that it does
> not distinguish between 'FTP Extension' names and FTP command
> names. Quite a lot of proposals (and published extensions)
> combine multiple new commands (and/or extensions to
> preexisting commands) under the umbrella of a single 'FTP
> Extension' (FEAT keyword).
> 
> IMHO, the primary resource that needs to be coordinated via an
> IANA registry is the name space of command names; extension
> names are more or less some kind of by-product needing
> coordination as well.
> 
> Defining an FTP command name registry also would serve a
> similar role as, e.g., the message header field registry,
> documenting the 'command verb thesaurus' of a full-fledged FTP
> implementation.
> 
> Alternatively, an integrated, hierarchically structured
> registry listing the base protocol with the command names it
> defined, and then the various extensions with the command
> names they define (comparable in structure to the RSVP class /
> object registry) could be envisioned.
> 
> 
> Regarding [[anchor7]], I'm in support of the "RFC Required"
> registration policy, since wide-spread interoperability
> and stability are major goals for this important protocol;
> these goals are hopefully furthered by IETF discussion.
> Thus, even "IETF Review" might be appropriate.
> 
> 
> Footnote: a single nit in the current (-00) draft:
> Section 1, 2nd line:  period missing after "[RFC0959]".
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
>   Alfred H?nes.

_______________________________________________
Apps-Discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

---

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:52:29 +0200 (MESZ)

Hello,

The major problem with the proposal seems to be that it does not
distinguish between 'FTP Extension' names and FTP command names.
Quite a lot of proposals (and published extensions) combine
multiple new commands (and/or extensions to preexisting commands)
under the umbrella of a single 'FTP Extension' (FEAT keyword).

IMHO, the primary resource that needs to be coordinated via an
IANA registry is the name space of command names; extension names
are more or less some kind of by-product needing coordination as
well.

Defining an FTP command name registry also would serve a similar
role as, e.g., the message header field registry, documenting the
'command verb thesaurus' of a full-fledged FTP implementation.

Alternatively, an integrated, hierarchically structured registry
listing the base protocol with the command names it defined, and
then the various extensions with the command names they define
(comparable in structure to the RSVP class / object registry)
could be envisioned.

Kind regards,
  Alfred Hönes.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [email-masked]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+