Subject: [ftpext] Followup on FTPEXT2 BOF in Maastricht

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 09:05:08 +0100

Hi,
My apologies for the late message on this. I have been swamped with my 
day job lately.

After attending the BOF in Maastricht I am convinced that there is work 
to be done on FTP. If the WG is formed, I am generally Ok for this group 
of people to conduct business only on the mailing list (with no face to 
face meetings), as some experienced IETFers are paying attention to this 
work.
However, the level of BOF attendance (both in flesh and virtual) was 
slightly below my comfort level. I would like to see slightly higher 
participation on the mailing list, so that I can be sure that people 
care about FTP extensions and are willing to do work on the mailing list.

So, if people want to form a WG, here are the next expected steps:
1). Please try to invite people who care about this work to participate 
on the mailing. (Don't ask your kids and granddads to post to the 
mailing list though ;-), unless they also happen to be world known FTP 
experts).
If somebody is already subscribed but just being quiet, please email me 
directly, telling me if you are willing to participate in this work.
Also see 2) below.

2). Propose and agree on WG charter on the mailing list. I am not going 
to actively drive this work for 2 reasons:
 a) I am quite busy with my day job and other IETF responsibilities. FTP 
is not at the top of my priority list at the moment.
 b) If people can't organize themselves to agree on a WG Charter, then 
this is a sure sign that there is not enough interest to form a new WG. 
So show me that you can self-organize

Best Regards,
Alexey

-- 
IETF Application Area Director, <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/members.html>
Internet Messaging Team Lead, <http://www.isode.com>
JID: same as my email address

---

From: Anthony Bryan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 20:38:46 -0400

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 4:05 AM, Alexey Melnikov
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> 2). Propose and agree on WG charter on the mailing list.

thanks, Alexey. I agree we need more participants, and I will continue
to invite relevant people.

I've never worked on an IETF charter, but here's what I had, borrowing
from other charters and the BOF proposal.

because of the maturity of HOST, I would say it deserves an
accelerated schedule.

FTP Extensions, 2nd edition (ftpext2) Charter

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 based on the extension
mechanism of RFCs 2389 (a complete list appears in RFC 5797 and
the corresponding IANA registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ftp-commands-extensions/ftp-commands-extensions.xhtml
).

The following are active FTP related drafts:

    draft-bryan-ftp-hash
    draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts (completed IETF Last Call in May)
    draft-ietf-behave-ftp64
    draft-preston-ftpext-deflate

The Working Group will:
* Review and finalize already mature drafts that are close to
  completion.
* Continue work on other drafts that are already in progress.
* Identify additional areas of FTP that need extending, such as
  unofficial FTP commands that need documentation or new commands.
* Review and confirm or reject errata of current FTP RFCs.
* Discuss the differences between FTP in theory (current RFCs)
  and practice.

The Working Group's specification deliverables are:
* A document that specifies the HOST command (Proposed Standard).
* A document that specifies the HASH command (Proposed Standard).

The Working Group must not introduce a new version of FTP, e.g.
an incompatible FTP 2.0.

The following issues are specifically omitted from the working group's
charter, but may be added by the Area Directors if time permits,
once the above goals have been acheived.

* A document on "FTP in the 21st Century" that gives
implementation advice on FTP in the wild. (Informational or BCP)

Goals and Milestones
Sep 2010    Submit 'File Transfer Protocol HOST Command for Virtual
Hosts' as working group item (draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts will be
used as a starting point)
Sep 2010    Submit 'File Transfer Protocol HASH Command for
Cryptographic Hashes' as working group item (draft-bryan-ftp-hash will
be used as a starting point)
XXX 2010    Working group Last Call of HOST document
XXX 2010    Submit 'File Transfer Protocol HOST Command for Virtual
Hosts' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
XXX 2010    Working group Last Call of HASH document
XXX 2010    Submit 'File Transfer Protocol HASH Command for
Cryptographic Hashes' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed
Standard
XXX 2011    Identify other areas of FTP that need extending, or
unofficial commands that need documenting
XXX 2011    Close or recharter

-- 
(( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ]
  )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:13:38 +0100

Hi Anthony,

>from other charters and the BOF proposal.
Thanks for proposing an initial version. Some quick feedback with my 
Area Director hat on.

>  unofficial FTP commands that need documentation or new commands.
In general IESG doesn't like openended charters ("we will work on 
anything that has FTP in its name"). It is much better to have a 
specific set of deliverables (especially for a new WG, with no prior 
history of successful completion of any work), and recharter later to 
take on additional documents. Rechartering is a much easier process, 
especially if a WG has some proof that it is making progress.

>* Review and confirm or reject errata of current FTP RFCs.
This one is fine. I actually like that.

>* Discuss the differences between FTP in theory (current RFCs)
This sounds a bit openended as well. Is this item trying to motivate 
future work? So maybe "Investigate the differences between FTP in theory 
(current RFCs) and practice, and recommend future work to align them"?

>once the above goals have been acheived.
Area Directors typically don't do that. I can provide more feedback (for 
example if you list too many documents), but it is ultimately up to the 
group to decide what to work on and in which order.

---

From: Anthony Bryan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 13:34:47 -0400

On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 5:13 AM, Alexey Melnikov
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Thanks for proposing an initial version. Some quick feedback with my Area
> Director hat on.

thanks! is there more info on charters/WGs/rechartering somewhere?

> In general IESG doesn't like openended charters ("we will work on anything
> that has FTP in its name"). It is much better to have a specific set of
> deliverables (especially for a new WG, with no prior history of successful
> completion of any work), and recharter later to take on additional
> documents. Rechartering is a much easier process, especially if a WG has
> some proof that it is making progress.

makes sense.

> This one is fine. I actually like that.

thanks. I think it's important. as you've seen I've filed about 5 and
had 1 verified so far. and there are others unverified.

> This sounds a bit openended as well. Is this item trying to motivate future
> work? So maybe "Investigate the differences between FTP in theory (current
> RFCs) and practice, and recommend future work to align them"?

that sounds great.

> group to decide what to work on and in which order.

Ok, that was taken from the original ftpext charter.

how else can I list something like that as a possibility, from
discussions so far, but not as a definite deliverable? is
"...recommend future work to align them." enough? or just wait &
recharter?

Mark noticed that I accidentally forgot to list his draft. please
speak up if I'm missing anything else.

you'll also see that I only list HOST/HASH as deliverables/goals. this
is only because I'm most familiar w/ these, and they seem to have the
most consensus, from my biased POV as author of one :) again, speak up
if you think someone else is not included that should be.

here is my 2nd stab at the charter:

    draft-bryan-ftp-hash
    draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts (completed IETF Last Call in May)
    draft-ietf-behave-ftp64 (behave WG)
    draft-peterson-streamlined-ftp-command-extensions
    draft-preston-ftpext-deflate

The Working Group will:
* Review and finalize already mature drafts that are close to
  completion.
* Continue work on other drafts that are already in progress.
* Review and confirm or reject errata of current FTP RFCs.
* Investigate the differences between FTP in theory
  (current RFCs) and practice, and recommend future work to align them.

Goals and Milestones

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:25:24 +0100

>thanks! is there more info on charters/WGs/rechartering somewhere?
If you want to know about the process, there is BCP 25 
(http://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp25.txt). It might have some advice 
about charters, I don't remember of the top of my head.

>had 1 verified so far. and there are others unverified.
Yes, I've noticed :-).

>"...recommend future work to align them." enough?
>
Something along the lines of "Once the main deliverables are completed, 
the WG might work on ..."

>or just wait &
That works as well.

>here is my 2nd stab at the charter:
Thanks, this is much better.

>    draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts (completed IETF Last Call in May)
I would omit the text in (), as this is not really relevant. This 
information gets dated very quickly and it can be sent to IESG directly.

>* Review and finalize already mature drafts that are close to
This is probably Ok, but I would rather rephrase this as something like 
"Review and finalize drafts listed above".
There is a question of whether draft-ietf-behave-ftp64 should be done 
here or in BEHAVE. I think the current plan is to review it in FTPEXT, 
but otherwise handle it in BEHAVE.

---

From: Anthony Bryan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 18:21:29 -0400

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:25 AM, Alexey Melnikov
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> (http://www.rfc-editor.org/bcp/bcp25.txt). It might have some advice about
> charters, I don't remember of the top of my head.

thanks.

> information gets dated very quickly and it can be sent to IESG directly.

ok.

> "Review and finalize drafts listed above".

ok.

> There is a question of whether draft-ietf-behave-ftp64 should be done here
> or in BEHAVE. I think the current plan is to review it in FTPEXT, but
> otherwise handle it in BEHAVE.

that was the feeling I got.

here is the attempter charter w/ changes. I'd like people to speak up
if they disagree with the drafts listed, deliverables/goals. I haven't
really put any dates, so I'd like to hear what kind of timeline people
are thinking would be good.

Chair(s):
     ?
IETF Area:
     Applications Area

Applications Area Directors:
     Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
     Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>

Responsible Area Director:
     Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>

Mailing list:
     General Discussion: [email-masked]
     Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ftpext/current/maillist.html

    draft-bryan-ftp-hash
    draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts
    draft-ietf-behave-ftp64
    draft-peterson-streamlined-ftp-command-extensions
    draft-preston-ftpext-deflate

The Working Group will:
* Review and finalize drafts listed above.

Goals and Milestones
Sep 2010    Submit 'File Transfer Protocol HOST Command for Virtual
Hosts' as working group item (draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts will be
used as a starting point)
Sep 2010    Submit 'File Transfer Protocol HASH Command for
Cryptographic Hashes' as working group item (draft-bryan-ftp-hash will
be used as a starting point)
??? 2010    Working group Last Call of HOST document
??? 2010    Submit 'File Transfer Protocol HOST Command for Virtual
Hosts' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed Standard
??? 2011    Working group Last Call of HASH document
??? 2011    Submit 'File Transfer Protocol HASH Command for
Cryptographic Hashes' to the IESG for consideration as a Proposed
Standard
??? 2011    Close or recharter

---

From: liu dapeng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:30:54 +0800

Hi Anthony,

For the draft: draft-ietf-behave-ftp64, during last IETF meeting,
people are agreed to split the draft to two separate ones, ALG related
wrok goes to Behave WG, FTP protocol related work goes to FTPEXT.
Shall we include this work item to the charter?

Following text for your refernece:
Deliverables: FTP extensions to support IPv4/IPv6 transiation scenario.

Regards,
Dapeng Liu

2010/9/9, Anthony Bryan <[email-masked]>:
> _______________________________________________
> ftpext mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ftpext
>

---

From: Anthony Bryan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 18:07:22 -0400

> Deliverables: FTP extensions to support IPv4/IPv6 transiation scenario.

hi,

thanks for the info. should I remove draft-ietf-behave-ftp64 from the
list? does the FTP related draft exist yet, so I can list it?

Chair(s):
     ?

IETF Area:
     Applications Area

Mailing list:

    draft-bryan-ftp-hash

The Working Group will:

The Working Group's specification deliverables are:
* A document that specifies the HOST command (Proposed Standard).
* A document that specifies the HASH command (Proposed Standard).
* A document that specifies FTP extensions to support IPv4/IPv6
translation scenario.

Goals and Milestones

---

From: liu dapeng <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:02:57 +0800

Hi Anthony,

> list? does the FTP related draft exist yet, so I can list it?

We have not finish that draft, we will let you know as soon as we
finish it, then you can update the draft list. thanks.

Regards,

Dapeng
>      Archive:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ftpext/current/maillist.html
>

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:19:30 +0100

Anthony Bryan wrote:

>list?
I think listing a draft from another WG is confusing, so I would say yes.

But note that it is Ok to have a Charter listing deliverables for which 
there is no draft.

>does the FTP related draft exist yet, so I can list it?
>
>

---

From: Anthony Bryan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 02:40:36 -0400

> But note that it is Ok to have a Charter listing deliverables for which

thanks, good to know.

should I also add something like "Review other drafts which may touch
on FTP in some way" (like draft-ietf-tcpm-urgent-data-06), or is that
pretty much implied?

does anyone else have any comments? deliverables/goals?

Chair(s):
     ?

IETF Area:
     Applications Area

Mailing list:

mechanism of RFC 2389 (a complete list appears in RFC 5797 and

    draft-bryan-ftp-hash
    draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts
    draft-peterson-streamlined-ftp-command-extensions
    draft-preston-ftpext-deflate
    FTP extensions to support IPv4/IPv6 translation scenario

The Working Group will:

Goals and Milestones
Oct 2010    Submit 'File Transfer Protocol HOST Command for Virtual
Oct 2010    Submit 'File Transfer Protocol HASH Command for