Subject: FTP protocol extensions and updates

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:31:59 -0400

Subject: FTP Extensions and Updates

Hi.

We have proposals for a number of FTP extensions at various
places in the queue, including
draft-peterson-streamlined-ftp-command-extensions-04 and the
long-overdue "TYPE U" proposal that was the original impetus
for what is now RFC 5198.  I have first-draft I-Ds for
TYPE U and for an IANA registry for FTP Extensions ready to go
up as soon as the pre-IETF blackout window closes.

The question now is how people would like to process these
extensions.  Mark Peterson and Doug Papenthien think their
document is just about ready to go and have implementation and
running code for its features.  "TYPE U" is essentially trivial
now that the format itself is defined.  If enough people are
interested, it might be sensible to move toward a (hopefully
short-lived) WG.  If not, it would probably make sense to
handle them as individual submissions, probably folding the
substance of my two documents into draft-peterson... in the
hope of handling everything through one Last Call.

FWIW, I don't have any particular personal investment in
any of this.  The "TYPE U" document was prepared as the
last step of what I seem to have volunteered for when I
started the Unicode stream discussion several years ago
and the registry document was started because it seemed
to be the right thing to do.  If people decide they want
a WG, I will be looking for someone who wants to take
over or share editing responsibilities on the two new drafts. 

If it is ok with Chris and Lisa, and especially if anyone has
opinions in the interim, I'd like to spend a couple of minutes
on FTP strategy at the Apps Area meeting.
 
  john

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

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 06:58:36 +0200

John C Klensin wrote:

> I have first-draft I-Ds for TYPE U and for an IANA 
> registry for FTP Extensions ready to go

What is "type U", something like the "d" / "i" / "a"
in <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-ftp-uri> ?

> "TYPE U" is essentially trivial now that the format
> itself is defined.

Is this supposed to obsolete "feat UTF8" in RFC 2640 ?

Looking into RFC 2640, this cries for an update, and
the ftp URIs in RFC 1738 also need to be updated.  

RFC 3659 created an "OS specific filetypes" registry
for ftp.  I'm unsure what it is, because it is empty:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/os-specific-parameters

> If enough people are interested

It would be nice to finish off RFC 1738 as part of the
"Distributed Uri Decruft Experiment".  File: and ftp:
are still waiting, and a bunch of standards track RFCs
with normative RFC 1738 references.

> move toward a (hopefully short-lived) WG.

+1

 Frank

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:40:29 -0400

> in <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-ftp-uri> ?

It is a TYPE, as defined in the FTP base spec, with values like
"A", "E", "I", or "L".

> Is this supposed to obsolete "feat UTF8" in RFC 2640 ?

2640, despite its more general title, is entirely about use of
FTP with file systems that use non-ASCII file and directory
names and information in command streams more generally.  While
those are worthwhile and arguably necessary extensions, it is
independent of the desire to use a common-wire-format text
string type for the data stream, which is the topic of the new
I-D.  Please either study the discussion of TYPE in RFC 959 or
wait until the draft appears.

> the ftp URIs in RFC 1738 also need to be updated.  

2640 was published nine years ago.   If it is in need of an
update now, either that update should reflect enough operational
experience to move it to Draft Standard, or the operational
experience would suggest major changes  (implying a need for
buy-in from the relevant user and vendor communities), or it has
been implemented and deployed infrequently enough that it should
be moved to Historic instead.  I don't know which case applies.

However, I would note that any attempt to update it would
probably involve a fair amount of editorial work since (i) it
uses names for sections that are no longer permitted, (ii) it
doesn't distinguish between normative and informative
references, (iii) it uses an older definition of ABNF, so that
all ABNF would need to be reviewed for consistency with the
newer version, (iv) it uses boilerplate terminology that is
inconsistent with Checklist requirements, (v) it contains
illustrative grammar rather than a single comprehensive
definitional grammar, and so on.  At least it does not appear to
contain any non-2606 domain names in examples :-(.    That list
is, of course, independent of more substantive issues such as
being defined against ISO 10646:1993, Unicode 2.0, and the old
and slightly ambiguous form of UTF-8.  
 
>> move toward a (hopefully short-lived) WG.

Yes, I think the cleanup work you identify could be strong
justification for a WG... if there are sufficient people around
who have the interest, energy, and active involvement with FTP
(i.e., "skin in the game" or "buy-in from the relevant
community") needed to populate such a WG.  Conversely, the more
work one thinks about assigning to such a WG the less likely it
is that adequate resources can be found to do that work.

    john

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:50:46 +0900

At 13:58 08/07/12, Frank Ellermann wrote:

>Looking into RFC 2640, this cries for an update,

Can you be more specific? John has mentioned a long list,
is that what you thought about, or something else?

Regards,   Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:12:55 -0400

> is that what you thought about, or something else?

For the record, I wouldn't say "cries for an update" about 2640.
If the implementation experience and interoperability results
are adequate, I think it would be good to clarify it and advance
it in level, but really no more so than with dozens (or
hundreds) of other Proposed Standard documents.

My long list was, instead, an attempt to identify things in 2640
that would require work because of the difference between norms
for construction of documents when it was written and the
expectations and requirements imposed by the IESG today.  I
believe that they represent far more work than the update Frank
thinks necessary and might act as an impediment to updating this
document.  And that is the major reason why an update or
maturity-level upgrade to it (and other FTP specs) was not
included in my initial note.

    john

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:24:22 +0200

Martin Duerst wrong:
 
> John has mentioned a long list, is that what you thought about

Yes, I think he saw more points then I saw, and I wasn't sure if
he proposed an effort to get a 2640bis as DS, or something else.

I never before looked into this RFC, I checked the four "updated
by" in RFC 959, after looking in Paul's last ftp URI draft.  Any
0xFF in memos about telnet / ftp / UTF-8 attracts my attention,
once bitten...

 Frank

---

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:42:59 -0700

The Apparea open meeting will have some time allocated to discuss FTP  
extensions -- Monday July 28 at 9:00 am in Dublin.  John Klensin  
suggested the topic so I've asked him to be on the hook for leading  
those 10 or more minutes.   We'll be discussing what work needs to be  
done on FTP and for what deployed communities (e.g. what extent), and  
if the conclusion is that the IETF needs to do some work we may even  
get to discussing how.

Current, unexpired I-Ds relating to FTP:
	http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-peterson-streamlined-ftp-command-extensions-05
	http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts-01
	http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosenau-ftp-single-port-04

As always, meeting attendees are expected to read meeting documents  
before getting to the meeting!  Advance discussion on this list is  
very welcome.

Lisa

---

From: Robert McMurray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 12:08:15 -0700

Thanks, Lisa.

The remaining work item that I have for the "draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts-01" document is the work that I've been doing regarding how HOST works with RFC2228 - "FTP Security Extensions". (e.g. The HOST command SHOULD precede AUTH in order to ensure proper certificate matching, etc.) I will not have an update to the draft before this meeting, however.

Thanks again,
Robert

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:43 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Robert McMurray; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: FTP protocol extensions and updates

Lisa

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:52:29 -0400

Hi.

Since I seem to have drawn the short straw, I would encourage
those who are interested in this topic to also review the note I
posted that started this thread
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/apps-discuss/2008-July/000072.html

As it mentions, there are two drafts in the pipe in addition to
the the ones Lisa listed.  Neither has been posted because I
missed the window, but I'll get them up as soon as I can. 

They are:

"TYPE U" (will be posted as draft-klensin-ftp-typeu-00.txt).
This draft introduces a new transfer TYPE, supplementing the
existing 
  TYPE A (ASCII)
  TYPE E (EBCDIC)
  TYPE L (Local byte)
  TYLE I (Image format, i.e., binary)
with transfer of Unicode characters as specified in RFC 5198.

And, because we are beginning to accumulate a fair number of
extension commands and will have even more if the drafts Lisa
lists are approved, a document that creates an IANA registry of
FTP extensions (will be posted as
draft-klensin-ftp-registry-00.txt).

I'm happy to make the pre-posting versions of either or both
documents available to anyone who is particularly interested.

I would also carry Lisa's discussion topic a little bit further.
FTP is, depending on how one counts, our oldest or second-oldest
application protocol.  The base spec is certainly not work done
elsewhere and then brought to the IETF.  With five drafts in
various degrees of maturity, some of them proposing multiple
extensions or updates, it seems to me that we have some
obligation, at least a moral obligation, to either decide to
look at this follow up work or to suggest where it should be
done instead.  If we decide we want to do it, the next question
is whether we have, or how we find, sufficient interest and
traction to form a WG and make progress in it or whether we have
some other theory about getting the work done.

   john

--On Wednesday, 16 July, 2008 11:42 -0700 Lisa Dusseault
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
> The Apparea open meeting will have some time allocated to
> discuss FTP extensions -- Monday July 28 at 9:00 am in Dublin.
> John Klensin suggested the topic so I've asked him to be on
> the hook for leading those 10 or more minutes.   We'll be
> discussing what work needs to be done on FTP and for what
> deployed communities (e.g. what extent), and if the conclusion
> is that the IETF needs to do some work we may even get to
> discussing how.
> 
> As always, meeting attendees are expected to read meeting
> documents before getting to the meeting!  Advance discussion
> on this list is very welcome.