Subject: Re: [ftpext] Working on the ftpext2 BOF agenda...

From: Anthony Bryan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2010 17:50:38 -0400

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Barry Leiba
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> As I prepare an agenda for the (two-hour) ftpext2 BOF, I want to know
> which drafts people think we should be discussing/considering.  Please
> look at Anthony's message:
>   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ftpext/current/msg00014.html
>
> ...and post *here*, in this thread, which drafts you have interest in.
>  You may select from the active drafts and the expired ones.  Please
> also let me know if you will (1) be in Maastricht and attending the
> BOF, (2) be in Maastricht but not attending the BOF, or (3) be
> attending the BOF remotely, through Jabber and/or the audio feed.
>
> Please just use this thread for direct response to this message,
> including any other agenda requests.  Put any discussion in Anthony's
> thread or start another.  Thanks.

I'd like to have draft-bryan-ftp-hash on the agenda. we plan to have
an updated version in time for the BOF. when is the cutoff date, a few
days before the meeting?

Daniel Stenberg plans to physically be at the BOF I believe.
I will be attending remotely. can you offer instructions on doing that
closer to the date?

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

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 13:45:40 -0400

OK, setting up an agenda for the WG meeting in Maastricht... We're
scheduled to meet for 2 hours, on Monday afternoon (26 July) from
17:40 to 19:40 CET (15:40 to 17:40 UTC).

I'm including a skeleton agenda, below.  I'd like to hear about other
agenda items people have to propose, or any other comments about the
skeleton agenda.  I'd also like more of a "show of hands" to let me
know who's going to be attending in person, and who will participate
remotely, using the audio stream or jabber.  We've had only one
response to that.  Please reply to this thread with answers to these
questions, and other issues directly related to the Maastricht
meeting.

Note that there's time on the agenda to discuss a few specific drafts.
 That done, it's not the primary purpose of this session to go into
detail on the drafts, but to look at how we should be coordinating FTP
extension work, and whether we have the critical mass of work and
interest to form a working group.  I expect that the draft discussions
will be fairly high level, and relatively brief.

Here's a skeleton agenda, with no times on it yet:
1. Welcome and announcements.
2. Background and purpose of the BoF.
3. General discussion of interest in FTP extensions.
4. Document discussions...
   a. draft-ietf-behave-ftp64[1]
   b. draft-liu-behave-ftp64[2]
   c. draft-bryan-ftp-hash[3]
   d. draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts[4]
   e. draft-peterson-streamlined-ftp-command-extensions[5]
   f. other documents...
5. Questions about working-group formation.
6. Next steps.

Barry, as chair

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-ftp64
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-behave-ftp64
[3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryan-ftp-hash
[4] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts
[5] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-peterson-streamlined-ftp-command-extensions

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 16:09:04 -0400

I'm sorry: I missed that there was a question here, which I hadn't replied to.

> an updated version in time for the BOF. when is the cutoff date, a few

The cutoff for draft submissions is this coming Monday, 12 July, at
17:00 Pacific Time (2400 UTC).  See
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2010.html#IETF78

Barry

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 16:19:10 -0400

> [5] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-peterson-streamlined-ftp-command-extensions

Update:
4f. draft-preston-ftpext-deflate[6]
4g. other documents...

[6] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-preston-ftpext-deflate

Barry, as chair

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:56:31 -0400

I've updated the meeting materials site with an agenda that has some
sketchy times on it:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/78/materials.html

I've also added an item requested by Alfred Hönes, which he will write
up and post as an I-D after the meeting; see below.

I am not planning to use slides for this meeting, so remote
participants will mostly not have to worry about following slides.
The agenda and our voices will be the order of the day.  That said, if
anyone does have slides they want to present, please get them to me by
email <[email-masked]> by the end of day on Sunday.  Because
of the late notice (my apology), I will accept slides on Monday
morning, as well, but (1) I will close submissions hard at 11 a.m.
Monday, European time, and (2) I will really appreciate it if people
can get them to me as early as possible, and not later than Sunday
evening if you can manage that.

Barry, as chair

--------------------------------------------------
          Revised Specification of the 'ftp' URI Scheme
          =============================================

                 (to be:  draft-ah-ftp-uri-00)

History:  - first specification embedded in RFC 1630;
          - revised in RFC 1738;
          - amended by RFC 1808 (for relative URIs)

Issues:   - above RFCs obsoleted, no current spec;

          - no formal IANA registration (as per RFC 4395);

          - implementation practice unclear wrt differences between
            RFC 1630 and RFC 1738: default treatment for directories
            (URI parameter ";type=d" vs. trailing "/" in path);

          - implementation practice unclear wrt RFC-based single-step
            directory tree walking; would a ";tvfs" URI parameter
            be useful to indicate RFC 3659 TVFS semantics, thereby
            allowing improved navigation ?

Goals:    - provide a modern specification based on RFC 3986
            with an IANA URI Scheme registration template
            according to RFC 4395;

          - resolve default / URI parameter issues.

                                   [ updated:  AH  20100723T0723Z ]
--------------------------------------------------

---

From: Anthony Bryan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 17:59:53 -0400

> The agenda and our voices will be the order of the day.  That said, if

Barry, I've never participated remotely before.

looking at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/WikiStart , it
says this requires WebEX? do we just click the link, or do we need to
sign up for anything?

for others, information on audio streaming & jabber chatroom are here:
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/78/remote-participation.html

FTPEXT - FTP extensions
BOF Chairs: Barry Leiba
Number of people: 30
Length of session: 1 hour
Conflicts to avoid: Apps Area WG sessions and BOFs
Does it require WebEX? Yes
Goal: See if there is enough interest and energy to form a WG
Agenda: TBD

---

From: Tim Kosse <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:08:47 +0200

Hi,

as briefly mentioned on the ftpext BOF, there is one additional expired
draft I would like to see revived:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-somers-ftp-mfxx-04

It introduces the MFMT, MFCT and MFF commands to set file timestamps and
other facts on the server. This complements the commands to get these
facts introduced in RFC 3659.

The MFMT command to set the remote file modification time is of most
interest in my opinion. It's very useful for stateless synchronisation
if the client can modify the remote file timestamp after uploading a
file. Also useful for archiving purposes, so that files can be submitted
to an FTP server and retain their local timestamp.

It would also solve the issue with many non-confirming servers misusing
MDTM to both get _and_ set file modification times. Biggest problem with
that is that a command like "MDTM 20100726182655 foo.txt" is ambiguous.
RFC 3659 explicitly rules using MDTM like that, but does not offer any
other way to set file timestamps.

MFMT is already supported by several well known servers and being used
by clients. While I do not know why the draft was not carried forward,
but I think it would be a loss not having MFMT.

Tim