Mark / John,
Mark Allman wrote:
Should we *add* a couple more verbs to FTP that are to be
more generic than the current verbs and allow for DNS names
and other "labels" we may come up with the in the future?
(With the intent that the new verbs and the old verbs could
co-exist.)
Then I'd certainly be fine with that (assuming someone has
the energy). If these new commands end up taking over in
the future then that's great and we can think about moving
rfc2428 to historic at that time. But, I think the key
here is that, IMO, we should *add*, not *replace*.
This makes sense to me. For the same reason we are stuck supporting PORT
and PASV forever, I think that we are stuck supporting EPRT and EPSV
forever as well and that two new verbs that would include the
functionality of EPRT and EPSV with extended semantics that would allow
passing names and foo is the way to go.
John C Klensin wrote:
given that 2428 is at Proposed
I believe there is deployed EPRT/EPSV code based on 2428; IMHO you can't
assume that this code base will be upgraded to support names. It's too
late.
Michel.