Barry Leiba wrote:
--On Monday, 12 April, 2010 12:44 -0700 The IESG
<iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter
to consider the following document:
- 'File Transfer Protocol HOST Command '
<draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts-11.txt> as a Proposed
Standard
I agree with John Klensin's comments, and especially want to call out this part:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:22 AM, John C Klensin <klensin(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Those decisions should not -- cannot -- be
made by processing one command extension at a time, with each
one reflecting the taste and assumptions of its authors in
different ways.
It seems to me that we need a WG or some other mechanism for
establishing and determining community consensus around basic
design principles for FTP extensions. If the IESG then wants
to process individual extensions as individual submissions,
that would be fine, but let's first at least establish a
framework for evaluating them.
It would be a mistake to build a further array of individual,
uncoordinated extensions to FTP. As with the establishment of the
imapext, sieve, and morg working groups, when the IETF has seen a
collection or succession of proposals aimed at extending a protocol,
it has opted to charter a working group to coordinate those proposals,
winnow them, and establish community consensus on which to
standardize, and how.
It should do that here, as well.
Barry/John,
You already know that I am waiting for the FTP BOF proposal for Maastricht.
I can delay asking IESG to review this document till after the BOF, but
if there is no BOF or nothing comes out of it, I don't think it is fair
to delay the document just because something can be done better in a WG.
Alexey, as the sponsoring Apps AD.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf