Hi,
Iljitsch has done good job.
draft-van-beijnum-behave-ftp64 is his own draft, it is up to him to add one more
author or not.
In my mind, the draft from Iljitsch includes some
content from draft-liu-behave-ftp64.
1, regarding return PASV command, if the response
message from the server includes the address and the port, use the IPv6 rather
than address of the client to set up the connection.
2, Regarding ALG, draft-van-beijnum-behave-ftp64
seems accepting the concept that first to have FTP client and server to avoid
ALG issues, if it is not possible, can then provide how to implement
ALG.
There could be something addressed in
draft-ietf-behave-ftp64-00.
1)
Refine the
scenario
2)
Describe more
details about the ALG part
The WG chair will tell the editor, presumably
Iljitsch, who should be the co-author (s) if there is any, based on the WG
consensus.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 11:39
PM
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] adopt
draft-van-beijnum-behave-ftp64-06 as WG item
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Dan Wing <dwing at cisco.com> wrote:
> >>
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:59:35PM +0800, Kai Ju wrote:
> >> >
jiang sheng's pre condition is quite clear, by including
> >> >
other author, this draft could be adopted.
> >>
> >>
I'm not sure how our Chairs prefer to work these matters,
> but it is
my
> >> understanding that the editors of a draft which is to be a
> WG product
> >> normally serve at the pleasure of the
Chairs. Therefore, I don't
> >> believe the WG participants are in
a position to insist on one or
> >> another editor for the draft
as a condition of making it a WG work
> >> item. "Is the _draft_
to be worked on by the WG?" is the
> question, as
> >> I
understand it. The Chairs might well decide that
> someone
previously
> >> entirely unconnected to this effort will hold the
pen, and that's
> >> something they get to choose after the WG has
expressed its
> >> willingness to adopt the work item.
>
>
> > Yes, the question at hand is 'shall we adopt this document'.
I
> > did not ask 'who wants to be an author'.
> >
>
> I have not seen a substantive objection since I asked a week ago
>
> (Oct 22).
>
> Note that i raised some questions and do not
think the current draft
> is a solid basis, although chairs do not think
they are fundamental
> issues.
Yes, I made note of the comments,
and as I indicated in my reply
they can be corrected. Documents are
not perfect -- or complete --
when adopted by the working group. Once
the working group adopts
the document, the working group has change control
over the
document and can direct the authors to make the changes the
WG
deems necessary.
> I do not know what can be a 'fundamental'
issue. Thanks.
For example, the technique described in the
document will
not work as expected /
desired.
-d
_______________________________________________
Behave
mailing list
Behave at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
|
