Re: FTP to HISTORIC? RE: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: FTP to HISTORIC? RE: [BEHAVE] Can we have on NAT66 discussion?



At 08:43 14-11-2008, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I propose that we either move FTP to historic or start a revision effort if there is sufficient interest in continuing it as a separate protocol from HTTP.

There are a few I-D about FTP that have been submitted:

FTP Extension Registry
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-ftp-registry-00.txt

FTP Extension for Internationalized Text
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-ftp-typeu-00.txt

Streamlined FTP Command Extensions
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-peterson-streamlined-ftp-command-extensions-06.txt

FTP EXTENSION ALLOWING IP FORWARDING (NATs)
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenau-ftp-single-port-05.txt

There were some discussion about one of the above I-Ds in Dublin.

Regards,
-sm

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.