Re: availability of specifications

[Darren Moffat <Darren.Moffat%eng.sun.com@localhost>]

>Why has the transport draft not been updated on the IETF website? Rather,

Because it missed the cut off by 5 minutes before the last IETF meeting
and I as the editor haven't yet had time to resubmit it with the changes
requested on the list.

>one has to dig through the mailing list archives to retrieve the latest
>version. Is it impossible to have the folks at IETF make an exception and
>accept a belated update?

yes it is impossible to get the IETF people to accept a submission that
hit 5 minutes after the cut off time.

People do this in their "spare" time don't complain unless you are willing
to standup be counted and do a better job.

>Why has the whitespace formatting of the various drafts changed between
>versions, making diff tools useless? To make the documents prettier, or to
>confuse outsiders? I can accept that everyone has the best of intentions,
>but the side effect of such decisions is confusion. Is that what a standards
>body is supposed to be for?

It changed because the document editor changed and I don't have the tools
available that the previous editor did so I had to spend about 10 hrs
converting them to a tool I did have, it was very very painful.

>Worst of all, why has the SFTP specification become unavailable? I try to
>download
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer-01.txt, and I

Because it has expired and nobody cared to update it.

IMO that is fine because I don't personally like the protocol anyway, this
issue has been raised by my self and others on the list if you read the
archives.

>get "Unrevised documents placed in the Internet-Drafts directories have a
>maximum life of six months. After that time, they are deleted." There are
>working SFTP implementations out there. It's supposed to be an open
>standard. How can the specification just disappear? The message such
>carelessness conveys is: "If you weren't with us when the SFTP specification
>was still available, don't bother. We don't care for newbies." Is that what
>everyone here is trying to say?

No, you seem to have a miss understanding of how the IETF works I suggest
you go and read all the RFCs and docs on the IETF site about how working
groups and drafts work before complaining.

>I think that, at minimum, someone should put the SFTP specification back
>online.

Someone needs to take ownership of it and update the draft and resubmit it
so it is valid for another 6months.

--
Darren J Moffat