RE: availability of specifications

["denis bider" <ietf-ssh%denisbider.com@localhost>]

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

Well, if there's anything I can do, I'm all for it. Just let me know how I
can help.


> 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.

The way I see it, it is a protocol that is being used. I personally don't
have a problem with SFTP. It's certainly safer than FTP, it's more elegant
than FTP, it's implemented by a non-trivial number of products, and it
works. So, I would like to see a normative, publicly available SFTP
specification. (As opposed to a deleted one.)


> 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.

So, in order to get the SFTP specification back online, do I need to read
all those RFCs and docs, or is there a faster way?

I understand that people are here because they volunteer to be. So am I. I
am observing that there are problems, and that I am dissatisfied with the
current state of affairs. I am willing to make reasonable contributions in
order to fix the things that I am complaining about.

If there is no way for me to help get the SFTP specification back online
without investing an unreasonable amount of time, I take that as an
indication that things are seriously broken.