RE: SFTP extensions draft should be submitted as working group item

["Richard Whalen" <Whalenr%process.com@localhost>]

I think that the filexfer extensions draft should be a working group item and should remain a separate draft.

I suggested that the extensions be a separate item so that the filexfer draft could stabilize and proceed without the interference of new extensions being added.

Richard Whalen

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-ssh-owner%NetBSD.org@localhost [mailto:ietf-ssh-owner%NetBSD.org@localhost]On
Behalf Of Joseph Galbraith
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 1:49 PM
To: denis bider
Cc: ietf-ssh%netbsd.org@localhost
Subject: Re: SFTP extensions draft should be submitted as working group
item


denis bider wrote:
> By the way, Joseph -
> 
> I think your filexfer extensions draft contains very useful extensions which I will be implementing, or indeed already have.
> 
> I think it's a pity that this draft should be lost to casual implementors who come to the secsh working group page to get their latest SSH and SFTP specifications. It is difficult to even know that your extensions exist without semi-privileged knowledge. (It was published individually as draft-galb-filexfer-extensions-00.txt.)
> 
> I suggest that further iterations of the extensions draft be published as a secsh group work item so that they will appear on the secsh group page as one of its drafts.

I would like to do that...

I'm not sure if Bill will accept a consensus of two or three
though :-)

I've been tempted to post and ask whether we want to keep it
as a separate working group draft or roll it back in to the
main draft.

Thanks,

Joseph

PS. In terms of time lines, I believe that we are getting very
close to being ready to call the SFTP draft done.