On Tuesday, December 06, 2005 01:58:25 PM -0500 Richard Whalen <Whalenr%process.com@localhost> wrote:
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.
I'm not sure if I care whether all the extensions work happens. I certainly don't object to it. But like Richard, I think it should remain a separate draft.
It seems like every time I turn around, someone is suggesting adding yet another complex feature to SFTP. Often the argument is "when applications do XXX to a file in the filesystem, they need semantics YYY, so we should make sure sftp can provide those semantics".
I'm sorry, but I guess I was under the impression that SFTP was intended to be a "Secure File Transfer Protocol", not a network filesystem. Filesystems are fun, but they're also hugely complex and, I dare say, not within the charter of the Secure Shell working group.
Can we _please_ finish a standards-track _File Transfer_ protocol before we spend any more time specifying a complete filesystem?
-- Jeff