Subject: Re: availability of specifications

From: Darren Moffat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 09:46:00 -0700 (PDT)

>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

---

From: "denis bider" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:33:17 +0200

> 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.

> 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.

---

From: Markus Friedl <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:58:30 +0200

> so it is valid for another 6months.

At the IETF serveral people expressed interest in SFTP but it seemed
that everyone was confused about the status of the drafts or did
not know why or that they disappeared.

who want's to work on the drafts? is there any interest?

-m

---

From: "Joseph Galbraith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 18:00:03 -0600

I'm definitely interested in working on it, and
definitely interested in co-authoring with other
interested parties.

It has been on my list of things to do (revive
the draft) but I haven't had time yet.

Joseph Galbraith
[email-masked]

---

From: Damien Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 10:25:37 +1000 (EST)

> definitely interested in co-authoring with other

I'd be interested too.

-d

-- 
| Damien Miller <[email-masked]> \ ``E-mail attachments are the poor man's 
| http://www.mindrot.org          /   distributed filesystem'' - Dan Geer

---

From: "Joseph Galbraith" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:44:16 -0600

> > definitely interested in co-authoring with other

Great.

Given that I had intended to do this but
had not gotten around to it, I spoke to
the powers that be, and I now officially
have two hours a week set aside to work
on drafts.

Let's see if we can settle on a set
of authors in the next couple of days,
and then see if we can't get the existing
draft resubmitted in the next couple of
weeks.

I would suggest that we start with the
-00 draft, and then merge in the
appropriate changes from the -01
draft that was recalled.

We should probably submit that so that
we have a working SFTP draft.  I know
both Markus and I have done implementations
off the -01 draft.

Then, we should bump the SFTP version
number to 4, and start addressing
issues people have with the protocol
and/or draft.

Hopefully, we can make some good forward
progress.  If we get good participation
on the mailing list (and we as authors
can stay responsive) we should easily have
another version of the draft out before
the meeting in December.

Joseph Galbraith
[email-masked]

---

From: "Andersson, Mats" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:00:14 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Joseph Galbraith wrote:
> I'm definitely interested in working on it, and definitely interested
> in co-authoring with other interested parties.

I'd be interested to help out too.

Cheers,

/Mats

---

From: John W Noerenberg II <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 18:25:14 -0800

Excuse me, I'm just peeking in from outside.

 From all this discussion, it appears none of the drafts have made it 
to Marcus or Jeff for consideration by the IESG.  Do I have that 
right?
-- 

john noerenberg
[email-masked]
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   While the belief we  have found the Answer can separate us
   and make us forget our humanity, it is the seeking that continues
   to bring us together, the makes and keeps us human.
   -- Daniel J. Boorstin, "The Seekers", 1998
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------