Mark / John, > Mark Allman wrote: > Should we *add* a couple more verbs to FTP that are to be > more generic than the current verbs and allow for DNS names > and other "labels" we may come up with the in the future? > (With the intent that the new verbs and the old verbs could > co-exist.) > Then I'd certainly be fine with that (assuming someone has > the energy). If these new commands end up taking over in > the future then that's great and we can think about moving > rfc2428 to historic at that time. But, I think the key > here is that, IMO, we should *add*, not *replace*. This makes sense to me. For the same reason we are stuck supporting PORT and PASV forever, I think that we are stuck supporting EPRT and EPSV forever as well and that two new verbs that would include the functionality of EPRT and EPSV with extended semantics that would allow passing names and foo is the way to go. > John C Klensin wrote: > given that 2428 is at Proposed I believe there is deployed EPRT/EPSV code based on 2428; IMHO you can't assume that this code base will be upgraded to support names. It's too late. Michel.