On 12/8/05, Brian E Carpenter <brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > > > > > > --On onsdag, desember 07, 2005 09:57:04 -0500 "Noël, Richard" > > <noel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> There seems to be a conflict in the definition of SFTP; the IANA site > >> indicates that it's Simple FTP while the IETF side indicates it's Secure > >> FTP in conjunction with SSH ... > >> > >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers > >> > >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-secsh-scp-sftp-ssh-uri-03. > >> txt > >> > >> My understanding is that FTPS refers to Secure FTP. > >> > >> Could you help me to sort this out pls ... > > > > > > I believe that "sftp" in port-numbers refers to port 115, with usage > > described in RFC 913, which is declared Historic, and is most likely > > unused in Real Life. > > > > sftp as defined in draft-ietf-secsh-scp-sftp-ssh-uri-03.txt defines an > > URI scheme, and doesn't need a separate port number. It's not yet > > approved (nor is draft-ietf-secsh-filexfer, which documents the protocol). > > > > So they're assignments in different name spaces - I agree it's > > confusing, but it's not really a conflict. > > There exist other "secure FTP" protocols, such as RFC 2228. But this > > week, "sftp" is likely to be the SSH version. > > > > At least that's my understanding. > > Don't forget RFC 4217 "Securing FTP with TLS" which has also sometimes > been called Secure FTP or even SFTP. That is quite widely used. > > A good acronym to not use, I think. > I don't see there being much confusion with Simple FTP. Is the TLS-FTP protocol in RFC 4217 likely to have its own URI since it is just an extension to FTP? > Brian > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf