> --On Monday, 12 April, 2010 12:44 -0700 The IESG > <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter >> to consider the following document: >> >> - 'File Transfer Protocol HOST Command ' >> <draft-hethmon-mcmurray-ftp-hosts-11.txt> as a Proposed >> Standard I agree with John Klensin's comments, and especially want to call out this part: On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:22 AM, John C Klensin <klensin@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Those decisions should not -- cannot -- be > made by processing one command extension at a time, with each > one reflecting the taste and assumptions of its authors in > different ways. > > It seems to me that we need a WG or some other mechanism for > establishing and determining community consensus around basic > design principles for FTP extensions. If the IESG then wants > to process individual extensions as individual submissions, > that would be fine, but let's first at least establish a > framework for evaluating them. It would be a mistake to build a further array of individual, uncoordinated extensions to FTP. As with the establishment of the imapext, sieve, and morg working groups, when the IETF has seen a collection or succession of proposals aimed at extending a protocol, it has opted to charter a working group to coordinate those proposals, winnow them, and establish community consensus on which to standardize, and how. It should do that here, as well. Barry Leiba _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf