Aha. Then we are having a difference of opinion about
architecture and aesthetics, not function. Putting in a new verb
for the same function each time one wants to provide what is
logically the same information in a different form impresses me as
a bad idea. You prefer it.
No, I don't.
John-
It seems appropriate to ask whether 2428 should be opened and
given at least the capability of passing DNS names and maybe
some syntax that would permit clean extension to future
identifiers.
I think my hit to your narrow question is no. Sort of.
It seems to me that the
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
John;
I just had occasion to look again at RFC 2428, FTP
Extensions for IPv6 and NATs,
Please consider this a fairly narrow question.
I'm afraid that your question is still too broad.
Are you asking the question for IPv6 or for NATs?
I am asking the question about FTP, about a
John,
John C Klensin wrote:
My ambitious in raising these questions are _very_ limited
and, in particular, I don't see this as a back door to
solving the non-DNS, topology-independent, persistent
identifier problem. (It seems to me that needs to be solved
through the front door, or not at
--On Thursday, 02 October, 2003 10:31 -0700 Michel Py
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
John C Klensin wrote:
My ambitious in raising these questions are _very_ limited
and, in particular, I don't see this as a back door to
solving the non-DNS, topology-independent, persistent
identifier
John,
John C Klensin wrote:
My goal is precisely to avoid ending up with either two
standards or eight verbs. Explanation of the latter:
IPv4 IPv6 self-referent DNS StableID
addressaddress
RFC959 2428 ??????
Verb PORT,PASV
My goal is precisely to avoid ending up with either two
standards or eight verbs. Explanation of the latter:
IPv4 IPv6 self-referent DNSStableID
address address
RFC959 2428 ??????
Verb PORT,PASVEPRT,EPSV ?DPRT,DPSV?
Hi.
I just had occasion to look again at RFC 2428, FTP Extensions
for IPv6 and NATs, M. Allman, S. Ostermann, C. Metz. September
1998, and to think about in the context of the recent
flame-war^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H discussions about use of IP
addresses in applications. 2428 provides additional
John,
The extensions in 2428 are in wide use, and they work just fine. I
don't see any reason to change them.
Nor do I believe there is consensus that applications should always be
passing names in preference to IP addresses. And until there is a
system for assigning stable names to hosts
--On Wednesday, 01 October, 2003 14:35 -0400 Keith Moore
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
The extensions in 2428 are in wide use, and they work just
fine. I don't see any reason to change them.
Nor do I believe there is consensus that applications should
always be passing names in preference to
Keith, you are starting down the path I was hoping to avoid, so
maybe my specific concern and suggestion wasn't clear. If is is
working well as is, then I withdraw even the hint of deprecating
the thing.My main objection to 2428 is not that it _permits_
addresses, but that it
John,
John C Klensin wrote:
It seems appropriate to ask whether 2428 should be opened
and given at least the capability of passing DNS names
and maybe some syntax that would permit clean extension
to future identifiers.
It seems to me that this does not buy us much if it is limited to FTP.
--On Wednesday, 01 October, 2003 14:48 -0700 Michel Py
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
John C Klensin wrote:
It seems appropriate to ask whether 2428 should be opened
and given at least the capability of passing DNS names
and maybe some syntax that would permit clean extension
to future
John;
I just had occasion to look again at RFC 2428, FTP Extensions
for IPv6 and NATs,
Please consider this a fairly narrow question.
I'm afraid that your question is still too broad.
Are you asking the question for IPv6 or for NATs?
--On Thursday, 02 October, 2003 09:55 +0859 Masataka Ohta
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John;
I just had occasion to look again at RFC 2428, FTP
Extensions for IPv6 and NATs,
Please consider this a fairly narrow question.
I'm afraid that your question is still too broad.
Are you asking the
16 matches
Mail list logo
