Hi Heather,
you are welcome.
If you look at the content of the draft, my personal suspicions and thoughts about reasons why the draft did not realize,.
Its concept was to provide an alternate to FTP IN secure shells.
That means, it does NOT cover anything about security!
It relies on a given security and cares about file transfer in such an environment:
it defines a set of commands and its answers, to sketch out supported actions for a file transfer under the assumption, security is already given and provided elsewhere.
So name is irretating: SFTP means ... transfer "in a given secure protocol".
It is like you are in need of a car to travel into holidays.
But the answer you get is a set of regulations to be obeyed how you can reach a destination.
By car, bike, railway, plane or by foot, but only after you decided the transportation means before, elsewhere.
And as far as I remember, it does also not cover anything related to the kernel of a protocol, how a communication between two sites is to be organized.
It saying if you send me an order (...?) you will get an answer containing (!).
Details again are left elsewhere.
For fairness: it is important that the missing details are specified in the secure shell, SSH.
Anything mentioning the details would have meant a duplication of other standards (a no-go).
So to be applied, you have first to establish a secure shell between two sites,
given that you can then apply this way (or an alternative) to exchange
s.th.
Can you establish a SSH in your scenario first?
If yes, than SFTP is a way to make use of that to transfer contents in it.
[if no ... i will leave that out].
Kind regards
M