Re: Interest in reviving WG on FTP(maybe ext?)

"William F. Maton Sotomayor" <wmaton@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> Wed, 15 July 2009 20:35 UTC

Return-Path: <wmaton@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B3E73A6B30 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1wNrvhUYjsW4 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca (ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca [IPv6:2001:410:9000:127::10]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98C653A6995 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n6FKZSRF008515 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:35:33 -0400
Received: from localhost (wmaton@localhost) by ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) with ESMTP id n6FKZSbQ008512; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:35:28 -0400
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:35:28 -0400
From: "William F. Maton Sotomayor" <wmaton@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Subject: Re: Interest in reviving WG on FTP(maybe ext?)
In-Reply-To: <500C2305-B995-4628-A6C9-C758771D5B35@muada.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0907151631100.18753@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0907011537130.11066@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> <000701ca0178$c300e700$0601a8c0@allison> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0907101403330.12664@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> <45CD4EB44CDFB32F772D8D6E@PST.JCK.COM> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0907151601240.18753@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> <500C2305-B995-4628-A6C9-C758771D5B35@muada.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: wmaton@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:35:13 -0000

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> Well, I think I found a bug in RFC 959. Might be nice to fix it.

OK, now some are getting shaken out, that's good. :-)

I know Gregory Lundberg found a bunch of issues, some great, some small 
with RFC 959, and he was in touch with some folks at that time (we're 
talking around a decade now) about that.  But where that conversation 
went....?

> 3.3.  DATA CONNECTION MANAGEMENT
>
[..]
> However, you can't use both PORT and PASV because with PORT the server is 
> supposed to initiate the data session and with PASV the client. If you do 
> both it's unclear who does what. I also don't see any use cases for this.

This rings a bell....I wonder if it was the old data assurance draft that 
also addressed this....

Thanks, now you got me rumaging.... :-)

wfms