Re: [ftpext] draft-ietf-ftpext2-hash command name and default algorithm

Sob <sob@nvnet.cz> Mon, 17 January 2011 17:56 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@nvnet.cz>
X-Original-To: ftpext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ftpext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A46028C1E3 for <ftpext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:56:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.603
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_CZ=0.445, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 IfkqArUy5mWf for <ftpext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:56:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nvnet.cz (mail.nvnet.cz [IPv6:2002:d5d3:2ff6:80::3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F89028C1A2 for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:55:59 -0800 (PST)
X-AuthUser: sob@nvnet.cz
Received: from Sob-PC.nvnet.cz ([213.211.47.246]:56522) by mail.nvnet.cz with [XMail 1.25 ESMTP Server] id <S1B39> for <ftpext@ietf.org> from <sob@nvnet.cz>; Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:58:32 +0100
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 18:58:12 +0100
To: "ftpext@ietf.org" <ftpext@ietf.org>
From: Sob <sob@nvnet.cz>
In-Reply-To: <F15941D3C8A2D54D92B341C20CACDF2311976FECC9@exchange>
References: <F15941D3C8A2D54D92B341C20CACDF2311976FECC9@exchange>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <20110117175600.2F89028C1A2@core3.amsl.com>
Subject: Re: [ftpext] draft-ietf-ftpext2-hash command name and default algorithm
X-BeenThere: ftpext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ftpext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ftpext>, <mailto:ftpext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ftpext>
List-Post: <mailto:ftpext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ftpext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ftpext>, <mailto:ftpext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 17:56:01 -0000

At 17:04 17.1.2011, Robert Oslin wrote:
>I believe it would make life easier on developers and speed the 
>adoption of your RFC if you considered changing the following:
>
>1. Keep the command XCRC ...
>2. Keep the default hash CRC32 ...

You would have to keep one more thing, "250 <crc>" as default (or 
only) reply format, otherwise old clients with knowledge of only the 
old XCRC wouldn't know what to do with it.

So you can either:

a) scratch all new reply format ideas and stick with the old one; 
after all, it shouldn't be that hard for client to remember what it 
asked for (filename, range, hash type)

b) force new clients to support two completely different reply 
formats, otherwise they wouldn't understand old servers and the 
"instant success" would not happen; again, it's probably doable, 
developers are clever people and the two formats should be different 
enough to get properly recognized

But essentially it would still be two different commands, only with 
the same name, no real advantage. Old client wouldn't benefit from 
new server and the other way around.

--