Re: [ftpext] FWD: ftp/959 reboot

["William F. Maton" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Anthony Bryan wrote:

>> But I'm speculating because despite my efforts at looking for context
>> (mailing lists, emails on the Internet), the RFC itself is all we have to go
>> on.
>
> I contacted the author, perhaps we'll hear from him.
>
> reading RFC 3659 more, it refers to "STD 9, RFC 959 and STD 3, RFC
> 1123" as if they're to be taken together.

And then there's RFC 1579 which makes a brief mention of RFC 1123.  So I 
think I'm starting to gain a historical context.

>> If we look at 4.1.5 then we have an idea of what RFC 1123 is trying to say
>> and perhaps compare that to the post Oct 1989 outcome:  Have implementations
>> of the succeeding decade adopted any of that.
>
> can some implementors chime in?

(switching hats)

I'm searching through the wu-ftpd mail archives (such as I have them) and 
see a few mentions about RFC 1123 and I see mentions of v 2.5.0 supporting 
that...I'm just wondering if we're not arguing the obvious in that RFC 
1123 found its way into implementations in one way or another 15-20 years 
ago and all this is a moot discussion now?

> I merged in the changes from RFC 1123 now:
>
> http://www.metalinker.org/test/ftp/draft-bryan-ftpbis-00.txt
> http://www.metalinker.org/test/ftp/draft-bryan-ftpbis-00.html

Cool, thanks!

>
> -- 
> (( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ]
>   )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads
>

wfms