IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ftpext] FWD: ftp/959 reboot

Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com> Tue, 10 August 2010 04:02 UTC

Return-Path: <anthonybryan@gmail.com>
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 DED9D3A681F for <ftpext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 21:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.304
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.304 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.295, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 xifrcxaFygNg for <ftpext@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 21:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B7523A6A04 for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 21:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn36 with SMTP id 36so4379619iwn.31 for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=GBdQoOUL50aGFEtTn861eh431TXtj1+6ghUpWoMe1I8=; b=t7rlOcL7+08y6frx1T7q72qYu3siwmiTdjgB0SOYsxGAjoX8KS+pBEz1PprEPtahtl 6OYJRMG7d8ZM4K3sDVQeGgeYFJnIScfs92ldXRzhwdN1H9jIi6Iko5O0XOd8ubXvEzgV YAptUQA1A2G1nO8b4H8hXeMMyThbasnUOxM4Q=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ucuaL3ZVjGsaLIJV1QlTRlVWgslKFue/guLUG5b0/x/oRfv2Bcm8Hm7k5QoQJc9SfI 6mV7uuKyx2rRW5KqRK7LJOPp9dtgS9z1NPVy6yQmxy9Drli3gCK2MZQeSJgkpI9d+Rra rcJ+gk0KHVF+YEt1XW9yrbdeiYq916Ke9+bJc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.169.149 with SMTP id z21mr20129690iby.11.1281412980176; Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.159.143 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Aug 2010 21:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008091957430.24469@iskra.ottix.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008051641520.24282@iskra.ottix.net> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008052249300.11871@tvnag.unkk.fr> <AANLkTi=1ePodG=2G9Ta-=5Fut6x-bQxvq8eLXsVgaUjh@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008092256460.10815@tvnag.unkk.fr> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008091957430.24469@iskra.ottix.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:03:00 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTimT=OU4m-Kza1wEUrw7A5eQLK8+KxOCgB5pO9Ou@mail.gmail.com>
From: Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com>
To: "William F. Maton" <wmaton@ottix.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: ftpext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ftpext] FWD: ftp/959 reboot
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: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 04:02:28 -0000

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:03 PM, William F. Maton <wmaton@ottix.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Anthony Bryan wrote:
>>
>>> Daniel, any thoughts/insight into the RFC 1123 discussion, which appears
>>> to update RFC 959?
>>
>> Yes, it seems to update or at least clarify a lot of RFC959 details but I
>> must admit I've never really used 1123 much as a reference. I really can't
>> tell at this point how valuable those sections are or aren't.
>
> I'm wondering how big an exercise it would be to determine the applicability
> of these types of RFCs relating to FTP?  But anyways...

which RFCs besides 1123?

1123 only has about 15 pages dealing w/ FTP, I hope there should be
enough of us here to determine what's still valid?

>>> http://www.metalinker.org/test/ftp/draft-bryan-ftpbis-00.txt
>>
>> Very cool.
>
> Yes well done!  If 1123 has been applied in practice, then perhaps obsolete
> that component of 1123 as well?

thanks!

I haven't applied 1123 to what I'm working on yet.

do you mean "Obsoletes: 1123"? if so, I don't think that's possible.
"Updates:" might be more correct, as 1123 contains much more than
those few pages on FTP.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email