IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ftpext] Question about draft-bryan-ftp-hash-07

Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se> Fri, 20 August 2010 22:12 UTC

Return-Path: <daniel@haxx.se>
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 E3CDF3A69B2 for <ftpext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.628
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.628 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.379, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35]
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 WVhZM9YRuEvO for <ftpext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:12:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from giant.haxx.se (giant.haxx.se [80.67.6.50]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25CA33A69DC for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:12:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from giant.haxx.se (giant.haxx.se [80.67.6.50]) by giant.haxx.se (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1) with ESMTP id o7KMCmgp003392; Sat, 21 Aug 2010 00:12:48 +0200
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 00:12:48 +0200
From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
X-X-Sender: dast@giant.haxx.se
To: Robert McMurray <robmcm@microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <A5FC996C3C37DC4DA5076F1046B5674C3D2B58B3@TK5EX14MBXC127.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008210010140.7323@tvnag.unkk.fr>
References: <A5FC996C3C37DC4DA5076F1046B5674C3D2B58B3@TK5EX14MBXC127.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
X-fromdanielhimself: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Greylist: Default is to whitelist mail, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.3.5 (giant.haxx.se [80.67.6.50]); Sat, 21 Aug 2010 00:12:48 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: "ftpext@ietf.org" <ftpext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ftpext] Question about draft-bryan-ftp-hash-07
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: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 22:12:14 -0000

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, Robert McMurray wrote:

> Looking at section "3.4. HASH Command Errors" in the draft it would seem 
> that none of the 5yz errors that are listed would apply, but returning a 504 
> reply might seem to make sense in this scenario. If so, would it be 
> worthwhile to add a statement like the following to the draft?
>
>   The server-PI SHOULD reply with a 504 reply if the HASH command is
>   used on a file that cannot be processed for policy reasons. (For
>   example, the file size exceeds the server's hashing policy.)

Seems fine to me!

> Or would a 4yz reply be better since this is a configurable option at the 
> server? Perhaps a 452 reply?

I see your reasoning but I think rejecting an operation for a policy reason is 
"permanent" rather than "transient" as trying again surely has very little 
hope of working. I vote for a 5xx error.

-- 

  / daniel.haxx.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email