Re: [ftpext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ftpext2-hash-02.txt
Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Fri, 29 July 2011 10:17 UTC
Return-Path: <evnikita2@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ftpext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ftpext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FFF021F8B77 for <ftpext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 03:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.498
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.101, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R3E33TPrEvwg for <ftpext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 03:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BAE621F8876 for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 03:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so2449915fxe.31 for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 03:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=o65+BCW5nfFx68Q1sDOoeYad8Vh97MTI8XB/LdI+QAQ=; b=fOp5NUWYpfj4aV4AoWIsm4Lb5IkYt/8kSftatW3sg2teUM2hxiEOH8nw9ElPWB8r4b dGWLXYp2kEBoe2NNrZsh3aiWeIgCOyC1ojjqkMCaAYeRAWVbymFQ9diu0zJSXts4enSu VJieFUpIrgQ/pBi9kulnshw0jQpJFt786yTQE=
Received: by 10.223.26.70 with SMTP id d6mr1546166fac.78.1311934676528; Fri, 29 Jul 2011 03:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h17sm292345fai.2.2011.07.29.03.17.53 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 29 Jul 2011 03:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E3288FB.4070605@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:18:35 +0300
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ftpext@ietf.org
References: <20110728190206.27942.42243.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110728190206.27942.42243.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [ftpext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ftpext2-hash-02.txt
X-BeenThere: ftpext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ftpext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 29 Jul 2011 10:17:58 -0000
Hello, I'd like to provide some comments on draft-ietf-ftpext2-hash-02, which was uploaded on 28 July. Section 2: > The term "pathname" is used as defined in Section 2.2 of > [RFC3659]. This statement and the "<pathname>" used in ABNF productions need to be clarified. Explicitly, your document should be clear regarding the fact that <pathname> ABNF production is defined in RFC 3659 and is imported from there. Moreover, as <pathname> is a valid ABNF production, and it's imported from RFC 3659, there is no reason to enclose it in the angle brackets when defining other ABNF productions. In section 3: > hash-ok = "213" SP hashname SP start-point "-" end-point SP filehash SP<pathname> CRLF RFC 5234 allows line breaks in ABNF definitions. Ibid (and in Section 3.1): > hashname = 1*( hchar ) It's OK to change this to: > hashname = 1*hchar here. Ibid: > All hash values MUST be encoded in lowercase hexadecimal format. This confuses with: > Note that in ABNF, string literals are case insensitive. in Section 2.1. RFC 5234 <HEXDIG> is: > HEXDIG = DIGIT / "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F" and therefore allows uppercase as well as lowercase a-f letters. If you want to mandate use of lowercase only, please use "DIGIT / %x61-66"; but I don't think it makes sense. In Section 3.5 you use the SHOULD RFC 2119 keyword. From RFC 2119: > 3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there > may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a > particular item, but the full implications must be understood and > carefully weighed before choosing a different course. What may be such "valid reasons in particular circumstances" not to send the error response? I'd recommend to use non-normative "should" here. I've noted that Section 3.2 says: > The pathname argument MUST represent a file path, not a > directory path. while Section 3.5 mentions: > The server-PI SHOULD reply with a 553 reply if the user requests the > HASH of a directory, which is not allowed. Maybe you meant "a file which is placed in a directory, that is not allowed" here? As an editorial issue. RFC 5234 recommends to enclose ABNF productions in the text in < and > rather than ' and ', as you currently do. Mykyta Yevstifeyev 28.07.2011 22:02, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the FTP Extensions, 2nd edition Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : File Transfer Protocol HASH Command for Cryptographic Hashes > Author(s) : Anthony Bryan > Tim Kosse > Daniel Stenberg > Filename : draft-ietf-ftpext2-hash-02.txt > Pages : 16 > Date : 2011-07-28
- [ftpext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ftpext2-hash-02.t… internet-drafts
- Re: [ftpext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ftpext2-hash-… Mykyta Yevstifeyev