Re: [ftpext] COMB command IETF draft proposal

Van Glass <vglass@jscape.com> Thu, 09 June 2011 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <vglass@jscape.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 81185228004 for <ftpext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 07:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 GzmqGARn82VI for <ftpext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 07:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DA28228003 for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 07:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19so1126414gxk.31 for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Thu, 09 Jun 2011 07:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.195.65 with SMTP id o41mr911727yhn.337.1307628771559; Thu, 09 Jun 2011 07:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.153.7 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Jun 2011 07:12:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikUfwbHCE_brVcedJ3-Y0uFvV-PLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F15941D3C8A2D54D92B341C20CACDF2311AC408AB1@exchange> <01AA9EC92749BF4894AC2B3039EA4A2C1946D58A@CH1PRD0302MB131.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <F15941D3C8A2D54D92B341C20CACDF2311AC51B359@exchange> <BANLkTina+ZF97cgQrJp7yGWcsWmY4eOuEQ@mail.gmail.com> <F15941D3C8A2D54D92B341C20CACDF2311AC51B3C4@exchange> <4DF07777.2010205@kimmeringer.de> <BANLkTikUfwbHCE_brVcedJ3-Y0uFvV-PLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 08:12:51 -0600
Message-ID: <BANLkTikaecpOcm2Ye+2uf7YEr4bBBQLDeA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Van Glass <vglass@jscape.com>
To: Lothar Kimmeringer <lothar@kimmeringer.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "ftpext@ietf.org" <ftpext@ietf.org>, Robert McMurray <robmcm@microsoft.com>, Robert Oslin <rto@globalscape.com>
Subject: Re: [ftpext] COMB command IETF draft proposal
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: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 14:12:53 -0000

scratch that last commment ... forgot that 1XX replies are only on per
command sent by client.

Van Glass
JSCAPE
Managed File Transfer and Security Solutions
http://www.jscape.com




On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Van Glass <vglass@jscape.com> wrote:
> To expand on Lothar's idea, perhaps this could be achieved using
> positive preliminary (1XX) replies.
>
> ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FTP_server_return_codes
>
> e.g.
>
> C> COMB "dest" "part1" "part2"
> S> 1XX part1 complete
> S> 1XX part2 complete
> S> 250 success
>
>
> Van Glass
> JSCAPE
> Managed File Transfer and Network Solutions
> http://www.jscape.com
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Lothar Kimmeringer
> <lothar@kimmeringer.de> wrote:
>> Am 08.06.2011 22:57, schrieb Robert Oslin:
>>>
>>> "Have you experienced any issues"
>>>
>>> - yes, with larger (multi-GB) size files; however there are ways to
>>> combine the
>>
>>> file so that timeouts can be avoided in most cases. I made a couple of
>>> fleeting
>>> references to those methods in the spec, but really it would be up to the
>>> server
>>> vendor to research and implement the optimal recombine technique so that
>>> timeouts
>>> could all but be eliminated for everything but exceedingly large files...
>>
>> I have to find a way to open docx files so I might repeat something
>> that is already supposed but a simple way would be to respond with
>> the equivalent of a HTTP-100-response:
>>
>> C: COMB filea fileb filec
>> S: 250-Start COMB
>>   250-COMB for filea finished
>>   250-COMB for fileb finished
>>   250-COMB for filec finished
>>   250 COMB command successful
>>
>> Since a client should in general start over with a timeout every time
>> a line of the response has been received, it should help avoid timeouts
>> with very large files. In addition to that you receive some feedback,
>> that the server is still talking with you.
>>
>>
>> Regards, Lothar
>> --
>> Lothar Kimmeringer                E-Mail: spamfang@kimmeringer.de
>>               PGP-encrypted mails preferred (Key-ID: 0x8BC3CD81)
>>
>> Always remember: The answer is forty-two, there can only be wrong
>>                 questions!
>>
>