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

[Anthony Bryan <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Robert McMurray <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 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.)
>>
>> So far 504 is used for "Command not implemented for that parameter"
>> which doesn't seem to fit too well.
>>
>> What about 554?
>
> RFC 1123 lists the 554 reply as "Requested action not taken: invalid REST parameter," so this wouldn't seem to make sense for HASH.
>
> RFC 2228 lists the 534 reply as "Request denied for policy reasons," but that has always seemed to me to be more specific as a response to the security extensions that are defined in that RFC so I hadn’t suggested it, but I'll open that for debate. ;-]

thanks, Robert. good suggestion. I've added this text while we iron
out the reply code:

Server operators might wish to allow the HASH command but restrict its
use to certain files, for example, if the file size exceeds the
server's hashing policy. A client MUST be able to understand that
refusal to process HASH commands may be permanent (if indicated by a
5yz response) and will not be honoured later.

The server-PI SHOULD reply with a 5yz reply if the HASH command is
used on a file that cannot be processed for policy reasons. (For
example, if the file size exceeds the server's hashing policy.)


suggestions?

btw, for anyone interested I believe I have all reply codes listed in
http://www.metalinker.org/test/ftp/draft-bryan-ftpbis-00.html#sec-4.2.3

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