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

Robert McMurray <robmcm@microsoft.com> Fri, 20 August 2010 22:42 UTC

Return-Path: <robmcm@microsoft.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 E07FF3A67FB for <ftpext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 HPxhZiiy8-12 for <ftpext@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (smtp.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33CBE3A685A for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.80.67) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:42:56 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC127.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.6.158]) by TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.80.67]) with mapi id 14.01.0218.010; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:42:56 -0700
From: Robert McMurray <robmcm@microsoft.com>
To: 'Tim Kosse' <tim.kosse@filezilla-project.org>, "ftpext@ietf.org" <ftpext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ftpext] Question about draft-bryan-ftp-hash-07
Thread-Index: ActAsz/cDiAopKTASBWkx2ZFdKuoeAAPXa+AAA49LPA=
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 22:42:55 +0000
Message-ID: <A5FC996C3C37DC4DA5076F1046B5674C3D2B92DA@TK5EX14MBXC127.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <A5FC996C3C37DC4DA5076F1046B5674C3D2B58B3@TK5EX14MBXC127.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4C6EFFEB.4060805@filezilla-project.org>
In-Reply-To: <4C6EFFEB.4060805@filezilla-project.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.71]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 22:42:24 -0000

>> 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?
> 
> Tim

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. ;-]