Re: [ftpext] FWD: ftp/959 reboot

[Tim Kosse <[e-mail]>]

On 2010-08-11 03:31, Anthony Bryan wrote:
>> If we look at 4.1.5 then we have an idea of what RFC 1123 is trying
>> to say and perhaps compare that to the post Oct 1989 outcome:  Have
>> implementations of the succeeding decade adopted any of that.
> 
> can some implementors chime in?

I have been aware of RFC 1123 but haven't taken it much into
consideration when implementing FileZilla (Server).

Most of the points from RFC 1123 either were irrelevant for the
implementation (e.g. 4.1.2.2, 4.1.3.4. ...) or were already a
well-established best-practice most if not all popular implementations
implicitly adhere to (e.g. 4.1.2.5, 4.1.2.6)

Even though rare, there are still clients out there that use commands
like XCWD (4.1.3.1) and TYPE L 8 (4.1.2.1). It appears that mostly
(only?) legacy mainframe systems are using these commands, I haven't
actually seen these commands being used by any modern client.



Personally I would gladly see some parts of FTP obsoleted with other
parts updated.

Without going into the details too much, I would like to obsolete the
following:
- All TYPEs other than I and A
- All MODES other than S (while the proposed MODE Z is a nice idea, I
don't think it is relevant anymore, internet bandwidth has increased
substantially since the first MODE Z draft was introduced)
- All STRUs other than F and the related SNMT command
- Telnet IP and Synch signals
- XCWD and related commands

On the updated part I would like to see
- Mandatory UTF-8 support
- Mandatory MLSD
- Mandatory TVFS would be nice

While it would definitely break compatibility with old implementations,
it would greatly simplify the protocol. I wonder if it is even possible
or desired to change FTP in such a drastic way or if that is a clear no-go.


Tim