Re: [ftpext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ftpext2-typeu-01.txt
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 11 July 2011 05:02 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 73CFB21F8870 for <ftpext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.821
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.821 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.222, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 sWciE9iMddgE for <ftpext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7865B21F8828 for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Qg8dV-000JBw-ID; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:02:25 -0400
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:02:24 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6F976528673B234FA96F687F@PST.JCK.COM>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: ftpext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ftpext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ftpext2-typeu-01.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: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 05:02:27 -0000
--On Monday, July 04, 2011 07:39 +0300 Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> wrote: > John, > > Sorry for being a bit curious, but did my comments > (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ftpext/current/msg00353. > html) arrive to you? Are you going to consider some (if any) > of them? I hadn't gotten to it -- I've been preoccupied with a few other things as those who follow the rfc-interest list may have figured out. Thanks for the comments and the reminder. A new version is now in the posting queue. I don't think I've made any of the changes exactly as you suggested, but think I've now addressed most of them. As an example of the reasons for the difference between what you suggested and what I did, "data type" is a horribly ambiguous term. RFC 959 carefully distinguishes between "Representation Type" and "File Structure" either of which could be considered "data type" information. So I tried to clarify things as you suggested while staying very close to traditional FTP terminology. I haven't taken out the user-PI, etc., terms because the text says "if used here". They might be worth taking out when the WG is otherwise finished with the document, but not now. > Why not completely replace server-FTP process and user-FTP > process with server and client, respectively, within the whole > document at all? Well, because I learned several things in the transition from RFC 821 (which, like FTP, used Jon Postel's terminology and BNF) to RFC 2821 (which used ABNF). One of them was that Jon wrote protocol specifications with a much higher degree of precision than is typical in the iETF today. In 2821 (and 5321), it was sometimes necessary to use Jon's historical "sender" and "receiver" terminology because client-server terminology can get confusing or ambiguous when one is talking, e.g., about relay hosts who act as both. With FTP, the separation of control and data connections will sometimes require careful identification of USER-PI, SERVER-PI, server-DTP and user-DTP, and so on. The fact that I've managed to construct a draft for TYPE U without needing those distinctions is no guarantee that we won't need them before the specification is approved. And, if I were to give general advice to the WG at this point, it would be to try to stick to the terminology of RFC 959 rather than trying to retrofit "modern" terminology. If I were writing this draft for the first time today, I would not have bothered with that sentence about convenience at all, but I acknowledge that it is somewhat a matter of taste. > For the reader's convenience, the reference to some material > concerning EBCDIC could be provided The sentence refers to RFC 959, which ought to be sufficient. While it doesn't provide references for EBCDIC the reality today is that anyone who doesn't know what it means almost certainly doesn't care and will never care. Worse, the authoritative references are hard to find and access today, so incorporating them in the document wouldn't do much good. >> If it does, the server MAY > Probably SHOULD or SHALL is more appropriate here; what is an > other way to indicate that U data type isn't supported, in > this case? The sentence is correct as written. Support for the feature is optional, so the server MAY support it. If it doesn't, or doesn't want to provide that service to a particular user, it returns 504. Otherwise, there is a firm requirement ("MUST") about what it does. best, john
- Re: [ftpext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ftpext2-typeu… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [ftpext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ftpext2-typeu… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- [ftpext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ftpext2-typeu-01.… internet-drafts
- Re: [ftpext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ftpext2-typeu… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [ftpext] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ftpext2-typeu… John C Klensin