Re: [ftpext] FWD: I-D Action: draft-yevstifeyev-ftp-uri-scheme-05.txt

[John Cowan <[e-mail]>]

John C Klensin scripsit:

> It seems to me that there are two logical possibilities for an
> FTP URI:
> 
> (a) Do something absolutely minimal that satisfies a large
> number of cases.  This is probably anonymous login only, stream
> and image transfer only, probably PASV only these days, maybe
> even a restriction to an ASCII command stream.  If an email
> address is needed for login, a provision for picking that up
> from an environment variable rather than having it incorporated
> into the URI, would be important.
> 
> (b) Fully-reflect the protocol and all of its standardized
> options.  This would get fairly complex for a URI because one
> would not only want to supply a lot of information but might
> want to supply it conditionally.

The third possibility is to describe what actually works on the
browsers and other URI-basec clients that are actually in use,
which I believe is what is being done.

> Between those two points, there isn't a lot other than slippery
> slope.

A slippery slope is where people actually live.

-- 
One Word to write them all,             John Cowan <[e-mail]>
  One Access to find them,              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
One Excel to count them all,
  And thus to Windows bind them.                --Mike Champion