Re: [ftpext] New Version of FTP HASH, RANG, LOCK, and HOST

Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com> Sun, 10 March 2013 00:32 UTC

Return-Path: <anthonybryan@gmail.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 E0F1621F8734 for <ftpext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 16:32:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PkYjw-8ir0lV for <ftpext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 16:32:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qe0-f52.google.com (mail-qe0-f52.google.com [209.85.128.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D83B721F86D6 for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 16:32:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qe0-f52.google.com with SMTP id s14so1720558qeb.11 for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Sat, 09 Mar 2013 16:32:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=3++quMJs4GD2hblUJz25/c30j4V8fc+F7muZcsirSbI=; b=xUdUTUV3AVXS02Co/Y2v9I4KKCEp3sNk6m3Smina2GmASrtZHYBwFYibKPZmgxnxOQ ATI18XroZ2h15jvPm53uenZpY4XECU2agndaapc6BUJyxlHQpBfNDbESzD13bR9wL0Nl sPRDTgKNWwiuKU7wyikXcvu0qxiAouBTvLZ6HgEGc21G2zXd6dQvf4wALW0HH+6FNALQ biszRaCEEVJvxclPvWOveDlFZ1SjYA36whpJ3tRNYvButTCvubX0NZFtxx2CbJ3+Qi5X UcRTVzMDs6/M1vurvAhryGYDof9muSpeDFBFC2uZim25c0LmXOel0clSNKxOj1rBxNgT fUvg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.49.74.198 with SMTP id w6mr11661876qev.57.1362875526339; Sat, 09 Mar 2013 16:32:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.49.71.140 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 16:32:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAATrTKZN_d1e4gGzpQbcNQnz028Eg7zgTvZ=bv5+y1uULsh5_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANqTPegPaMBF9i1gi+M3m5FXzuxRzUU_QULxB_sdJTVd7NGppQ@mail.gmail.com> <51009243.4080809@gmail.com> <51056391.2070901@gmail.com> <03ec01cdfcbc$b247bef0$16d73cd0$@texis.com> <5105BDA8.7000006@gmail.com> <CANqTPehG4erM8k622DV8Ou6DLGkpfM92RewUVA69KwA6hetxQg@mail.gmail.com> <CAATrTKZN_d1e4gGzpQbcNQnz028Eg7zgTvZ=bv5+y1uULsh5_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2013 19:32:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CANqTPeg=0D7ouohoe4yzj5GuAhFBOe+qxBuyce3BPFwzYc39DQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com>
To: Hans Andersen <hans@enterprisedt.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "ftpext@ietf.org" <ftpext@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ftpext] New Version of FTP HASH, RANG, LOCK, and HOST
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: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 00:32:09 -0000

Daniel Stenberg wrote elsewhere:

"I agree that sending data in a chunked-encoding style (from HTTP 1.1)
is much easier for both sender and receiver instead of having to check
for a boundary separator in the stream.

It would be good to get an FTP server author's point of view on this."

any other +1s or opinions?

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Hans Andersen <hans@enterprisedt.com>; wrote:
> I just wanted to back my colleague, Bruce, on the performance issue related
> to detecting boundaries.  A few weeks ago I wrote code that detects MIME
> boundaries in HTTP-POSTs while piping the data to a file.  The best I
> managed to achieve was significantly slower than simple piping.  I therefore
> think that optionally including the size is important for performance.
>
> On 2 February 2013 14:26, Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com>; wrote:
>>
>> right, we could leave the boundary REQUIRED but have an OPTIONAL size
>> that would be used (probably the majority of the time?)

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