[ftpext] RFC 2640
Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> Tue, 21 December 2010 23:02 UTC
Return-Path: <iljitsch@muada.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 3AEFA3A6ACA for <ftpext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:02:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.056
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.056 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.543, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 qXLER+i3siG1 for <ftpext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:02:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sequoia.muada.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:1af8:2:5::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 112E03A6A6F for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 15:02:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.0.193] (static-167-138-7-89.ipcom.comunitel.net [89.7.138.167] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by sequoia.muada.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id oBLN4kqH060535 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:04:47 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from iljitsch@muada.com)
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:04:42 +0100
Message-Id: <C04E4326-D403-4B8F-B6E2-506B1FECB4FE@muada.com>
To: ftpext@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Subject: [ftpext] RFC 2640
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: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 23:02:53 -0000
Hi, We're having a discussion on how the FTP64 ALG should support RFC 2640, which allows clients and servers to negotiate a language for the free text that the FTP server sends to the client. My opinion is that it would be ok for the ALG to create text in the default language (presumably English) even if the client and server negotiate another language. Another solution would be to block such negotiations but I don't like this extra complexity and I'm not sure that having the server's text in a non-preferred language for consistency with the ALG's text helps the user. My questions: - are there any RFC 2640-compliant implementations out there? - anyone have a problem with moving RFC 2640 to historic? Iljitsch
- [ftpext] RFC 2640 Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: [ftpext] RFC 2640 TJ Saunders