IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ftpext] HOST back to FTPEXT2 WG for more review

Robert McMurray <robmcm@microsoft.com> Fri, 16 September 2011 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <robmcm@microsoft.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 3E0CA21F8AF4 for <ftpext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:49:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.580, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132]
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 LDKHFLWt1mkp for <ftpext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mailc.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6ABF21F8AED for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.80.67) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:52:10 -0700
Received: from TX2EHSOBE006.bigfish.com (157.54.51.114) by mail.microsoft.com (157.54.80.67) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.339.2; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:52:10 -0700
Received: from mail63-tx2-R.bigfish.com (10.9.14.249) by TX2EHSOBE006.bigfish.com (10.9.40.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:52:10 +0000
Received: from mail63-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail63-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16FDD1240159 for <ftpext@ietf.org.FOPE.CONNECTOR.OVERRIDE>; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:52:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: -35
X-BigFish: PS-35(zz9371K542M1432N111aLzz1202h1082kzz1033IL8275dhz31h2a8h668h839h944h61h)
X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.55.61.146; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:SKI; H:CH1PRD0302HT011.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT
Received-SPF: softfail (mail63-tx2: transitioning domain of microsoft.com does not designate 157.55.61.146 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.55.61.146; envelope-from=robmcm@microsoft.com; helo=CH1PRD0302HT011.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
Received: from mail63-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail63-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 131619548321274_13769; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:51:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TX2EHSMHS007.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.241]) by mail63-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A12EF1938126; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:48:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from CH1PRD0302HT011.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (157.55.61.146) by TX2EHSMHS007.bigfish.com (10.9.99.107) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.22; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:48:36 +0000
Received: from CH1PRD0302MB131.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.11.156]) by CH1PRD0302HT011.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.42.118.189]) with mapi id 14.01.0225.069; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:48:35 +0000
From: Robert McMurray <robmcm@microsoft.com>
To: "alun@texis.com" <alun@texis.com>, "ftpext@ietf.org" <ftpext@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ftpext] HOST back to FTPEXT2 WG for more review
Thread-Index: AQHMSv0xR7qFJ/RaKUS0hZb/bMvAeJT9xMHQgABGaYCAUpCRYA==
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:48:34 +0000
Message-ID: <01AA9EC92749BF4894AC2B3039EA4A2C21E7202B@CH1PRD0302MB131.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CANqTPeggME=FCiTDpAPAMEcNq36zpojshE6W-=PHtB9it+AZZQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1107222237120.1581@tvnag.unkk.fr> <OFE237FE3A.1794CEA8-ON802578D8.0039F193-802578D8.003A1E6B@uk.ibm.com> <01AA9EC92749BF4894AC2B3039EA4A2C194E2EA3@CH1PRD0302MB131.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <09db01cc4b50$95226d30$bf674790$@texis.com>
In-Reply-To: <09db01cc4b50$95226d30$bf674790$@texis.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.28.29.165]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: CH1PRD0302HT011.namprd03.prod.outlook.com
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%TEXIS.COM$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%131.107.125.5$TlsDn%
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%59$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%6$FQDN%131.107.125.5$TlsDn%
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com
X-CrossPremisesHeadersPromoted: TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [ftpext] HOST back to FTPEXT2 WG for more review
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: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:49:56 -0000

Hi Alun,

Sorry, I somehow missed your message amidst all of the discussions that happened in July while I was on vacation.

While I wouldn't think that it would be a best practice, I don't think that there's a problem with a HOST command preceded by an AUTH command. As you indicated, there may be reasons to hide the HOST command and use the AUTH->HOST->USER->PASS syntax, but that does introduce some problems with certificate matching. In general, I would think that if someone is trying to hide their credentials or their data then HOST->AUTH->USER->PASS would normally be used.

Thanks again!
--Robert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alun Jones
> Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 9:58 PM
> To: Robert McMurray; ftpext@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [ftpext] HOST back to FTPEXT2 WG for more review
> 
> Calling HOST _after_ AUTH - is that deliberately undefined behaviour?
> 
> I can imagine a scenario where a somewhat public gateway FTP server feeds
> to a number of more private backend FTP servers, where it's not considered
> a good idea to publicise which server you're eventually connecting to.
> 
> Alun.
> ~~~~

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email