Re: [ftpext] A few comments on draft-bryan-ftp-hash-05

[Paul Ford-Hutchinson <[e-mail]>]

Anthony Bryan <[e-mail]> wrote on 26/07/2010 19:30:33:

> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Tim Kosse
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > On 2010-07-15 08:56, Paul Ford-Hutchinson wrote:
> >
> >> I propose that this draft specifically excludes HASH over a directory
> >> (i.e. returns a 4xy error)
> >
> > Yes. Intuitively I would have implemented HASH without directory
> > support, but I concur that it needs to be explicitly mentioned in the 
draft.
> 
> the draft says this already:
> 
> "The pathname argument MUST represent a file path, not a directory 
path."
> 
> what should we add?

Oops, must have missed that (even though I was looking for it).  Maybe 
resurrect the <blink> tag :-)

In my defence I would expect to see this restriction on the server 
behaviour and not on the content of a client created value (the client may 
have no idea that /x/y/z is a directory and not a file).  i.e. I would 
expect to see it in section 3.4 (where I don't spot 553)

> further, Tim adds that this would be a permanent negative completion
> (5yz) instead of transient negative completion (4yz) and suggests 553.

The reason I put a 4xy was that path /x/y/z might be a directory one day 
and a file the next.  Revisiting the discussion on RFC959, I agree that it 
should be 5xy.  (55y to be more precise)

Cheers,
Paul