IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ftpext] FWD: ftp/959 reboot

Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com> Sun, 15 August 2010 19:49 UTC

Return-Path: <anthonybryan@gmail.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 D7ABE3A6819 for <ftpext@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 12:49:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.593
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.483, BAYES_05=-1.11]
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 8sOkTpKozIhx for <ftpext@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 12:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A94F3A66B4 for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 12:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn3 with SMTP id 3so1010649iwn.31 for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 12:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=w8ZNp8vtQ1nMuuDpAznhFd9anzBdp0n+YjQvVc15Das=; b=OH4/PrHM1mbF6YMRmeYq82lhHR1oVA7FbDpUhR1uk554qBS9pmyg/GaDcYqWWE8h1T e5305ijNd8TFHruidusgJE9QE03PL54bfCkxDnpTy2CwUe0M9tMFxgfqHI7dEAQEzKV0 MfTcmycGUAIz7JQ/no9vVfQM1bvJn3FU2NgWE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=KmlUpG8UKOX2R2S2MPSpEQNVP8dyRdmn+FsU9ihTO3fM7ICmtlmYJWNWJZikuk7q+S HqJoo5s+oQLziWH7COosjtK5wnhg7GixYfUBmnOMkeBpHVpdTKVZrVMzZBx4S9Wx6Jlz 5CdPM/SBdJ7IsN8NdRvRHdixMXhnfmz1QWqA0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.12.136 with SMTP id x8mr4520510ibx.54.1281901827942; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 12:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.170.212 with HTTP; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 12:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008102153320.1146@iskra.ottix.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008051641520.24282@iskra.ottix.net> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008052249300.11871@tvnag.unkk.fr> <AANLkTi=1ePodG=2G9Ta-=5Fut6x-bQxvq8eLXsVgaUjh@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008092256460.10815@tvnag.unkk.fr> <AANLkTikB0J_aL7CTwnC17wH2+FS=QgQB5SCL2Jp9iJBd@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008101303001.1146@iskra.ottix.net> <AANLkTim1VnSPnhmuMa9RC5Ubjnnn=Q+rK6R2riRAznfj@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008102153320.1146@iskra.ottix.net>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 15:50:27 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTinu45hNphk7xxUA63AYMONES4qjOH2+-Hny0HMc@mail.gmail.com>
From: Anthony Bryan <anthonybryan@gmail.com>
To: "William F. Maton" <wmaton@ottix.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: ftpext@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ftpext] FWD: ftp/959 reboot
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: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 19:49:53 -0000

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:05 PM, William F. Maton <wmaton@ottix.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Anthony Bryan wrote:
>
>>> But I'm speculating because despite my efforts at looking for context
>>> (mailing lists, emails on the Internet), the RFC itself is all we have to
>>> go
>>> on.
>>
>> I contacted the author, perhaps we'll hear from him.
>>
>> reading RFC 3659 more, it refers to "STD 9, RFC 959 and STD 3, RFC
>> 1123" as if they're to be taken together.
>
> And then there's RFC 1579 which makes a brief mention of RFC 1123.  So I
> think I'm starting to gain a historical context.
>
>>> If we look at 4.1.5 then we have an idea of what RFC 1123 is trying to
>>> say
>>> and perhaps compare that to the post Oct 1989 outcome:  Have
>>> implementations
>>> of the succeeding decade adopted any of that.
>>
>> can some implementors chime in?
>
> (switching hats)
>
> I'm searching through the wu-ftpd mail archives (such as I have them) and
> see a few mentions about RFC 1123 and I see mentions of v 2.5.0 supporting
> that...I'm just wondering if we're not arguing the obvious in that RFC 1123
> found its way into implementations in one way or another 15-20 years ago and
> all this is a moot discussion now?

Bob Braden, RFC 1123 author, says that 1123 indeed "Updates: 959" but
updates wasn't applied as religiously in 1988 as it is now.

I think this is worth correcting, at least in errata or something
similar (if not a new document like the one I've been working on) so
people can find the updates & know about the changes.

current implementations are probably mostly fine. the way things are,
someone working on a new FTP app wouldn't even know 1123 existed.

>> I merged in the changes from RFC 1123 now:
>>
>> http://www.metalinker.org/test/ftp/draft-bryan-ftpbis-00.txt
>> http://www.metalinker.org/test/ftp/draft-bryan-ftpbis-00.html
>
> Cool, thanks!

my pleasure!

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email