IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ftpext] COMB command IETF draft proposal

Lothar Kimmeringer <lothar@kimmeringer.de> Thu, 16 June 2011 16:39 UTC

Return-Path: <lothar@kimmeringer.de>
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 34F431F0C47 for <ftpext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I1yJ3FFX3QhZ for <ftpext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 525531F0C5C for <ftpext@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:39:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.20] (mnch-4d045d7e.pool.mediaWays.net [77.4.93.126]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrbap4) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MFsZi-1QKYZ32npe-00ExkM; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:39:49 +0200
Message-ID: <4DFA31D3.9010006@kimmeringer.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:39:47 +0200
From: Lothar Kimmeringer <lothar@kimmeringer.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard.Koenning@ts.fujitsu.com
References: <F15941D3C8A2D54D92B341C20CACDF2311AC408AB1@exchange> <01AA9EC92749BF4894AC2B3039EA4A2C1946D58A@CH1PRD0302MB131.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <F15941D3C8A2D54D92B341C20CACDF2311AC51B359@exchange> <BANLkTina+ZF97cgQrJp7yGWcsWmY4eOuEQ@mail.gmail.com> <F15941D3C8A2D54D92B341C20CACDF2311AC51B3C4@exchange> <4DF07777.2010205@kimmeringer.de> <4DF0E42F.1000104@ts.fujitsu.com> <4DF11952.6060601@kimmeringer.de> <F15941D3C8A2D54D92B341C20CACDF2311AC51B725@exchange> <4DF14059.9080709@kimmeringer.de> <F15941D3C8A2D54D92B341C20CACDF2311AC51B892@exchange> <4DF216F9.5000205@ts.fujitsu.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DF216F9.5000205@ts.fujitsu.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:+OjBJYJHGh9theA/eSJI/HqW/48hjqQ8g7n+xEO5QAj Sl89UqyL0YSdE74EXbWh/GdIC0inlt6TsHOK3iq9p4PW9gzcQh Ys/A+KlVe6W7S6Rh7J4ZacaPnPPyhhC5Z5DBcFzOMyFY++xsUT w7/pCt+kRMDo+DIKe8ubf5hSlrIjUylqtntog83gXV9xVBYy5M MxrrIZlsVdXBf4ggsiTzg==
Cc: "ftpext@ietf.org" <ftpext@ietf.org>, Robert Oslin <rto@globalscape.com>
Subject: Re: [ftpext] COMB command IETF draft proposal
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: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:39:53 -0000

Am 10.06.2011 15:07, schrieb Richard Koenning:
> As Van Glass already pointed out in an answer to his own similar
 > proposal only one 1yz message is allowed per command (see RFC 959,
 > p.37). Even when RFC 959 is not engraved into stone one should
 > think twice before violating/changing rules layed down in this RFC.

There is a different between Van Glass' proposal and mine:

Van Flass:
C> COMB "dest" "part1" "part2"
S> 1XX part1 complete
S> 1XX part2 complete

Mine:

C: COMB filea fileb filec
S: 150-Start COMB
    150-COMB for filea finished
    150-COMB for fileb finished
    150-COMB for filec finished
    150 COMB finished
    250 COMB command successful

In my example there is only one 150-response seperated into
more than one lines.


Best regards,

Lothar Kimmeringer
-- 
Lothar Kimmeringer                E-Mail: spamfang@kimmeringer.de
                PGP-encrypted mails preferred (Key-ID: 0x8BC3CD81)

Always remember: The answer is forty-two, there can only be wrong
                  questions!

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email