Re: [ftpext] RFC Errata for consideration

Anthony Bryan <> Thu, 05 August 2010 18:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9567C3A6A2D for <>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 11:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.191
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.191 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.192, BAYES_50=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uJ62nagDrS+k for <>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 11:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C48C53A6A74 for <>; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 11:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn36 with SMTP id 36so396628iwn.31 for <>; Thu, 05 Aug 2010 11:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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=vAdF2/49Pha/UQRR7F+HTAofUqdx93BiV8B/nsEZjXo=; b=AFGb6oiu+yOEYdcAYat5Q6Kjk6QFBZRdurqQ14YEm2QctvsXff/oCsKRx3OAWmxaH9 fNd/7KAFES5IY2D+0GoI2OMPPQH4ef5nhIKdzrx857/GZjB8u1ZRRBktlomtN78ObtN5 x3W+GtHLivtQLsuB4lA8LWRWFDpxzUWkJqd1Y=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=lenOCoy4o0or7jpi1PkRGQOj+350G7QmUv0GvPiaTh8ebOqH+qKkXFW8FqQUM0XVjP UdRdPgjV8AiFtjgRIZ58m9nie9c3HiKt24W9cErYOiRC1qY6AZm5rkZ5RtVLeHI6XsPj Mh/1IVtNi1OR6A+AHgZmMQJdNVTQnmZCdrLKI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id k9mr12279425iby.127.1281034114816; Thu, 05 Aug 2010 11:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 11:48:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 14:48:34 -0400
Message-ID: <>
From: Anthony Bryan <>
To: "William F. Maton" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [ftpext] RFC Errata for consideration
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2010 18:48:08 -0000

On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 6:51 PM, William F. Maton <> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Anthony Bryan wrote:
> [snip]
>> Errata
>> The representation types defined in FTP are described in Section 3.1,
>> Data Representation and Storage, or more specifically 3.1.1, Data
>> Types. They don't seem to be described in 3.2, Establishing Data
>> Connections.
> Good catch.

thanks! another...

   5.3.  COMMANDS

      The commands are Telnet character strings transmitted over the
      control connections as described in the Section on FTP Commands.
      The command functions and semantics are described in the Section
      on Access Control Commands, Transfer Parameter Commands, FTP
      Service Commands, and Miscellaneous Commands.

There does not appear to be a section on Miscellaneous Commands,
although SITE and NOOP are listed as "Miscellaneous Commands" in
Section 5.4, Sequencing of Commands and Replies. SITE and NOOP are
described in 4.1.3, FTP Service Commands.

>> also, RFC 1123 contains a number of updates to RFC 959 (& others).
>> (presumably, "Updates: XXXX" wasn't in use in 1989?) should this be
>> reported as errata to RFC 1123?
> My suspicion is that RFC 1123's errata discussion of RFC 959 should be
> reported under the new system against RFC 959, if only to capture that
> errata more easily.  On the other hand, not knowing enough about the
> mechanics about handling documents of that vintage, I'd wonder if the ADs
> could tell us if this sets a bad precedent of some kind.  (i.e., review
> every RFC in that light and start going off and using the errata reporting
> for every nit).

I'm hoping someone who knows more about the policy will provide some guidance...

> Then again, this could open up the discussion for creating an expanded RFC
> 959bis ... !
> Personally if RFC 1123 shows us some errata (and I admit to have never come
> across that RFC) in RFC 959, perhaps it's best to out it for folks really
> only looking at RFC 959.
> I wonder if a survey of RFCs that 'touch' RFC 959 in some way isn't in
> order?

yep, RFC 959's "Updated by: 2228, 2640, 2773, 3659, 5797" obviously
only mentions a couple.

RFC 1123 doesn't come up on a search for "FTP" on the RFC editor site
( ). is it authoritative?
that is, does it update/supersede RFC 959? I brought it up because I
might as well apply the changes to the RFC 959bis I'd been working on

here are the RFCs that I found that could be added to RFC 959's
Appendix III "RFCs on FTP" (aka a list of all FTP RFCs).

RFC 959 "File Transfer Protocol"
RFC 1123 "Requirements for Internet Hosts -- Application and Support"
RFC 1415 "FTP-FTAM Gateway Specification"
RFC 1545 "FTP Operation Over Big Address Records (FOOBAR)"
RFC 1579 "Firewall-Friendly FTP"
RFC 1635 "How to Use Anonymous FTP"
RFC 1639 "FTP Operation Over Big Address Records (FOOBAR)"
RFC 2228 "FTP Security Extensions"
RFC 2389 "Feature negotiation mechanism for the File Transfer Protocol"
RFC 2428 "FTP Extensions for IPv6 and NATs"
RFC 2577 "FTP Security Considerations"
RFC 2585 "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Operational
Protocols: FTP and HTTP"
RFC 2640 "Internationalization of the File Transfer Protocol"
RFC 2773 "Encryption using KEA and SKIPJACK"
RFC 3659 "Extensions to FTP"
RFC 4217 "Securing FTP with TLS"
RFC 4823 "FTP Transport for Secure Peer-to-Peer Business Data
Interchange over the Internet"
RFC 5797 "FTP Command and Extension Registry"

(( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ ]
  )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads