Re: [ftpext] draft-ietf-ftpext2-hash command name and default algorithm

[Sob <[e-mail]>]

At 15:40 18.1.2011, Robert Oslin wrote:
>I don't see why we need a reply that includes information the client 
>already knows (hash used, filename, etc.). Only the hash is needed, 
>hence option (a) below.

I have no strong opinion on this. While bare hash should be enough, 
including additional info might be good for something.

>Again, I'm not insisting on XCRC over HASH and CRC32 over SHA-1 as 
>the default algorithm; I'm simply make the case that doing so will 
>ease the path for adopting the new standard for most FTP server 
>client/server vendors.

Sure, "new, improved and backward compatible version of good old 
trusted XCRC command" sounds better than "unknown new HASH command". 
On the other hand, if someone advertises support for XCRC and it 
turns out that it means only very small subset of the specification 
(i.e. old XCRC), it wouldn't be so great.

And it shows another problem on the horizon, what about FEAT? What's 
the correct line for current XCRC anyway? I saw:

XCRC filename;start;end
XCRC "filename" SP EP

Even others maybe? Whichever we choose, we instantly get millions of 
servers violation the specification. Unless the XCRC line for FEAT is 
defined as "XCRC<anything>".

When you think about it, new and independent HASH command is not such bad idea.

--