Re: [ftpext] FWD: ftp/959 reboot

[Anthony Bryan <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Daniel Stenberg <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Anthony Bryan wrote:
>
>> Daniel, any thoughts/insight into the RFC 1123 discussion, which appears
>> to update RFC 959?
>
> Yes, it seems to update or at least clarify a lot of RFC959 details but I
> must admit I've never really used 1123 much as a reference. I really can't
> tell at this point how valuable those sections are or aren't.

it would be nice to know how authoritative they are. it sounds like at
least some people are not familiar w/ 1123. I only came across it
after digging deep into stuff.

now reading RFC 3659 more in depth, it at least treats it as more up
to date than 959 in Section 5:

   Note that there
   are some flaws in the description of the restart mechanism in STD 9,
   RFC 959 [3].  See section 4.1.3.4 of RFC 1123 [9] for the
   corrections.

>> with inspiration from httpbis, I've been working on a collection of
>> FTP RFCs: 959, 2389, 2428, 2577 (for now).
>
> I would suggest 3659 to be one of the main RFCs for any modern FTP
> implementation, thanks mostly to SIZE and MTDM in my own case.

3659's absence is only due to my laziness. :) getting these old RFCs
into xml2rfc shape (even with rfc2xml) takes me quite a long time. the
sheer length of 3659 & the fact that no one might be interested kept
me from including it. it adds about 50 pages and is now included.

>> http://www.metalinker.org/test/ftp/draft-bryan-ftpbis-00.txt
>
> Very cool.

thanks!

> I noticed how it mentions RFC3659 describes REST as an extension, but that's
> slightly inaccurate. RFC959 includes REST already, it was just clarified and
> more detailed in RFC3659.

thanks. I removed the original description from the 959 text so it is
not duplicated. if I kept working on this, I would introduce some
uniformity to the commands section.

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