Re: [ftpext] FWD: ftp/959 reboot

[Anthony Bryan <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:11 PM, William F. Maton <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Anthony Bryan wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> So I've had another read of RFC 1123 4.1 coming from a different light. All
> it seems to do is clarify what implementors of RFC 959 should be supporting.
>  "RFC 959 was SO barebones as to leave interpretation wide open, so he's a
> clarifcation on what to do to make FTP servers and clients right so they
> work."
>
> 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.

> 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?

> Didn't someone here once say that a working group on FTP would require a lot
> of work? :-)

nahhh! :)

>>  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.
>
> OK, so FTPbis 'updates' RFC 1123, not obsoletes it.
>
>> 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.
>
> I'll have another look.

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

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