Re: Some non-expert additions to the proposed Internet Draft

[Stephen Tihor 212 998 3052 <[e-mail]>]

There is a difference from running in production and being production grade
software.  Probably a difference in local terminology.

I do not think we should recomend the use of any specific tool that omits a
number of the anonymous FTP sites I maintain or use most often.   Some UNIX
bigots assert that VMS, TOPS, MS-DOS, etc do not matter.  I am afraid that I 
disagree.  

I have made suggestions in the past that the archie project propose whatever
modifications to the FTP spec they require to automate their function. 
and the IAFA standardization work should help archie handle systems whose 
directory listing format it does not grok much better.   

But until one of those efforts reachs general availability allr eferences to
archie must be qualified by the restrictions that it ignores a chunk of the
filespace available and thus must not be treated as cannonical or even optimal.

The process involving add request and feeding archie filenames is one whose
documentation has never come to my attention.   Perhaps I missed the RFC or 
perhaps its only documented informally.  In our space, the Internet world,
I assume serious players generate at least an informational rfc or related
document.  [Can someone point me to the document I missed?]