W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > June 2011

Re: [ftpext] FWD: New Version Notification for draft-yevstifeyev-ftp-uri-scheme-03.txt

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 08:00:34 +0300
Message-ID: <4E0AB172.4030005@gmail.com>
To: Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>
CC: "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, "ftpext@ietf.org" <ftpext@ietf.org>, URI <uri@w3.org>
28.06.2011 23:50, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>>> A new version of I-D, draft-yevstifeyev-ftp-uri-scheme-03.txt has 
>>> been successfully submitted by Mykyta Yevstifeyev and posted to the 
>>> IETF repository.
> I'm afraid this draft is drifting even further into a territory where 
> it dictates how to do FTP in a way I don't think it can or should.
> Some random remarks on the -03 version:
> Section 2.2
> Introduced a typo on line 2, "a file a directory" should be "a file or 
> a directory".
Agreed here.  I'll correct.
> Section 2.2.3
> I object to (1b) as it is present and then mentioned to be NOT 
> RECOMMENDED and then it is claimed to be there due to "compatibility 
> with some FTP clients" but the only times I've had to use that method 
> it has been to overcome problems caused by FTP servers (or server 
> installations at least). Its existance in the spec is utterly 
> confusing to me.
With regard to this, I think this isn't a problem, so I'll remove this step.
> (3) seems to mandate PORT or PASV to be used. This is not how many 
> clients of today work - they prefer EPSV or EPRT and a lot of them 
> also use STAT instead of opening a second connection. I strongly 
> oppose to the the URI spec to dictate this.
I agree here as well - so it will be "arrange data connection using an 
appropriate method (eg. PORT, PASV [RFC0959], EPRT or EPSV [RFC2428] 
command; using historical LPRT and LPSV [RFC1639] for this purpose is 
strongly discouraged);"
> Similarly, I object to (4a) and (4b) claiming that NLST should be used 
> to list directories. That's entirely up to the client on how it thinks 
> is best to get the contents of a directory.
With this respect NLST was borrowed from RFC 1738.  So I'll change so 
that (4a) and (4b) will not mention NLST but rather "an appropriate 
method, like LIST, NLST [RFC0959] or MLST [RFC3659] command"

Thanks for your feedback.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 05:00:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:15 UTC