- From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 08:00:34 +0300
- 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