Subject: Ftp-WG: mlst-06 open/new issues

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 15:17:35 -0500

t has been a couple of weeks now since mlst-06 appeared in the I-D
directories, and there has been no comment at all.   I know it
isn't perfect, so please...

To get everyone started, there are a couple of issues left over from
earlier discussions that aren't yet resolved.

First, Alun Jones asked if the response to the HOST command could
have a 220 code, instead of the current 234, to make it easier for
some implementation techniques.   It is a 23x code now because I
believe that it is an authentication command (hence '3') not a
connection command (which would be '2') according to the theory of
reply codes.    But it would be nice to hear some more opinions on
this issue.

Second, there was the issue brioefly discussed in mid January of
the permission bits for directories.   Should we split the 'l'
permission into two, one to indicate that the directory can be
listed, and another to indicate that it can be "searched" (that is,
that files in the directory can be referenced).  As currently written
the 'l' permission requires both, which leasd to the oddity that it
is possible to list (on my server anyway) directories that have no
permissions at all.

Then there are a couple of new issues that arise from the implementation
experience that a couple of us have had, which have not yet been brought
up here I think.

The first is whether the ';' that currently separates the facts in MLSx
output should instead be defined as being a fact terminator (that is,
every fact ends with a ';' - the effect would be one more ';' before
the space that ends the facts).  It turns out that doing it as a terminator
makes the code for the server (and Mike Gleason says the client as well)
easier to manage.   Obviously either way is possible (we have implementations
that handle the current spec), but for me at least it would have been much
easier (and I would have had less buggy versions along the way - that is,
I had more bugs related to this than everything else together I think) if
the ';' had been defined as a terminator.

Opinions?

The second relates to responses to the "OPTS MLST" command.   As defined
now the server is uspposed to issue an error message if the client
requests a fact that is not a standard fact, and is not a non-standard
fact that the server implements.   An alternative would be to only issue
errors on syntax faults, and simply ignore requests for unknown facts.

As an adjunct, it woudl be possible to make the "ok" response
to OPTS MLST have a defined format, rather than just the code and
arbitrary text.  In particular, it might be specified that the
response lists the current selected fact set.

Opinions on those?

kre