Subject: Ftp-WG: MLST-07

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 18:00:15 -0400

I guess you have all seen the announcement that a new version of the mlst
draft is now available.   draft-ietf-ftpext-mlst-07.txt

This one has the changes discussed in the past month or so.  The only
item discussed that is not (yet) changed is the "error on bogus OPTS MLST
parameter" (or not).   The draft currently says that if a bogus factname
is given in that command, the server is to reply with an error, and
change nothing.   "Bogus" means "not one of the factnames in the standard,
and not a local extension either".    It has been suggested that if the
syntax is OK, bad values should just be ignored.   I don't think I have
seen enough discussion of that yet to make the change.

It did just occur to me that a server which wanted to always return OK
(to correct syntax) can always simply claim that it supports any nonsense
the client sends, but has just decided not to actually permit that fact
to be returned to this particular client - so the server would never be wrong
to implement things the way that has been suggested.

However, the reason for the suggested change, as I understand it, is so
that clients can always send a standard list of "these are the facts I'd
like" including non-standard ones it would like to have returned if they're
available.   For this to be easy for the client (ie: so the client doesn't
need to compare its preferred list against what the server says it supports
in FEAT, and send only the intersection of the lists) the server needs to be
prohibited from returning an error.

I believe this is the only remaining open issue, it would be nice to
have it resolved soon.

While doing that, I'd *really* appreciate it if several people could read
the entire draft carefully, and assist in finding all the stupid typos that
"spell" doesn't catch (using the wrong word, but spelling it correctly), etc.

And of course any other glaring idiotic mistakes that I just can't spot.

This draft just might be close to being done now, it would be nice to avoid
having to revise it after it is published.

kre

---

From: "Jan Mikkelsen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 03:59:11 -0400

Hi,

I have just been read MLST-7 once, and I have noticed a few minor wording
issues.

5.1, third paragraph:

"... and notify the sender the offset where the transfer should be restarted
..."

I suggest something like " ... notify the sender _of_ the offset ..." or
"... and tell the sender the offset ..."  At least that reads better to me,
others may disagree.

There are two occurrences of "NFVS", which should (presumably) be "NVFS".
They are in 8.5.1.2 and 10.

Regards,

Jan Mikkelsen
[email-masked]

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 06:42:53 -0400

Date:        Mon, 21 Jun 1999 03:59:11 -0400
    From:        "Jan Mikkelsen" <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | I have just been read MLST-7 once, and I have noticed a few minor wording
  | issues.

Thanks!    All fixed.

kre