Subject: Ftp-WG: HOST command and client upgrades

From: "Jan Mikkelsen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 22:02:00 -0400

Robert Elz wrote:
>The problems with this approach is that you either have to mangle the
>client to know to add the "@host" part (in which case using the HOST
>command is better - as that one doesn't cause any problems for old servers
>they just ignore the HOST command - they won't just ignore a part of the
>username).   Or, you have to somehow convince the user to send the
>user name part manually somehow (or instruct the client to do it using
>existing mechanisms).   That's probably possible when the FTP command
>comes from a URL, I suspect it isn't any other time.

A client can find out whether or not a server supports a USER argument
containing a username and hostname combination based on a FEAT attribute, as
I suggested before.  This avoids the problems of old servers getting
embedded hostnames they don't understand, and users of old clients not being
able to user a server which does virtual hosting at all.  The problem with
the HOST command is that there isn't a clean way to make it work with an old
client.

>In any case, all this discussion has pretty much convinced me that
>the HOST command ought be removed from the mlst draft, so unless there
>is substantial objection to that before the next draft is ready to
>go, that is what will happen (and HOST will become a draft of its own).
>The initial HOST draft will contain the same text as is in the current
>mlst draft about host, with whatever changes the WG has decided upon
>before then (except if we decide that we don't want the command at all,
>in which case the draft will just never appear).

I agree.  In fact I'm coming around to the conclusion that a separate HOST
command is a bad idea, and a standardised FEAT attribute and mechanism for
embedding a hostname in the USER argument is the way to go.  In any case, it
doesn't make much sense to have HOST as it currently stands in the mlst
draft.

Jan Mikkelsen