Subject: Ftp-WG: mlst draft -09

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 04:55:31 -0500

I have just sent draft -09 to the I-D directories (it should show up
within a few days).

In this one the HOST command is gone.   Aside from that the only changes
of substance are some more examples added (new server, so slightly different
style), and the description of how to read the examples moved, and was
reworded a little (made more clear that the examples are just examples
and if there are bugs in them, they are bugs in the examples, not changes
to the spec...)

Unless anyone find any issues with this draft, I think it is done, and
after it has appeared, I think a WG last call is in order (of course it
is for our chair to decide, with WG input, if that should be done or not).

I can do a new draft for the HOST command, containing more or less just
what was there about it in the -08 mlst draft if that is what the WG wants.
On the other hand, there's no particular reason why I should be doing that,
the only reason I was writing the HOST text was because it was being included
in the MLST draft.   So, if the WG would like to appoint someone who will
turn out revised drafts a little more quickly than I am typically able to
manage, that's fine too, and I will send off the HOST text as it is now.

kre

---

From: Alun Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 10:19:31 -0500

>manage, that's fine too, and I will send off the HOST text as it is now.

With my wife studying up for her Windows-2000 exams, I find myself 
wondering if an emphasis wouldn't better be put on asking that clients 
respect the SRV records of DNS servers (as specified in RFC 2052, about to 
be superseded).  This would have the advantage (for me) of not requiring 
any changes to an FTP server - the client would look up the service record 
for _ftp._tcp.yourdomain and use the address and port information returned 
from that to connect to an FTP server for that domain.

The unfortunate side of this is that there are very few decent tools for 
DNS resolution in the Windows world - while bind and its resolver libraries 
are available in NT, and resolv at least will work on 95/98, there is no 
consideration made (that I could find) to creating a non-blocking request, 
let alone one more in line with the Winsock asynchronous methods of 
working, that would allow a typical Windows program to carry on its 
processing (especially UI components) while querying for such a record.  I 
would imagine Windows isn't the only place where there is no good API for 
DNS resolving that would allow use of the SRV record.

Alun.
~~~~

--
Texas Imperial Software | Try WFTPD, the Windows FTP Server. Find it
1602 Harvest Moon Place | at web site http://www.wftpd.com or email
Cedar Park TX 78613     | us at [email-masked].  VISA / MC accepted.
Fax +1 (512) 378 3246   | NT based ISPs, be sure to read details of
Phone +1 (512) 378 3246 | WFTPD Pro, NT service version - $100.
*WFTPD and WFTPD Pro now available as native Alpha versions for NT*