Subject: Ftp-WG: thoughts on ftp extensions and caching

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 12:21:56 -0500

I agree entirely, as I've said.

But to clarify from what Stephen Head has said, surely the MLST fact "size"
is an approximation anyway? I thought only the SIZE command returned the
exact transfer size.

As far as I know, the worst case is that we'll be proferring a transfer size
that's out by 100%, but that's assuming a file on UNIX consisting of only
'\n' characters, for instance.

My vote for the name of any new fact should be "TransferSize" or
"transfer-size", depending on whether we want '-' characters or not in our
facts.

Which raises an interesting, albeit pedantic, thought. The ABNF for MLST
doesn't restrict the characters available for use in a factname - should it?

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Tihor [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 5:19 PM
To: FTPEXT Working Group
Subject: Ftp-WG: thoughts on ftp extensions and caching

It still seems that an approximate size should serve just fine. 
No?