Subject: Ftp-WG: Re: minor example error in draft-ietf-ftpext-mlst-10

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 05:22:02 -0500

If we're (sorry, you're) going over the draft again, is it worthwhile adding
a 'transfer-size' or similar fact, which defines the number of octets of the
file which would be transmitted using the current mode, type, etc?

With an additional note specifying that the Server-PI may choose not to
present this for certain files under certain download parameters, on the
basis that this may present a significant cost to the server? (Should the
Client really want to know, it can try using SIZE, which may have a higher
cost threshold.)

In particular, I suggest that should a Server-PI generate the
'transfer-size' fact for a file (when asked for that fact) then it must
return the size in response to the SIZE command where SIZE is supported at
all, however, the reverse is not true - SIZE may return a value for a file
which was not presented with the transfer-size in the MLS* response
containing it.

No doubt someone else has already asked for this, but on the basis that I
haven't checked *all* my mail yet, and haven't found anything about it, I
thought it might prove worthwhile to mention it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Elz [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 5:18 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Ftp-WG: Re: minor example error in draft-ietf-ftpext-mlst-10 ?

    Date:        Fri, 09 Jun 2000 16:22:08 +1000
    From:        Luke Mewburn <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>

  | I noticed that draft-ietf-ftpext-mlst-10 states the following:
[...]
  | Are the examples wrong in prefixing the response from OPTS with `201'
  | instead of `200'?

The examples were taken directly from some bozo's ftp server.  Clearly
that idiot didn't read the doc (even if it was the same idiot as the final
editor of the doc...)

That server has now been fixed, and the examples in the doc updated,
I will submit a -11 draft with those changes.

I'll also look at specifying the error codes from MLSx, it is hard to
believe that those got forgotten, but it seems like they did...

kre