To: miked@cerf.net
In-Reply-To: miked@cerf.net's message of Sat, 3 Sep 1994 17:41:07 -0700 <94Sep3.174117pdt.2761@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Subject: Re: [John.Ockerbloom@gs1.sp.cs.cmu.edu: Re: FTP handling suggestion]
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Message-Id: <94Sep3.215847pdt.2760@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 21:58:33 PDT
Mike, I appreciate your concern, but I think your message was
inflamatory; for example, the 'ftp' scheme clearly and explicitly
allows user name and password to be supplied, yet you call out:
> What if "USER anonymous" doesn't work ? (Some sites require "ftp".)
> ...
As for capturing current practice, RFC 1630 attempts to do that. This
working group was chartered to standardize on a syntax and its
interpretation that was reasonable, and based on current practice.
You might not be aware of the long discussions in this working group
over the exact interpretation of FTP URLs, but I hope you'll give us
the benefit of the assumption that we are aware of current practice
(in libwww and in several other URL implementations), and found that
the FTP URL was ambiguous and implemented differently between the
various implementations, and required some disambiguation.
> The FTP syntax is sound, but the specific issue raised by Mr.
> Ockerbloom is only the tip of the iceburg on implementation and
> algorithms.
I don't believe this is true; if you have some actual iceburgs to
point out, of course, please do so. If you have an alternative
specification that you would like to propose instead, or a further
elaboration of the algorithm than what appears in the current internet
draft, please send it.
Thanks.
Larry