mustard@sdrc.UUCP (Sandy Mustard) (01/12/91)
I have been porting some code which is doing automated file transfers by logging on to the FTP daemons and issueing ftp commands. As I have ported this code to an IBM MVS mainframe, I have noticed that the responses from various FTP commands do not comply with the state table (or valid reply list) as defined in RFC959. I would like to know what is the latest RFC concerning FTP commands and their valid replies so I can determine if the original coder of this code is in error or that IBM's FTP is in error. Thanks, Sandy Mustard mustard@sdrc.uu.net
barns@GATEWAY.MITRE.ORG (01/15/91)
Please start with RFC 1123's chapter on FTP and work backwards from there through the references. As I recall it, we left this somewhat intentionally open to people inventing other reply codes where there is cause (a judgment call, but not meant to allow new codes with the same semantics as old ones). Also, the RFC 959 list is slightly defective here and there. Feel free to send me mail if you want to discuss specific cases. I spent considerable time pondering reply codes when RFC 1123 was being written and I helped stir up some discussions. With a little luck, I may remember what happened and why. In case of desperation, I have the email discussions stashed somewhere. Bill Barns / MITRE-Washington / barns@gateway.mitre.org
raj@hpindwa.cup.hp.com (Rick Jones) (01/15/91)
Curiousity Toss-Up Question... Will the performance difference between a 'typical' LAT implementation and a 'typical' Line-Mode Telnet be as great as the current differences? Admittedly, a very difficult question to answer decisively, but I'm just as interested in the speculation... rick jones