[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev RFC959 non-compliance in Lynx hangs the client
From: |
Gregory A Lundberg |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev RFC959 non-compliance in Lynx hangs the client |
Date: |
Thu, 9 Sep 1999 09:05:57 -0400 |
On Wed, Sep 08, 1999 at 08:46:08AM +0100, David Woolley wrote:
> > Note that it's a "should", and to me it sounds more like a general
> > exhortation than a protocol requirement.
>
> It's probably important to remember that this RFC was written before
> the commercialisation of the internet and internet access software,
> at a time when people implemented to the spirit, not the letter.
>
> It is only in the later RFCs that it was necessary to use SHOULD, MUST,
> SHOULD NOT and MAY to avoid commercial implementors implementing to the
> minimum letter of the specification.
It is more important to remember there ARE later RFCs.
RFC 959 does not define the current FTP protocol. For a complete
definition, you need to read several RFCs. The most-current FTP-specific
RFCs are highlighted in boldface at http://www.wu-ftpd.org/rfc/
Arguing the meaning of RFC 959 is moot. RFC 959 was superceeded a number
of years ago and an effort is under way to superceed it yet again.
--
Gregory A Lundberg WU-FTPD Development Group
1441 Elmdale Drive address@hidden
Kettering, OH 45409-1615 USA 1-800-809-2195
pgpN8enF0SRUz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: lynx-dev RFC959 non-compliance in Lynx hangs the client, Klaus Weide, 1999/09/07