Ftp-WG: RE: MFXX questions

> Note that MDTM doesn't "exclude directories", it says that the
> behaviour there is undefined.   That's because different real
> filesystems implement directories in vastly different ways, and
> there is/was no desire to constrain them to necessarily have the
> concept of modification time for a directory, or force one on top
> of the particular server's filesystem.
>
> On the other hand, I'd expect the typical unix server's MDTM
> implementation to return the standard unix st_mtime for a directory
> when queried (that's permissible as undefined behaviour).   It
> simply isn't worth the bother to specifically check for the name
> being a directory, and exclude it.
>
> Servers on systems where there is no st_mtime, or anything like it,
> for a directory, can return an error, or return 00000000000000, or the
> current time, or do just about anything else they like (provided only
> that they stay within the protocol).

Robert,

mlst-16, section 3 says "...MDTM can be used to determine when a file..."

Perhaps it would be better if 'file' could be replaced with 'object', thus
avoiding any ambiguity over the file/directory issue.

> ps: I haven't had time to read the MFXX draft yet, but if it is going to
> go anywhere as an IETF work item, it will need to be specified in a way
> such that it is implementable on anything which could reasonably implement
> an FTP server.

I am currently aware of three server implementations that implement some of
the ideas in MFF, so I think its fair to say its in a state where it can be
reasonably implememted.

If anybody has implemented any of the features in somers-mfxx could they
please let me know!

I'm working on somers-mfxx-02 at the moment and hope to clear up the issues
raised... although I have a feeling draft -02 won't be the final draft ;-)

At some stage it will be put forward to the IETF as I would like it to go
from i-d to RFC status. If it can be put forward as an FTPEXT Working Group
document, then that's fine by me.

Cheers,

David