Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf.edu!wet!epsilon
From: epsilon@wet.UUCP (Eric P. Scott)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: RFC for MPUT and MGET in FTP . . .
Message-ID: <657@wet.UUCP>
Date: 11 Oct 89 09:48:24 GMT
References: <8910071742.AA10249@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <14005@well.UUCP>
Reply-To: epsilon@wet.UUCP (Eric P. Scott)
Organization: Wetware Diversions, San Francisco
Lines: 22

In article <14005@well.UUCP> nagle@well.UUCP (John Nagle) writes:
>	1) 3-cornered FTP (source, destination, and control points on 
>	   different hosts) never worked.

Excuse me, when did it ever not work?  I'm not being facetious
here.  If what you say is true, what's this "proxy" command doing
in user-FTP?

>
>	2) Transferring many small files in succession tends not to work.
>	   If you try to reuse the data connection immediately, it won't
>	   reopen, even though the TCP spec says it should.  This is a bug
>	   in the spec.  Most current FTP implementations use the PORT
>	   command to get a new data connection for each file, leaving the
>	   old one to time out in TIME_WAIT state.

Read the spec again.  In the default (STRU F/MODE S) you can't
reuse the socket since closure is used to indicate end of file.
Maybe I should bring my "why are there so many MINIMAL
implementations" gripe over here from Info-Nets...

					-=EPS=-