Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!agate!ucbvax!GATEWAY.MITRE.ORG!barns
From: barns@GATEWAY.MITRE.ORG
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Latest FTP RFCs
Message-ID: <9101141646.AA12620@gateway.mitre.org>
Date: 14 Jan 91 16:44:13 GMT
References: <779@sdrc.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 12

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