Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ucbvax!LL-XN.ARPA!glenn
From: glenn@LL-XN.ARPA (Glenn Adams)
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: FTP Problems
Message-ID: <8606252011.AA16304@ll-xn.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 25-Jun-86 16:11:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: ll-xn.8606252011.AA16304
Posted: Wed Jun 25 16:11:48 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jun-86 00:16:37 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 20
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa


In reviewing the current FTP specification (RFC959) I uncovered what seems
to be a discrepancy.  In the examples in Appendix II, on page 63,
a response code of 200 is shown as the response to a CWD command.
However, under the list of Command-Reply Sequences on page 50,
CWD is shown to only accept a 250 response code.  Since I interpret
a CWD command as being excluded from the File System functional
category, I assume that the response code of 200 is correct.  Especially
since CDUP as a special case of CWD does use 200.

My motivation for reviewing the spec was a failure that occurred
between a Symbolics LISPM Rel 6.1 FTP Client and a UNIX 4.3BSD FTP Server.
The UNIX server gives a positive response code of 200 for the DELE
command among others.  The Symbolics FTP server accepts only a 250 positive
response code.  On the other hand, the UNIX FTP client ignores the
response code completely.  I suspect that the UNIX implementation is
incorrect in not responding with the proper code; whereas, the Symbolics
implementation is too conservative in the response codes accepted.

--Glenn Adams