Re: avoiding reinventing the wheel on file transfer.

[Barney Wolff <barney%databus.com@localhost>]

Easy for the initial listen, not so easy for the data conn(s).
But as I've been corrected, the proposal is to reuse the protocol,
not the intact ftpd.

On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 06:21:04PM -0800, Jason R Thorpe wrote:
> 
> This seems like an implementation issue.  An implementation could
> certainly choose to hack ftpd to run on a channel created by sshd
> (rather than one created by inetd).
> 
>  > 2.  The two-connection model for file transfer has not, in retrospect,
>  > worked out well.  (IMHO)
> 
> Passive mode?

Still clumsy.  The sync issues on aborting a transfer, for example.
Third-party transfers.

The historical motivations for using a separate data channel no
longer apply.  Again, imho.

But I surely do believe in KISS.  Bells and whistles, if any, belong
in shareware clients.

Barney Wolff