RE: Latest sftp draft-draft...

[Richard Whalen <Whalenr%process.com@localhost>]

I think that's good.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Galbraith [mailto:galb-list%vandyke.com@localhost]
> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 11:35 AM
> To: Richard Whalen; ietf-ssh%netbsd.org@localhost
> Subject: Re: Latest sftp draft-draft...
> 
> 
> I suppose it might make implemenation easier.  It
> isn't really depreciated though, because using it
> undefined.  (There is no specification of what the
> structure would look like if it was specified.)
> 
> What I have done is move OWNERGROUP to the
> end and give it value 0x0000080, which leaves
> 0x00000002 undefined.  I added the following
> paragraph:
> 
>     In previous versions of this protocol flags value
>     0x00000002 was SSH_FILEXFER_ATTR_UIDGID.  This value
>     is now unused, and OWNERGROUP was given a new value
>     in order to ease implementation burden.  0x00000002
>     MUST NOT appear in the mask.  Some future version of
>     this protocol may reuse flag 0x00000002.
> 
> 
> Does this work for you?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - Joseph
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Whalen" <Whalenr%process.com@localhost>
> To: "'Joseph Galbraith'" <galb-list%vandyke.com@localhost>; 
> <ietf-ssh%netbsd.org@localhost>
> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 09:25
> Subject: RE: Latest sftp draft-draft...
> 
> 
> > I like the new text names for OWNER and GROUP, but I don't 
> think that we
> > should reuse the old UIDGID flag value since the 
> representation of the
> data
> > present has changed significantly.  I think a better choice 
> would be to
> > deprecate the UIDGID bit and use a previously unused on for 
> OWNERGROUP.
> >
> > ----------------------
> > Richard Whalen
> > Process Software
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>