Re: clarifications for SFTP extensions draft

[Joseph Galbraith <galb-list%vandyke.com@localhost>]

denis bider wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> I feel that the SFTP extensions draft is in places
> underspecified.
> 
> [...]
> 
> How does the server advertise that it supports the "check
> file" extension? There are two possible request names:
> "check-file-name" and "check-file-handle". In the "supported2"
> VERSION extension, should the server advertise "check-file",
> "check-file-name", "check-file-handle", or a combination
> thereof? Does it make sense for the server to implement only
> check-file-name, but not also check-file-handle? (My
> preference - the server should advertise "check-file" and
> support both.)

I think I would put them both in-- it is the simplest most
straight forward way.  If you or someone else felt strongly
about it though, I'd be willing to specify the "check-file"
is the alias for both of these.

> Why does the "check file" reply include the string
> "check-file"? The format of SSH_FXP_EXTENDED_REPLY does not
> require any such string; the response should be traced back to
> the original request by ID. Also, no such extra string is
> specified for "space-available". However, there is such an
> extra string in the reply for "home-directory". Unless someone
> already has a fielded implementation, I suggest that we get
> rid of these while there is time.

Well, last time I did an extension w/o the string someone
(I don't recall) really really really really badly wanted
the string in the reply too...

I'm more than happy to take it out.  In fact, unless someone
screams bloody murder, I'm taking it out.

In fact, I've removed them from my local source, and also
specified the vendor-id thing in my local source.

Thanks,

Joseph