OpenSSH GSoC Project

[Jan Pechanec]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Damien Miller wrote:

>There are many ways to implement ACLs; I'm not sure whether draft 04's
>representation is sufficiently general. Moreover, I don't think sftp
>should really aspire to be a universal remote filesystem protocol - 

	it probably shouldn't and it very well could be the reason why the 
last version of the draft is from 2006.

>It condemns us to re-implement every feature of every filesystem and we
>already have NFS for that :)

	I agree with the yet-another filesystem protocol approach problem 
but for me personaly, ACLs with a file *transfer* are still OK because it 
could help to adopt the one common SFTP protocol version.

>> In general version 4 seems to make the protocol more system
>> independent (I guess that might be why 4 is implemented in apps used
>> on Win...).
>
>Yes, it added "text mode" transfers. This was one of the primary reasons
>that we stopped tracking newer versions of the drafts - "text mode"
>transfers are probably responsible for more corrupted files than all the
>bit-errors in the FTP protocol's life.

	ah, I see it now. I didn't know about that. Yeah, I always hated 
text mode transfers in FTP. My point was that if the version 4 could be a 
better candidate for the general consensus it might be worth it. 
Unfortunately the text mode is mandatory. On the other hand, if it's not the 
default transfer mode most people will not hit it and those who knows about 
it should know how to use it.

-- 
Jan Pechanec