Re: lynx-dev RFC959 non-compliance in Lynx hangs the client

[Gregory A Lundberg]

On Fri, Sep 10, 1999 at 03:38:18PM -0500, Klaus Weide wrote:

> To answer the question, even though it's probably rhetorical:

Yes it was rhetorical, and your answer is what I'd have hoped.

> > Any client which issues a PORT command but is not ready to accept the
> > connection is hopelessly broken.
> 
> I assume you mean "accept the connection _after_ the next retrieval
> command.  I also assume with "accept" you mean something more than having
> called accept() [?]
> 
> How many clients do you know that are hopelessly broken according to this
> definition?  How many that are not hopelessly broken?  

No, I meant being ready to have the initial triple-handshake occur at any
time after sending the PORT; which to me means having created the socket,
bound it if needed, and issued an accept.

Every client I've ever tested was capable of establishing the data
connection when it issued the PORT command.  Which makes sense, since you'd
have to go through the work before sending the command in order to have the
proper port number.

I'm sure one could postulate an implementation which selected the port
number in the application, and sent that port number in a PORT, but had not
yet initialized the TCP stack to a point the connection could be
established.  I've never seen one.  It would require the application being
able to reserve the port number for its use without actually preparing the
port in the TCP stack.  I've just never seen such.

-- 

Gregory A Lundberg              WU-FTPD Development Group
1441 Elmdale Drive              address@hidden
Kettering, OH 45409-1615 USA    1-800-809-2195

pgpXeg4MqWCec.pgp
Description: PGP signature