Subject: [apps-discuss] more editing questions

From: Anthony Bryan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 03:41:51 -0500

RFC 5854 describes the Metalink/XML format but it only has the barest normative
requirements for clients - but not all, hence this new draft on clients.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryan-metalink-client

what's the best way to call attention to these, just quote them outright?

"RFC 5854 introduced these requirements for Metalink clients, which
are still in effect..."?

we're not updating any requirements from RFC 5854, just adding more,
but we'd like them all in the same place.

we also have the FTP RANG command to specify a byte range. we use this
with the HASH command, for partial file hashing.

inside the RANG ID, we specify how it works with RETR & STOR (section
4) as well. RANG is well solidified on it's own, but we're still
working on section 4.

my question is, should we split section 4 into a separate ID so
there's just RANG on it's own, with HASH and a "RANG with RETR/STOR"
both depending on it. that seems like it would make RANG on it's own
more simple.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryan-ftp-range
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bryan-ftpext-hash

thanks,
--
(( Anthony Bryan ... Metalink [ http://www.metalinker.org ]
  )) Easier, More Reliable, Self Healing Downloads