Subject: Ftp-WG: FTP over SSL

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:01:33 -0500

> At 05:52 AM 8/7/2001, you wrote:
> >The ftp/ssl draft has been around now since 1997 and I feel it is time to
> >ask for it to be put onto Standards Track.
> >
> >(see http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-murray-auth-ftp-ssl-07.txt)
> >
> >Do people on these lists have strong views on this ?  I am struggling to
> >find a path through the IETF processes for putting individual submissions
> >onto Standards Track, so I'd love to know what others did.
> 
> I may have missed the wording, and certainly I don't have a copy in front 
> of me right now, but it seems somewhat ambiguous whether the data socket in 
> a protected transfer is terminated by simply closing the socket, or whether 
> the sender should try to close the SSL session first, and then close the 
> socket.  The client I've tried against simply closes the socket.

To be compatible with TLS it must try to close the TLS session first.

 Jeffrey Altman * Sr.Software Designer      C-Kermit 8.0 Beta available
 The Kermit Project @ Columbia University   includes Secure Telnet and FTP
 http://www.kermit-project.org/             using Kerberos, SRP, and 
 [email-masked]          OpenSSL.  SSH soon to follow.

---

From: Paul Ford-Hutchinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 08:47:56 -0500

>  [email-masked]          OpenSSL.  SSH soon to follow.

Well, the draft is silent on this issue (to be honest I hadn't even
thought about it). 

Jeffrey is correct, however I'm not sure what the implication of the
server getting a killed data connection without a close_notify alert
actually is, and what it can do about it other than carry on regardless. 

Does the draft need to explicitly state behaviour in such cases ?  I am
happy to think about it and add it, but I'm not sure exactly what we
would gain.

Cheers,
Paul (using this id for this week in London)