RFC 5797
FTP Command and Extension Registry
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) J. Klensin Request for Comments: 5797 Updates: 959 A. Hoenes Category: Standards Track TR-Sys ISSN: 2070-1721 March 2010 FTP Command and Extension RegistryAbstract
Every version of the FTP specification has added a few new commands, with the early ones summarized in RFC 959. RFC 2389 established a mechanism for specifying and negotiating FTP extensions. The number of extensions, both those supported by the mechanism and some that are not, continues to increase. An IANA registry of FTP Command and Feature names is established to reduce the likelihood of conflict of names and the consequent ambiguity. This specification establishes that registry. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5797. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2 2. Registry Definition .............................................2 2.1. Registry Name ..............................................2 2.2. Registry Format ............................................2 2.3. Criteria for Registration ..................................4 2.4. Base FTP Commands ..........................................5 2.5. Obsolete Commands ..........................................5 3. Initial Contents of Registry ....................................6 4. Acknowledgments .................................................8 5. IANA Considerations .............................................9 6. Security Considerations .........................................9 7. References ......................................................9 7.1. Normative References .......................................9 7.2. Informative References .....................................91. Introduction
Every version of the FTP specification has added a few new commands, with the early ones summarized in RFC 959 [RFC0959]. RFC 2389 [RFC2389] established a mechanism for specifying and negotiating extensions to the FTP protocol specified in RFC 959, by means of "FEAT Strings" identifying extensions supported by the FTP server, and sent in response to a "FEAT" command. The number of extensions continues to grow, not all of them supported by FEAT. An IANA registry is established to reduce the likelihood of a conflict of names and the consequent ambiguity and to encourage the sharing of information. This specification establishes that registry.2. Registry Definition
2.1. Registry Name
The name of this registry is "FTP Commands and Extensions".2.2. Registry Format
As specified in this RFC, IANA has established a registry for FTP commands and extensions. Registration requests and registry entries should include the following: Command Name - The FTP command, either new or modified, used in the extension or with which the extension is used. Following the long-standing practice to capitalize command names in specification documents for FTP, the command names are entered in all uppercase. For extensions amending the operation of a
command, a plus sign ("+") is appended to the command name.
However, if an extension affects the overall command parameter
handling and/or transaction processing, instead of being bound to
one command (or a small number of commands), the string "-N/A-" is
entered.
It is intended to have the registry entries ordered by ascending
ASCII collation order of this column (including the "+" suffix if
present).
Extension name - The name of the extension.
FTP extensions predating RFC 2389 [RFC2389], and some extensions
published after it, did not specify a keyword to identify the
extension in a FEAT response. Some later specifications
established FEAT strings with the respective command names as
their keywords. In order to provide for keywords for future
specifications in such cases, this document establishes
'placeholder' keywords to reserve reasonable feature names for
future standardization. Similarly, placeholder keywords are used
for the basic FTP commands specified in RFC 959 [RFC0959] and
those of its predecessors that are still in use. These
placeholder keywords are placed in the registry for convenience;
it is not intended that they be returned in FEAT responses.
To compensate for this idiosyncrasy, the column in the registry is
entitled "FEAT Code", and to clearly distinguish between the two
cases, defined FEAT keywords codes are listed in all uppercase,
whereas placeholder keywords (henceforth called "pseudo FEAT
codes") are listed in lowercase. Future specifications are
allowed to "upgrade" a placeholder to a true keyword unless it is
specifically declared 'immutable' below, but otherwise IANA
maintains uniqueness of feature names (FEAT codes) based on case-
insensitive comparison.
Description - A brief description of the extension and, where
appropriate, the command.
FEAT String - (optional in registration requests to IANA)
The string expected to be included in the response to the FEAT
command [RFC2389] if the extension is supported.
In many cases, the FEAT string required to identify an extension
only consists of the "FEAT Code", making this item redundant.
Therefore, this item should only be specified if it is intended to
register a FEAT string that contains mandatory elements other than
the "FEAT Code" itself.
Due to space restrictions, and to allow registrants to provide
additional information, IANA should present these registration
items (if given) in numbered footnotes to the table, not in an
additional table column.
Command Type - The type (or 'kind') of the command.
Section 4.1 of RFC 959 [RFC0959] introduced a subdivision of FTP
commands into three types: Access control, transfer Parameter
{setting}, and Service {execution}. For clarity, and as a service
to the user of the registry, this subdivision is extended to all
registered FTP commands, using the characteristic initial of the
type, 'a', 'p', or 's', respectively, filed in the registry column
titled "type"; combinations are allowed, e.g., 'p/s'.
Conformance Requirements - The support expectation for the command.
RFC 959 specifies mandatory-to-implement commands and optional
commands. This classification is carried over to all registered
commands, using a column titled "conf" carrying a single character
-- either 'm' or 'o', for "mandatory" and "optional",
respectively. Similarly, obsoleted or historic entries are left
in the registry to avoid conflicts with deployed implementations,
and these entries are marked with 'h' (for "historic").
Beyond the initial registrations, Standards Action [RFC5226] is
needed to register new "mandatory" entries or to move such entries
to "historic".
Reference - A reference to an RFC or other definition of the
extension and/or to implementations supporting it (see the next
section).
2.3. Criteria for Registration
This registry is primarily intended to avoid conflicting uses of the
same extension names and command keywords for different purposes, not
to demonstrate that an extension is somehow "approved". The "Expert
Review" method will be used, but the designated expert is expected to
check only that at least one of the two criteria that follow are met.
1. The extension is documented in a permanent and readily available
public specification (this is the same as the "Specification
Required" registration policy defined in RFC 5226 [RFC5226]).
2. The extension is actually implemented in FTP client and server
systems that are generally available (not necessarily either free
or unencumbered, but available).
For an extension or command to be marked "mandatory" ('m' in the
"conf" column), an IETF Standards Track specification is required.
An IESG Standards Action is allowed to direct IANA to change the
Conformance Requirements listed for any entry.
2.4. Base FTP Commands
The following commands are part of the base FTP specification
[RFC0959] and are listed in the registry with the immutable pseudo
FEAT code "base".
Mandatory commands:
ABOR, ACCT, ALLO, APPE, CWD, DELE, HELP, LIST, MODE, NLST, NOOP,
PASS, PASV, PORT, QUIT, REIN, REST, RETR, RNFR, RNTO, SITE, STAT,
STOR, STRU, TYPE, USER
Optional commands:
CDUP, MKD, PWD, RMD, SMNT, STOU, SYST
Note: STD 3 [RFC1123] clarified and updated the status and
implementation requirements of these standard FTP commands, and it
contains important complementary information for the following
commands:
LIST, NLST, PASV, REST, SITE, STOU
2.5. Obsolete Commands
The following commands were specified as experimental in an extension
to an early version of the FTP specification [RFC0775] but later
deprecated by RFC 1123 [RFC1123], because Standard FTP [RFC0959]
specifies their standard successors. They are listed in the registry
with the immutable pseudo FEAT code "hist".
XCUP, XCWD, XMKD, XPWD, XRMD
Implementation note: Deployed FTP clients still make use of the
deprecated commands and most FTP servers support them as aliases
for the standard commands.
The following commands were specified as part of the "FOOBAR" IPng
effort in RFC 1545 [RFC1545] and, later, RFC 1639 [RFC1639] and are
now obsolete. They are listed in the registry with the immutable
pseudo FEAT code "hist".
LPRT, LPSV
3. Initial Contents of Registry
As a service to users of the registry and the authors of existing specifications, all FTP commands and features published in RFCs after STD 3 [RFC1123] and up to the time of this writing were included in the registry upon creation. The following pseudo FEAT codes have been assigned, according to Section 2: base - FTP standard commands [RFC0959] hist - Historic experimental commands [RFC0775], [RFC1639] secu - FTP Security Extensions [RFC2228] feat - FTP Feature Negotiation [RFC2389] nat6 - FTP Extensions for NAT/IPv6 [RFC2428] +-------+------+-------------------+------+------+------------------+ | cmd | FEAT | description | type | conf | RFC#s/References | | | Code | | | | and Notes | +-------+------+-------------------+------+------+------------------+ | ABOR | base | Abort | s | m | 959 | | ACCT | base | Account | a | m | 959 | | ADAT | secu | Authentication/ | a | o | 2228, 2773, 4217 | | | | Security Data | | | | | ALLO | base | Allocate | s | m | 959 | | APPE | base | Append (with | s | m | 959 | | | | create) | | | | | AUTH | secu | Authentication/ | a | o | 2228 | | | | Security | | | | | | | Mechanism | | | | | AUTH+ | AUTH | Authentication/ | a | o | 2773, 4217 #2 | | | | Security | | | | | | | Mechanism | | | | | CCC | secu | Clear Command | a | o | 2228 | | | | Channel | | | | | CDUP | base | Change to Parent | a | o | 959 | | | | Directory | | | | | CONF | secu | Confidentiality | a | o | 2228 | | | | Protected Command | | | | | CWD | base | Change Working | a | m | 959 | | | | Directory | | | | | DELE | base | Delete File | s | m | 959 | | ENC | secu | Privacy Protected | a | o | 2228, 2773, 4217 | | | | Command | | | | | EPRT | nat6 | Extended Port | p | o | 2428 | | EPSV | nat6 | Extended Passive | p | o | 2428 | | | | Mode | | | |
| FEAT | feat | Feature | a | m #1 | 2389 |
| | | Negotiation | | | |
| HELP | base | Help | s | m | 959 |
| LANG | UTF8 | Language (for | p | o | 2640 |
| | | Server Messages) | | | |
| LIST | base | List | s | m | 959, 1123 |
| LPRT | hist | Data Port | p | h | 1545, 1639 |
| | | {FOOBAR} | | | |
| LPSV | hist | Passive Mode | p | h | 1545, 1639 |
| | | {FOOBAR} | | | |
| MDTM | MDTM | File Modification | s | o | 3659 |
| | | Time | | | |
| MIC | secu | Integrity | a | o | 2228, 2773, 4217 |
| | | Protected Command | | | |
| MKD | base | Make Directory | s | o | 959 |
| MLSD | MLST | List Directory | s | o | 3659 |
| | | (for machine) | | | |
| MLST | MLST | List Single | s | o | 3659 |
| | | Object | | | |
| MODE | base | Transfer Mode | p | m | 959 |
| NLST | base | Name List | s | m | 959, 1123 |
| NOOP | base | No-Op | s | m | 959 |
| OPTS | feat | Options | p | m #1 | 2389 |
| PASS | base | Password | a | m | 959 |
| PASV | base | Passive Mode | p | m | 959, 1123 |
| PBSZ | secu | Protection Buffer | p | o | 2228 |
| | | Size | | | |
| PBSZ+ | PBSZ | Protection Buffer | p | o | 4217 |
| | | Size | | | |
| PORT | base | Data Port | p | m | 959 |
| PROT | secu | Data Channel | p | o | 2228 |
| | | Protection Level | | | |
| PROT+ | PROT | Data Channel | p | o | 4217 |
| | | Protection Level | | | |
| PWD | base | Print Directory | s | o | 959 |
| QUIT | base | Logout | a | m | 959 |
| REIN | base | Reinitialize | a | m | 959 |
| REST | base | Restart | s/p | m | 959, 1123 |
| REST+ | REST | Restart (for | s/p | m | 3659 #3 |
| | | STREAM mode) | | | |
| RETR | base | Retrieve | s | m | 959 |
| RMD | base | Remove Directory | s | o | 959 |
| RNFR | base | Rename From | s/p | m | 959 |
| RNTO | base | Rename From | s | m | 959 |
| SITE | base | Site Parameters | s | m | 959, 1123 |
| SIZE | SIZE | File Size | s | o | 3659 |
| SMNT | base | Structure Mount | a | o | 959 |
| STAT | base | Status | s | m | 959 |
| STOR | base | Store | s | m | 959 | | STOU | base | Store Unique | a | o | 959, 1123 | | STRU | base | File Structure | p | m | 959 | | SYST | base | System | s | o | 959 | | TYPE | base | Representation | p | m | 959 #4 | | | | Type | | | | | USER | base | User Name | a | m | 959 | | XCUP | hist | {precursor for | s | h | 775, 1123 | | | | CDUP} | | | | | XCWD | hist | {precursor for | s | h | 775, 1123 | | | | CWD} | | | | | XMKD | hist | {precursor for | s | h | 775, 1123 | | | | MKD} | | | | | XPWD | hist | {precursor for | s | h | 775, 1123 | | | | PWD} | | | | | XRMD | hist | {precursor for | s | h | 775, 1123 | | | | RMD} | | | | | -N/A- | TVFS | Trivial Virtual | p | o | 3659 | | | | File Store | | | | +-------+------+-------------------+------+------+------------------+ Table 1 Notes: #1 While an IETF Standards Action would be required to make the FEAT mechanism [RFC2389] mandatory, implementation of that extension mechanism is clearly required in conjunction with any extension or feature that depends on it. #2 FEAT String for [RFC4217]: AUTH TLS FEAT String for [RFC2773]: AUTH KEA-SKIPJACK #3 FEAT String: REST STREAM #4 FEAT String: TYPE {semicolon-separated list of supported types}4. Acknowledgments
Any work to update or extend FTP depends on the base specification in RFC 959. The contributions of its editors, Jon Postel and Joyce Reynolds, are gratefully acknowledged. The option-negotiation mechanism specified in RFC 2389 (and the accumulation of features that followed it) made this registry relevant; the authors of those documents are acknowledged as well. Barry Leiba and Alexey Melnikov made several suggestions about earlier versions of this document, most of which have been incorporated. Anthony Bryan spotted a few typographical errors.
Scott Bradner suggested a clarification to the "Expert Review" text. The authors appreciate the comments and support for this work received from FTP implementers and many IETF participants. Comments from the IESG helped to shape this document and registry to improve its utility.5. IANA Considerations
IANA has established the registry described in Section 2 using the initial content specified in Section 3 and including the body of Sections 2.4 and 2.5 as explanatory text in the preface of the registry. New entries should be added to this registry when extensions to FTP are approved or defined in RFCs or when extensions that are already in use and well-documented are identified. In other words, the requirement for registration is a slightly relaxed version of "Specification Required" [RFC5226] with Expert Review. See Section 2.3 for specifics and exceptions.6. Security Considerations
The creation of this registry provides improved documentation and protection against interoperability problems. It introduces no new security issues.7. References
7.1. Normative References
[RFC0959] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "File Transfer Protocol", STD 9, RFC 959, October 1985. [RFC2389] Hethmon, P. and R. Elz, "Feature negotiation mechanism for the File Transfer Protocol", RFC 2389, August 1998. [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226, May 2008.7.2. Informative References
[RFC0775] Mankins, D., Franklin, D., and A. Owen, "Directory oriented FTP commands", RFC 775, December 1980. [RFC1123] Braden, R., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, October 1989.
[RFC1545] Piscitello, D., "FTP Operation Over Big Address Records (FOOBAR)", RFC 1545, November 1993. [RFC1639] Piscitello, D., "FTP Operation Over Big Address Records (FOOBAR)", RFC 1639, June 1994. [RFC2228] Horowitz, M., "FTP Security Extensions", RFC 2228, October 1997. [RFC2428] Allman, M., Ostermann, S., and C. Metz, "FTP Extensions for IPv6 and NATs", RFC 2428, September 1998. [RFC2773] Housley, R. and P. Yee, "Encryption using KEA and SKIPJACK", RFC 2773, February 2000. [RFC4217] Ford-Hutchinson, P., "Securing FTP with TLS", RFC 4217, October 2005.Authors' Addresses
John C Klensin 1770 Massachusetts Ave, Ste 322 Cambridge, MA 02140 USA Phone: +1 617 245 1457 EMail: john+ietf@jck.com Alfred Hoenes TR-Sys Gerlinger Str. 12 Ditzingen D-71254 Germany EMail: ah@TR-Sys.de