[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Errata]
Errata Exist
NWG/RFC# 640 JBP NJN 5-JUN-74 16:07 30843
Revised FTP Reply Codes
Jon Postel
19 JUN 75
Revised FTP Reply Codes 1
This document describes a revised set of reply codes for the File
Transfer Protocol. 2
The aim of this revision is to satisfy the goal of using reply
codes to enable the command issuing process to easily determine
the outcome of each command. The user protocol interpreter should
be able to determine the success or failure of a command by
examining the first digit of the reply code. 3
An important change in the sequencing of commands and replies
which may not be obvious in the following documents concerns the
establishment of the data connection. 4
In the previous FTP specifications when an actual transfer
command (STOR, RETR, APPE, LIST, NLIST, MLFL) was issued the
preliminary reply was sent after the data connection was
established. This presented a problem for some user protocol
interpreters which had difficulty monitoring two connections
asynchronously. 4a
The current specification is that the preliminary reply to the
actual transfer commands indicates that the file can be
transferred and either the connection was previously
established or an attempt is about to be made to establish the
data connection. 4b
This reply code revision is a modification of the protocol in
described in RFC 542, that is to say that the protocol
implementation associated with socket number 21 (decimal) is the
protocol specified by the combination of RFC 542 and this RFC. 5
A note of thanks to those who contributed to this work: Ken
Pogran, Mark Krilanovich, Wayne Hathway, and especially Nancy
Neigus. 6
NWG/RFC# 640 JBP NJN 5-JUN-74 16:07 30843
Nancy Neigus
Ken Pogran
Jon Postel
19 JUN 75
A New Schema for FTP Reply Codes 7
Replies to File Transfer Protocol commands were devised to ensure
the synchronization of requests and actions in the process of
file transfer, and to guarantee that the user process always
knows the state of the Server. Every command must generate at
least one reply, although there may be more than one; in the
latter case, the multiple replies must be easily distinguished.
In addition, some commands occur in sequential groups, such as
USER, PASS and ACCT, or RNFR and RNTO. The replies show the
existence of an intermediate state if all preceding commands have
been successful. A failure at any point in the sequence
necessitates the repetition of the entire sequence from the
beginning. 8
Details of the command-reply sequence will be made explicit in
a state diagram. 8a
An FTP reply consists of a three digit number (transmitted as
three alphanumeric characters) followed by some text. The number
is intended for use by automata to determine what state to enter
next; the text is intended for the human user. It is intended
that the three digits contain enough encoded information that the
user-process (the User-PI described in RFC 542) will not need to
examine the text and may either discard it or pass it on to the
user, as appropriate. In particular, the text may be
server-dependent, so there are likely to be varying texts for
each reply code. 9
Formally, a reply is defined to contain the 3-digit code,
followed by Space <SP>, followed by one line of text (where some
maximum line length has been specified), and terminated by the
TELNET end-of-line code. There will be cases, however, where the
text is longer than a single line. In these cases the complete
text must be bracketed so the User-process knows when it may stop
reading the reply (i.e. stop processing input on the TELNET
connection) and go do other things. This requires a special
format on the first line to indicate that more than one line is
coming, and another on the last line to designate it as the last.
At least one of these must contain the appropriate reply code to
NWG/RFC# 640 JBP NJN 5-JUN-74 16:07 30843
Neigus FTP Reply Codes [3]
indicate the state of the transaction. To satisfy all factions
it was decided that both the first and last line codes should be
the same. 10
Thus the format for multi-line replies is that the first line
will begin with the exact required reply code, followed
immediately by a Hyphen, "-" (also known as Minus), followed
by text. The last line will begin with the same code,
followed immediately by Space <SP>, optionally some text, and
TELNET <eol>. 10a
For example:
123-First line
Second line
234 A line beginning with numbers
123 The last line 10a1
The user-process then simply needs to search for the second
occurrence of the same reply code, followed by <SP> (Space),
at the beginning of a line, and ignore all intermediary lines.
If an intermediary line begins with a 3-digit number, the
Server must pad the front to avoid confusion. 10b
This scheme allows standard system routines to be used for
reply information (such as for the STAT reply), with
"artificial" first and last lines tacked on. In the rare
cases where these routines are able to generate three
digits and a Space at the beginning of any line, the
beginning of each text line should be offset by some
neutral text, like Space. 10b1
This scheme assumes that multi-line replies may not be nested.
We have found that, in general, nesting of replies will not
occur, except for random system messages (called spontaneous
replies in the previous FTP incarnations) which may interrupt
another reply. Spontaneous replies are no longer defined;
system messages (i.e. those not processed by the FTP server)
will NOT carry reply codes and may occur anywhere in the
command-reply sequence. They may be ignored by the
User-process as they are only information for the human user. 10c
The three digits of the reply each have a special significance.
This is intended to allow a range of very simple to very
sophisticated response by the user-process. The first digit
denotes whether the response is good, bad or incomplete.
(Referring to the state diagram) an unsophisticated user-process
will be able to determine its next action (proceed as planned,
redo, retrench, etc.) by simply examining this first digit. A
user-process that wants to know approximately what kind of error
NWG/RFC# 640 JBP NJN 5-JUN-74 16:07 30843
Neigus FTP Reply Codes [4]
occurred (e.g. file system error, command syntax error) may
examine the second digit, reserving the third digit for the
finest gradation of information (e.g. RNTO command without a
preceding RNFR.) 11
There are four values for the first digit of the reply code: 11a
1yz Positive Preliminary reply 11b
The requested action is being initiated; expect another
reply before proceeding with a new command. (The
user-process sending another command before the completion
reply would be in violation of protocol; but server-FTP
processes should queue any commands that arrive while a
preceeding command is in progress.) This type of reply can
be used to indicate that the command was accepted and the
user-process may now pay attention to the data connections,
for implementations where simultaneous monitoring is
difficult. 11b1
2yz Positive Completion reply 11c
The requested action has been successfully completed. A
new request may be initiated. 11c1
3yz Positive Intermediate reply 11d
The command has been accepted, but the requested action is
being held in abeyance, pending receipt of further
information. The user should send another command
specifying this information. This reply is used in command
sequence groups. 11d1
4yz Transient Negative Completion reply 11e
The command was not accepted and the requested action did
not take place, but the error condition is temporary and
the action may be requested again. The user should return
to the beginning of the command sequence, if any. It is
difficult to assign a meaning to "transient", particularly
when two distinct sites (Server and User-processes) have to
agree on the interpretation. Each reply in the 4yz
category might have a slightly different time value, but
the intent is that the user-process is encouraged to try
again. A rule of thumb in determining if a reply fits into
the 4yz or the 5yz (Permanent Negative) category is that
replies are 4yz if the commands can be repeated without any
change in command form or in properties of the User or
Server (e.g. the command is spelled the same with the same
NWG/RFC# 640 JBP NJN 5-JUN-74 16:07 30843
Neigus FTP Reply Codes [5]
arguments used; the user does not change his file access or
user name; the server does not put up a new
implementation.) 11e1
5yz Permanent Negative Completion reply 11f
The command was not accepted and the requested action did
not take place. The User-process is discouraged from
repeating the exact request (in the same sequence). Even
some "permanent" error conditions can be corrected, so the
human user may want to direct his User-process to
reinitiate the command sequence by direct action at some
point in the future (e.g. after the spelling has been
changed, or the user has altered his directory status.) 11f1
The following function groupings are encoded in the second
digit: 11g
x0z Syntax - These replies refer to syntax errors,
syntactically correct commands that don't fit any
functional category, unimplemented or superfluous
commands. 11g1
x1z Information - These are replies to requests for
information, such as status or help. 11g2
x2z Connections - Replies referring to the TELNET and
data connections. 11g3
x3z Authentication and accounting - Replies for the logon
process and accounting procedures. 11g4
x4z Unspecified as yet 11g5
x5z File system - These replies indicate the status of
the Server file system vis-a-vis the requested
transfer or other file system action. 11g6
The third digit gives a finer gradation of meaning in each of
the function categories, specified by the second digit. The
list of replies below will illustrate this. Note that the
text associated with each reply is suggestive, rather than
mandatory, and may even change according to the command with
which it is associated. The reply codes, on the other hand,
should strictly follow the specifications in the last section;
that is, Server implementations should not invent new codes
for situations that are only slightly different from the ones
described here, but rather should adapt codes already defined.
NWG/RFC# 640 JBP NJN 5-JUN-74 16:07 30843
Neigus FTP Reply Codes [6]
If additional codes are found to be necessary, the details
should be submitted to the FTP committee, through Jon Postel. 11h
A command such as TYPE or ALLO whose successful execution
does not offer the user-process any new information will
cause a 200 reply to be returned. If the command is not
implemented by a particular Server-FTP process because it
has no relevance to that computer system, for example ALLO
at a TENEX site, a Positive Completion reply is still
desired so that the simple User-process knows it can
proceed with its course of action. A 202 reply is used in
this case with, for example, the reply text: "No storage
allocation necessary." If, on the other hand, the command
requests a non-site-specific action and is unimplemented,
the response is 502. A refinement of that is the 504 reply
for a command that IS implemented, but that requests an
unimplemented parameter. 11h1
11i
200 Command okay 11i1
500 Syntax error, command unrecognized
[This may include errors such as command line too
long.] 11i2
501 Syntax error in parameters or arguments 11i3
202 Command not imlemented, superfluous at this site. 11i4
502 Command not implemented 11i5
503 Bad sequence of commands 11i6
504 Command not implemented for that parameter 11i7
11j
110 Restart marker reply.
In this case the text is exact and not left to the
particular implementation; it must read:
MARK yyyy = mmmm
where yyyy is User-process data stream marker, and
mmmm is Server's equivalent marker. (note the
spaces between the markers and "=".) 11j1
211 System status, or system help reply 11j2
212 Directory status 11j3
213 File status 11j4
214 Help message (on how to use the server or the meaning
of a particular non-standard command. This reply
is useful only to the human user.) 11j5
11k
120 Service ready in nnn minutes 11k1
220 Service ready for new user 11k2
221 Service closing TELNET connection (logged off if
appropriate) 11k3
421 Service not available, closing TELNET connection.
[This may be a reply to any command if the service
knows it must shut down.] 11k4
NWG/RFC# 640 JBP NJN 5-JUN-74 16:07 30843
Neigus FTP Reply Codes [7]
125 Data connection already open; transfer starting 11k5
225 Data connection open; no transfer in progress 11k6
425 Can't open data connection 11k7
226 Closing data connection; requested file action
successful (for example, file transfer or file
abort.) 11k8
426 Connection trouble, closed; transfer aborted. 11k9
227 Entering [passive, active] mode 11k10
11l
230 User logged on, proceed 11l1
530 Not logged in 11l2
331 User name okay, need password 11l3
332 Need account for login 11l4
532 Need account for storing files 11l5
11m
150 File status okay; about to open data connection. 11m1
250 Requested file action okay, completed. 11m2
350 Requested file action pending further information 11m3
450 Requested file action not taken: file unavailable
(e.g. file not found, no access) 11m4
550 Requested action not taken: file unavailable (e.g.
file busy) 11m5
451 Requested action aborted: local error in processing 11m6
452 Requested action not taken: insufficient storage
space in system 11m7
552 Requested file action aborted: exceeded storage
allocation (for current directory or dataset) 11m8
553 Requested action not taken: file name not allowed 11m9
354 Start mail input; end with <CR><LF>.<CR><LF> 11m10
Command-Reply Sequences 12
In this section, the command-reply sequence is presented. Each
command is listed with its possible replies; command groups are
listed together. Preliminary replies are listed first (with
their succeeding replies under them), then positive and negative
completion, and finally intermediary replies with the remaining
commands from the sequence following. This listing forms the
basis for the state diagrams, which will be presented separately. 13
ICP 13a
120 13a1
220 13a1a
220 13a2
421 13a3
NWG/RFC# 640 JBP NJN 5-JUN-74 16:07 30843
Neigus FTP Reply Codes [8]
Logon 13b
USER 13b1
230 13b1a
530 13b1b
500, 501, 421 13b1c
331, 332 13b1d
PASS 13b2
230 13b2a
202 13b2b
530 13b2c
500, 501, 503, 421 13b2d
332 13b2e
ACCT 13b3
230 13b3a
202 13b3b
530 13b3c
500, 501, 503, 421 13b3d
Logoff 13c
QUIT 13c1
221 13c1a
500 13c1b
REIN 13c2
120 13c2a
220 13c2a1
220 13c2b
421 13c2c
500, 502 13c2d
Transfer parameters 13d
SOCK 13d1
200 13d1a
500, 501, 421, 530 13d1b
PASV 13d2
227 13d2a
500, 501, 502, 421, 530 13d2b
ACTV 13d3
227 13d3a
202 13d3b
500, 501, 421, 530 13d3c
BYTE, MODE, TYPE, STRU 13d4
200 13d4a
500, 501, 504, 421, 530 13d4b
NWG/RFC# 640 JBP NJN 5-JUN-74 16:07 30843
Neigus FTP Reply Codes [9]
File action commands 13e
ALLO 13e1
200 13e1a
202 13e1b
500, 501, 504, 421, 530 13e1c
REST 13e2
500, 501, 502, 421, 530 13e2a
350 13e2b
STOR 13e3
125, 150 13e3a
(110) 13e3a1
226, 250 13e3a2
425, 426, 451, 552 13e3a3
532, 450, 452, 553 13e3b
500, 501, 421, 530 13e3c
RETR 13e4
125, 150 13e4a
(110) 13e4a1
226, 250 13e4a2
425, 426, 451 13e4a3
450, 550 13e4b
500, 501, 421, 530 13e4c
LIST, NLST 13e5
125, 150 13e5a
226, 250 13e5a1
425, 426, 451 13e5a2
450 13e5b
500, 501, 502, 421, 530 13e5c
APPE 13e6
125, 150 13e6a
(110) 13e6a1
226, 250 13e6a2
425, 426, 451, 552 13e6a3
532, 450, 550, 452, 553 13e6b
500, 501, 502, 421, 530 13e6c
MLFL 13e7
125, 150 13e7a
226, 250 13e7a1
425, 426, 451, 552 13e7a2
532, 450, 550, 452, 553 13e7b
500, 501, 502, 421, 530 13e7c
RNFR 13e8
450, 550 13e8a
500, 501, 502, 421, 530 13e8b
350 13e8c
RNTO 13e9
250 13e9a
532, 553 13e9b
NWG/RFC# 640 JBP NJN 5-JUN-74 16:07 30843
Neigus FTP Reply Codes [10]
500, 501, 502, 503, 421, 530 13e9c
DELE 13e10
250 13e10a
450, 550 13e10b
500, 501, 502, 421, 530 13e10c
ABOR 13e11
225, 226 13e11a
500, 501, 502, 421 13e11b
MAIL 13e12
354 13e12a
250 13e12a1
451, 552 13e12a2
450, 550, 452, 553 13e12b
500, 501, 502, 421, 530 13e12c
Informational commands 13f
STAT 13f1
211, 212, 213 13f1a
450 13f1b
500, 501, 502, 421, 530 13f1c
HELP 13f2
211, 214 13f2a
500, 501, 502, 421 13f2b
Miscellaneous commands 13g
SITE 13g1
200 13g1a
202 13g1b
500, 501, 530 13g1c
NOOP 13g2
200 13g2a
500 13g2b
NWG/RFC# 640 JBP NJN 5-JUN-74 16:07 30843
Jon Postel
19 JUN 75
FTP State Diagrams 14
Here we present state diagrams for a very simple minded FTP
implementation. Only the first digit of the reply codes is used.
There is one state diagram for each group of FTP commands or
command sequences. 15
The command groupings were determined by constructing a model for
each command then collecting together the commands with
structurally identical models. 16
For each command or command sequence there are three possible
outcomes: success (S), failure (F), and error (E). In the state
diagrams below we use the symbol B for "begin", and the symbol W
for "wait for reply". 17
We first present the diagram that represents the largest group of
FTP commands: 18
1,3 +---+
----------->! E !
! +---+
!
+---+ cmd +---+ 2 +---+
! B !---------->! W !---------->! S !
+---+ +---+ +---+
!
! 4,5 +---+
----------->! F !
+---+
18a
This diagram models the commands: 18b
ABOR, ACTV, ALLO, BYTE, DELE, HELP, MODE, NOOP, PASV, QUIT,
SITE, SOCK, STAT, STRU, TYPE. 18b1
NWG/RFC# 640 JBP NJN 5-JUN-74 16:07 30843
Postel FTP State Diagrams [12]
The other large group of commands is represented by a very
similar diagram: 19
3 +---+
----------->! E !
! +---+
!
+---+ cmd +---+ 2 +---+
! B !---------->! W !---------->! S !
+---+ --->+---+ +---+
! ! !
! ! ! 4,5 +---+
! 1 ! ----------->! F !
----- +---+
19a
This diagram models the commands: 19b
APPE, (ICP), LIST, MLFL, NLST, REIN, RETR, STOR. 19b1
Note that this second model could also be used to represent the
first group of commands, the only difference being that in the
first group the 100 series replies are unexpected and therefore
treated as error, while the second group expects (some may
require) 100 series replies. 20
The remaining diagrams model command sequences, perhaps the
simplest of these is the rename sequence: 21
+---+ RNFR +---+ 1,2 +---+
! B !---------->! W !---------->! E !
+---+ +---+ -->+---+
! ! !
3 ! ! 4,5 !
-------------- ------ !
! ! ! +---+
! ------------->! S !
! ! 1,3 ! ! +---+
! 2! --------
! ! ! !
V ! ! !
+---+ RNTO +---+ 4,5 ----->+---+
! !---------->! W !---------->! F !
+---+ +---+ +---+
21a
NWG/RFC# 640 JBP NJN 5-JUN-74 16:07 30843
Postel FTP State Diagrams [13]
A very similar diagram models the Mail command: 22
+---+ MAIL +---+ 1,2 +---+
! B !---------->! W !---------->! E !
+---+ +---+ -->+---+
! ! !
3 ! ! 4,5 !
-------------- ------ !
! ! ! +---+
! ------------->! S !
! ! 1,3 ! ! +---+
! 2! --------
! ! ! !
V ! ! !
+---+ text +---+ 4,5 ----->+---+
! !---------->! W !---------->! F !
+---+ +---+ +---+
22a
Note that the "text" here is a series of lines sent from the
user to the server with no response expected until the last
line is sent, recall that the last line must consist only of a
single period. 22b
NWG/RFC# 640 JBP NJN 5-JUN-74 16:07 30843
Postel FTP State Diagrams [14]
The next diagram is a simple model of the Restart command: 23
+---+ REST +---+ 1,2 +---+
! B !---------->! W !---------->! E !
+---+ +---+ -->+---+
! ! !
3 ! ! 4,5 !
-------------- ------ !
! ! ! +---+
! ------------->! S !
! ! 3 ! ! +---+
! 2! --------
! ! ! !
V ! ! !
+---+ cmd +---+ 4,5 ----->+---+
! !---------->! W !---------->! F !
+---+ -->+---+ +---+
! !
! 1 !
------
23a
Where "cmd" is APPE, STOR, RETR, or MLFL. 23a1
We note that the above three models are similar, in fact the Mail
diagram and the Rename diagram are structurally identical. The
Restart differs from the other two only in the treatment of 100
series replies at the second stage. 24
NWG/RFC# 640 JBP NJN 5-JUN-74 16:07 30843
Postel FTP State Diagrams [15]
The most complicated diagram is for the Logon sequence: 25
1
+---+ USER +---+------------->+---+
! B !---------->! W ! 2 ---->! E !
+---+ +---+------ ! -->+---+
! ! ! ! !
3 ! ! 4,5 ! ! !
-------------- ----- ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! --------- !
! 1! ! ! !
V ! ! ! !
+---+ PASS +---+ 2 ! ------>+---+
! !---------->! W !------------->! S !
+---+ +---+ ---------->+---+
! ! ! ! !
3 ! !4,5! ! !
-------------- -------- !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! -----------
! 1,3! ! ! !
V ! 2! ! !
+---+ ACCT +---+-- ! ----->+---+
! !---------->! W ! 4,5 -------->! F !
+---+ +---+------------->+---+
25a
NWG/RFC# 640 JBP NJN 5-JUN-74 16:07 30843
Postel FTP State Diagrams [16]
Finally we present a generalized diagram that could be used to
model the command and reply interchange: 26
------------------------------------
! !
Begin ! !
! V !
! +---+ cmd +---+ 2 +---+ !
-->! !------->! !---------->! ! !
! ! ! W ! ! S !-----!
-->! ! -->! !----- ! ! !
! +---+ ! +---+ 4,5 ! +---+ !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! 1! !3 ! +---+ !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ---- ! ---->! F !-----
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! +---+
-------------------
!
!
V
End
26a
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/
