RFC (unknown status)
Some thoughts on file transfer. H. Brodie. October 1971. RFC250. (Format: TXT=2446 bytes) (Status: UNKNOWN) (DOI: 10.17487 / RFC250)
Network Working Group H. Brodie
Request for Comments #250 UCLA-NMC
NIC #7691 Computer Science
Categories: D5, D7 7 October 71
Some Thoughts on File Transfer
There are several aspects of the proposed Data Transfer Protocol (RFC
#171) and File Transfer Protocol (RFC #172) which we believe could
use further clarification and perhaps revision. Interest in
transferring larger amounts of data than is typically sent via the
usual TELNET connection is increasing, and at least at UCLA-NMC
implementation attempts have pointed out several difficulties with
the proposed protocols.
First, and probably most easily decided, is the ambiguity in RFC #171
with regards to the sequence number field of the descriptor and count
transaction. The description provided for the transaction header
provides for 16 bit sequence number. However, the sequence number
field in the error codes transaction only provides for 8 bits. We
are of the opinion that 8 bits is sufficient for a sequence number
field. If the sequence number is reduced to 8 bits, and the two NUL
bytes are deleted from the descriptor and count header, then its size
is reduced to 48 bits, which would seem to be as convenient to handle
as the proposed 72 bit transaction header.
Another source of difficulty lies in the implementation of the (the
SEX time-sharing system) the 'end' of a file (which presumably would
be the begin point of an Append transaction) is almost com- pletely
context-defined--i.e., the program reading the file determines when
it has reached the end of the file. Therefore, the meaning of
'Append' is somewhat hazy, and since the proposed Mail Box Protocol
uses the Append feature, not implementing this command in a File
Transfer service is costly in terms of lost useability.
We believe that resolution of these ambiguities will lead to a
greatly accelerated implementation schedule, at least here at UCLA-
[ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
[ into the online RFC archives by BBN Corp. under the ]
[ direction of Alex McKenzie. 12/96 ]
Java Enterprise Edition (EE)
Java Standard Edition (SE)
RFC (standard status)
RFC (proposed standard status)
RFC (draft standard status)
RFC (informational status)
RFC (experimental status)
RFC (best current practice status)
RFC (historic status)
RFC (unknown status)
All information of this service is derived from the free sources and is provided solely in the form of quotations.
This service provides information and interfaces solely for the familiarization (not ownership) and under the "as is" condition.
Copyright 2016 © ELTASK.COM. All rights reserved.
Site is optimized for mobile devices.
Downloads: 402 / 158764066. Delta: 0.02397 с