OpenRFC.org Requests For Comments ... for the community
Welcome to OpenRFC
Home Full RFC index RFC humour Our technology
 
RFC 238
Comments on DTP and FTP proposals.
R.T. Braden. September 1971.

 
[Direct link][Download PDF version][Download text version]
 

Network Working Group R. T. Braden Request for Comments #238 UCLA-CCN NIC #7663 September 29, 1971 Category: Updates: RFC #171, RFC #172 COMMENTS ON DTP AND FTP PROPOSALS Data Transfer Protocol ---------------------- 1. In the Descriptor/Count mode, the Information Separators should have a transaction sequence number field. Otherwise, the receiver cannot be sure he received all transactions before the separation. This requires that there be two forms of information separators, one for Descriptor/Count mode, the other for the DLE mode. 2. The modes-available handshake should not be mandatory, as it makes no sense in the simplex case. The receiver doesn't care what modes the transmitter _might_ use; he only cares what mode _is_ used, which he discovers when the first data or control transaction arrives. Even in the duplex case, it is not clear what use the receiver should make of the modes-available information from the transmitter. File Transfer Protocol ---------------------- 1. The protocol allows an end-of-file to be indicated by closing the connection. This is the same mistake which we made in an early version of NETRJS. Closing the connection without a File Separator transaction should only be used to indicate an error, i.e., to abort the transmission; it should never be used to indicate normal completion of file transfer. The reason is obvious: there is no way for the receiver to tell whether CLS indicates normal completion or an abnormal condition in the other host (e.g. the file transfer program died). 2. There should be two forms of the _store_ request, one which fails if a file of the same name already exists, and one which replaces an existing file of the same name (as now). 3. A service center host may be expected to require username and password transactions before any others are accepted. 4. There are no error transactions defined for lost data or lost synch. It is assumed there are handled at the DTP level? 5. All of the defined error codes should be allowed (and encouraged) to have explanatory text following them. [Page 1]
RTB:gjm [ 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 ] [Page 2]

   

[Home] [Full RFC index] [RFC humour] [Our technology]

Copyright © Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.  All rights reserved.
All trademarks and RFC contents are the property of their respective owners.