Browse Prior Art Database

Comments on RFC 114: A File Transfer Protocol (RFC0141)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000002235D
Original Publication Date: 1971-Apr-29
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2003-Oct-28
Document File: 3 page(s) / 4K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

E. Harslem: AUTHOR [+2]

Abstract

1. A file transfer protocol is needed. Bushan's proposal would satisfy a particular current need that we have, as well as short-term envisioned needs.

This text was extracted from an ASCII text file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 66% of the total text.

Network Working Group E. F. Harslem

Request for Comments: 141 J. F. Haefner

NIC 6726 Rand

29 April 1971

COMMENTS ON RFC 141 (A FILE TRANSFER PROTOCOL)

1. A file transfer protocol is needed. Bushan's proposal would

satisfy a particular current need that we have, as well as short-term

envisioned needs.

2. Bushan's protocol would apear to be straight-forward in

implementation, and extensible as claimed.

3. We would like to see implementations of such protocol be

accomplished such that the file transfer program has general and

complete access to the local file storage. That is, it should be

able to access a file that it did not create. For example, if a

program or user creates a file at site X (completely independent of

the file transfer program), it would then be desirable to be able to

retrieve the file via the file transfer program. This is not a

requirement of RFC #114 but we would like to see it implemented where

possible.

4. Since implementation of a subset of transaction types is

specifically permitted, we suggest inclusion of the following

commands (in addition to append).

insert records within a file

delete records from within a file

replace records within a file

Although these operations are not directly supported under IBM

OS/360, we have used them with a non-standard file subsystem under

IBM OS/360 and find them quite useful.

5. In addition to retrieve and lookup, get names of files under my

access control would be useful.

6. The absence of status requests and responses is apparent.

Although this is typically a function associated with a remote job

entry (RJE) system, since the execute request is present it would

seem appropriate to inquire about the status of the process created

by the execute command. This becomes increasingly more important

where the execute is implemented as an RJE-like operation and

scheduling time of the job might be prolonged.

Harslem & Haefner [Page 1]

RFC 141 Comments on RFC 141 April 1971

7. When requesting execute, the using host sends parameters upon

receipt of the rr response. Executing a task can be implemented in

several ways. Th...