Browse Prior Art Database

Some Experience with File Transfer (RFC0269)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000003282D
Original Publication Date: 1971-Dec-06
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-13
Document File: 3 page(s) / 6K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

H. Brodie: AUTHOR

Abstract

At UCLA-NMC we have recently completed implementation of a program which utilizes UCSB's storage capability via their Simple Minded File System (See RFC #122 by Jim White for a description of SMFS). The use of the program is detailed in Appendix A.

This text was extracted from a ASCII Text document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 52% of the total text.

Network Working Group H. Brodie

Request for Comments #269 UCLA-NMC

NIC # 7817 6 December 71

Categories: File Transfer

Updates: 122, 238, 172

Obsoletes: None

Some Experience with File Transfer

At UCLA-NMC we have recently completed implementation of a program which

utilizes UCSB's storage capability via their Simple Minded File System

(See RFC #122 by Jim White for a description of SMFS). The use of the

program is detailed in Appendix A.

We learned a number of things in the implementation effort and

subsequent usage. We think a number of these apply towards the

development of a net- word-wide File Transfer Protocol, and we hope to

stimulate further dis- cussion of these issues. We discovered some

things in the UCSB protocol that we would like to see included in the

network-wide protocol, and we see some things that are in the currently

proposed net protocol and are unfortunately absent from the UCSB

protocol.

In the first category, is the UCSB file retrieval procedure. The user

specifies among other things, a bit count of the number of bits to be

retrieved in the current request.

Successive RTF commands yield successive pieces of the file. Portions

of the file can be spaced over by use of the SPF command. We think that

the ability of the user to specify the size of the "chunks" of the file

he is about to receive, along with the ability to access any part of the

file without having to get the entire file, is definitely an advantage.

It makes the user programs easier to write since the problem of parsing

the input stream virtually disappears, as the user program knows exactly

what to expect at all times. In addition, the one request, one response

nature of the protocol avoids the problem of sending a request and then

receiving pieces of data of unpredictable size at unknown intervals.

The response to each RTF gives the comforting knowledge that "they're

still listening". This leads us to believe that there is much to be

gained by the adoption of a one request, one response type of protocol.

We might point out that for any significant file transfer, this does not

seriously cut down on the overall data transfer rate, since a

"defaulting" type of approach, as SMFS uses can be used to keep the

request messages very small. We also have found the mandatory password

scheme of UCSB quite easily used, and any server site, (i.e. a site

specifically advertising file storage) can reasonably be expected, in

our opinion, to require passwords (see also RFC #238 by R. Braden).

Network Working Group H. Brodie

Request for Comments #269 UCLA-NMC

NIC #7817 6 December 71

Almost immediately after starting to use SMFS we found a serious lack in

one area. There is no way for a user to ask "what files do I have

there?" As a matter of fact, the author suspects that there ar...