Browse Prior Art Database

FTP comments and response to RFC 430 (RFC0463)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000003612D
Original Publication Date: 1973-Feb-21
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-13
Document File: 2 page(s) / 5K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

A.K. Bhushan: AUTHOR

Abstract

Most of the comments in RFC 430 by Bob Braden are useful suggestions which should be included in the forthcoming official FTP specification. This RFC represents my response to Braden's comments and other views. These comments should be useful for the FTP meeting on March 16 at BBN (announcement warning AAM NIC #14417). The results of the FTP subgroup meeting held at BBN on January 25 will be published in RFC 4541 (are published?).

This text was extracted from a ASCII document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 51% of the total text.

Network Working Group Abhay K. Bhushan

RFC # 463 MIT-DMCG

NIC # 14573 February 21, 1973

FTP Comments and Response to RFC 430

Most of the comments in RFC 430 by Bob Braden are useful suggestions

which should be included in the forthcoming official FTP specification.

This RFC represents my response to Braden's comments and other views.

These comments should be useful for the FTP meeting on March 16 at BBN

(announcement warning AAM NIC #14417). The results of the FTP subgroup

meeting held at BBN on January 25 will be published in RFC 4541 (are

published?).

SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO RFC 430.

Item A1 - I will let Bob Braden handle the "print file" issues (the

"still" should be removed).

Item A2 - I agree that concessions are undesirable and should be

removed unless people cannot "live" without them.

Item A3 - I strongly support "bit flag coding" for descriptors.

Other definition improvement suggestions are ok too.

Item A4 - The diagram was useful. An alternate one is given on page

17 of RFC 454. I prefer the latter.

Item A5 - The FTP may not be privileged enough to alter passwords

in many Host systems (e.g. Multics). I know that CCN allows changing

passwords on-line. We can define a format for changing passwords in

the pass command, but I don't think we can require that all servers

allow password changing. This is a minor problem that can be easily

solved.

Item A6 - Yes, the comment that TYPE should be before BYTE was for

bad implementations. The server should reject data transfer

parameters only when the data transfer command is received. The

order of the parameter-change commands is not important.

Item A7 - I do agree that NCP's should be fixed. A 255 (socket

number) reply should be required at a specific time, and NCP's

should be able to provide it (this also permits the proposed GSOC

command). Let us find out at next meeting if there is anyone who

cannot live with this new requirement.

Item A8 - Yes.

Item B - There are at least two ways to solve the FTP parameter

encoding problem presented by Bob Braden. One is to allow multiple

letter in the TYPE command as suggested by Bob and the other is to

have a new command such as FORM (which could be P or U). Other

solutions are equally acceptable to me.

Item C - Our emphasis should be on working protocol as well as

elegance. I like the proposed GSOC command over the listen. In fact

GSOC can be used for all data connection security checking. The 255...