Dismiss
InnovationQ/InnovationQ Plus content will be updated on Sunday, June 25, 10am ET, with new patent and non-patent literature collections. Click here to learn more.
Browse Prior Art Database

One more try on the FTP (RFC0691)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000003739D
Original Publication Date: 1975-Jun-06
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2000-Sep-13
Document File: 11 page(s) / 33K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

B. Harvey: AUTHOR

Abstract

Brian Harvey SU-AI Re: File Transfer Protocol May 28, 1975 Ref: RFC 354, 385, 414, 448, 454, 630, 542, 640 1

This text was extracted from a ASCII Text document.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 9% of the total text.

NWG/RFC# 691 BH 6-JUN-75 23:15 32700

One More Try on the FTP

Brian Harvey

SU-AI

Re: File Transfer Protocol May 28, 1975

Ref: RFC 354, 385, 414, 448, 454, 630, 542, 640 1

One More Try on the FTP 2

This is a slight revision of RFC 686, mainly differing in the

discussion of print files. Reading several RFCs that I (sigh)

never heard of before writing 686 has convinced me that although

I was right all along it was for the wrong reasons. The list of

reply codes is also slightly different to reflect the four lists

in RFCs 354, 454, 542, and 640 more completely. Let me also

suggest that if there are no objections before June 1, everyone

take it as official that HELP should return 200, that SRVR should

be used as discussed below, and that "permanent" 4xx errors be

changed to 5xx. And thanks to Jon Postel who just spent all

evening helping me straighten this all out. 2a

Aside from a cry of anguish by the site responsible for the

security hassle described below, I've only had one comment on

this, which was unfavorable but, alas, unspecific. Let me just

say, in the hopes of avoiding more such, that I am not just

trying to step on toes for the fun of it, and that I don't think

the positive changes to FTP-1 proposed here are necessarily the

best possible thing. What they are, I think, is easily doable.

The great-FTP-in-the-sky isn't showing any signs of universal

acceptability, and it shouldn't stand in the way of solving

immediate problems. 2b

Leaving Well Enough Alone 3

I recently decided it was time for an overhaul of our FTP user and

server programs. This was my first venture into the world of

network protocols, and I soon discovered that there was a lot we

were doing wrong--and a few things that everyone seemed to be doing

differently from each other. When I enquired about this, the

response from some quarters was "Oh, you're running Version 1!" 4

Since, as far as I can tell, all but one network host are running

version 1, and basically transferring files OK, it seems to me that

the existence on paper of an unused protocol should not stand in the

way of maintaining the current one unless there is a good reason to

1

NWG/RFC# 691 BH 6-JUN-75 23:15 32700

One More Try on the FTP

believe that the new one is either imminent or strongly superior or

both. (I understand, by the way, that FTP-2 represents a lot of

thought and effort by several people who are greater network experts

than I, and that it isn't nice of me to propose junking all that

work, and I hereby apologize for it.) Let me list what...