Browse Prior Art Database

Data transfer protocols (RFC0163) Disclosure Number: IPCOM000002465D
Original Publication Date: 1971-May-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2019-Feb-10
Document File: 3 page(s) / 4K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People


Related Documents

10.17487/RFC0163: DOI

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 57% of the total text.

Network Working Group V. Cerf Request for Comments #163 19 May 71 NIC #6775 UCLA - NMC Categories: D.7 Computer Science Updates: None Obsoletes: None


This is an informal statement of material discussed at the SJCC. There are two peoblems.

1. Movement of data from one site to another. 2. Interpretation of the data at receiving site.

The first task (1) requires a simple protocol which accomplishes the following

1) Standard connection procedure for connecting transmitting and receiving processes

2) Standard packaging which allows network to collect the transmitted data stream in the right order and know when the end of the file has been reached.

Standard Connection Procedure

Suppose every HOST has a process charged with the responsibility of sending and receiving files between -HOSTS-(processes?)[The Data Manager]. If the Data Manager offers to listen on a given socket for file xmt requests, then ICP is sufficient to establish a connection between a serving Data Manager and a using process.

We have completely avoided the discussion of data interpretation, and also the problem of control. For instance, we have not said how a process can ask the Data Manager to send a file of a par- ticular name, nor how to end the transmission of a file. This is deferred for later.

Another desirable ability is to have processes transmit files to each other independent of the HOST Data Manager. ICP should suffice, for the creation of a full duplex connection. File naming, and format interpretation are left to the individual process to solve.

It is of interest to note that files need not have names. If two processes are connected, then the file name is in a sense implicit in the sending and receiving socket pair. One imagines, however, that

[Page 1]

connections with Data Managers for the purpose of file transmission are too transient to serve as permanent file names, so information about file name will be needed by the Data Manager. This information could be supplied either embedded in the file transmission data stream, or supplied over a separate control connection established at ICP time.

It seems reasonable that a Data Manager have a network-wide, fixed socket number on which it is listening to service data transmission requests.* In this sense, it acts much like the Network Logger. For inter-process file transmission, less rigidity seems called for, and we can leave such decisions to the individual peocesses communicating with each other. Public processes at serving HOSTS could have known (nia NIC?) sockets over which file transmission is acceptable.

Standard Packaging

We naively imagine that very little in the way of formatting is needed to move data across the connection. A few bits (8?) at the beginning of transmi...