Browse Prior Art Database

Comments on DTP and FTP proposals (RFC0238)

IP.com Disclosure Number: IPCOM000002951D
Original Publication Date: 1971-Sep-01
Included in the Prior Art Database: 2019-Feb-13
Document File: 2 page(s) / 2K

Publishing Venue

Internet Society Requests For Comment (RFCs)

Related People

R.T. Braden: AUTHOR

Related Documents

10.17487/RFC0238: DOI

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 65% of the total text.

Network Working Group R. T. Braden Request for Comments #238 UCLA-CCN NIC #7663 September 29, 1971 Category: Updates: RFC #171, RFC #172

COMMENTS ON DTP AND FTP PROPOSALS

Data Transfer Protocol ----------------------

1. In the Descriptor/Count mode, the Information Separators should have a transaction sequence number field. Otherwise, the receiver cannot be sure he received all transactions before the separation. This requires that there be two forms of information separators, one for Descriptor/Count mode, the other for the DLE mode.

2. The modes-available handshake should not be mandatory, as it makes no sense in the simplex case. The receiver doesn’t care what modes the transmitter _might_ use; he only cares what mode _is_ used, which he discovers when the first data or control transaction arrives. Even in the duplex case, it is not clear what use the receiver should make of the modes-available information from the transmitter.

File Transfer Protocol ----------------------

1. The protocol allows an end-of-file to be indicated by closing the connection. This is the same mistake which we made in an early version of NETRJS. Closing the connection without a File Separator transaction should only be used to indicate an error, i.e., to abort the transmission; it should never be used to indicate normal completion of file transfer. The reason is obvious: there is no way for the receiver to tell whether CLS indicates normal completion or an abnormal condition in the other host (e....

Processing...
Loading...