国产探花免费观看_亚洲丰满少妇自慰呻吟_97日韩有码在线_资源在线日韩欧美_一区二区精品毛片,辰东完美世界有声小说,欢乐颂第一季,yy玄幻小说排行榜完本

首頁 > 學院 > 網絡通信 > 正文

RFC250 - Some thoughts on file transfer

2019-11-04 11:26:58
字體:
來源:轉載
供稿:網友

  Network Working Group H. Brodie
Request for Comments #250 UCLA-NMC
NIC #7691 Computer Science
Categories: D5, D7 7 October 71
Updates: None
Obsoletes: None

Some Thoughts on File Transfer

There are several aspects of the PRoposed Data Transfer Protocol (RFC
#171) and File Transfer Protocol (RFC#172) which we believe could
use further clarification and perhaps revision. Interest in
transferring larger amounts of data than is typically sent via the
usual TELNET connection is increasing, and at least at UCLA-NMC
implementation attempts have pointed out several difficulties with
the proposed protocols.

First, and probably most easily decided, is the ambiguity in RFC#171
with regards to the sequence number field of the descriptor and count
transaction. The description provided for the transaction header
provides for 16 bit sequence number. However, the sequence number
field in the error codes transaction only provides for 8 bits. We
are of the opinion that 8 bits is sufficient for a sequence number
field. If the sequence number is reduced to 8 bits, and the two NUL
bytes are deleted from the descriptor and count header, then its size
is reduced to 48 bits, which would seem to be as convenient to handle
as the proposed 72 bit transaction header.

Another source of difficulty lies in the implementation of the (the
SEX time-sharing system) the 'end' of a file (which presumably would
be the begin point of an Append transaction) is almost com- pletely
context-defined--i.e., the program reading the file determines when
it has reached the end of the file. Therefore, the meaning of
'Append' is somewhat hazy, and since the proposed Mail Box Protocol
uses the Append feature, not implementing this command in a File
Transfer service is costly in terms of lost useability.

We believe that resolution of these ambiguities will lead to a
greatly accelerated implementation schedule, at least here at UCLA-
NMC.

[ This RFCwas put into machine readable form for entry ]
[ into the online RFCarchives by BBN Corp. under the ]
[ direction of Alex McKenzie. 12/96 ]

發表評論 共有條評論
用戶名: 密碼:
驗證碼: 匿名發表
主站蜘蛛池模板: 高州市| 临桂县| 赣榆县| 顺平县| 荥阳市| 临西县| 淅川县| 正安县| 嘉荫县| 河源市| 康马县| 绿春县| 延安市| 习水县| 博爱县| 界首市| 萨迦县| 辉县市| 武清区| 安阳县| 云浮市| 竹溪县| 桃园市| 桑植县| 当雄县| 南宫市| 禹州市| 明光市| 贵溪市| 古田县| 吴江市| 蒙城县| 西盟| 三穗县| 奉新县| 临泽县| 广昌县| 英山县| 英山县| 平阴县| 潞城市|