diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc281.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | doc/rfc/rfc281.txt | 451 |
1 files changed, 451 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc281.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc281.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fad03de --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc281.txt @@ -0,0 +1,451 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group A. McKenzie +Request for Comment: 281 BBN +NIC: 8163 8 December 1971 +Category: D.7 +Reference: RFC #264, #265 + + + A suggested Addition to File Transfer Protocol + + +On November 16, an informal meeting was held at UCLA to discuss +prospects for a network standard Remote Job Service (RJS) protocol. In +attendance were representatives of UCLA-CCN and UCSB, the +network's only current RJS sites, as well as UCLA-NMC and the BBN +network project. A report on that discussion will be published as an +RFC shortly and will not be discussed here. In thinking about the use +of the proposed File Transfer Protocol (FTP) (RFC #265) for RJS, +however, we came to the conclusion that a "restart" procedure might be +an extremely useful addition to the FTP. + +Many, perhaps most, of the individuals involved in protocol design thus +far are oriented toward the use of short date transmissions over the +network the transmission lengths that have been considered "typical" are +a few characters, a print line, or perhaps as much as a page of text. +The experience of the current RJS sites, however, is that single files +are commonly much longer, for example a line-printer output file of 400 +pages would not seem unusual to these sites. Further, one might +reasonably predict that network use of Remote Job Services will be +preselected with a tendency toward large jobs (although large jobs do +not necessarily imply large I/O files) and that the addition of other +batch service sites (ILLIAC, UCSD) will increase the number of long-file +transfers. In light of this kind of experience/prediction, it would +seem that the FTP should include (perhaps as an option which +interactive-user oriented systems could ignore) a method of "restarting" +a long file transfer if some element in the transmission path fails +after a large volume of data has been transferred. + +The critical element in a "restart" procedure is the ability to arrange +agreement between both ends of the transmission path as to where, +exactly, the retransmission should begin. There are two potential +candidates for marking possible restart locations already built into the +proposed Data Transfer Protocol (RFC #264) which underlies the FTP; +these are: + + a) The "information separators" (transaction type B4) which are + available in both "transparent block" transfers and "descriptor + and counts" transfers, and + + + + +McKenzie [Page 1] + +RFC 281 A Suggested Addition to File Transfer ProtocolDecember 1971 + + + b) The "sequence numbers" which can be used with the "descriptor + and counts" transfer mode. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +McKenzie [Page 2] + +RFC 281 A Suggested Addition to File Transfer ProtocolDecember 1971 + + + After some discussion, we seemed to agree that the "information + separators" (as they would be used in "transparent block" transfer + mode, i.e., without "sequence numbers") were unlikely to serve as + UNAMBIGUOUS restart location marker, and therefore we suggest the use + of "sequence numbers" as markers. We were aware of the fact that + this choice might exclude TIPs and other Hosts which do not use + sequence numbering from the type of recovery under discussion; we + believe, however, that our suggestion eliminates at least some of + this problem. + + Imagine that some site, which we will call the "user site" or "user", + has initiated a connection from its own file transfer process to a + file transfer process at some other site, which we will call the + "server site" or "server". After the appropriate exchanges of + information, a file transfer (using the File Transfer Protocol) + begins over the path between these two sites. After some information + is transferred, the path between the user and server is broken. At + some later time the user initiates a new connection between the file + transfer processes at user and server, establishes relevant access + privileges, and wishes to resume the transmission which was in + progress when the path was broken. First we describe four new op- + codes for the File Transfer Protocol: + + Hex Operation + --- --------- + 10 Append at sequence number + + This command is essentially the same as any of the "Store" + or "Append..." commands except that a 16-bit sequence + number immediately follows the op-code (before the + pathname). + + 11 Retrieve at sequence number + + This is the same as the "Retrieve"command except that a + 16-bit sequence number immediately follows the op-code + (before the pathname). + + 12 Resume Retrieve + + To be used when the user wishes the server to choose the + sequence number; in other respects this is identical to + the "Retrieve" command. + + + + + + + + +McKenzie [Page 3] + +RFC 281 A Suggested Addition to File Transfer ProtocolDecember 1971 + + + 13 Use the sequence number + + This command contains only the op-code and a 16-bit + sequence number. It is intended as a denial of the + ability to locate the sequence number given in an "Append + at sequence number" or "Retrieve at sequence number" + command and, simultaneously, to suggest another number + which can be located. + + There are several possible cases which are shown below. The user + site is always presumed to be the site at the left of the page. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +McKenzie [Page 4] + +RFC 281 A Suggested Addition to File Transfer ProtocolDecember 1971 + + + A. User site sending at time path is broken: + / + / Append at sequence number + | -------------------------------------------> + | Acknowledge + | <------------------------------------------ + | Data + | -------------------------------------------> + | + \ The server site agrees to resume at the user-chosen point. + \ The first data transaction is numbered with the chosen + \ sequence number. + + / Append at sequence number + / -------------------------------------------> + | Unsuccessful Terminate + | <------------------------------------------- + | + \ The server site will never permit restart for some reason + \ (seq. #s were ignored or not used initially, seq #s were not + \ stored with the file, the file was lost when the path was + \broken, etc.) + + / Append at sequence number + / -------------------------------------------> + | Use this sequence number + | <------------------------------------------- + | / Data + | / ---------------------------------> + | \ The user site agrees to use the server-chosen number + | \ and the first data transaction is numbered with the + | \ chosen number. + | + | or + | + | / Unsuccessful Terminate + \ / -------------------------------> + \ \ The user site cannot restart at this number for + \ \ some reason. + + + + + + + + + + + + +McKenzie [Page 5] + +RFC 281 A Suggested Addition to File Transfer ProtocolDecember 1971 + + + B. User site receiving at time path is broken, and the user site + does not particularly care about the exact sequence number (for + example, if the user site is sending the file to a printer, some + duplicate pages are probably acceptable and the user site would + probably not want to remember sequence numbers). + + / Resume Retrieve + / ------------------------------------> + | Data + | <------------------------------------ + | The server picks some point and begins transmission at + | that point. If sequence numbers were used during the + | original transmission, then the first transaction of + | this transmission must exactly match (including + | sequence number) some transaction of the original + \ transmission. + + / Resume Retrieve + / ------------------------------------> + | Unsuccessful Terminate + \ <------------------------------------ + \ The server site is unable or unwilling to restart the + \ transmission. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +McKenzie [Page 6] + +RFC 281 A Suggested Addition to File Transfer ProtocolDecember 1971 + + + C. User site receiving at time path is broken, and does care about + the value of the sequence number. + + / Retrieve at sequence number + / ----------------------------------------> + | Data + | <---------------------------------------- + \ The server agrees to resume at the user-chosen + \ point. The first data transaction is numbered + \ with the chosen sequence number. + + / Retrieve at sequence number + / ----------------------------------------> + | Unsuccessful Terminate + | <---------------------------------------- + | + | The server site will never permit restart for some + | reason. + | Retrieve at sequence number + | ----------------------------------------> + | Use this sequence number + | <----------------------------------------- + | / Acknowledge + | / ----------------------------> + | | Data + | | <---------------------------- + | \ The user site agrees to use the + | \ server-chosen number. The first data + | \ transaction is numbered with the chosen + | \ number. + | + | or + | + | / Unsuccessful Terminate + | / -----------------------------> + | | + \ \ The server cannot use the user-chosen + \ \ number and the user cannot use the + \ \ server-chosen number. Therefore the attempt + \ \ to restart must be abandoned. + + + + + + + + + + + +McKenzie [Page 7] + +RFC 281 A Suggested Addition to File Transfer ProtocolDecember 1971 + + + Some sites (e.g., UCLA-CCN) have agreed (in principle, at least) to + implement these commands and, more important, to store sequence + numbers (with files being transferred) on a non-volatile storage + medium so that restarts may be effected. This will be done, of + course, only if this, or some similar, proposal is accepted by the + NWG as part of the File Transfer Protocol. We hope interested + parties will communicate comments or counter-proposals to the FTP + committee and/or publish their ideas in the RFC series. + + AAM/jm + + + + + + + + + + + + [This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry] + [into the online RFC archives by Kelly Tardif, Viaginie 10/99] + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +McKenzie [Page 8] + |