From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc625.txt | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc625.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc625.txt') diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc625.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc625.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f4b74b1 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/rfc/rfc625.txt @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ + + + + + + +Network Working Group Mike Kudlick (SRI-ARC) +RFC # 625 Jake Feinler (SRI-ARC) +NIC # 22152 March 7, 1974 + + + ON LINE HOSTNAMES SERVICE + + + +We agree with the suggestion in RFC 623 that more than one Host should +be responsible for maintaining a copy of the Hostnames data base. The +NIC is certainly willing to continue to maintain the master data base, +and make it available to any secondary Host that volunteers to maintain +a copy. We would be pleased to have UCSB serve as one of the secondary +Hosts. + +However, we disagree with the suggestion in RFC 623 that a server +process should be implemented to give user processes access to the +official Hostnames file at the NIC. The file in question is a +sequential file and it seems to us that FTP is entirely appropriate for +this need. As far as setting up common login parameters among the +servers, this doesn't appear to be a major problem. Even with a +user/server process there would be a requirement for additional protocol +agreements, so it doesn't seem that much of an added burden to decide on +common login parameters when using FTP. + +We are puzzled by the apparent distaste for FTP. In our opinion the +goal has been to set up a network file transfer mechanism that everyone +can use for a variety of needs without further programming required. If +FTP is that bad, shouldn't the criticism and work be directed towards +improving or replacing it, rather than making end runs around it? FTP +is surely more complex than is required for any particular application +including this one, but isn't that true by definition of a general +facility? + +We also prefer to maintain the file in ASCII. It is easier, it seems to +us, to check out data or data transfer problems in that form rather than +in binary. + + + + + + [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ] + [ into the online RFC archives by Alex McKenzie with ] + [ support from GTE, formerly BBN Corp. 10/99 ] + + + + + +Kudlick & Feinler [Page 1] + -- cgit v1.2.3