-- lundi, mai 27, 2002 16:54:26 -0400 vint cerf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/a �crit:
> Dave, > > isn't there a distinction to be made between the client and the server > here? The results of the user interaction were exchanges over a TCP > connection distinct from the control connection - that was so even before > TCP/IP (with NCP). The fact that we used TELNET to drive the FTP control > doesn't make the design any less a protocol. TELNET was a convenient way > of implementing the text-based exchanges - but they had formats that > included error numbers as well as text in the expectation that some > implementations of the the client would be machine driven, I thought. > > The server side plainly had to deal with protocol exchanges between the > ftp data transfer servers on source and sink machines, in addition to the > control server exchanges carried over the TELNET protocol. > > I'm not sure whether this thread/debate is necessarily useful, is it?? While I found this thread very informative of design considerations at that time, I agree with Vint about the not clear usefulness of this thread for this wg. The internet history mailing list might be more appropriate for this thread. Marc. > > vint > > At 09:58 AM 5/27/2002 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: >> At 12:43 PM 5/27/2002 -0400, John C Klensin wrote: >>> While FTP apparently lends itself to "direct UI", it >>> was never intended that way. >> >> John, >> >> I have a pretty clear recollection that when FTP first came out the >> folks who wrote the spec honestly expected to be able to sit at a TIP, >> telnet over to an FTP server, and type commands that would effect file >> transfers. >> >> I even have a vague recollection that this was used to send data to a >> printer attached to the TIP on another port. >> >> >>> For example, use of "TYPE ASCII" transfers requires translation >>> between the character set of the sender and network ASCII and >>> translation by the receiver from network ASCII to local >>> character set and formats. >> >> Not if the receiver can process network ASCII directly, as some did. >> >> >>> Even when those hosts use ASCII, the >>> translations must accomodate, e.g., conversion of end of line >>> conventions. >> >> Not if they supported CRLF directly, as some did. In fact, that was why >> CRLF was chosen and end of line, rather than a single character. A >> single character would have made lexical analysis notably simpler. >> >> >>> But the protocol is no more designed as a "direct UI" than SMTP >> >> SMTP came around 10 years later. >> >> However, the original MAIL command in FTP was explicitly intended to >> permit direct typing over a telnet connection. And it was in fact used >> that way. (That was why there was a distinction between MAIL and MLFL >> which did the data transfer over a separate FTP data connection.) >> >> d/ >> >> ---------- >> Dave Crocker <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com> >> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850 >> > ------------------------------------------ Marc Blanchet Viag�nie tel: +1-418-656-9254x225 ------------------------------------------ http://www.freenet6.net: IPv6 connectivity ------------------------------------------ http://www.normos.org: IETF(RFC,draft), IANA,W3C,... standards. ------------------------------------------
