for the next edition of host requirements
Bob Braden <braden@isi.edu> Fri, 21 January 1994 01:47 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09605; 20 Jan 94 20:47 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09601; 20 Jan 94 20:47 EST
Received: from venera.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17522; 20 Jan 94 20:47 EST
Received: from zephyr.isi.edu by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-14) id <AA01344>; Thu, 20 Jan 1994 17:32:42 -0800
Received: by zephyr.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-16) id <AA00802>; Thu, 20 Jan 1994 17:32:40 -0800
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 17:32:40 -0800
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Bob Braden <braden@isi.edu>
Message-Id: <199401210132.AA00802@zephyr.isi.edu>
To: postel@isi.edu
Subject: for the next edition of host requirements
Cc: braden@isi.edu, ietf-hosts@isi.edu
Jon, I agree with your response, with the additional comment that an FTP should do whatever an application normally does to ensure the file has reached stable storage; it is not required to take heroic measures. This refers to a Unix-like file system, which may not actually write a file to disk ("sync") until later. We put up with the unreliability that implies in order to get the performance, and it should be good enough for FTP. But it would NOT be nice to give a 2xx reply before writing out the last block and closing the file!!! Bob ----- Begin Included Message ----- From postel Thu Jan 20 16:47:22 1994 Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 16:47:22 -0800 From: postel (Jon Postel) To: braden Subject: for the next edition of host requirements Cc: postel Content-Length: 2323 X-Lines: 80 ----- Begin Included Message ----- >From ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org Wed Jan 19 11:29:27 1994 Posted-From: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA To: jkrey@ISI.EDU, postel@ISI.EDU Cc: ptrei@mitre.org Subject: Quickie FTP protocol question. Date: Wed, 19 Jan 94 14:28:26 -0500 From: "Peter G. Trei" <ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org> Hello: I hope I've got the right people: the authors of RFC 959, the FTP protocol spec. If not, please ignore this mail. Scenario: Host A sends a file to host B. The transfer completes. Host A recieves an acknowledgement of it's EOF marker. Did host B write the end of the transfered file to disk before sending the eof-ACK to host A? Is this required by the protocol, or is it left unspecified? I can't see anything in the RFC which requires it. A one-line answer would be plenty. thanks, Peter Trei ptrei@mitre.org ----- End Included Message ----- ----- Begin Included Message ----- >From postel Thu Jan 20 16:45:39 1994 Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 16:45:34 -0800 From: postel (Jon Postel) To: ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org Subject: Re: Quickie FTP protocol question. Cc: postel, jkrey Peter: I would say that the general rule that a 200 series reply means that the requested action is completed would imply that if the command was STOR the file was safely stored of the destination system and would not be lost if the system crashed at that point. By the way, you should be reading RFC-1123 for further details on FTP. --jon. To: jkrey@ISI.EDU, postel@ISI.EDU Cc: ptrei@mitre.org Subject: Quickie FTP protocol question. Date: Wed, 19 Jan 94 14:28:26 -0500 From: "Peter G. Trei" <ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org> Hello: I hope I've got the right people: the authors of RFC 959, the FTP protocol spec. If not, please ignore this mail. Scenario: Host A sends a file to host B. The transfer completes. Host A recieves an acknowledgement of it's EOF marker. Did host B write the end of the transfered file to disk before sending the eof-ACK to host A? Is this required by the protocol, or is it left unspecified? I can't see anything in the RFC which requires it. A one-line answer would be plenty. thanks, Peter Trei ptrei@mitre.org ----- End Included Message ----- ----- End Included Message -----
- for the next edition of host requirements Bob Braden