    Network Working Group                                   H. Brodie
    Request for Comments #269                               UCLA-NMC
    NIC # 7817                                              6 December 71
    Categories:  File Transfer
    Updates:  122, 238, 172
    Obsoletes:  None

                       Some Experience with File Transfer

    At UCLA-NMC we have recently completed implementation of a program which
    utilizes UCSB's storage capability via their Simple Minded File System
    (See RFC #122 by Jim White for a description of SMFS).  The use of the
    program is detailed in Appendix A.

    We learned a number of things in the implementation effort and
    subsequent usage.  We think a number of these apply towards the
    development of a net- word-wide File Transfer Protocol, and we hope to
    stimulate further dis- cussion of these issues.  We discovered some
    things in the UCSB protocol that we would like to see included in the
    network-wide protocol, and we see some things that are in the currently
    proposed net protocol and are unfortunately absent from the UCSB
    protocol.

    In the first category, is the UCSB file retrieval procedure.  The user
    specifies among other things, a bit count of the number of bits to be
    retrieved in the current request.

    Successive RTF commands yield successive pieces of the file.  Portions
    of the file can be spaced over by use of the SPF command.  We think that
    the ability of the user to specify the size of the "chunks" of the file
    he is about to receive, along with the ability to access any part of the
    file without having to get the entire file, is definitely an advantage.
    It makes the user programs easier to write since the problem of parsing
    the input stream virtually disappears, as the user program knows exactly
    what to expect at all times.  In addition, the one request, one response
    nature of the protocol avoids the problem of sending a request and then
    receiving pieces of data of unpredictable size at unknown intervals.
    The response to each RTF gives the comforting knowledge that "they're
    still listening".  This leads us to believe that there is much to be
    gained by the adoption of a one request, one response type of protocol.
    We might point out that for any significant file transfer, this does not
    seriously cut down on the overall data transfer rate, since a
    "defaulting" type of approach, as SMFS uses can be used to keep the
    request messages very small.  We also have found the mandatory password
    scheme of UCSB quite easily used, and any server site, (i.e. a site
    specifically advertising file storage) can reasonably be expected, in
    our opinion, to require passwords (see also RFC #238 by R. Braden).

                                                                    [Page 1]

    Network Working Group                                   H. Brodie
    Request for Comments #269                               UCLA-NMC
    NIC #7817                                               6 December 71

    Almost immediately after starting to use SMFS we found a serious lack in
    one area.  There is no way for a user to ask "what files do I have
    there?"  As a matter of fact, the author suspects that there are already
    several files there which he has "forgotten" about!  It is reasonable,
    perhaps even necessary, for any server to supply a nicely formatted
    character string describing the files stored there for this password, or
    user, or whatever division is used.  The listing should also contain
    other pertinent information, such as date created, size etc.

    In the meantime, UCSB is providing the SEX system with valuable "out-of-
    line on-line" storage, and we look forward to the development of a
    widely accepted file transfer protocol, implemented on a large number of
    server sites, hopefully equipped with low cost bulk storage.

                                                                    [Page 2]

    SEX Notebook                    Appendix A              H. Brodie
    Section 23.29                                           3 December 71

                                     FXFER

    FXFER is a re-entrant program written in Symbol which is used to send a
    receive file from UCSB, using their Simple Minded File System.  For the
    description of the Network interface to SMFS, see RFC #122 by Jim White.

    Files are stored there in a paged format identical to the paged format
    that the tape process uses: <header><data page><data page>...  Thus a
    file which Master lists as having n pages will take 2048 n bytes of
    storage at UCSB.  The user's sign-on initials are used as both the
    access and modification passwords, so that if a file is sent under on
    user's sign-on, they can only be retrieved or deleted by him.

    Commands

    PA - Increments "print All" counter.  Different settings of this
         counter yield different levels of program trace output on
         the console.

    NP - No print.  This sets the "Print All" counter to zero.

    DF FOO - This deletes the file "FOO" located at UCSB.

    PF FOO - This sends the file "FOO", pointed to by the user's root
             directory, to UCSB.  Only read access is needed to "FOO".

    GF FOO - The file "FOO" located at UCSB is retrieved and put in the
             user's root (with write access).  Note that it must have been
             sent by the user to have the right password.

    RN FOO BAR - Rename the file "FOO" at UCSB to "BAR".  The same password
                 restrictions as with PF and GF apply.  (Not yet implemented)

    ST - Status.  Tells what program is doing and how much its done.

    X - Exit Program.

    If the system and/or UCSB is particularly slow, then UCSBFIL may type a
    time-out message.  At this point the user has the option of continuing,
    or exiting the program.  The message is self-explanatory, as are most of
    the program's messages.

           [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
           [ into the online RFC archives by Nick Christenson 10/97]

                                                                    [Page 3]