📄 rfc880.txt
字号:
A gateway resource allocation protocol designed for use in multihost real time applications. The implementation of this protocol has evolved and may no longer be consistent with this specification. The document should be updated and issued as an RFC. Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this protocol with the contact. OTHER REFERENCES: DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol CONTACT: Forgie@BBNReynolds & Postel [Page 9] Official Protocols RFC 880 Network Voice Protocol (NVP-II) ------------------------------------ STATUS: Experimental SPECIFICATION: RFC xxx COMMENTS: Defines the procedures for real time voice conferencing. The specification is an ISI Internal Memo which should be updated and issued as an RFC. Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this protocol with the contact. OTHER REFERENCES: DEPENDENCIES: Internet Protocol, Stream Protocol CONTACT: Casner@USC-ISIBApplication Level Telnet Protocol (TELNET) ------------------------------------------- STATUS: Recommended SPECIFICATION: RFC 854 (in "Internet Telnet Protocol and Options") COMMENTS: The protocol for remote terminal access. This has been revised since the IPTW. RFC 764 in IPTW is now obsolete. OTHER REFERENCES: DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIFReynolds & Postel [Page 10] Official Protocols RFC 880 Telnet Options (TELNET-OPTIONS) ------------------------------------ STATUS: Elective SPECIFICATION: General description of options: RFC 855 (in "Internet Telnet Protocol and Options") Number Name RFC NIC ITP APH USE ------ --------------------------------- --- ----- --- --- --- 0 Binary Transmission 856 ----- yes obs yes 1 Echo 857 ----- yes obs yes 2 Reconnection ... 15391 no yes no 3 Suppress Go Ahead 858 ----- yes obs yes 4 Approx Message Size Negotiation ... 15393 no yes no 5 Status 859 ----- yes obs yes 6 Timing Mark 860 ----- yes obs yes 7 Remote Controlled Trans and Echo 726 39237 no yes no 8 Output Line Width ... 20196 no yes no 9 Output Page Size ... 20197 no yes no 10 Output Carriage-Return Disposition 652 31155 no yes no 11 Output Horizontal Tabstops 653 31156 no yes no 12 Output Horizontal Tab Disposition 654 31157 no yes no 13 Output Formfeed Disposition 655 31158 no yes no 14 Output Vertical Tabstops 656 31159 no yes no 15 Output Vertical Tab Disposition 657 31160 no yes no 16 Output Linefeed Disposition 658 31161 no yes no 17 Extended ASCII 698 32964 no yes no 18 Logout 727 40025 no yes no 19 Byte Macro 735 42083 no yes no 20 Data Entry Terminal 732 41762 no yes no 21 SUPDUP 734 736 42213 no yes no 22 SUPDUP Output 749 45449 no no no 23 Send Location 779 ----- no no no 255 Extended-Options-List 861 ----- yes obs yes (obs = obsolete) The ITP column indicates if the specification is included in the Internet Telnet Protocol and Options. The APH column indicates if the specification is included in the ARPANET Protocol Handbook. The USE column of the table above indicates which options are in general use. COMMENTS: The Binary Transmission, Echo, Suppress Go Ahead, Status, Timing Mark, and Extended Options List options have been recently updated and reissued. These are the most frequently implemented options.Reynolds & Postel [Page 11] Official Protocols RFC 880 The remaining options should be reviewed and the useful ones should be revised and reissued. The others should be eliminated. The following are recommended: Binary Transmission, Echo, Suppress Go Ahead, Status, Timing Mark, and Extended Options List. OTHER REFERENCES: DEPENDENCIES: Telnet CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF File Transfer Protocol (FTP) --------------------------------------- STATUS: Recommended SPECIFICATION: RFC 765 (in IPTW) COMMENTS: The protocol for moving files between Internet hosts. Provides for access control and negotiation of file parameters. There are a number of minor corrections to be made. A major change is the deletion of the mail commands, and a major clarification is needed in the discussion of the management of the data connection. Also, a suggestion has been made to include some directory manipulation commands (RFC 775). Even though the MAIL features are defined in this document, they are not to be used. The SMTP protocol is to be used for all mail service in the Internet. Data Connection Management: a. Default Data Connection Ports: All FTP implementations must support use of the default data connection ports, and only the User-PI may initiate the use of non-default ports. b. Negotiating Non-Default Data Ports: The User-PI may specify a non-default user side data port with the PORT command. The User-PI may request the server side to identify a non-default server side data port with the PASV command. Since a connection is defined by the pair of addresses, either of these actions is enough to get a different data connection, still it is permitted to do bothReynolds & Postel [Page 12] Official Protocols RFC 880 commands to use new ports on both ends of the data connection. c. Reuse of the Data Connection: When using the stream mode of data transfer the end of the file must be indicated by closing the connection. This causes a problem if multiple files are to be transfered in the session, due to need for TCP to hold the connection record for a time out period to guarantee the reliable communication. Thus the connection can not be reopened at once. There are two solutions to this problem. The first is to negotiate a non-default port (as in (b) above). The second is to use another transfer mode. A comment on transfer modes. The stream transfer mode is inherently unreliable, since one can not determine if the connection closed prematurely or not. The other transfer modes (Block, Compressed) do not close the connection to indicate the end of file. They have enough FTP encoding that the data connection can be parsed to determine the end of the file. Thus using these modes one can leave the data connection open for multiple file transfers. Why this was not a problem with the old NCP FTP: The NCP was designed with only the ARPANET in mind. The ARPANET provides very reliable service, and the NCP counted on it. If any packet of data from an NCP connection were lost or damaged by the network the NCP could not recover. It is a tribute to the ARPANET designers that the NCP FTP worked so well. The TCP is designed to provide reliable connections over many different types of networks and interconnections of networks. TCP must cope with a set of networks that can not promise to work as well as the ARPANET. TCP must make its own provisions for end-to-end recovery from lost or damaged packets. This leads to the need for the connection phase-down time-out. The NCP never had to deal with acknowledgements or retransmissions or many other things the TCP must do to make connection reliable in a more complex world. LIST and NLST: There is some confusion about the LIST an NLST commands, and what is appropriate to return. Some clarification andReynolds & Postel [Page 13] Official Protocols RFC 880 motivation for these commands should be added to the specification. OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 678 - Document File Format Standards DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF Trivial File Transfer Protocol (TFTP) ------------------------------ STATUS: Elective SPECIFICATION: RFC 783 (in IPTW) COMMENTS: A very simple file moving protocol, no access control is provided. No known problems with this specification. This is in use in several local networks. OTHER REFERENCES: DEPENDENCIES: User Datagram Protocol CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) ------------------------------- STATUS: Recommended SPECIFICATION: RFC 821 (in "Internet Mail Protocols") COMMENTS: The procedure for transmitting computer mail between hosts. This has been revised since the IPTW, it is in the "Internet Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982. RFC 788 (in IPTW) is obsolete. There have been many misunderstandings and errors in the early implementations. Some documentation of these problems can be found in the file [ISIF]<SMTP>MAIL.ERRORS.Reynolds & Postel [Page 14] Official Protocols RFC 880 Some minor differences between RFC 821 and RFC 822 should be resolved. OTHER REFERENCES: RFC 822 - Mail Header Format Standards This has been revised since the IPTW, it is in the "Internet Mail Protocols" volume of November 1982. RFC 733 (in IPTW) is obsolete. Further revision of RFC 822 is needed to correct some minor errors in the details of the specification. DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF Remote Job Entry (RJE) --------------------------------------------- STATUS: Elective SPECIFICATION: RFC 407 (in APH) COMMENTS: The general protocol for submitting batch jobs and retrieving the results. Some changes needed for use with TCP. No known active implementations. OTHER REFERENCES: DEPENDENCIES: File Transfer Protocol Transmission Control Protocol CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIFReynolds & Postel [Page 15] Official Protocols RFC 880 Remote Job Service (NETRJS) ---------------------------------------- STATUS: Elective SPECIFICATION: RFC 740 (in APH) COMMENTS: A special protocol for submitting batch jobs and retrieving the results used with the UCLA IBM OS system. Please discuss any plans for implementation or use of this protocol with the contact. Revision in progress. OTHER REFERENCES: DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol CONTACT: Braden@USC-ISIA Remote Telnet Service (RTELNET) ------------------------------------ STATUS: Elective SPECIFICATION: RFC 818 COMMENTS: Provides special access to user Telnet on a remote system. OTHER REFERENCES: DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control Protocol CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIFReynolds & Postel [Page 16] Official Protocols RFC 880 Graphics Protocol (GRAPHICS) --------------------------------------- STATUS: Elective SPECIFICATION: NIC 24308 (in APH) COMMENTS: The protocols for vector graphics. Very minor changes needed for use with TCP. No known active implementations. OTHER REFERENCES: DEPENDENCIES: Telnet, Transmission Control Protocol CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIF Echo Protocol (ECHO) ----------------------------------------------- STATUS: Recommended SPECIFICATION: RFC 862 COMMENTS: Debugging protocol, sends back whatever you send it. OTHER REFERENCES: DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol or User Datagram Protocol CONTACT: Postel@USC-ISIFReynolds & Postel [Page 17] Official Protocols RFC 880 Discard Protocol (DISCARD) ----------------------------------------- STATUS: Elective SPECIFICATION: RFC 863 COMMENTS: Debugging protocol, throws away whatever you send it. OTHER REFERENCES: DEPENDENCIES: Transmission Control Protocol or User Datagram Protocol⌨️ 快捷键说明
复制代码
Ctrl + C
搜索代码
Ctrl + F
全屏模式
F11
切换主题
Ctrl + Shift + D
显示快捷键
?
增大字号
Ctrl + =
减小字号
Ctrl + -