Movatterモバイル変換
[0]ホーム
[RFC Home] [TEXT|PDF|HTML] [Tracker] [IPR] [Info page]
UNKNOWN
Network Working Group Mike Kudlick (SRI-ARC)RFC # 625 Jake Feinler (SRI-ARC)NIC # 22152 March 7, 1974ON LINE HOSTNAMES SERVICEWe agree with the suggestion inRFC 623 that more than one Host shouldbe responsible for maintaining a copy of the Hostnames data base. TheNIC is certainly willing to continue to maintain the master data base,and make it available to any secondary Host that volunteers to maintaina copy. We would be pleased to have UCSB serve as one of the secondaryHosts.However, we disagree with the suggestion inRFC 623 that a serverprocess should be implemented to give user processes access to theofficial Hostnames file at the NIC. The file in question is asequential file and it seems to us that FTP is entirely appropriate forthis need. As far as setting up common login parameters among theservers, this doesn't appear to be a major problem. Even with auser/server process there would be a requirement for additional protocolagreements, so it doesn't seem that much of an added burden to decide oncommon login parameters when using FTP.We are puzzled by the apparent distaste for FTP. In our opinion thegoal has been to set up a network file transfer mechanism that everyonecan use for a variety of needs without further programming required. IfFTP is that bad, shouldn't the criticism and work be directed towardsimproving or replacing it, rather than making end runs around it? FTPis surely more complex than is required for any particular applicationincluding this one, but isn't that true by definition of a generalfacility?We also prefer to maintain the file in ASCII. It is easier, it seems tous, to check out data or data transfer problems in that form rather thanin 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]
[8]ページ先頭