Organization: China Interactive Publishing Network (http://www.china-pub.com/)
RFC Document Chinese Translation Program (http://www.china-pub.com/compters/emook/aboutemook.htm)
E-mail: Ouyang@china-pub.com
Translator: lou_goodman (lou_goodman lou_oxyget@163.com)
Translation time: 2001-6-8
Copyright: This Chinese translation copyright belongs to China Interactive Publishing Network. Can be used for non-commercial use free reprint, but must
Keep the translation and copyright information of this document.
Network Working Group Mike Padlipsky
Request for Comments: 949 mitre
SemisuperseDes RFC 505 July 1985
FTP unapproved unique command
(RFC949 Mike Padlipsky)
STATUS OF this MEMO
THIS RFC Proposes An Extension To The File Transfer Protocol for THE
ARPA-Internet Community, And Requests Discussion and Suggestions for
Improvements. Distribution of this Memo is unlimited.
Summary:
This document proposes an extension of the FTP protocol and discusses, and gives a suggestion for further development. You can free
Communicate this document.
discuss:
FTP commands with current Stor effects are discussed by many articles. But they all ask senders to provide one
File name, thus the destination file has a unique name and the current directory. This method is for various types
It is very useful when the pool type catalog is very useful. This type of directory is easy to remember the print queue, fax and puncher queue,
The tube print queue is simple to solve the problem with only one command, and the issues we have to discuss will be considerable.
If we accept this FTP extension, don't need to "x" commands in the management. What is the key question?
It is better to manage it. Perhaps the most natural way is to add control parameters to the STOR's grammar tree. Since there are so many
UnixTM does not have a unfamiliar with our Multics Trick, and FTP does not consider and command a single mismatch command, just me
We believe that the additional command is the direction we have to go.
The name of the command requires a little consideration. Stun's name is too stupid; Unique is from advertising or even trademarks (let you feel
To confused); STOR UNQEELY NAMED (SunM) also has a little advertisement; unique named store (unst)
It looks a bit like delete, although she is not so bad; Store Unique Named (STRU) is used, it is indeed this
The best choice seems to be STOU.
The actual problem is whether the sender needs to notify the only name. Intuition, the problem is this, sometimes
He is not. It is another job that needs too much work. So why not include it in a suitable response
This (unless you have a lot of comments more)?
By the way, we don't ignore access control, certification, and statistical management of these users in the old Stor and new.
Things encountered in STO, the opposite of the account number and password, we can do as good as the RFC 505.
comment:
As a new command - Stou, this thing is like a STOR, except that its destination file is created in the current
In the directory, it has a name that is the same as the directory. 250 response should include the file name (I have the ftp text like this
This is the old, maybe 250 is no longer correct).
RFC949 Mike Padlipsky FTP Unprecedented Unique Command 1
RFC Document Chinese Translation Program
