RFC 929 (rfc929) - Page 1 of 56
Proposed Host-Front End Protocol
Alternative Format: Original Text Document
Network Working Group Joel Lilienkamp (SDC)
Request for Comments: 929 Richard Mandell (SDC)
Michael Padlipsky (Mitre Corp.)
December 1984
PROPOSED HOST-FRONT END PROTOCOL
Status Of This Memo
The reader should be aware of several things in regard to what the
present document is up to. First and foremost, IT IS A PROPOSAL FOR
A STANDARD, NOT A STANDARD ITSELF. Next, it assumes that the
separate document, RFC 928, which is an introduction to the present
document, has been read before it is. Next, it should be understood
that "final cut" over this version of the document has been exercised
by the author of RFC 928, not by the primary author of the present
document, so any readers bothered by style considerations should feel
free to blame the former, who's used to it, rather than the latter,
who may well be guiltless. (Editing at a distance finally become too
hard to manage, so if I'm typing it myself I'm going to fiddle with
it myself too, including, but not limited to, sticking my own section
on the Conceptual Model in before Joel's words start, rather than
leaving it in the Introduction. MAP)
Finally, it should be noted that this is not a finished document.
That is, the intent is eventually to supply appendices for all of the
protocol offloadings, describing their uses of protocol idiosyncratic
parameters and even their interpretations of the standard per-command
parameters, but in order to get what we've got into circulation we
haven't waited until all such appendices have been written up. (We
do have notes on how to handle FTP, e.g., and UDP will be pretty
straightforward, but getting them ready would have delayed things
into still another calendar year, which would have been very annoying
... not to say embarrassing.) For that matter, it's not even a
finished document with respect to what is here. Not only is it our
stated intention to revise the protocol based upon implementation
experience gained from volunteer test implementations, but it's also
the case that it hasn't proven feasible to iron out all known
wrinkles in what is being presented. For example, the response codes
almost certainly need clarification and expansion, and at least one
of us doesn't think mandatory initial parameters need control flags.
However, to try too hard for polish would be to stay in subcommittee
for the better part of forever, so what you see is what we've got,
but certainly isn't meant to be what you or we are stuck with.
This RFC suggests a proposed protocol for the ARPA-Internet
community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Lilienkamp & Mandell & Padlipsky