lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (06/24/91)
Should we just instead have a BINARY command which transmits random data in network byte order?
sob@tmc.edu (Stan Barber) (06/24/91)
Given the experience with FTP, I am not sure that BINARY is a good long
term solution. All the world is not stream oriented.
On other topics:
I think OPTION is a good idea. If we need shortcuts, we should use
something like "OPTION LOCAL something" that would set up a bunch of
options in one transaction.
I am more and more convinced that NNRP needs to happen. I have been
considering the idea of NNTP slave servers and I am convinced that
NNRP slave servers make more sense.
I am going to have more to say about the draft before July 4th.
--
Stan internet: sob@bcm.tmc.edu Director, Networking
Olan uucp: rutgers!bcm!sob and Systems Support
Barber Opinions expressed are only mine. Baylor College of Medicinebrian@UCSD.EDU (Brian Kantor) (06/24/91)
The idea was to provide a non-machine-independent way to shove a file from one end to the other. If you ALSO want a BINARY, fine, but that's not at all the same thing. - Brian
lear@turbo.bio.net (Eliot) (06/24/91)
Brian is, of course, correct. IMAGE and BINARY are two distinct things. I was asked by someone else exactly how the two differ. IMAGE allows for optimizations to occur. For example, the elimination of CR/LF conversion. BINARY is essentially a raw byte copy. In some instances the two will have the same results. However, if a machine that uses CR/LF as the end of line transmits BINARY to a machine that uses LF as EOL, the message would not appear as the same information at the other end. Another example (only slightly far fetched) would be two systems that store information in a compressed form. An appropriate IMAGE mode would allow them to communicate the compressed information directly without first converting back. Eliot Lear [lear@turbo.bio.net]