RFC 506 UNKNOWN FILE TRANSFER · NAMING

FTP command naming problem

A proposal to add clearer synonyms for FTP's STOR and RETR commands.

On rfc-editor.org ↗
PUBLISHED
June 1973
AUTHORS
M.A. Padlipsky
STREAM
Legacy
DOI
10.17487/RFC0506

RFC text

Original text · RFC Editor View on rfc-editor.org ↗
Network Working Group                                     M.A. Padlipsky
Request for Comments #506                                    MIT-Multics
NIC #16157                                                       6/26/73


                     An FTP Command-Naming Problem

In using the File Transfer Protocol, I've noticed that the choice of
names for two crucial commands is faulty.  The commands are STOR, which
tell the Server to take a file in, and RETR, which tells the Server to
send a file out.  The trouble is that telling the Server to "retrieve" a
file sounds like a desire for the file to be taken in by the Server
rather than be sent out.  For that matter, telling the Server to "store"
the file sounds like it could be either a command to send it out or a
command to take it in.  The names of the commands, then, are both
connotatively ambiguous and not very mnemonic if they are thought of as
commands to the Server.  (If they're thought of as commands to the User
Host, they make more sense -- but they're not commands to the Use
(Host.)

Of course, memorizing the denotations -- despite the connotations -- is
a solution.  But it would probably be easier for users if the names were
more suggestive of the functions named.  Therefore, I propose that PUSH
and PULL be added to the FTP as synonyms for RETR and STOR, respectively
(I hope).  Even GIVE and TAKE would be an improvement.  At the very
least, SEND should be a synonym for RETR. (1)












---------------------
(1)  Note that by specifying synonyms rather than replacement, existing
correct reflexes -- and "automata" -- are not disturbed, while newcomers
to FTPing are given a better chance of choosing right.



       [ 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.             9/99 ]

ISO Plain Language

On this page
PROBLEMThe author argues that STOR and RETR can sound ambiguous when interpreted as commands directed to an FTP server.
MECHANISMHe proposes PUSH as a synonym for RETR and PULL as a synonym for STOR, while keeping the existing commands.
A NAMING PROPOSALThe RFC presents a naming proposal; it does not state whether the synonyms were adopted.

§1Why STOR and RETR Seem Ambiguous

The author describes STOR as telling the server to take a file in and RETR as telling it to send a file out. He argues that the words themselves can suggest the opposite direction or be unclear when understood as commands to the server.

The author says STOR and RETR are not easy to interpret as server commands. Their names do not clearly show which way the file moves.

§2Proposed Synonyms

The proposal is to add PUSH and PULL as synonyms for RETR and STOR, respectively. The author also mentions GIVE and TAKE as possible alternatives and says SEND should at least be a synonym for RETR.

The suggested names are PUSH for RETR and PULL for STOR. The author also suggests SEND for RETR as a minimum improvement.

§3Adding Names Without Replacing Them

The author specifically proposes synonyms rather than replacements. In his view, this would leave existing user habits and automated programs undisturbed while giving newcomers alternative command names.

The RFC does not say whether any of these synonyms were implemented.

Existing commands would remain available, so current users and programs could keep using them. The RFC does not report what happened to the proposal.