Table of Contents

Foreword
1 Scope
2 References
3 Definitions and abbreviations
  3.1 Definitions
  3.2 Abbreviations
4 Protocols compared
  4.1 Positioning of the protocols compared
  4.2 File Transfer and OSI layering
5 Suitability for the basic requirements
  5.1 Requirements for the file transfer protocol
  5.2 Comparison of the protocols
  5.3 Comparison of the primitives
  5.4 Comparison of the handshakes
  5.5 Requirements for the working environment
  5.6 Comparison of features derived from the requirements for
      the working environment
  5.7 Requirements for the lower layer services
  5.8 Comparison of the interaction with the lower layer services
6 Suitability for enhanced requirements
  6.1 Comments regarding the file transfer protocol
  6.2 Comments regarding the working environment
7 Service class for Standardised Simple File Transfer (SSFT)
8 Conclusions and recommendations
  8.1 Immediate decision for one of the existing protocols
  8.2 Decision for one of the existing protocols with added
      flexibility
  8.3 Decision for a completely new protocol
  8.4 Final recommendation
Annex A (informative): File transfer protocols excluded
      A.1 Teletex
      A.2 Telematic file transfer
      A.3 Proprietary file transfer
Annex B (informative): Programming Communication Interfaces
        (PCI) for SSFT
      B.1 Application Programming Interface (API)
      B.2 The role of layer 4
      B.3 Programming Communications Interface (PCI)
Annex C (informative): FTAM - a brief overview
Annex D (informative): Public operator support
Annex E (informative): Comparison of the protocol handshakes
        required to satisfy the basic requirements
      E.1 ETS 300 075 - Send
      E.2 FTAM - Send
      E.3 ETS 300 075 - Receive
      E.4 FTAM - Receive
      E.5 ETS 300 075 - Directory list
      E.6 FTAM - Directory list
      E.7 ETS 300 075 - Rename
      E.8 FTAM - Rename
      E.9 ETS 300 075 - Delete
      E.10 FTAM - Delete
      E.11 Summary
History

Abstract

Investigation of existing base/functional stds for file transfer on ISDN between terminals. Comparison of ad/dis advantages of each, taking into account user requirements re EIUF and IMIMG. Selection of single stack of existing protocols (aim: no options), and of HLC/LLC...coding and facilities. Definition of application of APIs (ISDN PC I and APPLI COM).

General Product Information

Published
Document Type	Standard
Status	Current
Publisher	European Telecommunications Standards Institute
Pages
ISBN
Committee	TE 1