Re: [apps-discuss] tn3270

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

While I'm no fan of the 3270 (and wasn't back when I was doing
programming that depended on them), I have to agree with Lyndon.
There is almost certainly no harm in keeping the URI definition
and probably some harm in getting rid of it.   One could argue
that the spec should be retired because it is inadequate and
obsolete, but inventing and applying that criterion is IMO
unreasonable unless we intend to start applying the "time out
and die" provisions of RFC 2026 for the first time in history.

    john


--On Thursday, November 18, 2010 21:57 -0800 "Lyndon Nerenberg
(VE6BBM/VE7TFX)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> Well, AFAIK, 3270 emulation is still in some limited use in
>> commercial legacy mixed-platform environments, but I've never
>> heard of practical usage of the 'tn3270' URI scheme in that
>> context -- all such business applications are likely to
>> operate based on tightly controlled local configuration of
>> the access points and not driven by some kind of browser
>> software operating on 'tn3270' URIs.
> 
> That's an awfully presumptive generalization to make about how
> other people's businesses operate.  That aside, "must be
> accessible to the global Internet" isn't a criteria for (or
> against) standardization (or registration).  Standards can
> also apply inside walled gardens.
>...