Re: [apps-discuss] tn3270

----- Original Message -----
From: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: "Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)" <lyndon@orthanc.ca>;
<uri-review@ietf.org>; <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 9:11 AM
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] tn3270

> 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

I agree; I would even offer to review an updated specification
(although I think that that would be overkill).

Tom Petch

> --On Thursday, November 18, 2010 21:57 -0800 "Lyndon Nerenberg
> (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)" <lyndon@orthanc.ca> 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.
> >...
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss