IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] tn3270

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Fri, 19 November 2010 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F823A6809; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:29:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CkeynxHHz01v; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:29:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7318F3A67FF; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:29:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1PJVie-000A3n-Ap; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:29:56 -0500
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:29:55 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F0919948C56C4A56FF658A@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <4CE68651.5050705@gmail.com>
References: <55895239d7e7df2d41b9da075c4f149c@gandalf.orthanc.ca> <175AC1CC70EF63F569DB1757@PST.JCK.COM> <4CE68651.5050705@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: uri-review@ietf.org, Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] [Uri-review] tn3270
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 18:29:11 -0000

--On Friday, November 19, 2010 16:14 +0200 Mykyta Yevstifeyev
<evnikita2@gmail.com> wrote:

> John,
> 
> As you say,
> "There is almost certainly no harm in keeping the URI
> definition
> and probably some harm in getting rid of it. ". So it should
> be asked -
> what harm is there in moving the 'tns3270' URI scheme to
> 'Historic'. At the moment no acceptable definition seems to be
> found. Some RFCs discussing issues connected with IBM 3270
> Emulation are RFC 1041 and 2355, but they are Proposed and
> Draft
> Standards. I should repeat that at the moment the technology
> of IBM 3270 emulation is no longer used. It is not an
> acceptable
> way for the Internet Community at all to remain any standards
> no longer needed alive. Maybe this is harmful, but not revising
> current standards to make them modern and needed.

Several of us -- including Lyndon, Michael, and myself -- have
observed counterexamples to your assertion that IBM 3270
emulation is no longer in use.  Can you explain the reasoning or
published research that supports your assertion in the light of
those counterexamples?

      john

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status