Re: Last Call: TN3270 Extensions for LUname and Printer Selection to Proposed Standard
Bill Kelly <kellywh@mail.auburn.edu> Fri, 18 February 1994 02:16 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21501; 17 Feb 94 21:16 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21459; 17 Feb 94 21:14 EST
Received: from list.nih.gov by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25823; 17 Feb 94 21:14 EST
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4454; Thu, 17 Feb 94 21:11:50 EST
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 4452; Thu, 17 Feb 94 21:11:43 EST
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 20:04:22 -0600
Reply-To: IETF TN3270E Working Group List <TN3270E@list.nih.gov>
X-Orig-Sender: IETF TN3270E Working Group List <TN3270E@list.nih.gov>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Bill Kelly <kellywh@mail.auburn.edu>
Subject: Re: Last Call: TN3270 Extensions for LUname and Printer Selection to Proposed Standard
X-To: TN3270E list <tn3270e@list.nih.gov>
To: Multiple recipients of list TN3270E <TN3270E@list.nih.gov>
In-Reply-To: <9402180102.AA20750@mail.auburn.edu>
Message-ID: <9402172114.aa25823@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
On Thu, 17 Feb 1994, IESG Secretary wrote: > The IESG has received a request from the Telnet TN3270 Enhancements > Working Group to consider <draft-ietf-tn3270e-luname-print-02.txt> > "TN3270 Extensions for LUname and Printer Selection" for the status of > Proposed Standard. > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the > iesg@cnri.reston.va.us, or ietf@cnri.reston.va.us mailing lists by > March 3, 1994. > Hmmm...maybe it's just a misunderstanding on my part, but this announcement confuses the heck out of me. This is a standards-track RFC?? I was under the impression it was to be either an experimental or an informational RFC. If we're putting out two standards track RFCs, it seems to me that it will be awfully confusing - which one are developers supposed to adhere to? Both?? Take your pick?? They certainly aren't interoperable. What gives? By the way, the latest revision of (what I thought was the standards track RFC) is ready, and I'll get it to Roger and Bob tomorrow. No earth-shattering changes...just clearing up LU1 SCS data versus SSCP-LU data, for the most part. Thanks, Bill Bill Kelly phone: (205) 844-4512 Auburn University Internet: kellywh@mail.auburn.edu
- Last Call: TN3270 Extensions for LUname and Print… IESG Secretary
- Re: Last Call: TN3270 Extensions for LUname and P… Bill Kelly