Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC

Jagan Bearelly <Jagan.Bearelly@corp.sun.com> Thu, 07 April 1994 03:02 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19181; 6 Apr 94 23:02 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19177; 6 Apr 94 23:02 EDT
Received: from list.nih.gov by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa22023; 6 Apr 94 23:02 EDT
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4894; Wed, 06 Apr 94 22:59:49 EDT
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 4893; Wed, 06 Apr 94 22:59:43 EDT
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 19:58:49 +0800
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: Jagan Bearelly <Jagan.Bearelly@corp.sun.com>
Subject: Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC
X-To: TN3270E@LIST.NIH.GOV
To: Multiple recipients of list TN3270E <TN3270E@list.nih.gov>
Message-ID: <9404062302.aa22023@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>

Can somebody take me off this alias, please.
Thanks!!


>From TN3270E@LIST.NIH.GOV Wed Apr  6 16:09 PDT 1994
>Date:         Wed, 6 Apr 1994 17:41:59 EDT
>Reply-To: IETF TN3270E Working Group List <TN3270E@LIST.NIH.GOV>;
>Sender: IETF TN3270E Working Group List <TN3270E@LIST.NIH.GOV>;
>From: Roger Fajman <RAF@CU.NIH.GOV>;
>Subject:      Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC
>X-To:         TN3270E@LIST.NIH.GOV
>To: Multiple recipients of list TN3270E <TN3270E@LIST.NIH.GOV>;
>Content-Type: text
>Status: RO
>
>>    The presence of Telnet commands within a TN3270E data message
>>    (i.e., between the header and the trailing IAC EOR) is not
>>    recommended; neither clients nor servers should send such data.
>>    IAC-commands should be sent between TN3270E data messages, with no
>>    header and no trailing IAC EOR.  If a TN3270E data message
>>    containing an IAC-command sequence (other than IAC IAC) is received,
>>    it is implementation dependent how the IAC-command sequence will be
>>    processed; the processing may be defered until after the current
>>    TN3270E data message has processed.  (Any IAC-command sequence that
>>    is received within a TN3270E data message that would normally require
>>    response must be responded to at some point to avoid the potential
>>    for deadlocks. Any IAC-command that does not require a response
>>    may just be ignored.)
>
>It might be easier to implement responding to Telnet commands that
>appear in the middle of a 3270 data block as if they occurred before
>the block, rather than after.  If the block is being buffered up until
>it is complete, then the Telnet commands could be processed while the
>block is being received.  I think it should be the receiver's option to
>process them as if they occurred before or after.  We probably should
>also say that it is OK to deny requests in the middle of a block that
>would be accepted between blocks.
>