Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC

[Jagan Bearelly <[e-mail]>]

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


>From [e-mail] Wed Apr  6 16:09 PDT 1994
>Date:         Wed, 6 Apr 1994 17:41:59 EDT
>Reply-To: IETF TN3270E Working Group List <[e-mail]>
>Sender: IETF TN3270E Working Group List <[e-mail]>
>From: Roger Fajman <[e-mail]>
>Subject:      Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC
>X-To:         [e-mail]
>To: Multiple recipients of list TN3270E <[e-mail]>
>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.
>