IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Fwd: Re: draft-ietf-tn3270e-luname-print-02.txt

Roger Fajman <RAF@cu.nih.gov> Thu, 24 February 1994 21:19 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11775; 24 Feb 94 16:19 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11771; 24 Feb 94 16:19 EST
Received: from list.nih.gov by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18033; 24 Feb 94 16:19 EST
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4070; Thu, 24 Feb 94 16:17:38 EST
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 4067; Thu, 24 Feb 94 16:17:30 EST
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 15:11:09 -0500
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: Roger Fajman <RAF@cu.nih.gov>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: draft-ietf-tn3270e-luname-print-02.txt
X-To: TN3270E@LIST.NIH.GOV
To: Multiple recipients of list TN3270E <TN3270E@list.nih.gov>
Message-ID: <9402241619.aa18033@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>

> Either way (holding it up for a month or two, then publishing as
> Informational -or- making it an appendix to RFCS), really boils down to the
> same thing: it is not intended to be a Standard; it is a limited,
> interim solution for those who *must* implement something *now*; it will
> be obsoleted by the Standards RFC.

That's the intent as I always understood it.  Although, giving the timing,
it's not clear to me why someone who hasn't implemented something yet
wouldn't do RFCS instead of RFCE at this point.

If we want to make it an appendix to something, how about RFCI instead
of RFCS?   The protocol is just a variation of the RFCI protocol.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email