Re: Telnet Query

Michael StJohns <stjohns@arpa.mil> Sat, 15 May 1993 16:54 UTC

Date: Sat, 15 May 1993 12:54:15 -0500
Reply-To: IETF TN3270E Working Group List <TN3270E@list.nih.gov>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Michael StJohns <stjohns@arpa.mil>
Subject: Re: Telnet Query
To: Multiple recipients of list TN3270E <TN3270E@list.nih.gov>
Message-ID: <9305151254.aa11272@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>

Christian - without commenting on whether or not the idea of "packets"
makes sense within a telnet stream (I've read Dave's note a couple of times
and I'm not sure which way to jump) it makes sense to make this part of the
telnet protocol rather than a separate protocol.  Why?  -> The notion of
fall back.  If you can't negotiate TN3270 mode, you still get dumb  (or
perhaps dumber) terminal service.  Whereas if you have a TN3270 only
protocol you're out of luck if one end or the other doesn't do the
protocol.  Telnet has a fairly powerful optioning mechanism -- I wish more
of our protocols had ways of negotiating options this cleanly.

Mike

At 09:04 5/14/93 +0200, Christian Huitema wrote:
> the "3270 extensions" that you describe look pretty much
>like redesigning the protocol. For my own enlightment, could you please
>explain why you dont consider just splitting "3270" and "telnet", and design
>an ad hoc "tn3270" protocol?
________
Michael StJohns, Major USAF, Program Mgr, ARPA/CSTO (703) 696-2271

Re: Telnet Query Bruce Crabill
Re: Telnet Query Michael StJohns
Re: Telnet Query Dave Crocker
Re: Telnet Query Robert G. Moskowitz
Re: Telnet Query Robert G. Moskowitz
Re: Telnet Query Gilbert, Howard
Re: Telnet Query Fred Bohle
Re: Telnet Query Cleve Graves
Re: Telnet Query Fred Bohle
Re: Telnet Query Robert G. Moskowitz
Re: Telnet Query Steve Coya
Re: Telnet Query Robert G. Moskowitz