IETF Logo Mail Archive

Status of RFCE

"Robert G. Moskowitz" <0003858921@mcimail.com> Tue, 15 March 1994 13:09 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01525; 15 Mar 94 8:09 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01521; 15 Mar 94 8:09 EST
Received: from list.nih.gov by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03784; 15 Mar 94 8:09 EST
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1235; Tue, 15 Mar 94 08:07:01 EST
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 1233; Tue, 15 Mar 94 08:06:54 EST
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 08:03:00 -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: "Robert G. Moskowitz" <0003858921@mcimail.com>
Subject: Status of RFCE
X-To: IETF TN3270E Working Group List <TN3270E@list.nih.gov>
To: Multiple recipients of list TN3270E <TN3270E@list.nih.gov>
Message-ID: <9403150809.aa03784@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>

John told me:

>It seems to me that, if the luname_print were rewritten to be clearly a
>second "current practices" document--"this is what some folks are doing,
>even if we can't strongly recommend it"-- it would sail through, although
>more easily yet if in the context of a finished extensions doc.

So I submit to the group that we instruct OCS to do the word-smithing so
that RFCE reads like current practices:  'here is how 3287 print and LU
selection has been addressed with the current TN3270 protocol'.

Comments?

Bob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email