Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC

fab@fab.md.interlink.com Thu, 07 April 1994 16:13 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08101; 7 Apr 94 12:13 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08097; 7 Apr 94 12:13 EDT
Received: from [128.231.64.10] by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17339; 7 Apr 94 12:13 EDT
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6497; Thu, 07 Apr 94 12:11:14 EDT
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 6495; Thu, 07 Apr 94 11:12:19 EDT
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 11:14:11 EDT
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: fab@fab.md.interlink.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: <9404071213.aa17339@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>

>
> >    The presence of Telnet commands within a TN3270E data message
> >    (i.e., between the header and the trailing IAC EOR) is not
> >    recommended;...
>
> 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.
>

Roger,
        Have you also reviewed my suggestion to implement the commands
AFTER the EOR is found?  I think this is safer.

Fred