Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC

[Bill Kelly <[e-mail]>]

> OK things have been quite for a few days.
>
> Bill are we ready for one more change and go?

Yes, it has been quiet, but I wasn't sure that the issue had been settled.
Putting in the revised text can be done quickly, but that text first needs
to be agreed to, and I'm not sure it has yet.

As I see it, there are two proposed methods of handling Telnet commands
that appear in a tn3270e data block:

- One is to state that such IACs must be processed as if they occurred
  after the tn3270 data.  This view is supported by the server vendors
  who have expressed an opinion.

- The other is to leave more flexibility to the implementor - let each
  vendor decide whether to process these IACs before, "during", or after
  the tn3270 data.

There are probably valid arguments to be made both for and against
allowing more flexibility; I'm willing to go with either approach we
decide on.  In the absence of a vote, consensus, or decree from Bob, I'm
planning on going with the "require that they be processed after the 3270
data" approach because, while it is more rigid, it might well also be less
prone to problems due to varying implementations.  I'm just a
conservative kind of guy, I guess. :)

If I hear no other comments, I'll go ahead and put this in the document
over the weekend and post it by Sunday.

Thanks,
Bill

Bill Kelly               phone: [phone]
Auburn University     Internet: [e-mail]