RFCE: More comments

Peter DiCamillo <CMSMAINT%BROWNVM.bitnet@list.nih.gov> Tue, 20 July 1993 23:08 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14850; 20 Jul 93 19:08 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14846; 20 Jul 93 19:08 EDT
Received: from list.nih.gov by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa28109; 20 Jul 93 19:08 EDT
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0266; Tue, 20 Jul 93 19:08:02 EDT
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 0261; Tue, 20 Jul 93 19:07:53 EDT
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 18:37:12 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: Peter DiCamillo <CMSMAINT%BROWNVM.bitnet@list.nih.gov>
Subject: RFCE: More comments
To: Multiple recipients of list TN3270E <TN3270E@list.nih.gov>
Message-ID: <9307201908.aa28109@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>

The RFC looks good to me, but I do have a few comments:

1. In the introduction, right before the overview, is the sentence
   "It is not clear whether clients should support 3270 structured
   fields."  I think I understand the intent here, but I suggest
   clarifying it. How about "There is no mechanism by which the server
   can determine if a client supports 3270 structured field, or a client
   can request that it receive them."

2. I'm puzzled by the inclusion of NVT-DATA as one of the data types,
   and RFC provides no explanation for its presence, or how it is
   intended to be used.  I'm not necessarily saying it should be
   removed, but could someone explain the motivation behind it?
   Traditionally, NVT data is sent either before 3270 mode has been
   negotiated, or later only after negotiating an end to 3270 mode.
   Nothing in the RFC would seem to preclude continuing to do that.
   Also, nothing in the RFC seems to preclude sending a block of
   NVT data at any arbitrary time in the middle of a 3270 session.
   What is a client expected to do if that happens?  If it's not
   intended to be used that way, that needs to be clarified.

3. Reference 7 in the original draft is an IBM "LY" manual, that
   is, a licensed manual.  My understanding is that such manuals
   are available only to licensees of the associated program
   products, and like a program product remain the property of
   IBM.  Typically, each page includes "Restricted Materials of
   IBM" and "Licensed Materials - Property of IBM".  Can't we
   find a generally-available manual that includes sufficient
   information for our purposes?  Even as an IBM (but non-SNA)
   customer, I'm not certain I can obtain a copy of that manual.
   I think references in an RFC should be as generally available
   as RFCs, even if they're not free.  Also, use of an LY manual
   in this way may not be allowed by IBM.

Peter