Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC
fab@fab.md.interlink.com Wed, 06 April 1994 15:54 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06179; 6 Apr 94 11:54 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06175; 6 Apr 94 11:54 EDT
Received: from list.nih.gov by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14961; 6 Apr 94 11:54 EDT
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2141; Wed, 06 Apr 94 11:51:49 EDT
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 2138; Wed, 06 Apr 94 11:07:41 EDT
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 1994 11:10:09 -0400
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: <9404061154.aa14961@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
> On Thu, 31 Mar 1994, David A. Borman wrote: > > > > Another thing I've been wondering about is whether or not our summarily > > > throwing away Telnet commands like this is going to ruffle feathers among > > > the "Telnet traditionalists" out there... > > > 2) Some telnet commands imply a point in the data stream > > that something is to be done, that may be ambiguous or > > not make sense within a TN3270E data message. > > ...I think #2 is the main problem... > > Yes. The fact that we are still requiring scanning for IACs (even if it > were only to find IAC-IAC) irks some of the vendors, I think. But given > the requirement for that scanning, I see little additional overhead in > looking for the "<foo>"s. > > > ...If some implementation actually does insert Telnet > > commands into the TN3270E data message, either intentionally or > > accidently, it can lead to problems. If the client sent "IAC DO FOO" > > within the data message, and the server just ignored it, the client > > will hang if it is waiting for the "IAC WILL FOO" or "IAC WONT FOO" > > response. > > Again, I agree. > > > I have no problem with trying to discourage Telnet commands from being > > sent within a TN3270E data message, but to mandate that any any Telnet > > commands within a TN3270E data message other than IAC-IAC will be > > ignored seems to be wrong. It would be much better to recommend that > > Telnet commands not be sent within the TN3270E data message, along with > > a short description of why (e.g., ambiguity and performance). > > > > How about something like: > > > > The presence of Telnet commands within a TN3270E data message > > (i.e., between the header and the trailing IAC EOR) is not > > recommended; neither clients nor servers should send such data. > > IAC-commands should be sent between TN3270E data messages, with no > > header and no trailing IAC EOR. If a TN3270E data message > > containing an IAC-command sequence (other than IAC IAC) is received, > > it is implementation dependent how the IAC-command sequence will be > > processed; the processing may be defered until after the current > > TN3270E data message has processed. (Any IAC-command sequence that > > is received within a TN3270E data message that would normally require > > response must be responded to at some point to avoid the potential > > for deadlocks. Any IAC-command that does not require a response > > may just be ignored.) > > > > The goal is to encourage the spirit of not having arbitrary Telnet > > command sequences within the TN3270E data message, while making sure > > that if they do happen, that implementations will be robust enough > > to deal with them and that the protocol processing will remain > > deterministic. > This language is not strong enough and precise enough for me. How about saying that IAC sequences (other than IAC-IAC) WILL be handled as if they appeared AFTER the IAC EOR if they appear inside a TN3270E frame. For this reason, they SHOULD be sent outside a TN3270E frame. Fred
- Newly revised standards-track RFC Bill Kelly
- Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC Roger Fajman
- Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC Roger Fajman
- Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC fab
- Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC Bill Kelly
- Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC fab
- Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC David A. Borman
- Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC Bill Kelly
- Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC fab
- Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC David A. Borman
- Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC Robert G. Moskowitz
- Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC Roger Fajman
- Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC Jagan Bearelly
- Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC fab
- Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC David A. Borman
- Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC fab
- Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC Roger Fajman
- Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC David A. Borman
- Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC Robert G. Moskowitz
- Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC Bill Kelly
- Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC Roger Fajman
- Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC Pierre Goyette - The 3270 Man
- Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC Peter DiCamillo