Re: RFCS
fab@fab.md.interlink.com Wed, 06 April 1994 15:40 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05188; 6 Apr 94 11:40 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05184; 6 Apr 94 11:40 EDT
Received: from list.nih.gov by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa14430; 6 Apr 94 11:40 EDT
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2065; Wed, 06 Apr 94 11:37:57 EDT
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 2064; Wed, 06 Apr 94 11:00:42 EDT
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 1994 11:03:10 -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: RFCS
X-To: TN3270E@LIST.NIH.GOV
To: Multiple recipients of list TN3270E <TN3270E@list.nih.gov>
Message-ID: <9404061140.aa14430@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
> On Wed, 30 Mar 1994, Tom Butts wrote: > > > Section 10.3 > > > > "When establishing an SNA session on behalf of a client, the > > server will receive a Bind RU from the host application. It > > will also receive a Start Data Traffic RU. Once both of these > > have been responded to positively by the server, it must then > > inform the client of the presence of this session by sending it > > a data message with the DATA-TYPE flag set to BIND-IMAGE. The > > data portion of this message must contain the bind image exactly > > as it was received in the Bind RU that the server accepted on > > behalf of the client." > > > > Why not allow the client to see the BIND-IMAGE and respond to it > > (positively or negatively)? > > Doesn't that just add a level of complication though? In either case, > the server is going to have to examine the Bind to make sure that it's > acceptable (RU sizes, LU type, etc.). Is there anything gained by having > the client also examine the Bind, and then having the client and server > negotiate to come to agreement on whether to accept or reject the Bind? I agree that this adds another level of complexity which we do not want nor need. This was discussed early in TN3270E discussions and rejected. Refer to the archives. > > > ...Also why require the server to keep > > a BIND-IMAGE around for each session -- just send it when the server > > is going to positively respond to the BIND. > > I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. By "keep a > BIND-IMAGE around for each session" do you mean for the entire life of a > given session? The draft simply says that the server must send a copy of > the Bind image to the client as soon as an SNA session is established; > whether or not the server hangs on to a given session's associated Bind > image after that is, I suppose, up to the server. Or am I missing your > point? > > Thanks, > Bill I think his point was that you have to hold the BIND-IMAGE around until the Start-Data-Traffic flows. I suppose it means that the client cannot send data traffic to the server until the server can send that data to Vtam. It is a tradeoff of whether to buffer the data traffic or to buffer the BIND-IMAGE. At least the BIND-IMAGE is of a known, finite size, compared to data traffic. Is that right Tom? Fred