Fred Bohle <> Wed, 21 July 1993 14:44 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03595; 21 Jul 93 10:44 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa03591; 21 Jul 93 10:44 EDT
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11989; 21 Jul 93 10:44 EDT
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5763; Wed, 21 Jul 93 10:44:28 EDT
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 5759; Wed, 21 Jul 93 10:44:19 EDT
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 10:43:52 -0400
Reply-To: IETF TN3270E Working Group List <>
X-Orig-Sender: IETF TN3270E Working Group List <>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Fred Bohle <>
Subject: Re: RFCS
To: Multiple recipients of list TN3270E <>
Message-ID: <9307211044.aa11989@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>

>Sounds reasonable to me.
>> 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.
>I wasn't sure how this could be useful, either, but it was in the
>presentation that Bob did (and that I think Scott Herzog and Jon Penner of
>DCA pretty much wrote) at the March IETF.  I don't remember it being
>discussed, but I could've missed it if it was.  Azi's comments on this
>subject make me think it would be worth including NVT-DATA even if only a
>few vendors make use of it.  Perhaps Jon (or some of the other vendors)
>could elaborate on its usefulness, or if there was any discussion of it at
>IETF someone could summarize it to the list?

Peter, our product uses NVT data to select an application to log on to.
I would like to negotiate TN3270E mode and stay in it for the duration
of the session.  Passing NVT data inside TN3270E mode will let me do that.
Also, it is explicitly required in the draft and will eliminate confusion
about what support is required.  We want to be able to alternate from 3270
data streams and NVT data streams, without the arguments we occaisionally
get from client vendors.


Fred Bohle                      EMAIL:
Interlink Computer Sciences     AT&T : 301-317-6600
9145 Guilford Road, Suite 175
Columbia, MD 21046