Re: Telnet Query
"Robert G. Moskowitz" <0003858921@mcimail.com> Mon, 17 May 1993 11:39 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21751; 17 May 93 7:39 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21747; 17 May 93 7:39 EDT
Received: from list.nih.gov by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa29163; 17 May 93 7:39 EDT
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3262; Mon, 17 May 93 07:40:38 EDT
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 3257; Mon, 17 May 93 07:40:31 EDT
Date: Mon, 17 May 1993 11:34:00 +0000
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: "Robert G. Moskowitz" <0003858921@mcimail.com>
Subject: Re: Telnet Query
X-To: IETF TN3270E Working Group List <TN3270E@list.nih.gov>
To: Multiple recipients of list TN3270E <TN3270E@list.nih.gov>
Message-ID: <9305170739.aa29163@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
Bruce Crabill replied: >>We recogonize the need for a header, but <header><3270 data><EOR> is really >>just <user data><EOR> to the first block diagram in Dave's note. >Actually, it is not clear to me why the EOR would be needed if we had a >header that included the data length to follow. Very true Bruce. The point is, we do need a header. Lots of important control info in there. We do not NEED a data length field. Some WANT a data length field. If you have a data length field, you do not need an <EOR>, but need Dave's 2nd flow model. If you do not use a data length field, you need an <EOR>, and use Dave's 1st flow model. Now the issue is, what are the consequences of including a data length field? Does this mean that a data packet must start at the beginning of a TELNET packet, but can span a number of packets? Can an IAC follow a data packet in the same TELNET packet? Is Dave's processing model correct/complete? What are its implecations? Particularly to a server that must be backwards compatible to RFCI type clients? What will the IESG's review of our technical document be? Will they feel that this is acceptable behaviour for a TELNET implementation, or will they 'regulate' us off of port 23? Are there other issues? We have to answer these points along with any design that includes a data length field. Robert Moskowitz Chrysler Corporation TN3270E WG Chair
- Re: Telnet Query Bruce Crabill
- Re: Telnet Query Michael StJohns
- Re: Telnet Query Dave Crocker
- Re: Telnet Query Robert G. Moskowitz
- Re: Telnet Query Robert G. Moskowitz
- Re: Telnet Query Gilbert, Howard
- Re: Telnet Query Fred Bohle
- Re: Telnet Query Cleve Graves
- Re: Telnet Query Fred Bohle
- Re: Telnet Query Robert G. Moskowitz
- Re: Telnet Query Steve Coya
- Re: Telnet Query Robert G. Moskowitz