Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC
"David A. Borman" <dab@berserkly.cray.com> Thu, 07 April 1994 17:03 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08927; 7 Apr 94 13:03 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08923; 7 Apr 94 13:03 EDT
Received: from list.nih.gov by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18551; 7 Apr 94 13:03 EDT
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6885; Thu, 07 Apr 94 13:01:50 EDT
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 6883; Thu, 07 Apr 94 12:05:53 EDT
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 1994 11:05:18 -0500
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: "David A. Borman" <dab@berserkly.cray.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: <9404071303.aa18551@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
Ok, Telnet commands within a TN3270E data message must be processed, but they may be processed either before or after the TN3270E data message that contains them (implementation dependent). So I propose changing the paragraph: The presence of Telnet commands within a TN3270E data message (i.e., between the header and the trailing IAC EOR) is not supported; neither clients nor servers should send such data. If a TN3270E data message containing an IAC-command sequence (other than IAC IAC) is received, the receiver should discard the IAC-command sequence and continue processing the TN3270E data message. IAC-commands should be sent between TN3270E data messages, with no header and no trailing IAC EOR. to: Telnet commands (other than IAC IAC) 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 when the IAC-command sequence will be processed, but it must be processed. The receiver may process it immediatly, which in effect causes it to processed as if it had been received before the current TN3270E data message, or the processing may be defered until after the current TN3270E data message has been processed. It is because of this ambiguity that 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. -David Borman, dab@cray.com
- 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