Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC
Peter DiCamillo <CMSMAINT%BROWNVM.bitnet@list.nih.gov> Fri, 15 April 1994 06:47 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00518; 15 Apr 94 2:47 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00513; 15 Apr 94 2:47 EDT
Received: from list.nih.gov by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa01091; 15 Apr 94 2:47 EDT
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8425; Fri, 15 Apr 94 02:18:41 EDT
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 8423; Fri, 15 Apr 94 02:15:49 EDT
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 01:32:07 -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: Peter DiCamillo <CMSMAINT%BROWNVM.bitnet@list.nih.gov>
Subject: Re: Newly revised standards-track RFC
To: Multiple recipients of list TN3270E <TN3270E@list.nih.gov>
In-Reply-To: Your mail of Thu 14 Apr 1994 20:24:13
Message-ID: <9404150247.aa01091@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
In my tn3270 implementation, Telnet options received within a data block are processed at the time they are received. No special precautions are taken to defer processing which would more sensibly be done at the completion of a data block. This is by far the easiest and most straightforward way for me to implement it. It also is very general, in that it allows the possibility of handling options that would affect only part of the data in a 3270 block. It's conceivable that some future option could cause tn3270 to change a flag which would affect how it processes subsequent data even within the same block. My general approach is to assume that if an option occurs within a data block, there is a good reason why it was sent then, instead of between blocks. What I would most favor is a requirement that Telnet options should be processed at the time they are received. It allows for the kind of processing I described above, and does not allow different implementations to handle the options at different times. Apparently, some implementations need to defer options processing. Considering that, I wouldn't object to a statement that implementations SHOULD attempt to process Telnet options at the time they are received, but MUST process them no sooner than at the start of the data block that contains them, and no later than at the end of the data block. I would be opposed to a requirement that forced processing of options to be delayed. To strictly implement that, I'd need to add new code to save up options to process later, and I don't see any good reason to do that. Can anyone think of a situation where even though a server wanted an option processed at the end of a data block, it had to send the option sooner? Peter
- 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