Re: RFC Comments
Peter DiCamillo <CMSMAINT%BROWNVM.bitnet@list.nih.gov> Wed, 21 July 1993 23:48 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13559; 21 Jul 93 19:48 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13555; 21 Jul 93 19:48 EDT
Received: from list.nih.gov by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa29438; 21 Jul 93 19:48 EDT
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6698; Wed, 21 Jul 93 19:48:22 EDT
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 6694; Wed, 21 Jul 93 19:48:18 EDT
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 19:41:16 -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: RFC Comments
To: Multiple recipients of list TN3270E <TN3270E@list.nih.gov>
In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 21 Jul 1993 19:52:57 +0200 from <rndi!azi@UUNET.UU.NET>
Message-ID: <9307211948.aa29438@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>
On Wed, 21 Jul 1993 19:52:57 +0200 azi said: >Regarding NON-SNA servers (IBM's TCP/IP) they cant do SNA functions >anyway (like responses) and have to 'fake' even the suggested TN3270E-header. Yes, but the TN3270E header contains just what is needed for the protocol, no other fields, and is completely defined in the RFC itself. >My suggestion was just another format for the header - easier to >implement (even for the clients - since they usually support >real SNA, I think). I would suspect the most widely-used implementation of tn3270 is the Berkeley Unix version, and it, as well as my Mac client, have no support for SNA other than recognizing an alternate set of command codes. Peter
- RFC Comments azi
- Re: RFC Comments Bill Kelly
- RFC Comments azi
- Re: RFC Comments Peter DiCamillo