Re: Telnet Query

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu> Sun, 16 May 1993 15:35 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11475; 16 May 93 11:35 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11471; 16 May 93 11:35 EDT
Received: from list.nih.gov by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa05396; 16 May 93 11:35 EDT
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2480; Sun, 16 May 93 11:37:08 EDT
Received: from LIST.NIH.GOV by LIST.NIH.GOV (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP id 2475; Sun, 16 May 93 11:37:03 EDT
Date: Sun, 16 May 1993 08:34:45 -0700
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: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Telnet Query
X-To: Michael StJohns <stjohns@arpa.mil>
X-cc: Christian Huitema <Christian.Huitema@sophia.inria.fr>, "David A. Borman" <dab@berserkly.cray.com>, iab@isi.edu, iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US, TN3270E@list.nih.gov
To: Multiple recipients of list TN3270E <TN3270E@list.nih.gov>
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 15 May 93 12:54:15 -0500. <199305151653.AA28485@vax.darpa.mil>
Message-ID: <9305161135.aa05396@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>

Mike,

The IDEA of fall-back is appealing.  But is it realistic in this case?

I don't know anything about the 3270 world.  If I refuse 3270 mode,
will host systems really let me continue in dumb tty mode?

d/
    ---- Included message:

    and I'm not sure which way to jump) it makes sense to make this part of the
    telnet protocol rather than a separate protocol.  Why?  -> The notion of
    fall back.  If you can't negotiate TN3270 mode, you still get dumb  (or
    perhaps dumber) terminal service.  Whereas if you have a TN3270 only