IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Options

William Chops Westfield <billw@cisco.com> Fri, 30 September 1994 21:27 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09362; 30 Sep 94 17:27 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09357; 30 Sep 94 17:27 EDT
Received: from timbuk.cray.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20246; 30 Sep 94 17:27 EDT
Received: from sdiv.cray.com (daemon@ironwood.cray.com [128.162.21.36]) by timbuk.cray.com (8.6.9/8.6.9M) with SMTP id QAA29579; Fri, 30 Sep 1994 16:19:07 -0500
Received: by sdiv.cray.com (5.0/CRI-5.15.b.orgabbr Sdiv) id AA06621; Fri, 30 Sep 1994 16:19:02 -0500
Received: from timbuk.cray.com by sdiv.cray.com (5.0/CRI-5.15.b.orgabbr Sdiv) id AA06616; Fri, 30 Sep 1994 16:19:00 -0500
Received: from glare.cisco.com (glare.cisco.com [131.108.13.56]) by timbuk.cray.com (8.6.9/8.6.9M) with ESMTP id QAA29576 for <telnet-ietf@cray.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 1994 16:18:58 -0500
Received: (billw@localhost) by glare.cisco.com (8.6.8+c/CISCO.SERVER.1.1) id OAA14563; Fri, 30 Sep 1994 14:17:23 -0700
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 14:17:22 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: William Chops Westfield <billw@cisco.com>
To: Lee Chastain <lee@huachuca-jitcosi.army.mil>
Cc: telnet-ietf@cray.com, lee@huachuca-jitcosi.army.mil
Subject: Re: Options
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 30 Sep 94 13:51:43 MST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.90.2.780959842.billw@glare.cisco.com>
Content-Length: 543

The way I read the downloaded mil-spec is that it defines no additional
requirements for reconnection or approximat message size, other than the
requirements of rfc1123 and rfc854.  Since neither of those require these
options (or mention them at all, for that matter!) the mil-spec doesn't
require them either.

This makes sense.  Is there someone claiming a different interpretation?

BillW
cisco

PS: "approximate message size" probably relates to bit allocations from the
NCP days of the arpanet, and would not even be applicable to TCP.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email