Re: Options

Lee Chastain <lee@huachuca-jitcosi.army.mil> Fri, 30 September 1994 21:58 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09731; 30 Sep 94 17:58 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09727; 30 Sep 94 17:58 EDT
Received: from timbuk.cray.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21094; 30 Sep 94 17:58 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 QAA03092; Fri, 30 Sep 1994 16:42:17 -0500
Received: by sdiv.cray.com (5.0/CRI-5.15.b.orgabbr Sdiv) id AA09784; Fri, 30 Sep 1994 16:42:08 -0500
Received: from timbuk.cray.com by sdiv.cray.com (5.0/CRI-5.15.b.orgabbr Sdiv) id AA09757; Fri, 30 Sep 1994 16:42:04 -0500
Received: from huachuca-jitcosi.army.mil (HUACHUCA-JITCOSI.ARMY.MIL [138.27.7.2]) by timbuk.cray.com (8.6.9/8.6.9M) with SMTP id QAA03009 for <telnet-ietf@cray.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 1994 16:41:53 -0500
Received: by huachuca-jitcosi.army.mil (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA13814; Fri, 30 Sep 94 14:39:21 MST
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 94 14:39:21 MST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Lee Chastain <lee@huachuca-jitcosi.army.mil>
Message-Id: <9409302139.AA13814@huachuca-jitcosi.army.mil>
To: billw@cisco.com, lee@huachuca-jitcosi.army.mil
Subject: Re: Options
Cc: telnet-ietf@cray.com
Content-Length: 813

> 
> 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?

Yes, para 5.2 states that "implementations claiming conformance shall 
support the following." and then ends there, implying that all subsequent
paragraphs (such as 5.2.2.3 and 5.2.2.5) are mandatory.  Then in Annex A,
A.3.5, the indication for all options is 'm'.

The fact that there is no mention of these options in the RFCs pointed
to by the MIL-STD is far from an assurance that they won't be required.