Re: environment option draft

Jon Postel <postel@isi.edu> Wed, 27 October 1993 17:51 UTC

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1993 10:50:43 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Jon Postel <postel@isi.edu>
Message-Id: <199310271750.AA06060@zephyr.isi.edu>
To: stevea@lachman.com, telnet-ietf@cray.com, klensin@infoods.mit.edu
Subject: Re: environment option draft
Cc: iana@isi.edu

Hi.

The IANA suggest that the name for this new option number ought to be
distinct, and that NEW-ENVIRON is a good choice.

--jon.

   From: Jordan Brown <jbrown@qdeck.com>
   To: stevea@lachman.com, telnet-ietf@cray.com
   Subject: environment option draft
   Cc: klensin@INFOODS.MIT.EDU
   Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1993 18:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
   Content-Length: 668

   I must apologize for not reviewing this earlier... I trusted y'all's
   competence.  I do have one relatively minor question.

   > 1.  Command Names and Codes
   > 
   >       ENVIRON         39

   Is it really wise to use the same name for this option as the one described
   in 1408?  I suppose there's an advantage in that if you tweak the header
   file and recompile the code you'll get the new values, but on the other
   hand there's possible confusions in implementations that attempt to support
   both and confusions in the output of things like protocol analyzers.

   Perhaps it would be a good idea to either use a new name for the new option
   or rename the option described in 1408.

environment option draft Steve Alexander
Re: environment option draft Theodore Ts'o
Re: environment option draft Sam Sjogren
Re: environment option draft Steve Alexander
Re: environment option draft David A. Borman
Re: environment option draft Marjo Mercado
Re: environment option draft Theodore Ts'o
Re: environment option draft Jordan Brown
environment option draft Jordan Brown
Re: environment option draft Jon Postel
Re: environment option draft David A. Borman
Re: environment option draft John C Klensin
Re: environment option draft Steve Alexander