Re: Telnet Option Codes
"Robert G. Moskowitz" <0003858921@mcimail.com> Fri, 16 April 1993 20:09 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13131; 16 Apr 93 16:09 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa13127; 16 Apr 93 16:09 EDT
Received: from timbuk.cray.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27029; 16 Apr 93 16:09 EDT
Received: from hemlock.cray.com by cray.com (4.1/CRI-MX 2.17) id AA28058; Fri, 16 Apr 93 15:09:47 CDT
Received: by hemlock.cray.com id AA22373; 4.1/CRI-5.6; Fri, 16 Apr 93 15:09:41 CDT
Received: from cray.com (timbuk.cray.com) by hemlock.cray.com id AA22356; 4.1/CRI-5.6; Fri, 16 Apr 93 15:09:36 CDT
Received: from MCIGATEWAY.MCIMail.com by cray.com (4.1/CRI-MX 2.17) id AA28050; Fri, 16 Apr 93 15:09:34 CDT
Received: from mcimail.com by MCIGATEWAY.MCIMail.com id ax03287; 16 Apr 93 19:43 GMT
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 19:43:00 +0000
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "Robert G. Moskowitz" <0003858921@mcimail.com>
To: IETF TN3270E Working Group List <TN3270E@list.nih.gov>
Cc: telnet ietf <telnet-ietf@cray.com>
Subject: Re: Telnet Option Codes
Message-Id: <21930416194312/0003858921NA2EM@mcimail.com>
Since I am posting this message both to the TN3270 WG list and the TELNET WG list, let me supply some background. The TN3270 WG (charter in review by IESG) is working on a draft for an experimental RFC for SNA printer support via TELNET (TN3287). This RFC will allow vendors to meet their customer needs while the 'full function' standards track RFC is being prepared. The sticking point for a TN3287 negotiation is it is not enough to negotiate a terminal type, but a LU NAME must be assigned to this connection, typically dedicated (a given client always gets a given NAME). This implies a sub-negotiation in the terminal type: IAC SB TERM-TYPE IS IBM3287-2 CONNECT CP123456 IAC SE The question is: is there an existing subnegotion option in the Terminal Type option that can be used where I have specified the word: CONNECT (note: IBM3287-2 would be a 'new' terminal type and in this case CP123456 is the requested LU NAME). Additionally, the full function RFC will start using the '3270 Regime' option defined in RFC 1041 to specify terminal type and LU NAME association (we think as of this point in space). And so this subnegotiation would be used there. That is the basic background. I would like to have Cleve be able to finish his draft early next week, so I would like to have some recommendations soon. Cleve is not on telnet-ietf@cray.com, so any responses to this, please CC him as well. Bob Moskowitz Chrysler Corp Proposed chair of the proposed TN3270 WG __________________________________________________________________________ Sender: IETF TN3270E Working Group List <TN3270E@NIHLIST.BITNET> Poster: Cleve Graves <cvg@DBAIX.OC.COM> Subject: Re: Telnet Option Codes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well I have gotten down to the question of values do I list for CONNECT and ASSOCIATED. Some sort of value must be specified.... Can we agree to change the value to 23 and call it SEND-LOCATION instead of CONNECT and on the experimental RFC and keep the value 23 but call it CONNECT-TO in the STANDARDS track RFC? AND I haven't found anything that remotely seems to be like the ASSOCIATED subnegotiation? ANYONE GOT ANY SUGGESTIONS? ______________________________________________________________________________
- Re: Telnet Option Codes Robert G. Moskowitz
- Re: Telnet Option Codes James B. Van Bokkelen
- Re: Telnet Option Codes minshall