Re: Telnet Transfer Control Option

Philippe-Andre Prindeville <philipp@inf.enst.fr> Tue, 08 June 1993 17:18 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07979; 8 Jun 93 13:18 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07975; 8 Jun 93 13:18 EDT
Received: from timbuk.cray.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15566; 8 Jun 93 13:18 EDT
Received: from hemlock.cray.com by cray.com (4.1/CRI-MX 2.19) id AA24673; Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:19:20 CDT
Received: by hemlock.cray.com id AA19318; 4.1/CRI-5.6; Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:19:16 CDT
Received: from cray.com (timbuk.cray.com) by hemlock.cray.com id AA19313; 4.1/CRI-5.6; Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:19:12 CDT
Received: from enst.enst.fr by cray.com (4.1/CRI-MX 2.19) id AA24665; Tue, 8 Jun 93 12:19:10 CDT
Received: from ulysse.enst.fr (inf.enst.fr) by enst.enst.fr (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA15771; Tue, 8 Jun 93 19:18:59 +0200
Return-Path: <philipp@inf.enst.fr>
Organization: Ecole Nationale Superieure des Telecommunications, Paris
Received: by ulysse.enst.fr (4.1/SMI-4.0) id AA15779; Tue, 8 Jun 93 19:19:02 +0200
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1993 19:19:02 +0200
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Philippe-Andre Prindeville <philipp@inf.enst.fr>
Message-Id: <9306081719.AA15779@ulysse.enst.fr>
To: telnet-ietf@cray.com
Subject: Re: Telnet Transfer Control Option
X-Face: >4WM/$ED&E'4zy#c4]"b5^50kZ9W\o}W+e>qU0!; ~b|q/.dFb}M4JKOu_gIL[`Zb!=\(t<$ ZoARNta[Qx:"; t-A0-l$=tBB=bPzZpsUnUQ*8ZPHUV<GA1eqB<H~4]}+[v|G1M<2j9Dr+u}po*F``a Qzl"_rtwP5l`GKH}aHuh4=%U/JGO.HeYDoR.#?+iS0{'iglw`6|4T[rWVz*=0i(

> >While cleaning out some old mail I realized that I never sent this out.
> >I received this a while back, with the request that the group review it.

> This looks interesting.  In SNA terms this is equivalent to a Clsdst pass (Close
> Destination and Pass (I think I got that right :) )).  SNA has for a VERY long
> time had the ability for the host side of a connection to close the connection
> and force a reestablishment of it with another host application.  This is used
> be Session Managers and many other things.

Hmm.  First, I see a security problem.  I don't necessarily want
the existance or utilisation of my machine being divulged to a
third party via a "hand-off" (maybe Russ or Mike would be better
off explaining that).  Second, if I pay for packets coming from or
going to my machine, do I want to pay for the extra expense if that
third party is quite a ways off (in terms of $$$).

For instance, I don't pay for national traffic, but I would pay for
international traffic if I were an industrial site.  If I start using
a local server that hands-me-off to a foreign server, I might end up
involuntarily paying big bucks $$.

-Philip