IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: environment option draft

Theodore Ts'o <tytso@athena.mit.edu> Tue, 12 October 1993 21:41 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa28441; 12 Oct 93 17:41 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa28437; 12 Oct 93 17:41 EDT
Received: from timbuk.cray.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21150; 12 Oct 93 17:41 EDT
Received: from hemlock.cray.com by cray.com (4.1/CRI-MX 2.19btd) id AA10157; Tue, 12 Oct 93 16:42:05 CDT
Received: by hemlock.cray.com id AA14834; 4.1/CRI-5.6; Tue, 12 Oct 93 16:41:33 CDT
Received: from cray.com (timbuk.cray.com) by hemlock.cray.com id AA14825; 4.1/CRI-5.6; Tue, 12 Oct 93 16:41:29 CDT
Received: from tsx-11.MIT.EDU by cray.com (4.1/CRI-MX 2.19btd) id AA10124; Tue, 12 Oct 93 16:41:27 CDT
Received: by tsx-11.MIT.EDU with sendmail-5.61/1.2, id AA24717; Tue, 12 Oct 93 17:35:42 EDT
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 17:35:42 -0400
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@athena.mit.edu>
Message-Id: <9310122135.AA24717@tsx-11.MIT.EDU>
To: Marjo Mercado <marjo@hpindsy.cup.hp.com>
Cc: dab@berserkly.cray.com, sjogren@tgv.com, stevea@lachman.com, klensin@infoods.mit.edu, telnet-ietf@cray.com, marjo@hpindsy.cup.hp.com
In-Reply-To: Marjo Mercado's message of Tue, 12 Oct 93 08:43:40 PDT, <9310121543.AA14513@hpindsy.cup.hp.com>
Subject: Re: environment option draft
Address: 1 Amherst St., Cambridge, MA 02139
Phone: (617) 253-8091

   Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 08:43:40 PDT
   From: Marjo Mercado <marjo@hpindsy.cup.hp.com>

   I suggest that in order to maximize the probability of future
   interoperability with implementors of RFC 1408 that we require that
   the heuristics be implemented.

It certainly doesn't make sense to require people to always support the
old environment option --- like all telnet options, it should be
optional.  It may make sense to require that the implementor implement
the hueristics if he/she is going to implement the old environment
option, but I don't think we want to start saying that if someone
implements the new environment option, they are required to also
implement the old environment option, with the attendant hueristic
kludges that are involved.

In any case, since the hueristics are associated with the old
environment option, and not the new environment option, it certainly
makes sense to publish them as a separate RFC, and not to bundle it with
the new environment option specification.

							- Ted

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email