Re: environment option draf

Joel Jacobs <Joel_Jacobs@iegate.mitre.org> Tue, 12 October 1993 17:43 UTC

Message-Id: <9310121743.AA29562@mbunix.mitre.org>
Posted-From: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 13:25:54 -0000
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Joel Jacobs <Joel_Jacobs@iegate.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: environment option draf
To: telnet-ietf@cray.com

        Reply to:   RE>>environment option draft
Please remove me from this list.

Thanks
Joel

--------------------------------------
Date: 10/12/93 11:48 AM
To: Joel Jacobs
From: Marjo Mercado
Received: by iegate.mitre.org with SMTP;12 Oct 1993 11:48:23 U
Received: by mbunix.mitre.org (911016.SGI/4.7)
	id AA17400; Tue, 12 Oct 93 11:47:20 -0400
Received: from timbuk.cray.com by mbunix.mitre.org (911016.SGI/4.7)
	id AA17385; Tue, 12 Oct 93 11:47:16 -0400
Received: from hemlock.cray.com by cray.com (4.1/CRI-MX 2.19btd)
	id AA11227; Tue, 12 Oct 93 10:47:15 CDT
Received: by hemlock.cray.com
	id AA17383; 4.1/CRI-5.6; Tue, 12 Oct 93 10:44:22 CDT
Received: from cray.com (timbuk.cray.com) by hemlock.cray.com
	id AA17377; 4.1/CRI-5.6; Tue, 12 Oct 93 10:44:18 CDT
Received: from hp.com by cray.com (4.1/CRI-MX 2.19btd)
	id AA10754; Tue, 12 Oct 93 10:44:15 CDT
Received: from hpindsy.cup.hp.com by hp.com with SMTP
	(16.8/15.5+IOS 3.13) id AA16374; Tue, 12 Oct 93 08:44:13 -0700
Received: from localhost by hpindsy.cup.hp.com with SMTP
	(16.6/15.5+IOS 3.20+cup+OMrelay) id AA14513; Tue, 12 Oct 93 08:43:42 -0700
Message-Id: <9310121543.AA14513@hpindsy.cup.hp.com>
To: dab@berserkly.cray.com (David A. Borman)
Cc: sjogren@tgv.com, stevea@lachman.com, klensin@infoods.mit.edu,
        telnet-ietf@cray.com, marjo@hpindsy.cup.hp.com
Subject: Re: environment option draft 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 11 Oct 93 12:54:11 PDT."
             <9310111754.AA02937@frenzy.cray.com> 
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 08:43:40 PDT
From: Marjo Mercado <marjo@hpindsy.cup.hp.com>
X-Mdf: Mail for jdj sent to  jdj@mbunix.mitre.org

Hi Dave,

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.

Thanks,

Marjo Mercado
Hewlett-Packard Company

>>I agree with Steve.  The interoperability document only refers to
>>the original option number, implementations of the new option number
>>do not need to worry about the reversed var/value definition problem
>>(which is the whole point of getting a new option number).

			-David Borman, dab@cray.com

Re: environment option draf Joel Jacobs