Subject: 5250 Telnet Enhancements Draft

From: Jeffrey Stevens <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:41:37 -0500

Dave,

Once again, I have to agree with our audience.  During the course of developing
the draft, I think my eyes and my editors eyes became blind to little things
like the EOR sequence there.  As for the NEW-ENVIRON sequencing, since order is
not supposed to matter, we may just move it to be in order.  We have had many
clients come in different orders, so the MUST claim certainly doesn't hold for
negotiations if you expect to support backwards compatibility with existing
clients.

I will be moving negotiations around in our next incantation of this draft,
which we should have ready for your on or around 4/1.  So, stay tuned...

Jeffrey S. Stevens - AS/400 TCP/IP Applications (LPD/WSG/Telnet)
Work: [email-masked]    Fax: 607-752-5421   Private: [email-masked]

---------------------- Forwarded by Jeffrey Stevens/Endicott/IBM on 03-26-98
03:29 PM ---------------------------
From: "Dave Close" <[email-masked]>
Organization: Pericom Software PLC
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 13:21:41 +0000
Subject: 5250 Telnet Enhancements Draft

Jeffrey,

I can sort of understand your reasoning, but it does not actually
hold true in the Draft !  On page 15, you have an example for a
Printer, but in this you 1) show IAC DO TERMINAL-TYPE before IAC DO
NEW-ENVIRON and 2) have the TelnetClient reply with IAC WILL
NEW-ENVIRON after IAC WILL EOR !?