Ron Stoughton (rms@ACC-SB-UNIX.ARPA)
Wed, 16 Sep 87 20:00:00 PDT
> It would be nice if you two companies stopped the finger-
> pointing and solved your mutual interoperability problems.
> Bob Dixon
> Ohio State University
I think we're trying to do this through the TN3270 mail list which
was formed to discuss such problems. I have included for the record
a copy of my recent message to this list on this very same subject.
I think it is self explanatory. It was in response to Bruce Craybil's
rehtorical query whether the group was going to decide anything.
I should also point out that the procedures for negotiating a 3270 Telnet
session are not specified in any officially endorsed document. Thus we
have the situation we have today. The only official record of this protocol
is the two original systems which implemented it -- Wiscnet and UCLA ACP.
> Received: by columbia-pdn (5.51/5.17)
> id AA25241; Tue, 15 Sep 87 22:06:40 EDT
> Received: by ACC-SB-UNIX.ARPA (5.51/4.7)
> id AA02106; Tue, 15 Sep 87 19:05:53 PDT
> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 87 19:05:53 PDT
> From: rms@ACC-SB-UNIX.ARPA (Ron Stoughton)
> Message-Id: <8709160205.AA02106@ACC-SB-UNIX.ARPA>
> To: @UMD2.UMD.EDU:BRUCE@UMDD.BITNET, TN3270@terminus.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Deciding SOMETHING
> Status: RO
> As a vendor caught in the middle, I should probably comment. It is
> ironic that during the initial flurry of messages when this list first
> started up, I was out of town at a customer's site trying to find out
> why we don't interoperate with another vendor's product. Even though
> I think I have history on my side, and hopefully Bob Braden since it's
> his code, it does the customer little good for me to beat my chest
> claiming we're right.
> I certainly hope this group does decide SOMETHING, possibly starting
> with what is the endorsed procedure for negotiating a full-screen
> session TODAY. Since our work queue is already overflowing, my initial
> vote will be cast for that which doesn't require us to change anything
> (i.e., the minimal pain philosophy). However, we will comply with
> whatever this group endorses.
> In the longer term, we need to decide how to support other 3270 features,
> which will likely be accommodated by additional negotiations. This may
> be the appropriate time to simplify the procedures. I tend to be more
> of a pragmatist than a purist, so I have no objection to combining
> multiple options into a single negotiation.
> Ron Stoughton
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 09 2000 - 14:39:15 GMT