Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!VENERA.ISI.EDU!braden
From: braden@VENERA.ISI.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  TELNET Buffering Woes
Message-ID: <8905051732.AA01105@braden.isi.edu>
Date: 5 May 89 17:32:53 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 26



	The Choices listed are:

	1.  Urgent(IP, AO, DM); that is, Interrupt Process, Abort OUtput, and
	Synchronize the output, via the Data Mark;

	2.  Urgent (IP, DM), DO TM; the Abort Output is not sent from the server
	telnet to its own operating system, but the Data Mark does a degree of
	buffer flushing and the Timing Mark request synchronizes.

	3.  Both

	Seems to me that this is too important an area to leave this fuzzy.  The
	pain of having output continue is significant and greatly reduces Telnet's
	credibility.  On the other hand, I don't have any suggestion for how
	to improve the spec.

	Dave

Dave,

Unfortunately, there seemed to be cogent arguments for each of the 3 
choices!

   Bob Braden