Path: utzoo!utgpu!CUNYVM!IBMTCP-L Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 12:16:18 EST Reply-To: IBM TCP/IP For VM List Sender: IBM TCP/IP For VM List From: braden@VENERA.ISI.EDU Subject: Re: Options, one more time... X-To: BRUCE@umdd.umd.edu, jbvb@vax.ftp.com X-cc: IBMTCP-L@cunyvm.cuny.edu, TN3270@terminus.umd.edu, To: UofToronto LAN redistribution Message-ID: <90Feb21.210333est.57459@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca> Newsgroups: list.ibmtcp-l Distribution: ut Approved: devnull@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu Ah, the perils of reading mail serially, and living 3 hours west! I concur with JVBV's comments and explanations of the intent of the HRRFC. As James suggests, the requirement to "support" feature X (eg X = Telnet Binary option) was meant in the sense in which a knowledgable and experienced network programmer would take it. Some may wish for much more explicit and detailed definitions, but that would lead to the sort of state tables you find in the Mil Specs. I think it would be (have been) a mistake to go to such a level of detail, since it is difficult to get it all right, and it would be constraining when new situations arise. Still, I will make a note of this issue for the future. Bob Braden