Shmuel, I'm not clear what is supposed to be "wrong" here. In so far as an RFC is supposed to be about protocols it should not prohibit implementations which can follow descriptions of the appearance one entity has of another at the point the protocol applies. Thus it is indeed wrong that RFC 2355 requires this "passthrough" mode of behaviour rather than saying that the TN3270E logic merely has to give the impression that it has this capability. Taking this approach your three cases collapse into 2 since it then becomes unimportant whether or not the TN3270E logic actually has the "passthrough" capability or pretends it does. If the TN3270E client logic can't tell the difference between pretending and the real thing, "smoke and mirrors" have achieved their objective.
I get the impression we are actually in complete agreement here - for once :-) Chris Mason ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 26 January, 2006 1:06 AM Subject: Re: TN3270 Question > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/25/2006 > at 02:11 AM, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >I appreciate this is a serious comment from you but I hope you'll > >forgive a light-hearted take, at least initially. > > Why? Certainly I would never crack a joke, make a pun or write a > double entendre ;-) > > Cyrnfr abg gur K-Gerzr svryq va zl urnqre. > > >Anyhow, I'm glad that they made sure - for the benefit of speakers > >of the German language - that MUST NOT was defined precisely. > > It's just as important for native Anglophiles[1], most of whom would > construe must and should synonymously. > > >Enough frivolity. The strictures you gave in your example are > >actually not important since the TN3270E client cannot know whether > >or not the TN3270E server is of the "passthrough" type, where all > >input and output is determined by the VTAM USS table meaning the > >input commands may only partly be known because the IBM default table > >commands may be exposed and the output messages are entirely unknown > >and in the hands of the system programmer who put the table together > >- or - the TN3270E server is of the limited type which follows the - > >really no better than - suggestions of RFC 2355. > > Wrong. They are important because there are larger numbers than two. > The wording of RFC 2355 prohibits the obvious third way of handling > thing: accept an unformatted command and translate it into a formatted > RR unit. I'm not saying that every TN3270E server should do that, just > that the RFC should allow it. > > >Given this inability to be able to distinguish between the two > >cases, > > FSVO 2 equivalent to three. > > [1] Neither UK English not US English is the same as DOD-speak. > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT > ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html> > We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. > (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
