In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 02/03/2006
at 05:05 AM, Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I'm not clear what is supposed to be "wrong" here.
And yet you describe something that you consider wrong.
>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.
I would have said hamhanded rather than wrong, but yes.
>I get the impression we are actually in complete agreement here -
>for once :-)
Yes, I believe that we are in violent agreement that the RFC should be
changed to allow more reasonable behavior.
--
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
