--On Friday, August 30, 2013 09:56 -0700 Bob Braden
wrote:
> CR LF was first adopted for the Telnet NVT (Network Virtual
> Terminal). I think it was Jon
> Postel's choice, and no one disagreed.
A tad more complicated, IIR. It turns out that, with some
systems interpreting LF as "same position
John,
I don't think it would of been fun designing and testing a text-based
hosting protocol manually with your terminal/telecommunication/telnet
client "New Line Mode" (add LF to CR) option disabled or server text
responses only issue CR or LF.
It would of been very hard or confusing to do
CR LF was first adopted for the Telnet NVT (Network Virtual Terminal). I
think it was Jon
Postel's choice, and no one disagreed. Then when FTP was defined, it
seemed most economical
to use the same. In fact, doesn't the FTP spec explicitly say that the
conventions on the control
connection shoul
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 8:57 AM, SM wrote:
> Hi Murray,
>
> At 01:14 21-08-2013, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
>> Ah. I realize that CRLF is standard line termination for SMTP; is it
>> automatically the expected line termination for all line-oriented
>> protocols? I don't know about others.
>>
Hi Murray,
At 01:14 21-08-2013, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Ah. I realize that CRLF is standard line termination for SMTP; is
it automatically the expected line termination for all line-oriented
protocols? I don't know about others.
I would have to write a long answer to that question. :-) I
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:43 AM, SM wrote:
>
> Why is that?
>>
>
> The media type is "text/plain".
>
>
Ah. I realize that CRLF is standard line termination for SMTP; is it
automatically the expected line termination for all line-oriented
protocols? I don't know about others.
-MSK
At 23:53 20-08-2013, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I don't believe so. The only cases we can think of are those where
the supported application does or does not exist, and the service
being queried does or does not have data about the
subject. Elsewhere we describe that there's a specific mechan
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:13 AM, SM wrote:
> The draft-iet-repute-model reference is a down-ref.
>
I agree, the model document should be considered for PS instead.
>
> "A server receiving a query about an application it does not
>recognize or explicitly support support (e.g., by virtue
At 07:41 15-08-2013, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Reputation Services WG (repute)
to consider the following document:
- 'A Reputation Query Protocol'
as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this a
