Article View: comp.protocols.iso
Article #980Re: Session requirements negotiation
From: Alex McKenzie
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 1990 14:52
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 1990 14:52
13 lines
1150 bytes
1150 bytes
I'm not positive, but I would guess that this is a "backward compatibility" feature introduced when the current Session service/ protocol were created out of a merger of "computer system" ideas and the CCITT's "Telematic service" ideas (probably the specific CCITT Recomendation was T.62 but my memory is hazy). Some (dumb) devices which followed the draft CCITT Recomendation were expected to generate a "canned" response to an open request; "processing" of the response would be done at the originating (intelligent) end. If you think this is not too sensible please don't flame me; I neither invented nor supported it. Cheers, Alex McKenzie
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<61636@bbn.BBN.COM>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!hsdndev!bbn.com!mckenzieReferences:
<275AA57B@gui.consumers.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!hsdndev!bbn.com!mckenzie From: mckenzie@bbn.com (Alex McKenzie) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso Subject: Re: Session requirements negotiation Message-ID: <61636@bbn.BBN.COM> Date: 18 Dec 90 14:52:49 GMT References: <275AA57B@gui.consumers.com> Sender: news@bbn.com Reply-To: mckenzie@labs-n.bbn.com (Alex McKenzie) Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA Lines: 13