TELNET Working Group
Chairperson: Dave Borman/Cray
CURRENT MEETING REPORT
Reported by J.K. Reynolds, modified by Dave Borman
AGENDA
o Does RFC 854 (Telnet) need to be updated and re-issued?
o Do any of the option RFCs need to be updated and re-issued?
o What new options are needed?
o What about international character sets?
o What does BINARY mode really mean?
o How do you avoid option negotiation loops?
o What Telnet options are MUST? SHOULD? MAY? DONT?
o How do you flush input and output?
o 7 bit NVT vs 8 bit NVT vs 8 bit BINARY
o Telnet to other protocol translation
ATTENDEES
1. Adelman, Kenneth A./adelman@tgv.com
2. Borman, Dave/dab@cray.com
3. Hedrick, Charles/hedrick@aramis.rutgers.edu
4. Karels, Mike/karels@berkeley.edu
5. LoVerso, John/loverso@xylogics.com
6. Mamakos, Louis A./louie@trantor.umd.edu
7. Mercado, Marjo F./marjo@hpindlm.hp.com
8. Reinstedler, Jim/jimr@ub.ubcom.com
9. Replogle, Joel/replogle@ncsa.uiuc.edu
10. Reynolds, Joyce K./jkrey@isi.edu
11. Roselinsky, Milt/cmcvax!milt@hub.ucsb.edu
1
12. Salo, Tim/tjs@msc.umn.edu
13. Schofield, Bruce J./schofield@edn-vax.dca.mil
14. Solensky, Frank/solensky@interlan.interlan.com
15. Vance, L. Stuart/vance@tgv.com
16. Westfield, Bill/billw@cisco.com
17. Wilder, Rick/rick@gateway.mitre.org
18. Wintringham, Dan/danw@osc.edu
MINUTES
Opening Comments:
Telnet Option draft RFCs - What are in the queue??
o Borman's Telnet Linemode: This is in the queue now for
becoming an RFC. It has been handed off to Phill Gross.
o Berstein's Q-Method: For later discussion in this meeting,
see item 6
Borman presented proposed agenda to group and asked what else
should be included:
Bill Westfield lobbied for a document on Telnet with X.3
negotiations -- he was overruled. It was decided that this along
with item 10, was out of the scope of this group.
RFC 854 and Postel - Is there a justification for a "revised"
Telnet spec?? There seemed to be general agreement that a better
approach would be to answer all the other questions first, and
that would decide this question for us.
The next item up for discussion was possible future options for
Telnet that are needed.
2
Pursue??_ What_to_include:_
Yes User Name (who you're going in as, i.e., name,
acct, etc.)
Yes Authentication (get rid of RLogin) (Authentication
and encryption are somewhat related.)
Yes Environment
Possibly System Type
Yes Encryption (Encryption and authentication are
somewhat related.)
Maybe Compression (data) (A subcase of encryption?? A
maybe, depending upon encryption.)
Yes don't Telnet Option (Bill Westfield working on this one.)
Big Topics:
Go through which Telnet options are not needed.
Send a message out to a mailing list asking who currently
uses what telnet options. The following list is what we
came up with at the meeting. Those marked with YES were
changed from "no", those marked with a ? no one was sure
on. (This is re-constructed from memory, so please let me
know if I made a mistake... -Dave B.)
3
Number_ Name_ RFC_ NIC_ DPH_ USE_
0 Binary Transmission 856 ----- yes yes
1 Echo 857 ----- yes yes
2 Reconnection ... 15391 yes no
3 Suppress Go Ahead 858 ----- yes yes
4 Approx Message Size Negotiation ... 15393 yes no
5 Status 859 ----- yes yes
6 Timing Mark 860 ----- yes yes
7 Remote Controlled Trans and Echo 726 39237 yes no
8 Output Line Width ... 20196 yes no
9 Output Page Size ... 20197 yes no
10 Output Carriage-Return Disposition 652 31155 yes no
11 Output Horizontal Tabstops 653 31156 yes no
12 Output Horizontal Tab Disposition 654 31157 yes no
13 Output Formfeed Disposition 655 31158 yes no
14 Output Vertical Tabstops 656 31159 yes no
15 Output Vertical Tab Disposition 657 31160 yes no
16 Output Linefeed Disposition 658 31161 yes no
17 Extended ASCII 698 32964 yes no
18 Logout 727 40025 yes no
19 Byte Macro 735 42083 yes no
20 Data Entry Terminal 732 41762 yes no ?
21 SUPDUP 734 736 42213 yes no
22 SUPDUP Output 749 45449 yes no
23 Send Location 779 ----- yes no
24 Terminal Type 1091 ----- yes YES
25 End of Record 885 ----- yes no
26 TACACS User Identification 927 ----- yes no ?
27 Output Marking 933 ----- yes no
28 Terminal Location Number 946 ----- no no
29 3270 Regime 1041 ----- no no ?
30 X.3 PAD 1053 ----- no no
31 Window Size 1073 ----- no YES
32 Terminal Speed Option 1079 ----- no YES
33 Remote Flow Control 1080 ----- no YES
34 Linemode TBA ----- no YES
35 X Display Location 1096 ----- no no
255 Extended-Options-List 861 ----- yes yes
Clarifying Timing Mark RFC
Does anyone use STATUS??
4
What's wrong with the current Telnet spec:
o old stuff
o what to update
Other Issues:
Borman's concept of the new Telnet Working Group:
This group is not to disband, but upon completion of their
activities, go dormant from time to time, and start up and
become available as a group to review Telnet draft RFCs,
etc....as needed.
Discussion/Issues of 7 bit, 8 bit binary:
1. Delay problem between client and server, interrupt character,
interrupt systems, interrupt marker - Linemode really helps
you here in this realm.
2. Interrupt - telnet process can control things, output prompt
between the two.
3. Host Requirement RFC document - discussion regarding "clean
wording" of Telnet in the Host Requirement RFC. In particular,
a statement on 7, 8 bit data passing; 8 bit should NOT be used
for parity bit.
4. Should anything be said in the Host Requirement RFC re: 7, 8
bit?? What about the statement of "SHOULD or MUST" negotiate
binary??
5. Should the Telnet standard be changed/updated to reflect the
context of Host Requirements RFC??
6. Items d and e were not resolved at this meeting. There is a
need to soften the wording on the Telnet statement that's
going into the Host Requirements RFC. Borman to talk to
Braden.
7. Bernstein's Q-Method RFC. Postel asked the Telnet WG to review
and comment. Group comment is that it should not be issued as
an RFC. Part of it should be rewritten, and incorporated with
whatever we release for a replacement/update to the Telnet
RFC. It was felt that the real world was not having problems
with option negotiation loops, so it isn't a problem that
requires an immediate solution.
Conclusion of meeting:
o Telnet WG will meet in Hawaii.
5
o Interim discussions will continue on the
6