RFC 139 (rfc139) - Page 1 of 11

Discussion of Telnet Protocol

Alternative Format: Original Text Document
Next >
Network Working Group                                      T. O'Sullivan
Request for Comments: 139                                       Raytheon
NIC: 6717                                                     7 May 1971


                     Discussion of TELNET Protocol


   The attached discussion is an extension of RFC 137, NIC #6717, and is
   presented to provide useful background to designers and implementers
   to help them interpret the proposed Protocol and evaluate it in
   preparation for further discussion at the Atlantic City meetings.

   While the views in the discussion represent those of various TELNET
   committee members, they should not be interpreted as being the agreed
   view of committee.  They are the author's understanding of some of
   the arguments and background to the PROTOCOL proposed in the TELNET
   PROTOCOL recommendations.

   *  See Footnotes to attached discussion for changes to RFC 137.

Discussion of TELNET PROTOCOL

   The use of a standard, network-wide, intermediate representation of
   terminal code between sites eliminates the need for using and serving
   sites to keep information about the characteristics of each other's
   terminals and terminal handling conventions, but only if the user,
   the using site, and the serving site assume certain responsibilities.

      1. The serving site must specify how the intermediate code will be
         mapped by it into the terminal codes that are expected at that
         site.

      2. The user must be familiar with that mapping.

      3. The using site must provide some means for the user to enter
         all of the intermediate codes, and as a convenience, special
         control signals, as well as specify for the user how the
         signals from the serving site will be presented at the user
         terminal.

   Other schemes were considered but rejected.  For example, a proposal
   that the using site be responsible to transmit to and from the code
   expected by the serving site was rejected since it required that the
   using site keep tables of all serving site codes and provide mapping
   for each case.  The information would require constant maintenance as
   new hosts were added to the network.




O'Sullivan
Next >