Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!occrsh!uokmax!munnari.oz.au!metro!usage.csd.unsw.oz.au!syacus!andrewf
From: andrewf@syacus.acus.oz (Andrew Friedman)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Telnet vs. X.29 (Was: Internet routing Europe - USA -} Europe...)
Summary: Religion war starter
Keywords: Telnet X.29
Message-ID: <1055@syacus.acus.oz>
Date: 12 Sep 90 08:21:22 GMT
References: <JIM.90Sep7132657@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk>
Reply-To: andrewf@syacus.oz (Andrew Friedman)
Organization: Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Sydney
Lines: 14

jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) writes:

[Lots of Good Stuff comparing CB and IP protocols deleted]
>... Don't forget that telnet is functionally
>superior to X.29: it offers more for roughly the same overheads.

Are you sure about this? I would have said it the other way around, but
I'll admit I don't know Telnet as well as X.29. What's the problem?
Have you seen RFC 1053 which proposes adding X.3 parameters into Telnet?

Andrew

Note: Original article appeared in uk.misc,eunet.followup also. I can't post
to these.