Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!MONK.PROTEON.COM!jas
From: jas@MONK.PROTEON.COM (John A. Shriver)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: TELNET ELF
Message-ID: <8708061546.AA27048@monk.proteon.com>
Date: Thu, 6-Aug-87 11:46:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: monk.8708061546.AA27048
Posted: Thu Aug  6 11:46:23 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Aug-87 11:05:14 EDT
References: <8708061430.AA19988@etn-wlv.eaton.com>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 12

So why can't the IAS system be generous and accept <CR><NUL> or
<CR><LF> and type <CR> on the virtual teletype, and type <LF> on the
virtual teletype when <LF> is received?  The general interpretation in
the Internet community is that <CR><LF> is what is sent as the generic
end-of-line on input.  (Making this change would be consonant with the
robustness principle of TCP.)

Of course, IAS can generate whatever it want on output, and it the
user Telnet does the wrong thing with it, then shame on it.

I think part of the clarity problem in the spec is that it does not
adequately seperate the meanings on input and output.