Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!radc-lonex.arpa!jam
From: jam@radc-lonex.arpa
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: telnet v.s. rlogin
Message-ID: <8810271702.AA02628@radc-lonex.arpa>
Date: 27 Oct 88 17:02:37 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 35

>>  The design of telnet implies that data is
>>  always sent in segments with a line terminator.
>
>I presume you're talking about go ahead.  That is almost never used.
>When you're talking to a full-duplex host you negotiate it off.
>Except for Braden's MVS implementation, even software for IBM hosts
>doesn't do go aheads.  This option appears to be defunct.
>

	No (Gee, that sounds rather harsh, doesn't it?) I'm not.  And
	this is right, GA (goahead) does seem to be defunct.

	Telnet still has idea that stuff should be sent on a line by
	line basis.  This is almost never the case, but telnet still
	pretty much requires a line terminator sequence of <CR><LF>
	which is usually inserted wherever the user pressed the return
	key.  This is normally translated to whatever the host system
	requires as a line terminator (on UNIX this becomes <LF>).

	The ability exists to send a <CR> exists by sending <CR><NUL>.
	RFC1053 proposes the addition of a negoiation between the
	host and remote to send <CR><LF> or <CR><NUL> when the user
	presses the return key.  This would allow the host computer
	to decide what it wanted, line terminators or just whatever
	the user typed, without going into BINARY mode (which has
	some other side effects).

	Merton Crockett, John Ada, and I orignally opened that can of
	worms a year ago.   It was nice to see it added to that RFC.
	But it was just proposed, and I do not know if it was ever
	'offically' adopted.  But as far as I know, BSD4.3 UNIX does
	not support that negoiation.  I'm not sure if other systems do.
	Does anyone know?

Joel