Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!geneva.rutgers.edu!hedrick From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: TELNET incompatibility questions Message-ID: Date: 16 Feb 89 19:40:31 GMT References: <8800001@uxg.cso.uiuc.edu> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 12 I would demand that *both* vendors change. IP and AO are part of the standard. They're not a part I am enthusiastic about, but they should be implemented. On the other hand, something should also be done by the host implementation to let it work with telnet's that don't implement IP and AO. TELNET BREAK should both stop the process and abort output. Either that, or you should emulate the multiple types of break by saying that the first break stops output, and if you do a second break witin 1/2 sec of the first, it aborts output, or some hack like that. An IBM implementation that ignores break is crazy. However I believe they should even try to coexist with systems that can't do any of the telnet special commands, and thus they should pick two control characters to do IP and AO on the host end.