Comments on the new Telnet specifications(2)

    A more positive solution could be had by defining a "synch　response" (SR) TELNET command. The SR command would be sent when the　INS and DM had both been processed (ie, when the "synch" had been　completely received). If a process should ever receive an SR when it　has an option request outstanding, the request has been discarded and　must be repeated. User processes which carry on option negotiations　would be the generators of any "synch's" so they can handle discarded　option requests as desired. Note that this assumes that the TELNET　process itself will never generate a spontaneous "synch"; comments are　solicited on this. Another possible solution would be to define a　"TIMING-MARK" TELNET command (see "TELNET Timing Mark Option", NIC #　16238), which would be sent immediately following the DM of a "synch".

　　The response to the TIMING-MARK (also to be defined) would mean the same　as the proposed SR command.

　　The final non-editorial comment concerns the need for some means of　specifying horizontal tab positions and use. This is quite a nuisance　when dealing with systems which normally handle tabs for local　terminals. Perhaps this issue can be best handled with an appropriate　option; comments are solicited.

　　The only editorial comments are on the TELNET Protocol document, which I　reference below by page number.

　　On page 8 the parenthetical comment "(i.e., when a process at one end of　a TELNET connection is 'blocked on input')" should either be removed or　rewritten to avoid the (to me) incomprehensible phrase "blocked on　input." If additional discussion is felt to be necessary, I would　propose "i.e., when a process at one end of a TELNET connection cannot　proceed without additional input)." If examples are felt necessary, I　would propose "(e.g., in the state characterized by the Multics term　'blocked on input')." The parallel could also be drawn between the GA　and the concept of a "read command" being issued to request more input.

　　On page 10 I feel that there needs to be some more discussion of the　Abort Output (AO) command, particularly the statement that it "allows a　process... to run to completion... but without sending the output to the　user's terminal." The problem is that nothing is said about when output　is to resume (presumably at the next system prompt character). I　realized that the AO is meant only to invoke this function on systems　which already provide it, but it would seem to be more useful if more　fully specified.

　　On page 11 I do not understand what the example "(e.g., an over-strike)"　is trying to say. Speaking of an overstrike on output would imply to me　that both characters are to be printed in the same print position,　reducing the EC to a backspace. Some more discussion should also be　added as to what EC (and EL) mean on output (if anything).

　　On page 11 I would like to see the word "promptly" (which is in　quotation marks) either eliminated or defined, as per my earlier aside　comment. The phrase "if necessary" in the last line also seems　unnecessary.

　　On page 12 my proposed redefinition of "interesting" signals would　remove the middle paragraph entirely and would modify the third　paragraph substantially. The line "discard all characters which would　have had an effect on the NVT printer" should be changed, however, as it　seems BELL's should also be discarded.

　　On page 14 I see no reason why the sequence "CR NUL" is required to　generate a "CR" only, and also object to "and the CR character must be　avoided in other contexts." Either some supporting discussion should be　added or this restriction should be removed.

　　[ This RFCwas put into machine readable form for entry ]

　　[ into the online RFCarchives by Alex McKenzie with ]

　　[ support from GTE, formerly BBN Corp. 9/99 ]