RFC 328 UNKNOWN TELNET · PROPOSAL

Suggested Telnet Protocol Changes

A proposal to remove three features from the Telnet protocol unless users objected.

On rfc-editor.org ↗
PUBLISHED
April 1972
AUTHORS
J. Postel
STREAM
Legacy
OBJECTION DEADLINE
15 May 1972
CHANGES PROPOSED
3
DOI
10.17487/RFC0328

RFC text

Original text · RFC Editor View on rfc-editor.org ↗
Network Working Group                                 Jon Postel
Request for Comments: 328                             Computer Science
                                                      UCLA-NMC
NIC 9635                                              29 April 72
Categories: Telnet
References: RFC 328

                   Suggested Telnet Protocol Changes

    I hereby propose the following changes to the Telnet protocol.  If
no substantial negative response is received by 15 May 72 it will be
assumed that these changes are desired and should be incorporated in
any "Official Telnet Protocol".

    First I suggest that we drop the idea of a "minimum"
implementation and require a standard implementation which includes all
aspects of the protocol.

    Second I suggest that we eliminate the DATA TYPE signals.

    Third I suggest that we do away with HIDE YOUR INPUT signal.

Arguments:

    Standard Implementation:
         The idea of an accepted implementation which does not include
         whole protocol is an admission that the parts of the
         protocol left out are either not useful or not expected to be
         used, and that other mechanisms will be constructed to provide
         those functions.  Thus there should be no minimum
         implementation, but only the standard implementation which
         includes the whole protocol.

    Data Types:
         The DATA TYPE signals are supposed to allow the communicating
         processes to switch from ASCII to some other code set.  However,
         the other code sets suggested do not allow for the Telnet
         signals, and thus once the switch is made the Telnet
         protocol is no longer applicable.  There is no way to specify
         how to get back to ASCII or Telnet thus the
         conversation is "out of control".

    Hide Your Input:
         The HIDE YOUR INPUT signal is supposed to tell the user Telnet
         process to do whatever it can to hide the user's
         subsequent input.  One problem with this is determining
         how much input is to be hidden.  It is very difficult to find a
         method of hiding input which works for all combinations of
         systems and terminals, but the HIDE YOUR INPUT signal dosen't
         help in any real way.


       [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
       [ into the online RFC archives by BBN Corp. under the   ]
       [ direction of Alex McKenzie.                   12/96   ]

ISO Plain Language

On this page
PROBLEMThe author argues that Telnet's minimum implementation, DATA TYPE signals, and HIDE YOUR INPUT signal were unnecessary or difficult to use consistently.
MECHANISMJon Postel proposes dropping the minimum implementation concept, eliminating DATA TYPE signals, and removing HIDE YOUR INPUT.
HOW IT WAS TO BE DECIDEDThe memo says the changes would be assumed desirable if no substantial negative response arrived by 15 May 1972. It does not state the final decision.

§1Three Suggested Changes

Jon Postel proposes three changes to the Telnet protocol. First, drop the idea of a “minimum” implementation and require a standard implementation that includes all aspects of the protocol. Second, eliminate the DATA TYPE signals. Third, remove the HIDE YOUR INPUT signal.

The memo says that if no substantial negative response arrives by 15 May 1972, the changes will be assumed desired and should be incorporated into any Official Telnet Protocol.

The memo proposes three changes to Telnet and sets a deadline for objections. It does not say what decision was ultimately made.

§1Why Remove the Minimum Implementation

The author argues that accepting an implementation that leaves out part of the protocol implies that the omitted parts are not useful or are not expected to be used. The author also argues that other mechanisms would be built to provide those functions.

On that basis, the memo proposes having one standard implementation that includes the whole protocol rather than defining a minimum subset.

The author says a permitted partial implementation suggests that the excluded features are not needed or will be handled elsewhere. The proposal is to define only a complete standard implementation.

§1Why Remove DATA TYPE and HIDE YOUR INPUT

The DATA TYPE signals are intended to let communicating processes switch from ASCII to another code set. The author argues that the suggested code sets do not allow Telnet signals, so Telnet would no longer apply after the switch and the protocol provides no way to return to ASCII or Telnet.

HIDE YOUR INPUT is intended to tell the user's Telnet process to hide subsequent input. The memo argues that it is difficult to know how much input to hide and to find a method that works for all combinations of systems and terminals. The author concludes that the signal does not help in a useful way.

The author argues that DATA TYPE can switch Telnet into a format with no defined way back. HIDE YOUR INPUT does not say how much input to hide or how every terminal should do it.