Re: TELNET question

William Chops Westfield <billw@cisco.com> Fri, 18 November 1994 01:57 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15054; 17 Nov 94 20:57 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15050; 17 Nov 94 20:57 EST
Received: from timbuk.cray.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19035; 17 Nov 94 19:19 EST
Received: from sdiv.cray.com (daemon@ironwood.cray.com [128.162.21.36]) by timbuk.cray.com (8.6.9/8.6.9M) with SMTP id SAA29758; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 18:06:19 -0600
Received: by sdiv.cray.com (5.0/CRI-5.15.b.orgabbr Sdiv) id AA25140; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 18:06:14 -0600
Received: from timbuk.cray.com by sdiv.cray.com (5.0/CRI-5.15.b.orgabbr Sdiv) id AA25129; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 18:06:12 -0600
Received: from glare.cisco.com (glare.cisco.com [171.69.1.154]) by timbuk.cray.com (8.6.9/8.6.9M) with ESMTP id SAB29743 for <telnet-ietf@cray.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 18:06:10 -0600
Received: (billw@localhost) by glare.cisco.com (8.6.8+c/CISCO.SERVER.1.1) id QAA06852; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 16:04:29 -0800
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 16:04:28 PST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: William Chops Westfield <billw@cisco.com>
To: Lee Chastain <lee@huachuca-jitcosi.army.mil>
Cc: iptp@huachuca-jitcosi.army.mil, telnet-ietf@cray.com
Subject: Re: TELNET question
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 17 Nov 94 09:38:47 MST
Message-Id: <CMM.0.90.2.785117068.billw@glare.cisco.com>
Content-Length: 488

    In the current (newline) test I assume no negotiation was done so that it
    wouldn't interfere with the testing of the default conditions. Given that
    the server/tester was wrong to send just the LF, wasn't the user
    implementation also wrong to process it as a newline rather than just a
    'plain' LF ?

Only if the can explain how the user implementation should have treated
a plain LF as distinct from "end-of-line".  For unix, they pretty much
do the same thing.

BillW