Re: Options

"Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@alter.net> Fri, 30 September 1994 22:11 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09857; 30 Sep 94 18:11 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09853; 30 Sep 94 18:11 EDT
Received: from timbuk.cray.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa21453; 30 Sep 94 18:11 EDT
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 QAA01537; Fri, 30 Sep 1994 16:30:51 -0500
Received: by sdiv.cray.com (5.0/CRI-5.15.b.orgabbr Sdiv) id AA07875; Fri, 30 Sep 1994 16:30:47 -0500
Received: from timbuk.cray.com by sdiv.cray.com (5.0/CRI-5.15.b.orgabbr Sdiv) id AA07869; Fri, 30 Sep 1994 16:30:43 -0500
Received: from rodan.UU.NET (389@rodan.UU.NET [153.39.128.10]) by timbuk.cray.com (8.6.9/8.6.9M) with ESMTP id QAA01531 for <telnet-ietf@cray.com>; Fri, 30 Sep 1994 16:30:41 -0500
Received: by rodan.UU.NET id QQxjqk21223; Fri, 30 Sep 1994 17:30:21 -0400
Message-Id: <QQxjqk21223.199409302130@rodan.UU.NET>
To: Lee Chastain <lee@huachuca-jitcosi.army.mil>
Cc: telnet-ietf@cray.com
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@alter.net>
Subject: Re: Options
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 30 Sep 1994 13:51:43 MST." <9409302051.AA13447@huachuca-jitcosi.army.mil>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 17:30:20 -0400
X-Orig-Sender: louie@uunet.uu.net
Content-Length: 1412

> Are there a public-domain, anonymously ftp-able source documents for:
> TELNET option 2 - reconnection, and 
> TELNET option 4 - Approximate Message Size Negotiation
> 
> ???
> 
> I have seen the references given in RFC 1340, assigned numbers, but not
> the documents themselves, and they are not RFCs, of course.
> 
> The motivation for this request is their MANDATORY status as detailed in
> the new DoD MIL-STD 2045-17506 which is available for download from
> nemo.ncsl.nist.gov in the /pub/oiw/osetc/internet_profiles directory.

Making these MANDATORY sure sounds like a Bad Idea.  The Deptartment
of Bad Ideas must be working overtime to dig up these crusty, musty
old TELNET options and mandate their implementation.

These options were not even packaged in my "INTERNET TELNET PROTOCOL
AND OPTIONS" RFC collection from the SRI NIC, dated June 1983.  As I
recall, I was implementing a telnet server at the time, and these
options were already old and pretty much treated as depricated at the
time.

Just thinking about the security implications of the reconnection
option is enough to make your head throb.

Louis A. Mamakos                              louie@alter.net
Backbone Architecture & Engineering Guy       uunet!louie
AlterNet / UUNET Technologies, Inc.
3110 Fairview Park Drive., Suite 570          Voice: +1 703 204 8023
Falls Church, Va 22042                        Fax:   +1 703 204 8001