Re: Telnet Option Codes

minshall@wc.novell.com Tue, 20 April 1993 01:36 UTC

Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1993 18:35:34 -0700
Message-Id: <9304200135.AB23696@wc.novell.com>
To: "Robert G. Moskowitz" <0003858921@mcimail.com>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: minshall@wc.novell.com
Subject: Re: Telnet Option Codes
Cc: telnet ietf <telnet-ietf@cray.com>, IETF TN3270E Working Group List <TN3270E@list.nih.gov>

Robert,

>...This implies a
>sub-negotiation in the terminal type:
>
>IAC SB TERM-TYPE IS IBM3287-2 CONNECT CP123456 IAC SE
>
>The question is:  is there an existing subnegotion option in the Terminal Type
>option that can be used where I have specified the word:  CONNECT (note:
>IBM3287-2 would be a 'new' terminal type and in this case CP123456 is the
>requested LU NAME).

Just to echo what JBVB said, you need to make sure you don't break any
existing implementations (even just plain telnet implementations) with your
mods.  Thus, you need to negotiate an option to allow you to send this
connect information.  I don't, by the way, see it as being a sub type of
*terminal* type, but rather as something of its own right.

>Additionally, the full function RFC will start using the '3270 Regime' option
>defined in RFC 1041 to specify terminal type and LU NAME association (we think
>as of this point in space).  And so this subnegotiation would be used there.

Hmm...  I don't *know* of an RFC 1041 implementations out there.  *I've*
never been a big fan of RFC 1041.

Greg Minshall    	       	       	       	minshall@wc.novell.com
Novell, Inc.    	       	       	       	 +1 510 975-4507

Re: Telnet Option Codes Robert G. Moskowitz
Re: Telnet Option Codes James B. Van Bokkelen
Re: Telnet Option Codes minshall