Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!uwvax!rhesus!uwmacc!ejnorman From: ejnorman@uwmacc.UUCP (Eric Norman) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Berkeley (not Wollongong) telnet and new line processing Message-ID: <1747@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 21-Jul-87 01:37:41 EDT Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1747 Posted: Tue Jul 21 01:37:41 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 22-Jul-87 05:26:09 EDT References: <25@abvax.icd.ab.com> <8707202321.AA19800@monk.proteon.com> Reply-To: ejnorman@unix2.macc.wisc.edu Distribution: world Organization: UW-Madison Academic Computer Center Lines: 26 John A. Shriver explains: > In user Telnet, you should sendwhen the user types whatever > the "doit!" key is on that system. On a VMS system, that would be What has always bothered me about RFC 854, et al. is that there is a clear statement of the physical effect that CR's and LF's have on the printer of a NVT. However, I can see no clear statement that the sequence CR-LF means "it's your turn now". This is muddied by the fact that there is a "go ahead" signal, but it's not necessary. I look at it this way, which seems to agree with what John suggests. I have a keyboard here that I push keys on. When I push a key, one or more characters are sent off to some computer over some wires. When I push the key labelled "return", something happens so that I get a response from the computer on the other end. If back-to-back NVT's are spliced into the wire between my keyboard and that computer, I would hope that that behavior doesn't change. Eric Norman Internet: ejnorman@unix2.macc.wisc.edu UUCP: ...{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!ejnorman Life: Detroit!Alexandria!Omaha!Indianapolis!Madison!Hyde "Forest fires prevent bears." -- bumper sticker --