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 send  when 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
--