Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!TERMINUS.UMD.EDU!dzoey From: dzoey@TERMINUS.UMD.EDU Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: historical defaults Message-ID: <8806281732.AA05558@terminus.UMD.EDU> Date: 28 Jun 88 17:32:38 GMT References: <8806281543.AA01535@trantor.UMD.EDU> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 26 > From: Alex McKenzie> Subject: Re: historical defaults > Of course, instead of the IETF inventing a new set of Telnet options, the > community could consider the (shudder) ISO Virtual Terminal Protocol, which > was designed to do all this. I don't think the internet community would want to do this because the various profiles for VTP (a profile is similar to a set of telnet options describing how all terminal capabilities should be mapped) are still being defined at NBS. This doesn't mean that people shouldn't take an active interest in VTP, just that they probably won't want telnet to emulate it. What is interesting is that the telnet way of doing terminal negotiation (one attribute at a time) can be done with VTP, but only with the extended model, not the basic one (forgive me if my terms are fuzzy, my copy of the VTP spec is at home). It sometimes seems that the Internet and ISO picked different ends of the implementation spectrum and are now busy rushing toward each other. That's what I like about standards, there's so many to choose from :-) Joe Herman U of Md. dzoey@terminus.umd.edu