TELNET Working Group Chairperson: Dave Borman/Cray CURRENT MEETING REPORT Reported by J.K. Reynolds, modified by Dave Borman AGENDA o Does RFC 854 (Telnet) need to be updated and re-issued? o Do any of the option RFCs need to be updated and re-issued? o What new options are needed? o What about international character sets? o What does BINARY mode really mean? o How do you avoid option negotiation loops? o What Telnet options are MUST? SHOULD? MAY? DONT? o How do you flush input and output? o 7 bit NVT vs 8 bit NVT vs 8 bit BINARY o Telnet to other protocol translation ATTENDEES 1. Adelman, Kenneth A./adelman@tgv.com 2. Borman, Dave/dab@cray.com 3. Hedrick, Charles/hedrick@aramis.rutgers.edu 4. Karels, Mike/karels@berkeley.edu 5. LoVerso, John/loverso@xylogics.com 6. Mamakos, Louis A./louie@trantor.umd.edu 7. Mercado, Marjo F./marjo@hpindlm.hp.com 8. Reinstedler, Jim/jimr@ub.ubcom.com 9. Replogle, Joel/replogle@ncsa.uiuc.edu 10. Reynolds, Joyce K./jkrey@isi.edu 11. Roselinsky, Milt/cmcvax!milt@hub.ucsb.edu 1 12. Salo, Tim/tjs@msc.umn.edu 13. Schofield, Bruce J./schofield@edn-vax.dca.mil 14. Solensky, Frank/solensky@interlan.interlan.com 15. Vance, L. Stuart/vance@tgv.com 16. Westfield, Bill/billw@cisco.com 17. Wilder, Rick/rick@gateway.mitre.org 18. Wintringham, Dan/danw@osc.edu MINUTES Opening Comments: Telnet Option draft RFCs - What are in the queue?? o Borman's Telnet Linemode: This is in the queue now for becoming an RFC. It has been handed off to Phill Gross. o Berstein's Q-Method: For later discussion in this meeting, see item 6 Borman presented proposed agenda to group and asked what else should be included: Bill Westfield lobbied for a document on Telnet with X.3 negotiations -- he was overruled. It was decided that this along with item 10, was out of the scope of this group. RFC 854 and Postel - Is there a justification for a "revised" Telnet spec?? There seemed to be general agreement that a better approach would be to answer all the other questions first, and that would decide this question for us. The next item up for discussion was possible future options for Telnet that are needed. 2 Pursue??_ What_to_include:_ Yes User Name (who you're going in as, i.e., name, acct, etc.) Yes Authentication (get rid of RLogin) (Authentication and encryption are somewhat related.) Yes Environment Possibly System Type Yes Encryption (Encryption and authentication are somewhat related.) Maybe Compression (data) (A subcase of encryption?? A maybe, depending upon encryption.) Yes don't Telnet Option (Bill Westfield working on this one.) Big Topics: Go through which Telnet options are not needed. Send a message out to a mailing list asking who currently uses what telnet options. The following list is what we came up with at the meeting. Those marked with YES were changed from "no", those marked with a ? no one was sure on. (This is re-constructed from memory, so please let me know if I made a mistake... -Dave B.) 3 Number_ Name_ RFC_ NIC_ DPH_ USE_ 0 Binary Transmission 856 ----- yes yes 1 Echo 857 ----- yes yes 2 Reconnection ... 15391 yes no 3 Suppress Go Ahead 858 ----- yes yes 4 Approx Message Size Negotiation ... 15393 yes no 5 Status 859 ----- yes yes 6 Timing Mark 860 ----- yes yes 7 Remote Controlled Trans and Echo 726 39237 yes no 8 Output Line Width ... 20196 yes no 9 Output Page Size ... 20197 yes no 10 Output Carriage-Return Disposition 652 31155 yes no 11 Output Horizontal Tabstops 653 31156 yes no 12 Output Horizontal Tab Disposition 654 31157 yes no 13 Output Formfeed Disposition 655 31158 yes no 14 Output Vertical Tabstops 656 31159 yes no 15 Output Vertical Tab Disposition 657 31160 yes no 16 Output Linefeed Disposition 658 31161 yes no 17 Extended ASCII 698 32964 yes no 18 Logout 727 40025 yes no 19 Byte Macro 735 42083 yes no 20 Data Entry Terminal 732 41762 yes no ? 21 SUPDUP 734 736 42213 yes no 22 SUPDUP Output 749 45449 yes no 23 Send Location 779 ----- yes no 24 Terminal Type 1091 ----- yes YES 25 End of Record 885 ----- yes no 26 TACACS User Identification 927 ----- yes no ? 27 Output Marking 933 ----- yes no 28 Terminal Location Number 946 ----- no no 29 3270 Regime 1041 ----- no no ? 30 X.3 PAD 1053 ----- no no 31 Window Size 1073 ----- no YES 32 Terminal Speed Option 1079 ----- no YES 33 Remote Flow Control 1080 ----- no YES 34 Linemode TBA ----- no YES 35 X Display Location 1096 ----- no no 255 Extended-Options-List 861 ----- yes yes Clarifying Timing Mark RFC Does anyone use STATUS?? 4 What's wrong with the current Telnet spec: o old stuff o what to update Other Issues: Borman's concept of the new Telnet Working Group: This group is not to disband, but upon completion of their activities, go dormant from time to time, and start up and become available as a group to review Telnet draft RFCs, etc....as needed. Discussion/Issues of 7 bit, 8 bit binary: 1. Delay problem between client and server, interrupt character, interrupt systems, interrupt marker - Linemode really helps you here in this realm. 2. Interrupt - telnet process can control things, output prompt between the two. 3. Host Requirement RFC document - discussion regarding "clean wording" of Telnet in the Host Requirement RFC. In particular, a statement on 7, 8 bit data passing; 8 bit should NOT be used for parity bit. 4. Should anything be said in the Host Requirement RFC re: 7, 8 bit?? What about the statement of "SHOULD or MUST" negotiate binary?? 5. Should the Telnet standard be changed/updated to reflect the context of Host Requirements RFC?? 6. Items d and e were not resolved at this meeting. There is a need to soften the wording on the Telnet statement that's going into the Host Requirements RFC. Borman to talk to Braden. 7. Bernstein's Q-Method RFC. Postel asked the Telnet WG to review and comment. Group comment is that it should not be issued as an RFC. Part of it should be rewritten, and incorporated with whatever we release for a replacement/update to the Telnet RFC. It was felt that the real world was not having problems with option negotiation loops, so it isn't a problem that requires an immediate solution. Conclusion of meeting: o Telnet WG will meet in Hawaii. 5 o Interim discussions will continue on the 6