The original telnet specification? - TCP-IP

This is a discussion on The original telnet specification? - TCP-IP ; Howdy, Can somebody refer me to, or post NIC #15372 and NIC #15373, or any other _complete_ specification on telnet? There are about a dozen RFC's on telnet, none of them appear to offer the initial, or complete design specification. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: The original telnet specification?

  1. The original telnet specification?

    Howdy,

    Can somebody refer me to, or post NIC #15372 and NIC #15373, or any
    other _complete_ specification on telnet? There are about a dozen
    RFC's on telnet, none of them appear to offer the initial, or complete
    design specification.

    I have searched far and wide, but the abundance of SEO-poo seems to
    have buried the original documents. All I can find is RFC's that
    reference the original document.

    And before anyone mentions it, I _know_ telnet is deprecated. I am
    just trying to fix some old busted code so I don't have to rewrite it
    all.

    Thanks in advance!
    Matt





  2. Re: The original telnet specification?

    In article <847baca2-f596-497a-b182-f1c20924b7c7@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, shrike@cyberspace.org (shrike@cyberspace.org) writes:
    | Howdy,
    |
    | Can somebody refer me to, or post NIC #15372 and NIC #15373, or any
    | other _complete_ specification on telnet? There are about a dozen
    | RFC's on telnet, none of them appear to offer the initial, or complete
    | design specification.

    What about RFC 854?

    Dan Lanciani
    ddl@danlan.*com

  3. Re: The original telnet specification?

    "shrike@cyberspace.org" writes:

    >Can somebody refer me to, or post NIC #15372 and NIC #15373, or any
    >other _complete_ specification on telnet? There are about a dozen
    >RFC's on telnet, none of them appear to offer the initial, or complete
    >design specification.


    I just went digging into the TELNET protocol paper by Davdison et al and
    it cites a series of RFCs as the authority for TELNET (new TELNET and
    old TELNET).

    I suspect NIC #15372 and #15373 are simply NIC re-issues of the relevant RFCs
    (that is usually what NIC documents were -- though the email standard was
    the exception to this rule in the mid 1970s).

    Craig

  4. Re: The original telnet specification?

    On 2008-04-11, Craig Partridge wrote:
    > "shrike@cyberspace.org" writes:
    >
    >>Can somebody refer me to, or post NIC #15372 and NIC #15373, or any
    >>other _complete_ specification on telnet? There are about a dozen
    >>RFC's on telnet, none of them appear to offer the initial, or complete
    >>design specification.

    >
    > I just went digging into the TELNET protocol paper by Davdison et al and
    > it cites a series of RFCs as the authority for TELNET (new TELNET and
    > old TELNET).
    >
    > I suspect NIC #15372 and #15373 are simply NIC re-issues of the relevant RFCs
    > (that is usually what NIC documents were -- though the email standard was
    > the exception to this rule in the mid 1970s).


    The earliest specification is probably RFC 318/NIC 9348 but as that
    notes it is simply a description of the existing protocol which up
    until that point had not been officially documented. More recent
    RFCs build on it, in paricular RFC 854, but that is in itself not
    complete.

    There are also numerous extensions of various ages documented in
    several different RFCs that use the do, don't, will, won't protocol
    described in RFC 854. You have to bear in mind that telnet is an
    old protocol and has evolved more than it has been designed.

    In short there is no complete telnet specification. The RFCs
    together _do_ tell the whole story though, and if you start at RFC
    854 you can decide on a case by case basis whether the extensions
    documented in later RFCs are worth implementing for your particular
    application.

    --
    Andrew Smallshaw
    andrews@sdf.lonestar.org

  5. Re: The original telnet specification?

    Andrew Smallshaw writes:
    > The earliest specification is probably RFC 318/NIC 9348 but as that
    > notes it is simply a description of the existing protocol which up
    > until that point had not been officially documented. More recent
    > RFCs build on it, in paricular RFC 854, but that is in itself not
    > complete.


    97
    First cut at a proposed Telnet Protocol, Melvin J., Watson R.,
    1971/02/15 (10pp) (.pdf=403375) (Ref'ed By 3675, 5198)

    my rfc index:
    http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/rfcietff.htm

    in the "RFCs listed by" section, click on "Term (term->RFC#)" and
    then scroll down to "telnet"

    the "oldest" listed is:

    15
    Network subsystem for time sharing hosts, Carr C., 1969/09/25 (8pp)
    (.txt=10807)

    as always, clicking on the ".txt=nnn" (or .pdf=.nnn") field retrieves
    that actual rfc. from above:

    In addition to user program access, a convenient means for direct
    network access from the terminal is desirable. A sub-system called
    "Telnet" is proposed which is a shell program around the network
    system primitives, allowing a teletype or similar terminal at a
    remote host to function as a teletype at the serving host.

    .... snip ...

    as noted, RFC97 is now referenced by RFC3675 and RFC5198 (when I
    generate summaries, I'm now doing both forward & backward refs).
    RFC5198 has a Appendix A. History & Context


+ Reply to Thread