Re: Serial port redirection

[Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@columbia.edu>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1421 bytes --]

Peter Astrand wrote:

>>The reality is RFC is experimental and not authoritative.  The only 
>>thing that really counts is what Cisco actually shipped in their IOS 
>>implementation.  Lucky me I actually have a terminal
>>server that implements it.  If you look at the C-Kermit sources you will 
>>see that the client is written to accept both values from the server.  
>>You will also find that Cisco does not send the baudrates as specified 
>>in the RFC but instead uses an enumeration.
>>
>>With regards to the comment about the use of separate codes to indicate 
>>direction, this was written without a good understanding of the Telnet 
>>Option negotiation.  The reality is that there is no need for a telnet 
>>protocol option to have separate commands for each direction as the 
>>option itself must be negotiated separately in each direction.  
>>Therefore, there is no possibility of confusion.
>>    
>>
>
>Perhaps we should make a new, updated RFC? It could include this vital 
>information, as well as give advice on how to handle the different cases. 
>  
>

I am willing to do so.  I have a list of other Telnet RFCs which need to 
be updated.  Unfortunately, the IETF has very little interest these days 
in updating the Telnet
protocol.  Now that SSH is around the feeling is that Telnet should fade 
away
and people who want this type of functionality should implement a new 
protocol
on top of SSH. 



[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3427 bytes --]