diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'misc')
-rw-r--r-- | misc/iana-telnet-options.txt | 486 | ||||
-rw-r--r-- | misc/rfc854-telnet.txt | 854 |
2 files changed, 1340 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/misc/iana-telnet-options.txt b/misc/iana-telnet-options.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d1338a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/misc/iana-telnet-options.txt | |||
@@ -0,0 +1,486 @@ | |||
1 | |||
2 | TELNET OPTIONS | ||
3 | |||
4 | (last updated 2003-11-06) | ||
5 | |||
6 | The Telnet Protocol has a number of options that may be negotiated. | ||
7 | These options are listed here. "Internet Official Protocol Standards" | ||
8 | (STD 1) provides more detailed information. | ||
9 | |||
10 | Options Name References | ||
11 | ------- ----------------------- ---------- | ||
12 | 0 Binary Transmission [RFC856] | ||
13 | 1 Echo [RFC857] | ||
14 | 2 Reconnection [NIC50005] | ||
15 | 3 Suppress Go Ahead [RFC858] | ||
16 | 4 Approx Message Size Negotiation [ETHERNET] | ||
17 | 5 Status [RFC859] | ||
18 | 6 Timing Mark [RFC860] | ||
19 | 7 Remote Controlled Trans and Echo [RFC726] | ||
20 | 8 Output Line Width [NIC50005] | ||
21 | 9 Output Page Size [NIC50005] | ||
22 | 10 Output Carriage-Return Disposition [RFC652] | ||
23 | 11 Output Horizontal Tab Stops [RFC653] | ||
24 | 12 Output Horizontal Tab Disposition [RFC654] | ||
25 | 13 Output Formfeed Disposition [RFC655] | ||
26 | 14 Output Vertical Tabstops [RFC656] | ||
27 | 15 Output Vertical Tab Disposition [RFC657] | ||
28 | 16 Output Linefeed Disposition [RFC658] | ||
29 | 17 Extended ASCII [RFC698] | ||
30 | 18 Logout [RFC727] | ||
31 | 19 Byte Macro [RFC735] | ||
32 | 20 Data Entry Terminal [RFC1043,RFC732] | ||
33 | 21 SUPDUP [RFC736,RFC734] | ||
34 | 22 SUPDUP Output [RFC749] | ||
35 | 23 Send Location [RFC779] | ||
36 | 24 Terminal Type [RFC1091] | ||
37 | 25 End of Record [RFC885] | ||
38 | 26 TACACS User Identification [RFC927] | ||
39 | 27 Output Marking [RFC933] | ||
40 | 28 Terminal Location Number [RFC946] | ||
41 | 29 Telnet 3270 Regime [RFC1041] | ||
42 | 30 X.3 PAD [RFC1053] | ||
43 | 31 Negotiate About Window Size [RFC1073] | ||
44 | 32 Terminal Speed [RFC1079] | ||
45 | 33 Remote Flow Control [RFC1372] | ||
46 | 34 Linemode [RFC1184] | ||
47 | 35 X Display Location [RFC1096] | ||
48 | 36 Environment Option [RFC1408] | ||
49 | 37 Authentication Option [RFC2941] | ||
50 | 38 Encryption Option [RFC2946] | ||
51 | 39 New Environment Option [RFC1572] | ||
52 | 40 TN3270E [RFC1647] | ||
53 | 41 XAUTH [Earhart] | ||
54 | 42 CHARSET [RFC2066] | ||
55 | 43 Telnet Remote Serial Port (RSP) [Barnes] | ||
56 | 44 Com Port Control Option [RFC2217] | ||
57 | 45 Telnet Suppress Local Echo [Atmar] | ||
58 | 46 Telnet Start TLS [Boe] | ||
59 | 47 KERMIT [RFC2840] | ||
60 | 48 SEND-URL [Croft] | ||
61 | 49 FORWARD_X [Altman] | ||
62 | 50-137 Unassigned [IANA] | ||
63 | 138 TELOPT PRAGMA LOGON [McGregory] | ||
64 | 139 TELOPT SSPI LOGON [McGregory] | ||
65 | 140 TELOPT PRAGMA HEARTBEAT [McGregory] | ||
66 | 255 Extended-Options-List [RFC861] | ||
67 | |||
68 | Telnet Authentication Types (Option 37) | ||
69 | |||
70 | In [RFC2941], a list of authentication commands and types is | ||
71 | documented. Additions to the list are registerd by the IANA and | ||
72 | documented here. Note: Authentication types followed by (*) were | ||
73 | never submitted to the IETF for consideration as an Internet standard. | ||
74 | |||
75 | Command Description Reference | ||
76 | 0 IS [RFC2941] | ||
77 | 1 SEND [RFC2941] | ||
78 | 2 REPLY [RFC2941] | ||
79 | 3 NAME [RFC2941] | ||
80 | |||
81 | Type Description Reference | ||
82 | 0 NULL [RFC2941] | ||
83 | 1 KERBEROS_V4 [RFC2941] | ||
84 | 2 KERBEROS_V5 [RFC2942] | ||
85 | 3 SPX [RFC2941] * | ||
86 | 4 MINK [RFC2941] * | ||
87 | 5 SRP [RFC2944] | ||
88 | 6 RSA (also used by SRA) [RFC2941] | ||
89 | 7 SSL [RFC2941] | ||
90 | 8-9 Unassigned [IANA] | ||
91 | 10 LOKI [RFC2941] * | ||
92 | 11 SSA [Schoch] | ||
93 | 12 KEA_SJ [RFC2951] | ||
94 | 13 KEA_SJ_INTEG [RFC2951] | ||
95 | 14 DSS [RFC2943] | ||
96 | 15 NTLM [Kahn] * | ||
97 | |||
98 | In [RFC 1411], on the KERBEROS_V4 Telnet Authentication type there are | ||
99 | a set of Suboption Commands. Additions to the list are registerd by | ||
100 | the IANA and documented here. | ||
101 | |||
102 | Suboption Command Reference | ||
103 | 0 AUTH [RFC1411] | ||
104 | 1 REJECT [RFC1411] | ||
105 | 2 ACCEPT [RFC1411] | ||
106 | 3 CHALLENGE [RFC1411] | ||
107 | 4 RESPONSE [RFC1411] | ||
108 | 5 FORWARD [Brashear] | ||
109 | 6 FORWARD-ACCEPT [Brashear] | ||
110 | 7 FORWARD-REJECT [Brashear] | ||
111 | 8 EXP [Wu] | ||
112 | 9 PARAMS [Wu] | ||
113 | |||
114 | |||
115 | In the KERBEROS_V5 Telnet Authentication type there are a set of | ||
116 | Suboption Commands. Additions to the list are registerd by the IANA | ||
117 | and documented here. | ||
118 | |||
119 | Suboption Command Reference | ||
120 | 0 AUTH [RFC2942] | ||
121 | 1 REJECT [RFC2942] | ||
122 | 2 ACCEPT [RFC2942] | ||
123 | 3 RESPONSE [RFC2942] | ||
124 | 4 FORWARD [RFC2942] | ||
125 | 5 FORWARD_ACCEPT [RFC2942] | ||
126 | 6 FORWARD-REJECT [RFC2942] | ||
127 | |||
128 | |||
129 | In the DSS Telnet Authentication type there are a set of | ||
130 | Suboption Commands. Additions to the list are registerd by the IANA | ||
131 | and documented here. | ||
132 | |||
133 | Suboption Command Reference | ||
134 | 1 DSS_INITIALIZE [RFC2943] | ||
135 | 2 DSS_TOKENBA [RFC2943] | ||
136 | 3 DSS_CERTA_TOKENAB [RFC2943] | ||
137 | 4 DSS_CERTB_TOKENBA2 [RFC2943] | ||
138 | |||
139 | |||
140 | In the SRP Telnet Authentication type there are a set of Suboption | ||
141 | Commands. Additions to the list are registerd by the IANA and | ||
142 | documented here. | ||
143 | |||
144 | Suboption Command Reference | ||
145 | 0 AUTH [RFC2944] | ||
146 | 1 REJECT [RFC2944] | ||
147 | 2 ACCEPT [RFC2944] | ||
148 | 3 CHALLENGE [RFC2944] | ||
149 | 4 RESPONSE [RFC2944] | ||
150 | 5-7 Unassigned [RFC2944] | ||
151 | 8 EXP [RFC2944] | ||
152 | 9 PARAMS [RFC2944] | ||
153 | |||
154 | |||
155 | In the KEA_SJ and KEA_SJ_INTEG Telnet Authentication types, there are | ||
156 | a set of Suboption Commands. Additions to the list are registerd by | ||
157 | the IANA and documented here. | ||
158 | |||
159 | Suboption Command Reference | ||
160 | 1 KEA_CERTA_RA [RFC2951] | ||
161 | 2 KEA_CERTB_RB_IVB_NONCEB [RFC2951] | ||
162 | 3 KEA_IVA_RESPONSEB_NONCEA [RFC2951] | ||
163 | 4 KEA_RESPONSEA [RFC2951] | ||
164 | |||
165 | |||
166 | Telnet Encryption Types (Option 38) | ||
167 | |||
168 | In the Telnet Encryption commands and types [RFC2946] there have been | ||
169 | various implementations in several widely distributed versions of | ||
170 | Telnet (e.g., at MIT, Stanford, and Columbia). Originally, only two | ||
171 | encryption types were specified. Additional encryption types have | ||
172 | been defined and are listed below. Additions to the list are | ||
173 | registerd by the IANA and documented here. | ||
174 | |||
175 | Command | ||
176 | |||
177 | 0 IS [RFC2946] | ||
178 | 1 SUPPORT [RFC2946] | ||
179 | 2 REPLY [RFC2946] | ||
180 | 3 START [RFC2946] | ||
181 | 4 END [RFC2946] | ||
182 | 5 REQUEST-START [RFC2946] | ||
183 | 6 REQUEST-END [RFC2946] | ||
184 | 7 ENC_KEYID [RFC2946] | ||
185 | 8 DEC_KEYID [RFC2946] | ||
186 | |||
187 | Type | ||
188 | |||
189 | 0 NULL [RFC2946] | ||
190 | 1 DES_CFB64 [RFC2946] | ||
191 | 2 DES_OFB64 [RFC2946] | ||
192 | 3 DES3_CFB64 [RFC2946] | ||
193 | 4 DES3_OFB64 [RFC2946] | ||
194 | 5-7 Unassigned [IANA] | ||
195 | 8 CAST5_40_CFB64 [RFC2946] | ||
196 | 9 CAST5_40_OFB64 [RFC2946] | ||
197 | 10 CAST128_CFB64 [RFC2946] | ||
198 | 11 CAST128_OFB64 [RFC2946] | ||
199 | 12 AES_CCM [Josefsson] | ||
200 | |||
201 | In the DES3_CFB64 Telnet Encryption type there are a set of Suboption | ||
202 | Commands. Additions to the list are registerd by the IANA and | ||
203 | documented here. | ||
204 | |||
205 | Suboption Command Reference | ||
206 | 1 CFB64_IV [RFC2947] | ||
207 | 2 CFB64_IV_OK [RFC2947] | ||
208 | 3 CFB64_IV_BAD [RFC2947] | ||
209 | |||
210 | |||
211 | In the DES3_OFB64 Telnet Encryption type there are a set of Suboption | ||
212 | Commands. Additions to the list are registerd by the IANA and | ||
213 | documented here. | ||
214 | |||
215 | Suboption Command Reference | ||
216 | 1 OFB64_IV [RFC2948] | ||
217 | 2 OFB64_IV_OK [RFC2948] | ||
218 | 3 OFB64_IV_BAD [RFC2948] | ||
219 | |||
220 | |||
221 | In the CAST5_40_OFB64 and CAST128_OFB64 Telnet Encryption types, there | ||
222 | are a set of Suboption Commands. Additions to the list are registerd | ||
223 | by the IANA and documented here. | ||
224 | |||
225 | Suboption Command Reference | ||
226 | 1 OFB64_IV [RFC2949] | ||
227 | 2 OFB64_IV_OK [RFC2949] | ||
228 | 3 OFB64_IV_BAD [RFC2949] | ||
229 | |||
230 | |||
231 | In the CAST5_40_CFB64 and CAST128_CFB64 Telnet Encryption types, there | ||
232 | are a set of Suboption Commands. Additions to the list are registerd | ||
233 | by the IANA and documented here. | ||
234 | |||
235 | Suboption Command Reference | ||
236 | 1 CFB64_IV [RFC2950] | ||
237 | 2 CFB64_IV_OK [RFC2950] | ||
238 | 3 CFB64_IV_BAD [RFC2950] | ||
239 | |||
240 | |||
241 | In the DES_CFB64 Telnet Encryption type there are a set of Suboption | ||
242 | Commands. Additions to the list are registerd by the IANA and | ||
243 | documented here. | ||
244 | |||
245 | Suboption Command Reference | ||
246 | 1 CFB64_IV [RFC2952] | ||
247 | 2 CFB64_IV_OK [RFC2952] | ||
248 | 3 CFB64_IV_BAD [RFC2952] | ||
249 | |||
250 | |||
251 | In the DES_OFB64 Telnet Encryption type there are a set of Suboption | ||
252 | Commands. Additions to the list are registerd by the IANA and | ||
253 | documented here. | ||
254 | |||
255 | Suboption Command Reference | ||
256 | 1 OFB64_IV [RFC2953] | ||
257 | 2 OFB64_IV_OK [RFC2953] | ||
258 | 3 OFB64_IV_BAD [RFC2953] | ||
259 | |||
260 | |||
261 | REFERENCES | ||
262 | |||
263 | [ETHERNET] "The Ethernet, A Local Area Network: Data Link Layer and | ||
264 | Physical Layer Specification", AA-K759B-TK, Digital | ||
265 | Equipment Corporation, Maynard, MA. Also as: "The | ||
266 | Ethernet - A Local Area Network", Version 1.0, Digital | ||
267 | Equipment Corporation, Intel Corporation, Xerox | ||
268 | Corporation, September 1980. And: "The Ethernet, A Local | ||
269 | Area Network: Data Link Layer and Physical Layer | ||
270 | Specifications", Digital, Intel and Xerox, November 1982. | ||
271 | And: XEROX, "The Ethernet, A Local Area Network: Data Link | ||
272 | Layer and Physical Layer Specification", X3T51/80-50, Xerox | ||
273 | Corporation, Stamford, CT., October 1980. | ||
274 | |||
275 | [NIC50005] DDN Protocol Handbook, "Telnet Reconnection Option", | ||
276 | "Telnet Output Line Width Option", "Telnet Output Page Size | ||
277 | Option", NIC 50005, December 1985. | ||
278 | |||
279 | [RFC652] Crocker, D., "Telnet Output Carriage-Return Disposition | ||
280 | Option", RFC 652, UCLA-NMC, October 1974. | ||
281 | |||
282 | [RFC653] Crocker, D., "Telnet Output Horizontal Tabstops Option", | ||
283 | RFC 653, UCLA-NMC, October 1974. | ||
284 | |||
285 | [RFC654] Crocker, D., "Telnet Output Horizontal Tab Disposition | ||
286 | Option", RFC 654, UCLA-NMC, October 1974. | ||
287 | |||
288 | [RFC655] Crocker, D., "Telnet Output Formfeed Disposition Option", | ||
289 | RFC 655, UCLA-NMC, October 1974. | ||
290 | |||
291 | [RFC656] Crocker, D., "Telnet Output Vertical Tabstops Option", | ||
292 | RFC 656, UCLA-NMC, October 1974. | ||
293 | |||
294 | [RFC657] Crocker, D., "Telnet Output Vertical Tab Disposition Option", | ||
295 | RFC 657, UCLA-NMC, October 1974. | ||
296 | |||
297 | [RFC658] Crocker, D., "Telnet Output Linefeed Disposition", RFC 658, | ||
298 | UCLA-NMC, October 1974. | ||
299 | |||
300 | [RFC698] Tovar, "Telnet Extended ASCII Option", RFC 698, Stanford | ||
301 | University-AI, July 1975. | ||
302 | |||
303 | [RFC726] Postel, J. and D. Crocker, "Remote Controlled Transmission | ||
304 | and Echoing Telnet Option", RFC 726, SRI-ARC, UC Irvine, | ||
305 | March 1977. | ||
306 | |||
307 | [RFC727] Crispin, M., "Telnet Logout Option", RFC 727, Stanford | ||
308 | University-AI, April 1977. | ||
309 | |||
310 | [RFC734] Crispin, M., "SUPDUP Protocol", RFC 734, Stanford, | ||
311 | October 1977. | ||
312 | |||
313 | [RFC735] Crocker, D. and R. Gumpertz, "Revised Telnet Byte Marco | ||
314 | Option", RFC 735, Rand, CMU, November 1977. | ||
315 | |||
316 | [RFC736] Crispin, M., "Telnet SUPDUP Option", Stanford University-AI, | ||
317 | RFC 736, Stanford, October 1977. | ||
318 | |||
319 | [RFC749] Greenberg, B., "Telnet SUPDUP-OUTPUT Option", RFC 749, | ||
320 | MIT-Multics, September 1978. | ||
321 | |||
322 | [RFC779] Killian, E., "Telnet Send-Location Option", RFC 779, | ||
323 | LLL, April 1981. | ||
324 | |||
325 | [RFC856] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Telnet Binary Transmission", | ||
326 | STD 27, RFC 856, USC/Information Sciences Institute, May | ||
327 | 1983. | ||
328 | |||
329 | [RFC857] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Telnet Echo Option", STD 28, RFC | ||
330 | 857, USC/Information Sciences Institute, May 1983. | ||
331 | |||
332 | [RFC858] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Telnet Suppress Go Ahead | ||
333 | Option", STD 29, RFC 858, USC/Information Sciences Institute, | ||
334 | May 1983. | ||
335 | |||
336 | [RFC859] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Telnet Status Option", STD 30, | ||
337 | RFC 859, USC/Information Sciences Institute, May 1983. | ||
338 | |||
339 | [RFC860] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Telnet Timing Mark Option", | ||
340 | STD 31, RFC 860, USC/Information Sciences Institute, May | ||
341 | 1983. | ||
342 | |||
343 | [RFC861] Postel, J. and J. Reynolds, "Telnet Extended Options - List | ||
344 | Option", STD 32, RFC 861, USC/Information Sciences Institute, | ||
345 | May 1983. | ||
346 | |||
347 | [RFC885] Postel, J., "Telnet End of Record Option", RFC 885, | ||
348 | USC/Information Sciences Institute, December 1983. | ||
349 | |||
350 | [RFC927] Anderson, B., "TACACS User Identification Telnet Option", | ||
351 | RFC 927, BBN, December 1984. | ||
352 | |||
353 | [RFC933] Silverman, S., "Output Marking Telnet Option", RFC 933, | ||
354 | MITRE, January 1985. | ||
355 | |||
356 | [RFC946] Nedved, R., "Telnet Terminal Location Number Option", | ||
357 | RFC 946, Carnegie-Mellon University, May 1985. | ||
358 | |||
359 | [RDC1041] Rekhter, J., "Telnet 3270 Regime Option", RFC 1041, | ||
360 | IBM, January 1988. | ||
361 | |||
362 | [RFC1043] Yasuda, A., and T. Thompson, "TELNET Data Entry Terminal | ||
363 | Option DODIIS Implementation", RFC 1043, DIA, February 1988. | ||
364 | |||
365 | [RFC1053] Levy, S., and T. Jacobson, "Telnet X.3 PAD Option", | ||
366 | RFC 1053, Minnesota Supercomputer Center, April 1988. | ||
367 | |||
368 | [RFC1073] Waitzman, D., "Telnet Window Size Option", RFC 1073, | ||
369 | BBN STC, October, 1988. | ||
370 | |||
371 | [RFC1079] Hedrick, C., "Telnet Terminal Speed Option", RFC 1079, | ||
372 | Rutgers University, December 1988. | ||
373 | |||
374 | [RFC1091] VanBokkelen, J., "Telnet Terminal Type Option", | ||
375 | RFC 1091, FTP Software, Inc., February 1989. | ||
376 | |||
377 | [RFC1096] Marcy, G., "Telnet X Display Location Option", RFC 1096, | ||
378 | Carnegie Mellon University, March 1989. | ||
379 | |||
380 | [RFC1184] Borman, D., Editor, "Telnet Linemode Option", | ||
381 | RFC 1184, Cray Research, Inc., October 1990. | ||
382 | |||
383 | [RFC1372] Hedrick, C., and D. Borman, "Telnet Remote Flow Control | ||
384 | Option", RFC 1372, Rutgers University, Cray Research, Inc., | ||
385 | October 1992. | ||
386 | |||
387 | [RFC1408] Borman, D., Editor, "Telnet Environment Option", RFC 1408, | ||
388 | Cray Research, Inc., January 1993. | ||
389 | |||
390 | [RFC1411] Borman, D., Editor, "Telnet Authentication: Kerberos | ||
391 | Version 4", RFC 1411, Cray Research, Inc., January 1993. | ||
392 | |||
393 | [RFC1416] Borman, D., Editor, "Telnet Authentication Option", RFC | ||
394 | 1416, Cray Research, Inc., February 1993. | ||
395 | |||
396 | [RFC1572] Alexander, S., Editor, "Telnet Environment Option", RFC1572, | ||
397 | Lachman Technology, Inc., January 1994. | ||
398 | |||
399 | [RFC1647] Kelly, B., "TN3270 Enhancements", RFC1647, Auburn | ||
400 | University, July 1994. | ||
401 | |||
402 | [RFC2066] Gellens, R., "Telnet CharSet Option", RFC 2066, Unisys, | ||
403 | January 1997. | ||
404 | |||
405 | [RFC2217] Clark, G., "Telnet Com Port Control Option", RFC 2217, | ||
406 | Cisco Systems, Inc., October 1997. | ||
407 | |||
408 | [RFC2840] Altman, J., "Telnet Kermit Option", RFC 2840, May 2000. | ||
409 | |||
410 | [RFC2941] Ts'o, T. and J. Altman, "Telnet Authentication Option", | ||
411 | RFC 2941, September 2000. | ||
412 | |||
413 | [RFC2942] Ts'o, T., "Telnet Authentication: Kerberos Version 5", | ||
414 | RFC 2942, September 2000. | ||
415 | |||
416 | [RFC2943] Housley, R., Horting, T. and P. Yee, "TELNET Authentication | ||
417 | Using DSA", RFC 2943, September 2000. | ||
418 | |||
419 | [RFC2944] Wu, T., "Telnet Authentication: SRP", RFC 2944, September | ||
420 | 2000. | ||
421 | |||
422 | [RFC2946] Ts'o, T., "Telnet Data Encryption Option", RFC 2946, | ||
423 | September 2000. | ||
424 | |||
425 | [RFC2947] Altman, J., "Telnet Encryption: DES3 64 bit Cipher | ||
426 | Feedback", RFC 2947, September 2000. | ||
427 | |||
428 | [RFC2948] Altman, J., "Telnet Encryption: DES3 64 bit Output | ||
429 | Feedback", RFC 2948, September 2000. | ||
430 | |||
431 | [RFC2949] Altman, J., "Telnet Encryption: CAST-128 64 bit Output | ||
432 | Feedback", RFC 2949, September 2000. | ||
433 | |||
434 | [RFC2950] Altman, J., "Telnet Encryption: CAST-128 64 bit Cipher | ||
435 | Feedback", September 2000. | ||
436 | |||
437 | [RFC2951] Housley, R., Horting, T. and P. Yee, "TELNET Authentication | ||
438 | Using KEA and SKIPJACK", September 2000. | ||
439 | |||
440 | [RFC2952] Ts'o, T., "Telnet Encryption: DES 64 bit Cipher Feedback", | ||
441 | RFC 2952, September 2000. | ||
442 | |||
443 | [RFC2953] Ts'o, T., "Telnet Encryption: DES 64 bit Output Feedback", | ||
444 | RFC 2953, September 2000. | ||
445 | |||
446 | PEOPLE | ||
447 | ------ | ||
448 | |||
449 | [Altman] Jeffrey Altman, <jaltman@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>, August | ||
450 | 1998, January 2000. | ||
451 | |||
452 | [Atmar] Wirt Atmar, <atmar@aics-research.com>, June 1998. | ||
453 | |||
454 | [Barnes] Robert Barnes, <rab@stallion.oz.au>, July 1997. | ||
455 | |||
456 | [Boe] Michael Boe, <mboe@cisco.com>, June 1998. | ||
457 | |||
458 | [Brashear] Derrick Brashear, <shadow@dementia.org>, January 1995. | ||
459 | |||
460 | [Borman] Dave Borman, <dab@CRAY.COM>, January 1995. | ||
461 | |||
462 | [Croft] David Croft, <david@infotrek.co.uk>, September 1998. | ||
463 | |||
464 | [Earhart] Rob Earhart, <earhart+@CMU.EDU>, April 1995. | ||
465 | |||
466 | [Horting] Todd Horting <thorting@spyrus.com>, April 1998. | ||
467 | |||
468 | [Hudson] Tim Hudson <tjh@cryptsoft.com>, December 1998. | ||
469 | |||
470 | [IANA] Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, <iana@isi.edu>, January 1995. | ||
471 | |||
472 | [Josefsson] S. Josefsson <jas@extundo.com>, November 2003. | ||
473 | http://josefsson.org/shishi/shishi.html#Telnet%20encryption%20with%20AES-CCM | ||
474 | |||
475 | [Kahn] Louis Kahn, <louisk@microsoft.com>, October 1998. | ||
476 | |||
477 | [McGregory] Steve McGregory <stevemc@pragmasys.com>, December 1998. | ||
478 | |||
479 | [Schoch] Steven Schoch, <schoch@sheba.arc.nasa.gov>, January 1995. | ||
480 | |||
481 | [Ts'o] Theodore Ts'o, <tytso@mit.edu>, September 1998. | ||
482 | |||
483 | [Wu] Thomas Wu, <tjw@stanford.edu>, July 1997, September 1998. | ||
484 | |||
485 | [] | ||
486 | |||
diff --git a/misc/rfc854-telnet.txt b/misc/rfc854-telnet.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e794bf7 --- /dev/null +++ b/misc/rfc854-telnet.txt | |||
@@ -0,0 +1,854 @@ | |||
1 | |||
2 | Network Working Group J. Postel | ||
3 | Request for Comments: 854 J. Reynolds | ||
4 | ISI | ||
5 | Obsoletes: NIC 18639 May 1983 | ||
6 | |||
7 | TELNET PROTOCOL SPECIFICATION | ||
8 | |||
9 | |||
10 | This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community. Hosts on | ||
11 | the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt and implement this standard. | ||
12 | |||
13 | INTRODUCTION | ||
14 | |||
15 | The purpose of the TELNET Protocol is to provide a fairly general, | ||
16 | bi-directional, eight-bit byte oriented communications facility. Its | ||
17 | primary goal is to allow a standard method of interfacing terminal | ||
18 | devices and terminal-oriented processes to each other. It is | ||
19 | envisioned that the protocol may also be used for terminal-terminal | ||
20 | communication ("linking") and process-process communication | ||
21 | (distributed computation). | ||
22 | |||
23 | GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS | ||
24 | |||
25 | A TELNET connection is a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) | ||
26 | connection used to transmit data with interspersed TELNET control | ||
27 | information. | ||
28 | |||
29 | The TELNET Protocol is built upon three main ideas: first, the | ||
30 | concept of a "Network Virtual Terminal"; second, the principle of | ||
31 | negotiated options; and third, a symmetric view of terminals and | ||
32 | processes. | ||
33 | |||
34 | 1. When a TELNET connection is first established, each end is | ||
35 | assumed to originate and terminate at a "Network Virtual Terminal", | ||
36 | or NVT. An NVT is an imaginary device which provides a standard, | ||
37 | network-wide, intermediate representation of a canonical terminal. | ||
38 | This eliminates the need for "server" and "user" hosts to keep | ||
39 | information about the characteristics of each other's terminals and | ||
40 | terminal handling conventions. All hosts, both user and server, map | ||
41 | their local device characteristics and conventions so as to appear to | ||
42 | be dealing with an NVT over the network, and each can assume a | ||
43 | similar mapping by the other party. The NVT is intended to strike a | ||
44 | balance between being overly restricted (not providing hosts a rich | ||
45 | enough vocabulary for mapping into their local character sets), and | ||
46 | being overly inclusive (penalizing users with modest terminals). | ||
47 | |||
48 | NOTE: The "user" host is the host to which the physical terminal | ||
49 | is normally attached, and the "server" host is the host which is | ||
50 | normally providing some service. As an alternate point of view, | ||
51 | |||
52 | |||
53 | |||
54 | |||
55 | Postel & Reynolds [Page 1] | ||
56 | |||
57 | |||
58 | |||
59 | RFC 854 May 1983 | ||
60 | |||
61 | |||
62 | applicable even in terminal-to-terminal or process-to-process | ||
63 | communications, the "user" host is the host which initiated the | ||
64 | communication. | ||
65 | |||
66 | 2. The principle of negotiated options takes cognizance of the fact | ||
67 | that many hosts will wish to provide additional services over and | ||
68 | above those available within an NVT, and many users will have | ||
69 | sophisticated terminals and would like to have elegant, rather than | ||
70 | minimal, services. Independent of, but structured within the TELNET | ||
71 | Protocol are various "options" that will be sanctioned and may be | ||
72 | used with the "DO, DON'T, WILL, WON'T" structure (discussed below) to | ||
73 | allow a user and server to agree to use a more elaborate (or perhaps | ||
74 | just different) set of conventions for their TELNET connection. Such | ||
75 | options could include changing the character set, the echo mode, etc. | ||
76 | |||
77 | The basic strategy for setting up the use of options is to have | ||
78 | either party (or both) initiate a request that some option take | ||
79 | effect. The other party may then either accept or reject the | ||
80 | request. If the request is accepted the option immediately takes | ||
81 | effect; if it is rejected the associated aspect of the connection | ||
82 | remains as specified for an NVT. Clearly, a party may always refuse | ||
83 | a request to enable, and must never refuse a request to disable some | ||
84 | option since all parties must be prepared to support the NVT. | ||
85 | |||
86 | The syntax of option negotiation has been set up so that if both | ||
87 | parties request an option simultaneously, each will see the other's | ||
88 | request as the positive acknowledgment of its own. | ||
89 | |||
90 | 3. The symmetry of the negotiation syntax can potentially lead to | ||
91 | nonterminating acknowledgment loops -- each party seeing the incoming | ||
92 | commands not as acknowledgments but as new requests which must be | ||
93 | acknowledged. To prevent such loops, the following rules prevail: | ||
94 | |||
95 | a. Parties may only request a change in option status; i.e., a | ||
96 | party may not send out a "request" merely to announce what mode it | ||
97 | is in. | ||
98 | |||
99 | b. If a party receives what appears to be a request to enter some | ||
100 | mode it is already in, the request should not be acknowledged. | ||
101 | This non-response is essential to prevent endless loops in the | ||
102 | negotiation. It is required that a response be sent to requests | ||
103 | for a change of mode -- even if the mode is not changed. | ||
104 | |||
105 | c. Whenever one party sends an option command to a second party, | ||
106 | whether as a request or an acknowledgment, and use of the option | ||
107 | will have any effect on the processing of the data being sent from | ||
108 | the first party to the second, then the command must be inserted | ||
109 | in the data stream at the point where it is desired that it take | ||
110 | |||
111 | |||
112 | Postel & Reynolds [Page 2] | ||
113 | |||
114 | |||
115 | |||
116 | RFC 854 May 1983 | ||
117 | |||
118 | |||
119 | effect. (It should be noted that some time will elapse between | ||
120 | the transmission of a request and the receipt of an | ||
121 | acknowledgment, which may be negative. Thus, a host may wish to | ||
122 | buffer data, after requesting an option, until it learns whether | ||
123 | the request is accepted or rejected, in order to hide the | ||
124 | "uncertainty period" from the user.) | ||
125 | |||
126 | Option requests are likely to flurry back and forth when a TELNET | ||
127 | connection is first established, as each party attempts to get the | ||
128 | best possible service from the other party. Beyond that, however, | ||
129 | options can be used to dynamically modify the characteristics of the | ||
130 | connection to suit changing local conditions. For example, the NVT, | ||
131 | as will be explained later, uses a transmission discipline well | ||
132 | suited to the many "line at a time" applications such as BASIC, but | ||
133 | poorly suited to the many "character at a time" applications such as | ||
134 | NLS. A server might elect to devote the extra processor overhead | ||
135 | required for a "character at a time" discipline when it was suitable | ||
136 | for the local process and would negotiate an appropriate option. | ||
137 | However, rather than then being permanently burdened with the extra | ||
138 | processing overhead, it could switch (i.e., negotiate) back to NVT | ||
139 | when the detailed control was no longer necessary. | ||
140 | |||
141 | It is possible for requests initiated by processes to stimulate a | ||
142 | nonterminating request loop if the process responds to a rejection by | ||
143 | merely re-requesting the option. To prevent such loops from | ||
144 | occurring, rejected requests should not be repeated until something | ||
145 | changes. Operationally, this can mean the process is running a | ||
146 | different program, or the user has given another command, or whatever | ||
147 | makes sense in the context of the given process and the given option. | ||
148 | A good rule of thumb is that a re-request should only occur as a | ||
149 | result of subsequent information from the other end of the connection | ||
150 | or when demanded by local human intervention. | ||
151 | |||
152 | Option designers should not feel constrained by the somewhat limited | ||
153 | syntax available for option negotiation. The intent of the simple | ||
154 | syntax is to make it easy to have options -- since it is | ||
155 | correspondingly easy to profess ignorance about them. If some | ||
156 | particular option requires a richer negotiation structure than | ||
157 | possible within "DO, DON'T, WILL, WON'T", the proper tack is to use | ||
158 | "DO, DON'T, WILL, WON'T" to establish that both parties understand | ||
159 | the option, and once this is accomplished a more exotic syntax can be | ||
160 | used freely. For example, a party might send a request to alter | ||
161 | (establish) line length. If it is accepted, then a different syntax | ||
162 | can be used for actually negotiating the line length -- such a | ||
163 | "sub-negotiation" might include fields for minimum allowable, maximum | ||
164 | allowable and desired line lengths. The important concept is that | ||
165 | |||
166 | |||
167 | |||
168 | |||
169 | Postel & Reynolds [Page 3] | ||
170 | |||
171 | |||
172 | |||
173 | RFC 854 May 1983 | ||
174 | |||
175 | |||
176 | such expanded negotiations should never begin until some prior | ||
177 | (standard) negotiation has established that both parties are capable | ||
178 | of parsing the expanded syntax. | ||
179 | |||
180 | In summary, WILL XXX is sent, by either party, to indicate that | ||
181 | party's desire (offer) to begin performing option XXX, DO XXX and | ||
182 | DON'T XXX being its positive and negative acknowledgments; similarly, | ||
183 | DO XXX is sent to indicate a desire (request) that the other party | ||
184 | (i.e., the recipient of the DO) begin performing option XXX, WILL XXX | ||
185 | and WON'T XXX being the positive and negative acknowledgments. Since | ||
186 | the NVT is what is left when no options are enabled, the DON'T and | ||
187 | WON'T responses are guaranteed to leave the connection in a state | ||
188 | which both ends can handle. Thus, all hosts may implement their | ||
189 | TELNET processes to be totally unaware of options that are not | ||
190 | supported, simply returning a rejection to (i.e., refusing) any | ||
191 | option request that cannot be understood. | ||
192 | |||
193 | As much as possible, the TELNET protocol has been made server-user | ||
194 | symmetrical so that it easily and naturally covers the user-user | ||
195 | (linking) and server-server (cooperating processes) cases. It is | ||
196 | hoped, but not absolutely required, that options will further this | ||
197 | intent. In any case, it is explicitly acknowledged that symmetry is | ||
198 | an operating principle rather than an ironclad rule. | ||
199 | |||
200 | A companion document, "TELNET Option Specifications," should be | ||
201 | consulted for information about the procedure for establishing new | ||
202 | options. | ||
203 | |||
204 | THE NETWORK VIRTUAL TERMINAL | ||
205 | |||
206 | The Network Virtual Terminal (NVT) is a bi-directional character | ||
207 | device. The NVT has a printer and a keyboard. The printer responds | ||
208 | to incoming data and the keyboard produces outgoing data which is | ||
209 | sent over the TELNET connection and, if "echoes" are desired, to the | ||
210 | NVT's printer as well. "Echoes" will not be expected to traverse the | ||
211 | network (although options exist to enable a "remote" echoing mode of | ||
212 | operation, no host is required to implement this option). The code | ||
213 | set is seven-bit USASCII in an eight-bit field, except as modified | ||
214 | herein. Any code conversion and timing considerations are local | ||
215 | problems and do not affect the NVT. | ||
216 | |||
217 | TRANSMISSION OF DATA | ||
218 | |||
219 | Although a TELNET connection through the network is intrinsically | ||
220 | full duplex, the NVT is to be viewed as a half-duplex device | ||
221 | operating in a line-buffered mode. That is, unless and until | ||
222 | |||
223 | |||
224 | |||
225 | |||
226 | Postel & Reynolds [Page 4] | ||
227 | |||
228 | |||
229 | |||
230 | RFC 854 May 1983 | ||
231 | |||
232 | |||
233 | options are negotiated to the contrary, the following default | ||
234 | conditions pertain to the transmission of data over the TELNET | ||
235 | connection: | ||
236 | |||
237 | 1) Insofar as the availability of local buffer space permits, | ||
238 | data should be accumulated in the host where it is generated | ||
239 | until a complete line of data is ready for transmission, or | ||
240 | until some locally-defined explicit signal to transmit occurs. | ||
241 | This signal could be generated either by a process or by a | ||
242 | human user. | ||
243 | |||
244 | The motivation for this rule is the high cost, to some hosts, | ||
245 | of processing network input interrupts, coupled with the | ||
246 | default NVT specification that "echoes" do not traverse the | ||
247 | network. Thus, it is reasonable to buffer some amount of data | ||
248 | at its source. Many systems take some processing action at the | ||
249 | end of each input line (even line printers or card punches | ||
250 | frequently tend to work this way), so the transmission should | ||
251 | be triggered at the end of a line. On the other hand, a user | ||
252 | or process may sometimes find it necessary or desirable to | ||
253 | provide data which does not terminate at the end of a line; | ||
254 | therefore implementers are cautioned to provide methods of | ||
255 | locally signaling that all buffered data should be transmitted | ||
256 | immediately. | ||
257 | |||
258 | 2) When a process has completed sending data to an NVT printer | ||
259 | and has no queued input from the NVT keyboard for further | ||
260 | processing (i.e., when a process at one end of a TELNET | ||
261 | connection cannot proceed without input from the other end), | ||
262 | the process must transmit the TELNET Go Ahead (GA) command. | ||
263 | |||
264 | This rule is not intended to require that the TELNET GA command | ||
265 | be sent from a terminal at the end of each line, since server | ||
266 | hosts do not normally require a special signal (in addition to | ||
267 | end-of-line or other locally-defined characters) in order to | ||
268 | commence processing. Rather, the TELNET GA is designed to help | ||
269 | a user's local host operate a physically half duplex terminal | ||
270 | which has a "lockable" keyboard such as the IBM 2741. A | ||
271 | description of this type of terminal may help to explain the | ||
272 | proper use of the GA command. | ||
273 | |||
274 | The terminal-computer connection is always under control of | ||
275 | either the user or the computer. Neither can unilaterally | ||
276 | seize control from the other; rather the controlling end must | ||
277 | relinguish its control explicitly. At the terminal end, the | ||
278 | hardware is constructed so as to relinquish control each time | ||
279 | that a "line" is terminated (i.e., when the "New Line" key is | ||
280 | typed by the user). When this occurs, the attached (local) | ||
281 | |||
282 | |||
283 | Postel & Reynolds [Page 5] | ||
284 | |||
285 | |||
286 | |||
287 | RFC 854 May 1983 | ||
288 | |||
289 | |||
290 | computer processes the input data, decides if output should be | ||
291 | generated, and if not returns control to the terminal. If | ||
292 | output should be generated, control is retained by the computer | ||
293 | until all output has been transmitted. | ||
294 | |||
295 | The difficulties of using this type of terminal through the | ||
296 | network should be obvious. The "local" computer is no longer | ||
297 | able to decide whether to retain control after seeing an | ||
298 | end-of-line signal or not; this decision can only be made by | ||
299 | the "remote" computer which is processing the data. Therefore, | ||
300 | the TELNET GA command provides a mechanism whereby the "remote" | ||
301 | (server) computer can signal the "local" (user) computer that | ||
302 | it is time to pass control to the user of the terminal. It | ||
303 | should be transmitted at those times, and only at those times, | ||
304 | when the user should be given control of the terminal. Note | ||
305 | that premature transmission of the GA command may result in the | ||
306 | blocking of output, since the user is likely to assume that the | ||
307 | transmitting system has paused, and therefore he will fail to | ||
308 | turn the line around manually. | ||
309 | |||
310 | The foregoing, of course, does not apply to the user-to-server | ||
311 | direction of communication. In this direction, GAs may be sent at | ||
312 | any time, but need not ever be sent. Also, if the TELNET | ||
313 | connection is being used for process-to-process communication, GAs | ||
314 | need not be sent in either direction. Finally, for | ||
315 | terminal-to-terminal communication, GAs may be required in | ||
316 | neither, one, or both directions. If a host plans to support | ||
317 | terminal-to-terminal communication it is suggested that the host | ||
318 | provide the user with a means of manually signaling that it is | ||
319 | time for a GA to be sent over the TELNET connection; this, | ||
320 | however, is not a requirement on the implementer of a TELNET | ||
321 | process. | ||
322 | |||
323 | Note that the symmetry of the TELNET model requires that there is | ||
324 | an NVT at each end of the TELNET connection, at least | ||
325 | conceptually. | ||
326 | |||
327 | STANDARD REPRESENTATION OF CONTROL FUNCTIONS | ||
328 | |||
329 | As stated in the Introduction to this document, the primary goal | ||
330 | of the TELNET protocol is the provision of a standard interfacing | ||
331 | of terminal devices and terminal-oriented processes through the | ||
332 | network. Early experiences with this type of interconnection have | ||
333 | shown that certain functions are implemented by most servers, but | ||
334 | that the methods of invoking these functions differ widely. For a | ||
335 | human user who interacts with several server systems, these | ||
336 | differences are highly frustrating. TELNET, therefore, defines a | ||
337 | standard representation for five of these functions, as described | ||
338 | |||
339 | |||
340 | Postel & Reynolds [Page 6] | ||
341 | |||
342 | |||
343 | |||
344 | RFC 854 May 1983 | ||
345 | |||
346 | |||
347 | below. These standard representations have standard, but not | ||
348 | required, meanings (with the exception that the Interrupt Process | ||
349 | (IP) function may be required by other protocols which use | ||
350 | TELNET); that is, a system which does not provide the function to | ||
351 | local users need not provide it to network users and may treat the | ||
352 | standard representation for the function as a No-operation. On | ||
353 | the other hand, a system which does provide the function to a | ||
354 | local user is obliged to provide the same function to a network | ||
355 | user who transmits the standard representation for the function. | ||
356 | |||
357 | Interrupt Process (IP) | ||
358 | |||
359 | Many systems provide a function which suspends, interrupts, | ||
360 | aborts, or terminates the operation of a user process. This | ||
361 | function is frequently used when a user believes his process is | ||
362 | in an unending loop, or when an unwanted process has been | ||
363 | inadvertently activated. IP is the standard representation for | ||
364 | invoking this function. It should be noted by implementers | ||
365 | that IP may be required by other protocols which use TELNET, | ||
366 | and therefore should be implemented if these other protocols | ||
367 | are to be supported. | ||
368 | |||
369 | Abort Output (AO) | ||
370 | |||
371 | Many systems provide a function which allows a process, which | ||
372 | is generating output, to run to completion (or to reach the | ||
373 | same stopping point it would reach if running to completion) | ||
374 | but without sending the output to the user's terminal. | ||
375 | Further, this function typically clears any output already | ||
376 | produced but not yet actually printed (or displayed) on the | ||
377 | user's terminal. AO is the standard representation for | ||
378 | invoking this function. For example, some subsystem might | ||
379 | normally accept a user's command, send a long text string to | ||
380 | the user's terminal in response, and finally signal readiness | ||
381 | to accept the next command by sending a "prompt" character | ||
382 | (preceded by <CR><LF>) to the user's terminal. If the AO were | ||
383 | received during the transmission of the text string, a | ||
384 | reasonable implementation would be to suppress the remainder of | ||
385 | the text string, but transmit the prompt character and the | ||
386 | preceding <CR><LF>. (This is possibly in distinction to the | ||
387 | action which might be taken if an IP were received; the IP | ||
388 | might cause suppression of the text string and an exit from the | ||
389 | subsystem.) | ||
390 | |||
391 | It should be noted, by server systems which provide this | ||
392 | function, that there may be buffers external to the system (in | ||
393 | |||
394 | |||
395 | |||
396 | |||
397 | Postel & Reynolds [Page 7] | ||
398 | |||
399 | |||
400 | |||
401 | RFC 854 May 1983 | ||
402 | |||
403 | |||
404 | the network and the user's local host) which should be cleared; | ||
405 | the appropriate way to do this is to transmit the "Synch" | ||
406 | signal (described below) to the user system. | ||
407 | |||
408 | Are You There (AYT) | ||
409 | |||
410 | Many systems provide a function which provides the user with | ||
411 | some visible (e.g., printable) evidence that the system is | ||
412 | still up and running. This function may be invoked by the user | ||
413 | when the system is unexpectedly "silent" for a long time, | ||
414 | because of the unanticipated (by the user) length of a | ||
415 | computation, an unusually heavy system load, etc. AYT is the | ||
416 | standard representation for invoking this function. | ||
417 | |||
418 | Erase Character (EC) | ||
419 | |||
420 | Many systems provide a function which deletes the last | ||
421 | preceding undeleted character or "print position"* from the | ||
422 | stream of data being supplied by the user. This function is | ||
423 | typically used to edit keyboard input when typing mistakes are | ||
424 | made. EC is the standard representation for invoking this | ||
425 | function. | ||
426 | |||
427 | *NOTE: A "print position" may contain several characters | ||
428 | which are the result of overstrikes, or of sequences such as | ||
429 | <char1> BS <char2>... | ||
430 | |||
431 | Erase Line (EL) | ||
432 | |||
433 | Many systems provide a function which deletes all the data in | ||
434 | the current "line" of input. This function is typically used | ||
435 | to edit keyboard input. EL is the standard representation for | ||
436 | invoking this function. | ||
437 | |||
438 | THE TELNET "SYNCH" SIGNAL | ||
439 | |||
440 | Most time-sharing systems provide mechanisms which allow a | ||
441 | terminal user to regain control of a "runaway" process; the IP and | ||
442 | AO functions described above are examples of these mechanisms. | ||
443 | Such systems, when used locally, have access to all of the signals | ||
444 | supplied by the user, whether these are normal characters or | ||
445 | special "out of band" signals such as those supplied by the | ||
446 | teletype "BREAK" key or the IBM 2741 "ATTN" key. This is not | ||
447 | necessarily true when terminals are connected to the system | ||
448 | through the network; the network's flow control mechanisms may | ||
449 | cause such a signal to be buffered elsewhere, for example in the | ||
450 | user's host. | ||
451 | |||
452 | |||
453 | |||
454 | Postel & Reynolds [Page 8] | ||
455 | |||
456 | |||
457 | |||
458 | RFC 854 May 1983 | ||
459 | |||
460 | |||
461 | To counter this problem, the TELNET "Synch" mechanism is | ||
462 | introduced. A Synch signal consists of a TCP Urgent notification, | ||
463 | coupled with the TELNET command DATA MARK. The Urgent | ||
464 | notification, which is not subject to the flow control pertaining | ||
465 | to the TELNET connection, is used to invoke special handling of | ||
466 | the data stream by the process which receives it. In this mode, | ||
467 | the data stream is immediately scanned for "interesting" signals | ||
468 | as defined below, discarding intervening data. The TELNET command | ||
469 | DATA MARK (DM) is the synchronizing mark in the data stream which | ||
470 | indicates that any special signal has already occurred and the | ||
471 | recipient can return to normal processing of the data stream. | ||
472 | |||
473 | The Synch is sent via the TCP send operation with the Urgent | ||
474 | flag set and the DM as the last (or only) data octet. | ||
475 | |||
476 | When several Synchs are sent in rapid succession, the Urgent | ||
477 | notifications may be merged. It is not possible to count Urgents | ||
478 | since the number received will be less than or equal the number | ||
479 | sent. When in normal mode, a DM is a no operation; when in urgent | ||
480 | mode, it signals the end of the urgent processing. | ||
481 | |||
482 | If TCP indicates the end of Urgent data before the DM is found, | ||
483 | TELNET should continue the special handling of the data stream | ||
484 | until the DM is found. | ||
485 | |||
486 | If TCP indicates more Urgent data after the DM is found, it can | ||
487 | only be because of a subsequent Synch. TELNET should continue | ||
488 | the special handling of the data stream until another DM is | ||
489 | found. | ||
490 | |||
491 | "Interesting" signals are defined to be: the TELNET standard | ||
492 | representations of IP, AO, and AYT (but not EC or EL); the local | ||
493 | analogs of these standard representations (if any); all other | ||
494 | TELNET commands; other site-defined signals which can be acted on | ||
495 | without delaying the scan of the data stream. | ||
496 | |||
497 | Since one effect of the SYNCH mechanism is the discarding of | ||
498 | essentially all characters (except TELNET commands) between the | ||
499 | sender of the Synch and its recipient, this mechanism is specified | ||
500 | as the standard way to clear the data path when that is desired. | ||
501 | For example, if a user at a terminal causes an AO to be | ||
502 | transmitted, the server which receives the AO (if it provides that | ||
503 | function at all) should return a Synch to the user. | ||
504 | |||
505 | Finally, just as the TCP Urgent notification is needed at the | ||
506 | TELNET level as an out-of-band signal, so other protocols which | ||
507 | make use of TELNET may require a TELNET command which can be | ||
508 | viewed as an out-of-band signal at a different level. | ||
509 | |||
510 | |||
511 | Postel & Reynolds [Page 9] | ||
512 | |||
513 | |||
514 | |||
515 | RFC 854 May 1983 | ||
516 | |||
517 | |||
518 | By convention the sequence [IP, Synch] is to be used as such a | ||
519 | signal. For example, suppose that some other protocol, which uses | ||
520 | TELNET, defines the character string STOP analogously to the | ||
521 | TELNET command AO. Imagine that a user of this protocol wishes a | ||
522 | server to process the STOP string, but the connection is blocked | ||
523 | because the server is processing other commands. The user should | ||
524 | instruct his system to: | ||
525 | |||
526 | 1. Send the TELNET IP character; | ||
527 | |||
528 | 2. Send the TELNET SYNC sequence, that is: | ||
529 | |||
530 | Send the Data Mark (DM) as the only character | ||
531 | in a TCP urgent mode send operation. | ||
532 | |||
533 | 3. Send the character string STOP; and | ||
534 | |||
535 | 4. Send the other protocol's analog of the TELNET DM, if any. | ||
536 | |||
537 | The user (or process acting on his behalf) must transmit the | ||
538 | TELNET SYNCH sequence of step 2 above to ensure that the TELNET IP | ||
539 | gets through to the server's TELNET interpreter. | ||
540 | |||
541 | The Urgent should wake up the TELNET process; the IP should | ||
542 | wake up the next higher level process. | ||
543 | |||
544 | THE NVT PRINTER AND KEYBOARD | ||
545 | |||
546 | The NVT printer has an unspecified carriage width and page length | ||
547 | and can produce representations of all 95 USASCII graphics (codes | ||
548 | 32 through 126). Of the 33 USASCII control codes (0 through 31 | ||
549 | and 127), and the 128 uncovered codes (128 through 255), the | ||
550 | following have specified meaning to the NVT printer: | ||
551 | |||
552 | NAME CODE MEANING | ||
553 | |||
554 | NULL (NUL) 0 No Operation | ||
555 | Line Feed (LF) 10 Moves the printer to the | ||
556 | next print line, keeping the | ||
557 | same horizontal position. | ||
558 | Carriage Return (CR) 13 Moves the printer to the left | ||
559 | margin of the current line. | ||
560 | |||
561 | |||
562 | |||
563 | |||
564 | |||
565 | |||
566 | |||
567 | |||
568 | Postel & Reynolds [Page 10] | ||
569 | |||
570 | |||
571 | |||
572 | RFC 854 May 1983 | ||
573 | |||
574 | |||
575 | In addition, the following codes shall have defined, but not | ||
576 | required, effects on the NVT printer. Neither end of a TELNET | ||
577 | connection may assume that the other party will take, or will | ||
578 | have taken, any particular action upon receipt or transmission | ||
579 | of these: | ||
580 | |||
581 | BELL (BEL) 7 Produces an audible or | ||
582 | visible signal (which does | ||
583 | NOT move the print head). | ||
584 | Back Space (BS) 8 Moves the print head one | ||
585 | character position towards | ||
586 | the left margin. | ||
587 | Horizontal Tab (HT) 9 Moves the printer to the | ||
588 | next horizontal tab stop. | ||
589 | It remains unspecified how | ||
590 | either party determines or | ||
591 | establishes where such tab | ||
592 | stops are located. | ||
593 | Vertical Tab (VT) 11 Moves the printer to the | ||
594 | next vertical tab stop. It | ||
595 | remains unspecified how | ||
596 | either party determines or | ||
597 | establishes where such tab | ||
598 | stops are located. | ||
599 | Form Feed (FF) 12 Moves the printer to the top | ||
600 | of the next page, keeping | ||
601 | the same horizontal position. | ||
602 | |||
603 | All remaining codes do not cause the NVT printer to take any | ||
604 | action. | ||
605 | |||
606 | The sequence "CR LF", as defined, will cause the NVT to be | ||
607 | positioned at the left margin of the next print line (as would, | ||
608 | for example, the sequence "LF CR"). However, many systems and | ||
609 | terminals do not treat CR and LF independently, and will have to | ||
610 | go to some effort to simulate their effect. (For example, some | ||
611 | terminals do not have a CR independent of the LF, but on such | ||
612 | terminals it may be possible to simulate a CR by backspacing.) | ||
613 | Therefore, the sequence "CR LF" must be treated as a single "new | ||
614 | line" character and used whenever their combined action is | ||
615 | intended; the sequence "CR NUL" must be used where a carriage | ||
616 | return alone is actually desired; and the CR character must be | ||
617 | avoided in other contexts. This rule gives assurance to systems | ||
618 | which must decide whether to perform a "new line" function or a | ||
619 | multiple-backspace that the TELNET stream contains a character | ||
620 | following a CR that will allow a rational decision. | ||
621 | |||
622 | Note that "CR LF" or "CR NUL" is required in both directions | ||
623 | |||
624 | |||
625 | Postel & Reynolds [Page 11] | ||
626 | |||
627 | |||
628 | |||
629 | RFC 854 May 1983 | ||
630 | |||
631 | |||
632 | (in the default ASCII mode), to preserve the symmetry of the | ||
633 | NVT model. Even though it may be known in some situations | ||
634 | (e.g., with remote echo and suppress go ahead options in | ||
635 | effect) that characters are not being sent to an actual | ||
636 | printer, nonetheless, for the sake of consistency, the protocol | ||
637 | requires that a NUL be inserted following a CR not followed by | ||
638 | a LF in the data stream. The converse of this is that a NUL | ||
639 | received in the data stream after a CR (in the absence of | ||
640 | options negotiations which explicitly specify otherwise) should | ||
641 | be stripped out prior to applying the NVT to local character | ||
642 | set mapping. | ||
643 | |||
644 | The NVT keyboard has keys, or key combinations, or key sequences, | ||
645 | for generating all 128 USASCII codes. Note that although many | ||
646 | have no effect on the NVT printer, the NVT keyboard is capable of | ||
647 | generating them. | ||
648 | |||
649 | In addition to these codes, the NVT keyboard shall be capable of | ||
650 | generating the following additional codes which, except as noted, | ||
651 | have defined, but not reguired, meanings. The actual code | ||
652 | assignments for these "characters" are in the TELNET Command | ||
653 | section, because they are viewed as being, in some sense, generic | ||
654 | and should be available even when the data stream is interpreted | ||
655 | as being some other character set. | ||
656 | |||
657 | Synch | ||
658 | |||
659 | This key allows the user to clear his data path to the other | ||
660 | party. The activation of this key causes a DM (see command | ||
661 | section) to be sent in the data stream and a TCP Urgent | ||
662 | notification is associated with it. The pair DM-Urgent is to | ||
663 | have required meaning as defined previously. | ||
664 | |||
665 | Break (BRK) | ||
666 | |||
667 | This code is provided because it is a signal outside the | ||
668 | USASCII set which is currently given local meaning within many | ||
669 | systems. It is intended to indicate that the Break Key or the | ||
670 | Attention Key was hit. Note, however, that this is intended to | ||
671 | provide a 129th code for systems which require it, not as a | ||
672 | synonym for the IP standard representation. | ||
673 | |||
674 | Interrupt Process (IP) | ||
675 | |||
676 | Suspend, interrupt, abort or terminate the process to which the | ||
677 | NVT is connected. Also, part of the out-of-band signal for | ||
678 | other protocols which use TELNET. | ||
679 | |||
680 | |||
681 | |||
682 | Postel & Reynolds [Page 12] | ||
683 | |||
684 | |||
685 | |||
686 | RFC 854 May 1983 | ||
687 | |||
688 | |||
689 | Abort Output (AO) | ||
690 | |||
691 | Allow the current process to (appear to) run to completion, but | ||
692 | do not send its output to the user. Also, send a Synch to the | ||
693 | user. | ||
694 | |||
695 | Are You There (AYT) | ||
696 | |||
697 | Send back to the NVT some visible (i.e., printable) evidence | ||
698 | that the AYT was received. | ||
699 | |||
700 | Erase Character (EC) | ||
701 | |||
702 | The recipient should delete the last preceding undeleted | ||
703 | character or "print position" from the data stream. | ||
704 | |||
705 | Erase Line (EL) | ||
706 | |||
707 | The recipient should delete characters from the data stream | ||
708 | back to, but not including, the last "CR LF" sequence sent over | ||
709 | the TELNET connection. | ||
710 | |||
711 | The spirit of these "extra" keys, and also the printer format | ||
712 | effectors, is that they should represent a natural extension of | ||
713 | the mapping that already must be done from "NVT" into "local". | ||
714 | Just as the NVT data byte 68 (104 octal) should be mapped into | ||
715 | whatever the local code for "uppercase D" is, so the EC character | ||
716 | should be mapped into whatever the local "Erase Character" | ||
717 | function is. Further, just as the mapping for 124 (174 octal) is | ||
718 | somewhat arbitrary in an environment that has no "vertical bar" | ||
719 | character, the EL character may have a somewhat arbitrary mapping | ||
720 | (or none at all) if there is no local "Erase Line" facility. | ||
721 | Similarly for format effectors: if the terminal actually does | ||
722 | have a "Vertical Tab", then the mapping for VT is obvious, and | ||
723 | only when the terminal does not have a vertical tab should the | ||
724 | effect of VT be unpredictable. | ||
725 | |||
726 | TELNET COMMAND STRUCTURE | ||
727 | |||
728 | All TELNET commands consist of at least a two byte sequence: the | ||
729 | "Interpret as Command" (IAC) escape character followed by the code | ||
730 | for the command. The commands dealing with option negotiation are | ||
731 | three byte sequences, the third byte being the code for the option | ||
732 | referenced. This format was chosen so that as more comprehensive use | ||
733 | of the "data space" is made -- by negotiations from the basic NVT, of | ||
734 | course -- collisions of data bytes with reserved command values will | ||
735 | be minimized, all such collisions requiring the inconvenience, and | ||
736 | |||
737 | |||
738 | |||
739 | Postel & Reynolds [Page 13] | ||
740 | |||
741 | |||
742 | |||
743 | RFC 854 May 1983 | ||
744 | |||
745 | |||
746 | inefficiency, of "escaping" the data bytes into the stream. With the | ||
747 | current set-up, only the IAC need be doubled to be sent as data, and | ||
748 | the other 255 codes may be passed transparently. | ||
749 | |||
750 | The following are the defined TELNET commands. Note that these codes | ||
751 | and code sequences have the indicated meaning only when immediately | ||
752 | preceded by an IAC. | ||
753 | |||
754 | NAME CODE MEANING | ||
755 | |||
756 | SE 240 End of subnegotiation parameters. | ||
757 | NOP 241 No operation. | ||
758 | Data Mark 242 The data stream portion of a Synch. | ||
759 | This should always be accompanied | ||
760 | by a TCP Urgent notification. | ||
761 | Break 243 NVT character BRK. | ||
762 | Interrupt Process 244 The function IP. | ||
763 | Abort output 245 The function AO. | ||
764 | Are You There 246 The function AYT. | ||
765 | Erase character 247 The function EC. | ||
766 | Erase Line 248 The function EL. | ||
767 | Go ahead 249 The GA signal. | ||
768 | SB 250 Indicates that what follows is | ||
769 | subnegotiation of the indicated | ||
770 | option. | ||
771 | WILL (option code) 251 Indicates the desire to begin | ||
772 | performing, or confirmation that | ||
773 | you are now performing, the | ||
774 | indicated option. | ||
775 | WON'T (option code) 252 Indicates the refusal to perform, | ||
776 | or continue performing, the | ||
777 | indicated option. | ||
778 | DO (option code) 253 Indicates the request that the | ||
779 | other party perform, or | ||
780 | confirmation that you are expecting | ||
781 | the other party to perform, the | ||
782 | indicated option. | ||
783 | DON'T (option code) 254 Indicates the demand that the | ||
784 | other party stop performing, | ||
785 | or confirmation that you are no | ||
786 | longer expecting the other party | ||
787 | to perform, the indicated option. | ||
788 | IAC 255 Data Byte 255. | ||
789 | |||
790 | |||
791 | |||
792 | |||
793 | |||
794 | |||
795 | |||
796 | Postel & Reynolds [Page 14] | ||
797 | |||
798 | |||
799 | |||
800 | RFC 854 May 1983 | ||
801 | |||
802 | |||
803 | CONNECTION ESTABLISHMENT | ||
804 | |||
805 | The TELNET TCP connection is established between the user's port U | ||
806 | and the server's port L. The server listens on its well known port L | ||
807 | for such connections. Since a TCP connection is full duplex and | ||
808 | identified by the pair of ports, the server can engage in many | ||
809 | simultaneous connections involving its port L and different user | ||
810 | ports U. | ||
811 | |||
812 | Port Assignment | ||
813 | |||
814 | When used for remote user access to service hosts (i.e., remote | ||
815 | terminal access) this protocol is assigned server port 23 | ||
816 | (27 octal). That is L=23. | ||
817 | |||
818 | |||
819 | |||
820 | |||
821 | |||
822 | |||
823 | |||
824 | |||
825 | |||
826 | |||
827 | |||
828 | |||
829 | |||
830 | |||
831 | |||
832 | |||
833 | |||
834 | |||
835 | |||
836 | |||
837 | |||
838 | |||
839 | |||
840 | |||
841 | |||
842 | |||
843 | |||
844 | |||
845 | |||
846 | |||
847 | |||
848 | |||
849 | |||
850 | |||
851 | |||
852 | |||
853 | Postel & Reynolds [Page 15] | ||
854 | |||