Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                Tom O'SullivanRequest for Comments:  340                           Raytheon CompanyNIC          9933                                    Sudbury, Mass.Categories:  TelnetReferences:RFC 328                                 15 May 1972PROPOSED TELNET CHANGES   The proposed change to the TELNET protocol calling for one standardprotocol and dropping the idea of minimum implementation seemsreasonable at this time.   I suggest that both Data Types and Hide Your Input be kept for thefollowing reasons:   Data Types:The objection stating that switching out of ASCII results in anirreversible change and loss of control can be met by requiring othercodes to provide to a return to ASCII.  Each other code may have itsown return code, however, it may not always be employed.  Other codesare important for alphanumeric terminals that have special devicesattached.  Several potential cases can be cited:   1.  Cal comp plotter attached to a teletype has logic permitting a       program to turn the plotter on and off.  When operating I believe       it uses an 8 bit code which could conflict with Telnet signals.   2.  Numerically controlled machines, either controlled from a user       terminal or code prepared by a HOST computer to be punched on the       paper tape punch at a teletype way require the use of an arbitrary       8 bit code.   3.  Experiments controlled from alphanumeric terminal or sensor data       collected through a cal-comp like connection may require the use       of a full 8 bit code.In these cases a transparent data type with a provision for a returnto ASCII mode seems desirable.                                                                [Page 1]

Hide Your Input:As more and more use of data base systems in the network isconsidered, the need for and importance of using access keys,passwords, etc. grows.  The fact that it is difficult to select thelength of input to be hidden is not a persuasive argument.  Potentialsolutions seem to exist, e.g. the protocol could provide for acceptinglength statements from the user program, data base system, operatingsystem, etc. and in default of this, use a default length representingthe server system expected optimum length.       [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]       [ into the online RFC archives by BBN Corp. under the   ]       [ direction of Alex McKenzie.                   12/96   ]                                                                [Page 2]