RFCs in HTML Format

RFC 0859

Network Working Group                                          J. Postel
Request for Comments: 859                                    J. Reynolds
Obsoletes: RFC 651 (NIC 31154)                                  May 1983

                          TELNET STATUS OPTION

This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community.  Hosts on
the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt and implement this standard.

1. Command Name and Code


2. Command Meanings

   This option applies separately to each direction of data flow.


      Sender refuses to carry on any further discussion of the current
      status of options.


      Sender refuses to carry on any further discussion of the current
      status of options.


      Sender requests receiver to transmit his (the receiver's)
      perception of the current status of Telnet options. The code for
      SEND is 1. (See below.)


      Sender is stating his perception of the current status of Telnet
      options. The code for IS is 0. (See below.)

3. Default


      The current status of options will not be discussed.

4. Motivation for the Option

   This option allows a user/process to verify the current status of
   TELNET options (e.g., echoing) as viewed by the person/process on the
   other end of the TELNET connection. Simply renegotiating options

Postel & Reynolds                                               [Page 1]

RFC 859 May 1983 could lead to the nonterminating request loop problem discussed in the General Consideration section of the TELNET Specification. This option fits into the normal structure of TELNET options by deferring the actual transfer of status information to the SB command. 5. Description of the Option WILL and DO are used only to obtain and grant permission for future discussion. The actual exchange of status information occurs within option subcommands (IAC SB STATUS...). Once the two hosts have exchanged a WILL and a DO, the sender of the WILL STATUS is free to transmit status information, spontaneously or in response to a request from the sender of the DO. At worst, this may lead to transmitting the information twice. Only the sender of the DO may send requests (IAC SB STATUS SEND IAC SE) and only the sender of the WILL may transmit actual status information (within an IAC SB STATUS IS ... IAC SE command) IS has the subcommands WILL, DO and SB. They are used EXACTLY as used during the actual negotiation of TELNET options, except that SB is terminated with SE, rather than IAC SE. Transmission of SE, as a regular data byte, is accomplished by doubling the byte (SE SE). Options that are not explicitly described are assumed to be in their default states. A single IAC SB STATUS IS ... IAC SE describes th condition of ALL options. Postel & Reynolds [Page 2]
RFC 859 May 1983 The following is an example of use of the option: Host1: IAC DO STATUS Host2: IAC WILL STATUS (Host2 is now free to send status information at any time. Solicitations from Host1 are NOT necessary. This should not produce any dangerous race conditions. At worst, two IS's will be sent.) Host1 (perhaps): IAC SB STATUS SEND IAC SE Host2 (the following stream is broken into multiple lines only for readability. No carriage returns are implied.): IAC SB STATUS IS WILL ECHO DO SUPPRESS-GO-AHEAD WILL STATUS DO STATUS IAC SE Explanation of Host2's perceptions: It is responsible for echoing back the data characters it receives over the TELNET connection; it will not send Go-Ahead signals; it will both issue and request Status information.

Back to RFC index






"After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music. "