Comments on: Using telnet negotiation to control MUD / Client Interaction.

By: Stuff I can't find a better place for | Working on GMCP, ATCP, and AARD (102) for Tinyfugue

Thu, 05 Aug 2010 07:27:05 +0000

[...] Since that time several “out of band” communication protocols, such as ATCP, GMCP/ATCP2, and AARD (102), have been created to facilitate data transfer between MUD clients and MUD servers. These [...]

By: Mud standards - telnet options - not a standard yet. - Aardwolf MUD Blog

Mud standards - telnet options - not a standard yet. - Aardwolf MUD Blog — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 03:08:39 +0000

[...] a couple of years now since we worked on handling data exchange between the MUD and client using telnet option negotiation. With hindsight, using telnet option 102 for this was probably a mistake as we have since learned [...]

By: Lasher

Lasher — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:38:38 +0000

Great that Mudlet now supports this, but it was never our intent to force a “non-standard new standard” on everyone. Now that ATCP has been made an open standard, we plan to fully implement it.

By: 1.1.1 to fix things up! | Mudlet

1.1.1 to fix things up! | Mudlet — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:35:09 +0000

[...] go grab it now. This is mainly a bugfix release and also features full support for Aardwolf’s 102 subchannel (similar to ATCP in IRE [...]

By: Hyena

Hyena — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:35:31 +0000

Hi Lasher. I would like to have a chat with you about this topic. You see, I’m building a whole new mud client for two years now and I was learning IAC telnet options when I discovered this blog. You decided to use option 102 but why 102?
MSSP uses 70
MCCP uses 85 (COMPRESS) and 86 (COMPRESS2)
How can you make sure that other protocols won’t use 102 later? How to make it a standard so that everybody knows 102 is MUP / MCP (mud update protocol / mud client protocol). Btw mud client protocol is already done but I don’t like its standards, it doesn’t use IAC sequence (http://mcp.cubik.org/).

I am also a mud developer and looking for some good solution to create about the same thing you are talking here in your blog but I don’t know what option number to use - should I use 102 too?

By: Lasher

Lasher — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:31:22 +0000

Excellent, I didn’t know CMUD could do this, that makes it even more useful for spellup writers etc to use these telnet options.

By: Davos

Davos — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:30:54 +0000

Hmm I wish I could edit my own comments. Anyways I meant the option displayed in the origional post for ZMUD will work for CMUD as well, but the #SENDSB command might work better for you.

By: Davos

Davos — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:29:53 +0000

Also, the option displayed above will work for CMUD as well, as far as sending these telnet commands from client to mud, but CMUD users might also want to check out #SENDSB command to do the same thing in a simpler fashion.

By: Davos

Davos — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:27:23 +0000

BTW, in cMUD you can trigger off the telnet IAC,SB messages.

I copied this from CMUD help files:

Telnet
Fires when specified Telnet Option subchannel text is received. When IAC SB OptionNumber Text IAC SE is received from the server, a Telnet trigger that matches the OptionNumber will fire and will compare the Text sent from the MUD with the pattern of the trigger state. (Added in v2.0)