TTYLINK, OSI layers and POPCORN

["Mike Bilow, mikebw@ids.jvnc.net" <mikebw@IDS.JVNC.NET>]

>I guess I am involved in religious OSI layer discussions! Functionally,
>the NOS ttylink is an application/presentation layer interface which provides
>a "chat" link between two peer users. The present NOS implementation is for
>the port 87 transport layer socket to be directed to a keyboard/crt/bios
>presentation/application layer user interface.

No, I did not mean to take you to task.  The honest truth is that I
misread your question, as Bdale obviously suspected.  You really
were asking "Is there a way that an incoming ttylink (or whatever)
session can be redirected to an asy port (like com1:) instead of
to the screen and keyboard (like con:)?"  What I thought you were
asking was "Is there any way that an outgoing ttylink session can
be directed at the asy port instead of socket 87 on the remote
machine?"  I don't care much about the OSI layers, although trying
to code without them would be tough.

>The instruments in question (ranging from GPS receivers down to TAPR's
>METCON board) all have a presentation layer functionality designed for
>communications with dumb terminals via a (layer 1) RS-232 spigot.
>
>So, to be very specific, what I am seeking is a way to achieve this same
>functionality via TCP/IP. One simple solution would seem to be to patch
>the present NOS ttylink I/O to a COM# port in lieu of the keyboard/crt/bios
>interface.

I still would not use ttylink, but that is not the central issue.  You
could kludge tip so that it worked remotely, or you could add a new
command to the mailbox.  It would not be that much trouble to lift the
tip code and create a new mailbox command such as "gb" (gateway binary)
that, when given a command "gb ax0" simply moved data back and forth
between the mailbox session and the port.  This would have a lot of
loopholes that would have to be closed, such as preventing a user from
trying the access the TNC that is connecting him.

>OK -- did that establish the POPCORN (Proper OSI Politically Correct
>Officious Religious Nuances) for my original question?

Sorry about that.  I should have seen the ambiguity in the question and
not answered the wrong one.

-- Mike