As per Relevance of the word extended, we have this rfc below:

---

Network Working Group J.
Request for Comments: 861 J.

Obsoletes: NIC 16239 May 1983

TELNET EXTENDED OPTIONS - LIST


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

1. Command Name and

EXTENDED-OPTIONS-LIST (EXOPL) 255

2. Command

IAC DO

The sender of this command REQUESTS that the receiver of
command begin negotiating, or confirms that the receiver of
command is expected to begin negotiating, TELNET options which
on the "Extended Options List".

IAC WILL

The sender of this command requests permission to
negotiating, or confirms that it will begin negotiating,
options which are on the "Extended Options List".

IAC WON'T

The sender of this command REFUSES to negotiate, or to
negotiating, options on the "Extended Options List".

IAC DON'T

The sender of this command DEMANDS that the receiver conduct
further negotiation of options on the "Extended Options List".

IAC SB EXOPL <subcommand

The subcommand contains information required for the
of an option of the "Extended Options List". The format of
subcommand is discussed in section 5 below

3.

WON'T EXOPL, DON'T




Postel & Reynolds [Page 1]



RFC 861 May 1983


Negotiation of options on the "Extended Options List" is
permitted


4. Motivation for the

Eventually, a 257th TELNET option will be needed. This option
extend the option list for another 256 options in a manner which
easy to implement. The option is proposed now, rather than
(probably much later), in order to reserve the option number (255).

5. An Abstract Description of the

The EXOPL option has five subcommand codes: WILL, WON'T, DO, DON'T
and SB. They have exactly the same meanings as the TELNET
with the same names, and are used in exactly the same way.
consistency, these subcommand codes will have the same values as
TELNET command codes (250-254). Thus, the format for negotiating
specific option on the "Extended Options List" (once both
have agreed to use it) is

IAC SB EXOPL DO/DON'T/WILL/WON'T/ IAC

Once both sides have agreed to use the specific option specified
, subnegotiation may be required. In this case
format to be used is

IAC SB EXOPL SB <parameters> SE IAC





















Postel & Reynolds [Page 2]

---

if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.



RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.



Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX

---