November, 1974, survey of New-Protocol Telnet servers
The November 1974 progress check on new-protocol Telnet servers across the ARPANET.
Dodds, D.W., "November, 1974, survey of New-Protocol Telnet servers", RFC 669, DOI 10.17487/RFC0669, December 1974, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc669>.
@misc{rfc669,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 669,
howpublished = {RFC 669},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC0669},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc669},
author = {D.W. Dodds},
title = {{November, 1974, survey of New-Protocol Telnet servers}},
pagetotal = 3,
year = 1974,
month = dec,
} RFC text
Network Working Group D.W. Dodds
Request for Comments: 669 BBN-TENEXA
NIC: 31435 December 4, 1974
November, 1974, Survey of New-Protocol TELNET Servers
Two months have elapsed since our last survey, and the appearance of
additional New-Protocol servers has progressed at the usual snail's
pace. The changes in this list are (with host numbers in octal):
SRI-AI (102) now has a New-Protocol server;
SDC-LAB (10) is back on the net and the list;
SDC-CC (110) is coming on the net but status is as yet unknown;
USC-ISI (126) and USC-ISIB (226) (formerly ISI-DEVTENEX) now have
New-Protocol servers;
SDAC-44 (32) has been removed -- no longer classed as a server host;
HAWAII-500 (344) is coming on the net, status presently unknown;
LONDON (52) has been added;
BBN-TENEXD is now host 162 (formerly 205).
What follows is an update of the summary and tabulation that appeared
in RFC #702.* Is there light at the end of the tunnel?
total server hosts 37 100%
no New-Prot server 19 51%
unknown status (new host) 2 6%
total New-Prot implem. 16 43%
New-Prot on socket 27,
Old on socket 1 (2) 9 24%
New-Prot on 1 and 27 (3) 6 16%
New-Prot on 1 only (3) 1 3%
Notes:
* All data in this report were gathered via a surveying program run
at various times, plus a few manual checks to fill out the data.
What is reported here is the way the various servers work as seen
by the new-Protocol User Telnet at BBNA, as of 4 Dec. 1974.
(2) These are the sites whose operation is 100% correct according to
all protocols and conventions, as I understand them.
(3) We realize that some of the servers that appear here as New-
Protocol servers on socket 1 are actually servers which attempt
to communicate with both Old- and New-Protocol User TELNETs
according to what control sequences are received.
Tabulation of server status for all server sites:
Host Host Socket Socket New-Prot, Options
No. Name 1 27 Implementation (if any)
101 UCLA-CCN Old X
201 UCLA-CCBS Old X
2 SRI-ARC Old X
102 SRI-AI Old New I1,3,6; O3
3 UCSB-MOD75 Old X
4 UTAH-10 Old X
105 BBN-TENEX Old New I1,3,6; O3
305 BBN-TENEXA Old New I1,3,6; O3
106 MIT-DMS New New I1,3; O3
206 MIT-AI Old X
306 MIT-ML Old X
7 RAND-RCC Old X
10 SDC-LAB Old X
110 SDC-CC ? ?
11 HARV-10 New X I1,3; O3
12 LL-67 Old* X
112 LL-TX-2 Old X
13 SU-AI New* New* I1,3
15 CASE-10 Old X
16 CMU-10B New New I1,3; O3
116 CMU-10A New New I1,3; O3
17 I4-TENEX Old X
217 KI4B-TENEX Old X
20 AMES-67 New New None
126 USC-ISI Old New I1,3,6; O3
226 USC-ISIB Old New I1,3,6; O3
27 USC-44 Old X
327 USC-ECL Old X
37 CCA-TENEX Old X
40 PARC-MAXC Old New I1,3,6; O3
43 UCSD-CC Old New I0(!),3; O0,3
344 HAWAII-500 ? ?
52 LONDON Old* X
53 OFFICE-1 Old X
54 MIT-MULTICS New New None
61 BBN-TENEXB Old New I1,3,6; O3
162 BBN-TENEXD Old New I1,3,6; O3
Key: X No server at this socket
? Status not ascertained -- unable to connect to host
I# Option # implemented incoming to user (Server says "Will #")
O# Option # implemented outgoing from user (Server says "Do #")
(# is option number in new Protocol. All options implemented
by anyone are:
0 Transmit-Binary
1 Echo
3 Suppress-Go-Ahead
6 Timing-Mark )
Note: * These servers return improper responses to some TELNET option
requests.
[ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
[ into the online RFC archives by Alex McKenzie with ]
[ support from GTE, formerly BBN Corp. 2/2000 ]
AI ELI5
On this page
§1What Changed Since the Last Survey
Two months after the last survey, the author says new-protocol servers had appeared at the usual snail's pace. The list of changes (host numbers in octal) includes: SRI-AI (102) now has a new-protocol server; USC-ISI (126) and USC-ISIB (226) now have them; SDC-LAB (10) is back; SDC-CC (110) and HAWAII-500 (344) are coming on the net with status unknown; LONDON (52) was added; SDAC-44 (32) was removed; and BBN-TENEXD is now host 162.
The note lists which computers joined, left or finished the new tool since the last check.
§2The Summary Counts
The summary updates the one in RFC 702. Of 37 server hosts, 19 (51%) had no new-protocol server, 2 (6%) were of unknown status and 16 (43%) had a new-protocol implementation. Of those 16, 9 used the new protocol on socket 27 with the old one on socket 1, 6 used it on both socket 1 and socket 27, and 1 used it on socket 1 only.
The data come from a survey program plus a few manual checks, as seen from BBNA on 4 December 1974.
Out of 37 computers, 16 had the new tool, 19 did not, and 2 were a mystery.
§3The Tabulation and Options
The table lists each server by host number and name, with entries for socket 1 and socket 27 (Old, New, X for no server, ? for not ascertained) and the options implemented. I# means the option is implemented incoming to the user (server says WILL #) and O# outgoing from the user (server says DO #).
Options implemented by anyone are 0 Transmit-Binary, 1 Echo, 3 Suppress-Go-Ahead and 6 Timing-Mark. The servers marked with an asterisk return improper responses to some Telnet option requests.
The table is a checklist with a row per computer and columns for which new features it can do.