February, 1975, survey of New-Protocol Telnet servers
The February 1975 progress check on new-protocol Telnet servers, with progress even slower than before.
Dodds, D.W., "February, 1975, survey of New-Protocol Telnet servers", RFC 679, DOI 10.17487/RFC0679, February 1975, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc679>.
@misc{rfc679,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 679,
howpublished = {RFC 679},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC0679},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc679},
author = {D.W. Dodds},
title = {{February, 1975, survey of New-Protocol Telnet servers}},
pagetotal = 3,
year = 1975,
month = feb,
} RFC text
Network Working Group D.W. Dodds
Request for Comments: 679 BBN-TENEXA
NIC: 31890 February 1975
February, 1975, Survey of New-Protocol TELNET Servers
It has been two and a half months since our last survey, and it has
been depressing to note that "progress" toward an all-new-protocol
network has been even slower than previously. Changes since the last
list (with host numbers in octal):
SRI-ARC (2) and OFFICE-1 (53) have added logger sockets 27, but with
Old-Protocol servers (are these forerunners of New-Protocol
servers?);
SDC-CC (110) has been removed from the list until it starts operating
on the network
LL-67 (12) now has a New-Protocol server on socket 1;
CASE-10 (15) has departed from the network;
BBN-TENEX is now host 361 (formerly 105);
ANL (ARGONNE, 67) has come on the net with Old- and New-Protocol
servers on sockets 1 and 27, respectively.
The following is the latest version* of the summary and tabulation of
server-host Telnet servers.
total server hosts 36 100%
no New-Prot server 17 47%
unknown status (new host) 1 3%
total New-Prot implem. 18 50%
New-Prot on socket 27,
Old on socket 1 (2) 10 28%
New-Prot on 1 and 27 (3) 6 16%
New-Prot on 1 only (3) 2 6%
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 20 Feb. 1975.
(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 Implemented (if any)
101 UCLA-CCN Old X
201 UCLA-CCBS Old X
2 SRI-ARC Old Old
102 SRI-AI Old New I1,3,6; O3
3 UCSB-MOD75 Old X
4 UTAH-10 Old X
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
11 HARV-10 New X I1,3; O3
12 LL-67 New X None
112 LL-TX-2 Old X
13 SU-AI New* New* I1,3
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 Old
54 MIT-MULTICS New New None
61 BBN-TENEXB Old New I1,3,6; O3
361 BBN-TENEX Old New I1,3,6; O3
162 BBN-TENEXD Old New I1,3,6; O3
67 ANL 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 BBN Corp. and its successors. 7/2000 ]
AI ELI5
On this page
§1What Changed Since the Last Survey
The report comes two and a half months after the previous one, and the author finds it depressing that progress toward an all-new-protocol network has been even slower than before. Changes (host numbers in octal) include: SRI-ARC (2) and OFFICE-1 (53) added logger socket 27 but with old-protocol servers; LL-67 (12) now has a new-protocol server on socket 1; SDC-CC (110) was removed until it starts operating; CASE-10 (15) left the network; BBN-TENEX is now host 361; and ANL (Argonne, 67) came on the net with old and new servers on sockets 1 and 27.
The note lists which computers joined, left or changed since the last check, and the author sounds a bit gloomy about how slow it is.
§2The Summary Counts
Of 36 server hosts, 17 (47%) had no new-protocol server, 1 (3%) was of unknown status and 18 (50%) had a new-protocol implementation. Of those 18, 10 (28%) used the new protocol on socket 27 with the old one on socket 1, 6 (16%) used it on both socket 1 and socket 27, and 2 (6%) used it on socket 1 only.
The data come from a survey program plus a few manual checks, as seen from BBNA on 20 February 1975.
Out of 36 computers, 18 had the new tool and 17 did not.
§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. SU-AI is marked as returning improper responses to some option requests.
The table is a checklist with a row per computer and columns for which new features it can do.