RFC 701 UNKNOWN TELNET · SURVEY

August, 1974, survey of New-Protocol Telnet servers

The first monthly check on which ARPANET hosts had built the new Telnet protocol.

On rfc-editor.org ↗
PUBLISHED
August 1974
AUTHORS
D.W. Dodds
STREAM
Legacy
UPDATED BY
RFC 702 — September, 1974, survey of New-Protocol Telnet servers
SERVER HOSTS SURVEYED
32
WITH NEW-PROTOCOL SERVER
10 (31%)
WITHOUT
19 (59%)
STATUS UNKNOWN
3 (9%)
DATA AS OF
15 August 1974
DOI
10.17487/RFC0701

RFC text

Original text · RFC Editor View on rfc-editor.org ↗
					AUGUST, 1974

	AUGUST, 1974, SURVEY OF NEW-PROTOCOL TELNET SERVERS

THIS IS THE FIRST OF WHAT ARE PLANNED TO BE MONTHLY REPORTS ON
THE STATUS OF THE NEW-PROTOCOL TELNET IMPLEMENTAIONS ON THE SERVER
HOSTS ON THE ARPA NETWORK.  INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT ARE DATA ONLY
ON SERVER TELNETS AT THE VARIOUS SITES.  ONE WOULD HOPE THAT ANY
SITE WITH AN OPERATIONAL NEW-PROTOCOL SERVER TELNET WOULD ALSO BOAST
A NEW-PROTOCOL USER TELNET; WE CAN CERTAINLY ASSUME THIS FOR TENEX
SITES AT WHICH TENEX 1.32 IS OPERATING.  HOWEVER, NO FURTHER CLAIMS
ARE MADE FOR THE SERVER DATA CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.

I AM SORRY TO REPORT THAT AT THIS LATE DATE, A MONTH AFTER THE RELEASE
OF TENEX 1.32, LESS THAN ONE-THIRD OF THE SERVER SITES HAVE ANY NEW-
PROTOCOL SERVER OPERATING, ACCORDING TO MY SURVEYS*, AND ONLY HALF
OF THOSE ARE USING CORRECTLY THE LOGGER SOCKET CONVENTIONS, AS I
UNDERSTAND THEM.  AT THE END OF THIS REPORT IS A COMPLETE TABULATION
COMPILED FROM MY SURVEYS;  THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY:

	TOTAL SERVER HOSTS		32	100%

	STATUS UNKNOWN (1)		 3	  9%

	NO NEW-PROT SERVER		19	 59%

	TOTAL NEW-PROT IMPLEM.		10	 31%

	  NEW-PROT ON SOCKET 27,
	  OLD ON SOCKET 1 (2)		 5	 16%

 	  NEW-PROT ON 1 AND 27 (3)	 4	 13%

	  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 15 AUG.
   1974.  THERE MAY BE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THESE RESULTS AND THOSE
   FROM SURVEYS MADE AT OTHER SITES.

(1) NUMEROUS ATTEMPTS TO CONNECT TO THESE SITES ALL FAILED DUE TO
   THE SITES' BEING DOWN TO THE NETWORK.

(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      IMPLEMENTATED (IF ANY)

  1	UCLA-NMC	?	?
101	UCLA-CCN	OLD	X
201	UCLA-CCBC	OLD	X
  2	SRI-ARC		OLD	X
102	SRI-AI		OLD	X
  3	UCSB-MOD75	OLD	X
  4	UTAH-10		OLD	X
105	BBN-TENEX	OLD	NEW	I1,3,6; 03
205	BBN-TENEXB	OLD	NEW	I1,3,6; 03
305	BBN-TENEXA	OLD	NEW	I1,3,6; 03
106	MIT-DMS		NEW	NEW	I1,3; 03
206	MIT-AI		OLD	X
306	MIT-ML		OLD	X
 10	SDC-LAB		?	?
 11	HARV-10		NEW	X	I1,3; 03
 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; 03
116	CMU-10A		NEW	NEW	I1,3; 03
 17	I4-TENEX	OLD	X
117	I4-TENEXA	?	?
 20	AMES-67		OLD	OLD(1)
126	USC-ISI		OLD	X
 27	USC-44		OLD	X
 32	SDAC		OLD	X
 37	CCA-TENEX	OLD	X
 40	PARC-MAXC	OLD	NEW	I1,3,6; 03
 43	UCSD-CC		OLD	NEW	IO(1),3; 00,3
 53	OFFICE-1	OLD	X
 54	MIT-MULTICS	NEW	NEW	NONE

KEY:
	X	NO SEVER AT THIS SOCKET
	?	STATUS UNKNOWN
	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	SUPRESS-GO-AHEAD
			6	TIMING MARK )

NOTE: * THERE APPEARS TO BE A MINOR BUG IN SU-AI'S SERVER: IT SEEMS
        TO SEND AN IMPROPER RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR OPTION O.

   SUBMITTED 20 AUGUST 1974
   BY D. W. DODDS

AI ELI5

On this page
PROBLEMA new Telnet protocol was being rolled out, and nobody had an overview of which server hosts actually supported it.
MECHANISMD. W. Dodds ran a surveying program from the new-protocol user Telnet at BBNA, added a few manual checks, and tabulated what each of 32 server hosts did as of 15 August 1974.
THE FINDINGFewer than one third of the server sites had any new-protocol server running, a month after the release of TENEX 1.32. RFC 702 updates this report.

§1Purpose of the Survey

RFC 701 is the first of what were planned to be monthly reports on the status of new-protocol Telnet implementations on server hosts of the ARPA network. It covers only server Telnets. The author hopes that any site with a working new-protocol server also has a new-protocol user Telnet, and says this can be assumed for TENEX sites running TENEX 1.32. No further claims are made.

The author is sorry to report that, a month after the release of TENEX 1.32, less than one third of the server sites had any new-protocol server operating.

This is the first of a planned series of progress checks on the new Telnet. Not many computers were ready yet.

§2The Summary Counts

Of 32 server hosts, 10 (31%) had a new-protocol implementation, 19 (59%) had none and 3 (9%) were of unknown status because they were down to the network. Of the 10, 5 ran the new protocol on socket 27 with the old one on socket 1, 4 ran it on both socket 1 and socket 27, and 1 ran it on socket 1 only.

Only half of the sites with a new-protocol server were using the logger socket conventions correctly, as the author understood them. The sites in the first group (new on socket 27, old on socket 1) are the ones whose operation is 100% correct by the author's reading.

Out of 32 computers, about 10 had the new tool, 19 did not, and 3 could not be reached at all.

§3The Tabulation and Options

A table lists each server host by number and name, what it offers on socket 1 and socket 27 (OLD, NEW, X for no server, or ? for unknown) and which options it implements. I# means option number # is implemented incoming to the user (the server says WILL #). O# means outgoing from the user (the server says DO #).

The options implemented by anyone are 0 Transmit-Binary, 1 Echo, 3 Suppress-Go-Ahead and 6 Timing-Mark. A note says SU-AI seems to send an improper response to a request for option 0.

The table is a checklist. Each computer gets a row, and the columns show which new features it can do.

§4Caveats

All data came from a survey program run at various times plus a few manual checks. It shows how servers behave as seen by the new-protocol user Telnet at BBNA on 15 August 1974, and other sites' surveys may differ. The report was submitted on 20 August 1974.

Some servers listed as new-protocol on socket 1 actually try to talk to both old and new user Telnets, depending on which control sequences they receive.

The author warns that the results come from one place on one day, so other people might see slightly different answers.