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 ]
ISO Plain Language
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. Host numbers are given in octal.
SRI-ARC (2) and OFFICE-1 (53) added a logger socket 27, but still with old-protocol servers. LL-67 (12) now has a new-protocol server on socket 1. SDC-CC (110) was removed from the list until it starts operating on the network, and CASE-10 (15) left the network. BBN-TENEX is now host 361, formerly 105. ANL (Argonne, 67) joined with old-protocol and new-protocol servers on sockets 1 and 27.
First the note lists which computers joined, left or changed since the last check. The author is not pleased with the pace.
§2The Summary Counts
There were 36 total server hosts. Of them, 17, or 47 percent, had no new-protocol server; 1, or 3 percent, was of unknown status because it was a new host; and 18, or 50 percent, had a new-protocol implementation.
Within those 18, 10 (28 percent) ran the new protocol on socket 27 with the old one on socket 1, 6 (16 percent) ran it on both socket 1 and socket 27, and 2 (6 percent) ran it on socket 1 only. All of the data were gathered by a surveying program plus a few manual checks, as seen by the new-protocol user Telnet at BBNA on 20 February 1975.
Of 36 computers, 18 had the new version working and 17 did not. The numbers are arranged so you can see which socket each one used.
§3The Table and Its Options
The tabulation lists each server site by host number and name, with an entry for socket 1 and socket 27 and the new-protocol options implemented. X means no server at that socket and ? means the status could not be found, usually because the host could not be reached.
An I# entry means option number # is implemented incoming to the user, so the server says Will #, and an O# entry means it is implemented outgoing from the user, so the server says Do #. The options implemented by anyone are 0 Transmit-Binary, 1 Echo, 3 Suppress-Go-Ahead and 6 Timing-Mark. The RFC adds a note that one server, SU-AI, returns improper responses to some option requests.
The table is a report card with a row for each computer and columns for which extra features it can handle. A short key explains the letters and numbers.