NETWORK CHECKOUT
A matrix of ARPANET sites and the network software elements verified at each one.
Harslem, E. and J.F. Heafner, "NETWORK CHECKOUT", RFC 193, DOI 10.17487/RFC0193, July 1971, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc193>.
@misc{rfc193,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 193,
howpublished = {RFC 193},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC0193},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc193},
author = {E. Harslem and J.F. Heafner},
title = {{NETWORK CHECKOUT}},
pagetotal = 2,
year = 1971,
month = jul,
} RFC text
Network Working Group 14 July 1971
Request for Comments: 193 E. Harslem - Rand
NIC 7138 J. Heafner - Rand
NETWORK CHECKOUT
As of 15 July we had contacted or been contacted by the sites
listed below. The matrix indicates the elements of Network software
we have verified at each site.
Telnet-
NCP- ICP User Server like Log-on Accessed
NCP-1 107 80 Telnet Telnet Protocol Procedure Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SDC | x | | | | | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UCLA-91 | | x | | x | x | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UCLA-S7 | x | x | x | x | x | | x | x |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SRI-10 | | x | | | | x | x | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UCSB | x | x | x | | | | x | x |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIT-10 | | x | | x | | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIT-645 | |par-| | | | | | |
| |tial| | | | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LL-67 | x | | x | | x | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BBN-10 | | x | | | | x | x | x |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UTAH | x | x | x | | | x | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
SRI-10: The Telnet-like protocol differs from Telnet in
that lines are terminated by X'OD' rather than
X'ODOA'. John Melvin will have it fixed by
the time you read this.
RFC 193
LL-67: Joel Winett telles me NCP, ICP, EBCDIC, Telnet and
access to a virtual 360 are working. Due to hard-
ware difficulties we have not verified this.
BBN-10: Same difference as SRI with respect to Telnet.
Under certain conditions, the ICP generates a
zero byte size. Ray Tomlinson tells me these
idiosyncracies will be taken care of in about
a week. Three sites have commented that TENEX
assigns the same local socket to multiple connec-
tions, when acting as a server. Ray says that
this is the design -- not an error. BBN TENEX
is currently being used productively via the
Net, for some non-Network related problems.
UTAH: Our tests with UTAH were pre-TENEX. TENEX is
currently being installed at UTAH.
MIT-645: Our understanding is that most software is
working; we have not verified this.
[ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
[ into the online RFC archives by Paul Williams 6/97 ]
ISO Plain Language
On this page
§1The Network Checkout Matrix
As of July 15, the authors at Rand had contacted or been contacted by the sites in the report. A matrix records which elements of network software had been verified at each site.
The columns cover NCP, ICP, user and server Telnet, a Telnet-like protocol, log-on procedure and access to services. An x indicates that an element was verified; the MIT-645 entry is marked partial.
The report uses a table to show which software checks had been verified at each site. A mark means the authors confirmed that element.
§2Results and Verification Limits
The matrix shows different levels of verification among the sites. The report notes that some software was reported to be working but had not been verified because of hardware difficulties or lack of testing.
For example, the authors had not verified the reported software at LL-67 and had not verified most software at MIT-645. The Utah tests took place before TENEX was being installed there.
A blank table entry does not always mean software failed. In some cases the authors had heard it worked but had not confirmed it themselves.
§3Implementation Differences
The report describes a Telnet-like protocol at SRI-10 and BBN-10 that used a different line ending from Telnet. It says the sites planned to correct the difference. At BBN-10, the ICP could also produce a zero byte size under certain conditions.
Some sites reported that TENEX used the same local socket for multiple server connections. Ray Tomlinson said this was intentional. The report also states that BBN TENEX was being used over the network for some non-network work.
The notes identify differences in line endings and an ICP condition at two sites. They also explain that one behavior some users questioned was intentional.