August, 1974, survey of New-Protocol Telnet servers
The first survey of new-protocol Telnet servers on ARPANET, as of August 1974.
Dodds, D.W., "August, 1974, survey of New-Protocol Telnet servers", RFC 701, DOI 10.17487/RFC0701, August 1974, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc701>.
@misc{rfc701,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 701,
howpublished = {RFC 701},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC0701},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc701},
author = {D.W. Dodds},
title = {{August, 1974, survey of New-Protocol Telnet servers}},
pagetotal = 1,
year = 1974,
month = aug,
} RFC text
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
ISO Plain Language
On this page
§1Purpose and Scope
The author presents this as the first of planned monthly reports on new-protocol Telnet implementations at server hosts on the ARPA Network. The report covers server Telnets only. It assumes new-protocol user Telnets at TENEX sites running TENEX 1.32, but makes no broader claim about user implementations.
The author reports that less than one-third of server sites had a new-protocol server, about a month after TENEX 1.32 was released.
This report checks server programs only. The author says fewer than one-third of the surveyed sites had the new protocol running.
§2Summary Counts
Of 32 server hosts, 10 had a new-protocol implementation, 19 had none and three had unknown status because they were down to the network. Among the ten implementations, five used the new protocol on socket 27 and the old one on socket 1; four used the new protocol on both sockets; and one used it only on socket 1.
The author says only half of the sites with a new-protocol server used the logger socket conventions correctly, according to his understanding. The report identifies the first group as operating correctly by his reading.
10 of 32 hosts had a new-protocol server. The survey could not reach three hosts, and 19 had no new-protocol server.
§3The Host Table and Options
The table lists each host number and name, what runs on socket 1 and socket 27, and implemented new-protocol options. OLD and NEW identify the protocol, X means there is no server at the socket, and a question mark means unknown status.
I# means the server implements option # incoming to the user, while O# means outgoing from the user. The listed options are 0 Transmit-Binary, 1 Echo, 3 Suppress-Go-Ahead and 6 Timing-Mark. A note marks SU-AI as giving an improper response to a request for option 0.
The table gives one row per host and shows the protocol and options found at each socket. The report explains the symbols used in those columns.
§4How the Survey Was Done
The author gathered data with a survey program run at various times and added a few manual checks. The results show server behavior as seen by the new-protocol user Telnet at BBNA on August 15, 1974; surveys from other sites may differ.
The report notes that some servers marked as new-protocol on socket 1 actually try to communicate with both old- and new-protocol users, depending on the control sequences they receive.
The numbers describe what one survey saw from BBNA on one date. Another survey could report different results.