July, 1975, survey of New-Protocol Telnet Servers
A July 1975 survey of which ARPANET hosts ran New-Protocol TELNET servers.
Dodds, D.W., "July, 1975, survey of New-Protocol Telnet Servers", RFC 703, DOI 10.17487/RFC0703, July 1975, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc703>.
@misc{rfc703,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 703,
howpublished = {RFC 703},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC0703},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc703},
author = {D.W. Dodds},
title = {{July, 1975, survey of New-Protocol Telnet Servers}},
pagetotal = 3,
year = 1975,
month = jul,
} RFC text
Network Working Group D.W. Dodds
RFC # 703 BBN-TENEXA
NIC # 32988 11 July, 1975
July, 1975, Survey of New-Protocol TELNET Servers
In the nearly five months since the last report several new server sites
have joined the network and there has been some significant progress in
New-Protocol implementation. Perhaps the New-Protocol implementation on
the TIPs scheduled for the end of the year will encourage further
progress in the near future.
There have been numerous changes since the last list (numbers in octal):
SRI-ARC (2) is no longer a server host;
MIT-AI (206), MIT-ML (306), LONDON (52), and OFFICE-1 (53) have added
New-Protocol servers;
LLL-RISOS (25), SDAC-44 (32), and ARPA-DMS (34) have joined the network;
SCI-TENEX (55), Rutgers-10 (56), USC-ISIC (364), and SUMEX-AIM (70) have
joined the network with New-Protocol servers.
The following is the latest version* of the summary and tabulation of
server-host TELNET servers.
total server hosts 43 100%
no New-Prot server 16 37%
unknown status (new host) 2 5%
total New-Prot implem. 25 58%
New-Prot on 1 and 27,
Old on socket 1 (2) 13 30%
New-Prot on 1 and 27 (3) 8 19%
New-Prot on 1 only (3) 4 9%
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 list. What
is reported here is the way the various servers work as seen by the
new-Protocol User Telnet at BBNA, as of 10 July 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 Number Host Socket Socket New-Prot, Options
(Oct) (Dec) Name 1 27 Implementated (if any)
101 65 UCLA-CCN Old X
201 129 UCLA-CCBS Old X
102 66 SRI-AI Old New I1,3,6; O3
3 3 UCSB-MOD75 Old X
4 4 UTAH-10 Old X
305 197 BBN-TENEXA Old New I1,3,6; O3
106 70 MIT-DMS New New I1,3; O3
206 134 MIT-AI New X I1,3; O3
306 198 MIT-ML New X I1,3; O3
7 7 RAND-RCC Old X
107 71 RAND-ISD ? ?
10 8 SDC-LAB Old X
11 9 HARV-10 New X I1,3; O3
12 10 LL-67 New X None
112 74 LL-TX-2 Old X
13 11 SU-AI New* New* I1,3
16 14 CMU-10B New New I1,3; O3
116 78 CMU-10A New New I1,3; O3
17 15 I4-TENEX Old X
217 143 I4B-TENEX Old X
20 16 AMES-67 New New None
25 21 LLL-RISOS Old Old
126 86 USC-ISI Old New I1,3,6; O3
226 150 USC-ISIB Old New I1,3,6; O3
27 23 USC-44 Old X
327 215 USC-ECL Old X
32 26 SDAC-44 Old X
34 28 ARPA-DMS Old X
37 31 CCA-TENEX Old X
40 32 PARC-MAXC Old New I1,3,6; O3
43 35 UCSD-CC Old New I0(!),3; O0,3
344 228 HAWAII-500 Old X
52 42 LONDON New New None
53 43 OFFICE-1 Old New I1,3,6; O3
54 44 MIT-MULTICS New New None
55 45 SCI-TENEX Old New I1,3,6; O3
56 46 RUTGERS-10 New New I1,3; O3
61 49 BBN-TENEXB Old New I1,3,6; O3
361 241 BBN-TENEX Old New I1,3,6; O3
162 114 BBN-TENEXD Old New I1,3,6; O3
364 244 USC-ISIC Old New I1,3,6; O3
67 55 ANL ? ?
70 56 SUMEX-AIM 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, Options in tabulation:
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 GTE, formerly BBN Corp. 11/99 ]
ISO Plain Language
On this page
§1The Survey Results
Dodds says that several new server sites had joined the network and that New-Protocol implementation had progressed since the previous report. The survey lists 43 server hosts: 25 with a New-Protocol implementation, 16 with none and two new hosts whose status was unknown.
These figures describe the state observed by the New-Protocol User TELNET at BBNA as of July 10, 1975. The RFC says a survey program gathered the data at various times, with manual checks used to fill gaps.
More than half of the 43 listed servers had a New-Protocol implementation. The survey records what one New-Protocol user program observed on July 10, 1975.
| Category | Hosts | Share |
|---|---|---|
| All server hosts | 43 | 100% |
| New-Protocol implementation THIS RFC | 25 | 58% |
| No New-Protocol server | 16 | 37% |
| Status unknown | 2 | 5% |
§2How the Table Describes Each Host
The table gives each host's number, name and status on sockets 1 and 27. It uses “Old” and “New” for protocol status, “X” when no server is present at a socket, and “?” when the host could not be reached.
The options column records incoming options as I# and outgoing options as O#. The report tabulates Transmit-Binary, Echo, Suppress-Go-Ahead and Timing-Mark option numbers.
For each host, the table shows whether an old or new server answers on each socket. It also lists selected options the server says it will or do support.
§3How to Read the Implementation Categories
The summary separates New-Protocol servers into three groups: 13 hosts had Old on socket 1 and New on socket 27; eight had New on sockets 1 and 27; and four had New on socket 1 only.
The author notes that some entries marked as New-Protocol servers on socket 1 may actually respond to both Old and New user TELNETs, depending on the control sequences they receive. Servers marked with an asterisk return improper responses to some TELNET option requests.
The report distinguishes several ways hosts offered the new server, including hosts that kept an old server too. Some classifications are qualified because servers may respond differently to old and new clients.