RFC 669

Survey of New-Protocol TELNET Servers 🦋

okay bestie, this one is RFC 669 (NIC 31435) from the Network Working Group, and it's a survey, so it's basically a status report on who's ready for the New-Protocol TELNET 💖 It was written by D.W. Dodds of BBN-TENEXA and dated December 4, 1974. The title is "November, 1974, Survey of New-Protocol TELNET Servers." The header doesn't name a category, and it doesn't say it obsoletes or updates any other RFC, so that's the full tea ☕

What changed since the last survey 🌸

Two months have passed since the last survey, and new New-Protocol servers are showing up at the usual snail's pace 🐌 Host numbers are in octal, so here's the glow-up list:

• SRI-AI (102) now has a New-Protocol server ✨
• SDC-LAB (10) is back on the net and back on the list 🫶
• SDC-CC (110) is coming on the net, but its status is still a mystery 🙈
• USC-ISI (126) and USC-ISIB (226) (formerly ISI-DEVTENEX) now have New-Protocol servers 🔥
• SDAC-44 (32) got removed, since it's no longer classed as a server host 💀
• HAWAII-500 (344) is coming on the net, status presently unknown 🌈
• LONDON (52) has been added 🧚
• BBN-TENEXD is now host 162 (it used to be 205) 🍓

The author says this picks up the summary and tabulation from RFC #702 (more on that in the notes). And honestly, the big question is: is there light at the end of the tunnel? 👀

The big summary 💅

Here's the numbers picture, with the percentages:

         total server hosts             37      100%
         no New-Prot server             19       51%
         unknown status (new host)       2        6%
         total New-Prot implem.         16       43%
             New-Prot on socket 27,
                 Old on socket 1 (2)     9       24%
             New-Prot on 1 and 27 (3)    6       16%
             New-Prot on 1 only (3)      1        3%

So out of 37 server hosts, 19 of them (51%) still have no New-Prot server at all 😭 Two are unknown, 16 have New-Prot implementations (43%), and the rest is a mix of socket setups.

Notes 📝

The data came from a surveying program that ran at various times, plus a few manual checks to fill in the gaps. Everything reflects how the servers behave as seen by the new-Protocol User Telnet at BBNA, as of Dec. 4, 1974 🫶

(2) marks the sites that are 100% correct according to all protocols and conventions, as the author understands them 🎀

(3) is a realness check: some servers listed as New-Protocol on socket 1 actually try to talk to both Old- and New-Protocol User TELNETs, depending on which control sequences they receive 🦋

The full tabulation 🔍

Here's the server-by-server breakdown for every server site:

Host     Host          Socket  Socket   New-Prot, Options
 No.     Name            1       27     Implementation (if any)

101     UCLA-CCN        Old     X
201     UCLA-CCBS       Old     X
  2     SRI-ARC         Old     X
102     SRI-AI          Old     New      I1,3,6; O3
  3     UCSB-MOD75      Old     X
  4     UTAH-10         Old     X
105     BBN-TENEX       Old     New      I1,3,6; O3
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
110     SDC-CC          ?       ?
 11     HARV-10         New     X        I1,3; O3
 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; 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     X
 54     MIT-MULTICS     New     New      None
 61     BBN-TENEXB      Old     New      I1,3,6; O3
162     BBN-TENEXD      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 )

Quick decoder ring 💍: I# means the option is implemented incoming to the user (the server says "Will #"), and O# means it's implemented outgoing from the user (the server says "Do #"). The options are 0 Transmit-Binary, 1 Echo, 3 Suppress-Go-Ahead, and 6 Timing-Mark. X means there's no server at that socket, and ? means the status wasn't ascertained because the host couldn't be connected to 🙈

* heads-up: these servers return improper responses to some TELNET option requests. So LL-67, SU-AI, and LONDON are a little sus on the socket 1 side 💀

/tmp was on my mind but it's not part of this RFC, so back to the good stuff 🧚

That's the whole survey, bestie. Ten out of ten for patience 🌈👑

         [ 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.           2/2000 ]