As per Relevance of the word understand, we have this rfc below:
AUGUST, 1974
AUGUST, 1974, SURVEY OF NEW-PROTOCOL TELNET
THIS IS THE FIRST OF WHAT ARE PLANNED TO BE MONTHLY REPORTS
THE STATUS OF THE NEW-PROTOCOL TELNET IMPLEMENTAIONS ON THE
HOSTS ON THE ARPA NETWORK. INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT ARE DATA
ON SERVER TELNETS AT THE VARIOUS SITES. ONE WOULD HOPE THAT
SITE WITH AN OPERATIONAL NEW-PROTOCOL SERVER TELNET WOULD ALSO
A NEW-PROTOCOL USER TELNET; WE CAN CERTAINLY ASSUME THIS FOR
SITES AT WHICH TENEX 1.32 IS OPERATING. HOWEVER, NO FURTHER
ARE MADE FOR THE SERVER DATA CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT
I AM SORRY TO REPORT THAT AT THIS LATE DATE, A MONTH AFTER THE
OF TENEX 1.32, LESS THAN ONE-THIRD OF THE SERVER SITES HAVE ANY NEW
PROTOCOL SERVER OPERATING, ACCORDING TO MY SURVEYS*, AND ONLY
OF THOSE ARE USING CORRECTLY THE LOGGER SOCKET CONVENTIONS, AS
UNDERSTAND THEM. AT THE END OF THIS REPORT IS A COMPLETE
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
RUN AT VARIOUS TIMES, PLUS A FEW MANUAL CHECKS TO FILL OUT
DATA. WHAT IS REPORTED HERE IS THE WAY THE VARIOUS SERVERS
AS SEEN BY THE NEW-PROTOCOL USER TELNET AT BBNA, AS OF 15 AUG
1974. THERE MAY BE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THESE RESULTS AND
FROM SURVEYS MADE AT OTHER SITES
(1) NUMEROUS ATTEMPTS TO CONNECT TO THESE SITES ALL FAILED DUE
THE SITES' BEING DOWN TO THE NETWORK
(2) THESE ARE THE SITES WHOSE OPERATION IS 100% CORRECT
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
TO COMMUNICATE WITH BOTH OLD- AND NEW-PROTOCOL USER
ACCORDING TO WHAT CONTROL SEQUENCES ARE RECEIVED
TABULATION OF SERVER STATUS FOR ALL SERVER SITES
HOST HOST SOCKET SOCKET NEW-PROT.
NO. NAME 1 27 IMPLEMENTATED (IF ANY
1 UCLA-NMC ? ?
101 UCLA-CCN OLD
201 UCLA-CCBC OLD X
2 SRI-ARC OLD
102 SRI-AI OLD
3 UCSB-MOD75 OLD
4 UTAH-10 OLD
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
306 MIT-ML OLD
10 SDC-LAB ? ?
11 HARV-10 NEW X I1,3; 03
12 LL-67 OLD
112 LL-TX-2 OLD
13 SU-AI NEW* NEW* I1,3
15 CASE-10 OLD
16 CMU-10B NEW NEW I1,3; 03
116 CMU-10A NEW NEW I1,3; 03
17 I4-TENEX OLD
117 I4-TENEXA ? ?
20 AMES-67 OLD OLD(1)
126 USC-ISI OLD
27 USC-44 OLD
32 SDAC OLD
37 CCA-TENEX OLD
40 PARC-MAXC OLD NEW I1,3,6; 03
43 UCSD-CC OLD NEW IO(1),3; 00,3
53 OFFICE-1 OLD
54 MIT-MULTICS NEW NEW
KEY
X NO SEVER AT THIS
? STATUS
I# OPTION # IMPLEMENTED INCOMING TO
(SERVER SAYS "WILL #")
O# OPTION # IMPLEMENTED OUTGOING FROM
(SERVER SAYS "DO #")
(# IS OPTION NUMBER IN NEW PROTOCOL. ALL
IMPLEMENTED BY ANYONE ARE
0 TRANSMIT-
1
3 SUPRESS-GO-
6 TIMING MARK )
NOTE: * THERE APPEARS TO BE A MINOR BUG IN SU-AI'S SERVER: IT
TO SEND AN IMPROPER RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR OPTION O
SUBMITTED 20 AUGUST 1974
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
