<- RFC Index (201..300)
Obsoletes RFC 198
Network Working Group 21 August 1971
Request for Comments 214 E. Harslem-Rand
Obsoletes: 193, 198
As of August 21 we had performed the following verifications
with the sites listed below. These verifications were done on an
arranged basis and do not indicate any degree of continuous
In the category "NCP-107" the heading is somewhat misleading.
It does not indicate a thorough checkout of all the NCP functions
described in Document 1 and RFC-107. It only indicates that the NCP
in question functioned to the extent required to respond to a RESET (a
necessary condition for the Rand NCP to consider the remote host "up")
and that the NCP performed the functions necessary for an ICP. Thus,
this column really indicates only a small degree of NCP completeness.
Such function as ECHO, Give Back, error message generation and so on
were not checked. We have checked some of these functions with UCSB
and SDC but not exhaustively. This is mainly due to the tedium of
such a process. BBN is currently writing a protocol certifier for
their DDP-516 host that will do this automatically.
User Server Access
NCP-107 ICP-156 Telnet Telnet Logger Service
UCLA Sigma7 x x x x x x
UCLA /91 x x x x na x
SRI NIC x x ? ? ?
UCSB x x x x na x
BBN A10 x x x x x
BBN TIP x x x x na
MIT Multics x ?
MIT DMCG x x x x x x
SDC x x x x ?
LINCOLN /67 x x x x x x
UTAH TENEX being installed
--- the function has not been verified for the host
x--- the function has been verified for the host
21 Auguest 1971 RFC 214
na-- the function is not applicable to the host due to its
operating system or intended network use
?--- a comment follows for that function in that host
SRI NIC -- both a server telnet and logger exist; however, they
do not process the telnet messages correctly
MIT Multics -- we were only able to connect to an interim
logger that sent a 'ts' message
SDC -- the logger causes the system to crash following login
Any discrepancies should be noted via phone call. This
RFC will be updated in about one month.
[ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
[ into the online RFC archives by Brian Court 6/97 ]