[ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 17, Issue 2

[Jake Feinler]

Dear group,

I was able to unearth the following NIC documents per your request

18639
18640
15372
15373
15389
15390

In some cases there are two versions:  the original and a transcribed  
version.  Because mistakes
were sometimes made in the transcriptions, you may want to look at both.

I have left the docs with Paul Jabloner, the Computer History Museum  
Archivist as I am taking off for Australia soon.
You need to send her an address to which she can mail the documents.  
Also, she can let you know if there is a charge or not.  If you scan  
or otherwise use the documents, I would appreciate an acknowledgment  
of the Computer History Museum as the source.

Hope this helps put the picture back together.

Regards to all,

Jake


>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: RFC 495 (Noel Chiappa)
>    2. Re: RFC 495 (Noel Chiappa)
>    3. Re: internet-history Digest, Vol 17, Issue 1 (Jake Feinler)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:16:51 -0400 (EDT)
> From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
> Subject: Re: [ih] RFC 495
> To: internet-history at postel.org, klensin at jck.com
> Cc: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu, rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org
> Message-ID: <20060913191651.7E8F18731A at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
>
>> From: Bob Braden <braden at ISI.EDU>
>
>>> From: John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com>
>
>>> It refers to two attachments,
>>>    "(TELNET Protocol Specification, NIC #15372, and TELNET
>>>    Option Specifications, NIC #15373)"
>
>> They are NIC documents that were never directly part of the RFC  
>> series.
>> They may exist in Jake Feinler's archive of NIC documents (or now in
>> the Computer Museum in Mountain View).
>
>> I am ccing the history list, in hopes that someone out there might  
>> have
>> copies.
>
> Alas, I don't, but I have a suggestion.
>
> My copy of the "ARPANet Protocol Handbook" (NIC 7104, Rev. January  
> 1978) has
> later versions of these two (NIC 18639 for TELNET, and NIC 18640  
> for the
> Options). An earlier revision of this book (I see one listed from  
> December,
> 1974, but that might not be early enough, because NIC 18639 is  
> dated August,
> 1973) might have the earlier versions. Alas, while I have many  
> different revs
> of the 1822 spec in my library, I only have the 1978 version of the  
> APH...
>
> Interestingly, many of the *other* TELNET spec documents in the  
> January, 1978
> version of the APH appear to be of the same earlier vintage as the  
> two base
> TELNET documents in question; e.g. BINARY Option, NIC 15389  
> (August, 1973);
> ECHO Option, NIC 15390 (August, 1973); etc. What's even more  
> interesting is
> that the date on these is the same as the date on the (presumably  
> later) NIC
> 18639/18640, leaving me somewhat curious as to what differences (if  
> any) there
> are between 15372/15373 and 18639/18640. I note that 18639/18640  
> was printed
> on some device that handled variable-width fonts, whereas  
> 15389/15390/etc were
> all clearly printed on a line-printer - I wonder if that's the only  
> difference
> (given the likely identical dates)?
>
> If nobody else can find any of this stuff, I can certainly scan/OCR in
> 18639/18640, if those would be of any use (assuming they aren't in  
> fact
> identical to some later RFC, something I have not as yet checked).
>
> 	Noel
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:39:45 -0400 (EDT)
> From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
> Subject: Re: [ih] RFC 495
> To: internet-history at postel.org, klensin at jck.com
> Cc: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu, rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org
> Message-ID: <20060913223945.1CDE08730C at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
>
>> From: John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com>
>
>>> I see one listed from December, 1974, but that might not be early
>>> enough, because NIC 18639 is dated August, 1973
>>> ..
>>> Interestingly, many of the *other* TELNET spec documents in
>>> the January, 1978 version of the APH appear to be of the same
>>> earlier vintage as the two base TELNET documents in question;
>>> e.g. BINARY Option, NIC 15389 (August, 1973); ECHO Option, NIC
>>> 15390 (August, 1973); etc. What's even more interesting is
>>> that the date on these is the same as the date on the
>>> (presumably later) NIC 18639/18640
>