[ih] what is and isn't the web, was Rise and Fall of the Gopher Protocol

[John Day]

That is the later version to run over TCP.  RFC 495 is the original new Telnet. It is only of historical significance  but it should be there.

John

> On Aug 22, 2016, at 16:28, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 23/08/2016 01:31, John Day wrote:
>> I always heard that Telnet stood for "telecommunications network.”  I never heard the word “telephone” associated with it.
>> 
>> What is really funny is that starting with RFC 97, I don’t see a single TELNET spec that expands the acronym!  ;-)  
>> 
>> But a concern:  RFC495 purports to be a TELNET spec. However, the download is Alex McKenzie’s transmittal letter that mentions two attachments. I don’t find the attachments associated with it.  
>> 
>> My 1978 ARPANET Protocol Handbook has the Telnet spec labeled RFC542, which does appear to be Alex’s spec from the 1973 meeting. However, RFC542 is the FTP spec. Which is also labeled 542 in the Handbook!
>> 
>> It does not appear to be possible to get the actual Telnet spec from the RFC Pages. Someone needs to fix this. 
> 
> The Telnet Internet Standard is https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc854.txt.
> 
> There's an enormous number of RFCs with "Telnet" in their titles. Mostly
> (Status: UNKNOWN).
> 
>    Brian
> 
> 
>> 
>> Take care,
>> John
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 22, 2016, at 08:52, Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 8/22/2016 3:32 AM, John Day wrote:
>>>> As far as the telephone analogy, the last thing we were trying to do was to be like the telephone system,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> oh.  so 'telnet' did stand for 'telephone network'...
>>> 
>>> d/
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 
>>> Dave Crocker
>>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>>> bbiw.net
>> 
>> 
>> _______
>> internet-history mailing list
>> internet-history at postel.org
>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>> 
>