[ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)

[John Day]

The NWG was indeed special, where else do you get lines like, 
‘Look guys, our money is only bloody on one side!’  attributed to John Melvin or
’Sometimes when changing oranges into apples, you get lemons.’  - Mike Padlipsky.



> On Aug 30, 2023, at 13:35, vinton cerf via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> I don't agree with that analysis, Darius. The NWG spawned the International
> Network Working Group (INWG). IETF emerged from the ICCB->IAB (various
> forms)-> IETF/IRTF.
> IETF is still as collaborative as the original NWG as I see it - more
> formality for sure but still essentially a collaborative enterprise.
> 
> v
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:17 AM Darius Kazemi <darius.kazemi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Comparing the NWG (at least in the early days of NCP) and IETF seems to me
>> like comparing a radical experiment in collaboration, experimentation, and
>> flexibility to... a standards body. Very much apples to oranges?
>> 
>> I was not even born when the NWG was doing its thing so please correct me
>> if I'm out of line here but every bit of research I've done and every piece
>> of correspondence I've read seems to indicate that even though there is
>> lineage from one to other it seems like a category error to claim that the
>> same kind of human social organization was occurring in both orgs.
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 10:11 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> +1
>>> v
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57 AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history <
>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Well...
>>>> 
>>>> The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, FTP, et
>>> al
>>>> -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG).  The NWG evolved
>>> over
>>>> the years into the IETF.  The formal creation of the IETF was roughly
>>>> mid-1980s.  The process of formally declaring a protocol a
>>>> proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years.  Depending on how
>>>> precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the
>>>> formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case either way.
>>> From
>>>> my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did indeed
>>>> originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF.
>>>> 
>>>> Steve
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48 PM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history <
>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF - they
>>>>> become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC process,
>>> under
>>>>> the IETF aegis.  Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite (did
>>> the
>>>>> IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first printed?).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Miles
>>>>> 
>>>>> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>>> On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>>>> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to the
>>>>>>>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and
>>>>>>>>> validation by
>>>>>>>>> the community
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an application
>>>>>>>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last 25
>>>> years,
>>>>>>>> that has seen widespread success.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> d/
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated about
>>>>>> 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office at
>>> CERN,
>>>>>> more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was wrong a
>>>> few
>>>>>> days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). The WWW
>>>> BOF
>>>>>> at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first deployed, to
>>> my
>>>>>> personal knowledge.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Is it not the
>>>>>>> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of
>>> things?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded both
>>> rough
>>>>>> consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and still
>>> the
>>>>>> best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with the
>>> spec.
>>>>>> Third best is OSI.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    Brian
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>>>>> In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra
>>>>> 
>>>>> Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
>>>>> Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
>>>>> In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
>>>>> nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>> 
>>> --
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>> 
>> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history