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

Wed Aug 30 17:02:24 PDT 2023

The attendees at IETF #1 are known and the breakdown is:

   - five university reps (two from MIT [one as an IAB rep], one from
   UMICH, one from Stanford, one USC-ISI)
   - five vendors (BBN CC [which sold routers and IMPS], Proteon, M/A Com,
   Linkabit, and Ford Aerospace]
   - six from research labs (SRI, BBN Labs, MITRE)
   - two government people

Craig

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 5:57 PM Vint Cerf via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> John is correct that INWG in its early period and even as IFIP WG 6.1 has a
> pretty strong academic character.
> IETF would have been similar in its early 1986 formation. There are
> probably available attendance statistics for the IETF of today and I would
> not be surprised to see a pretty healthy industry component. Nonetheless,
> with some notable exceptions, my impression is that IETF WGs are still
> pretty collaborative across corporate boundaries.
>
> v
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:47 PM John Day via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> > Jumping in. INWG in the mid-70s was a different time. Without looking at
> > the membership list, which I have, the only ‘vendors’ were phone
> companies
> > that were vertically integrated. DEC and Xerox were there. Otherwise, it
> > was researchers and academics. I would guess about half and half as far
> as
> > who was at the meetings, not just on the mailing list. Who did I miss?
> >
> > Vint?
> >
> > > On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:38, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Vint,
> > > On 31-Aug-23 05:35, vinton cerf via Internet-history 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.
> > >
> > > Isn't there one significant demographic difference, though: the modern
> > > IETF has a *much* higher fraction  of participants employed by vendors
> > > than the INWG and the early IETF? Despite the rule that people
> > participate
> > > as individuals, I suspect that this has a major impact on the way ideas
> > > flow and mingle.
> > >
> > >    Brian
> > >
> > >> 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
> >
> > --
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >
>
>
> --
> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> Vint Cerf
> Google, LLC
> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> Reston, VA 20190
> +1 (571) 213 1346
>
>
> until further notice
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>

-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.