[ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
John Day
jeanjour at comcast.net
Wed Aug 30 19:19:35 PDT 2023
Yes, but they weren’t in INWG, were they? Nor was HP.
I doubt that IBM had heard of TCP in 1976.
> On Aug 30, 2023, at 21:14, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
>
> IBM research did TCP/IP as well as HP and DEC.
>
> v
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 6:11 PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>> RIght, the phone companies. ;-) That were vertically integrated then. They made their own equipment. Yea, those were the only ones I could think of.
>> I thought it was kind of amusing to think of ACC as an early networking company. ;-)
>>
>> The mainframe companies weren’t involved other than DEC and Xerox. Interesting.
>>
>>> On Aug 30, 2023, at 20:41, vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com <mailto:vgcerf at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> the X.25 people from France (Transpac- France Telecom), England (PSS/EPSS British Telecom), Canada (Datapac) and Telenet did their work more or less concurrently with the development of TCP/IP.
>>>
>>> v
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 5:01 PM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>> I was trying to think of companies that participated. There really weren’t any 'networking companies’ yet that weren’t phone companies. Roland Bryant’s ACC was about as close as it came to a networking ;-) and he didn’t attend INWG.
>>>>
>>>> > On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:56, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com <mailto:vint at google.com>> 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 <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto: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 <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto: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 <mailto:darius.kazemi at gmail.com> <mailto:darius.kazemi at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto: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 <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto: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 <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
>>>> >> >>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>> >> >>>>>>
>>>> >> >>>>> --
>>>> >> >>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>> >> >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
>>>> >> >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>> >> >>>>>
>>>> >> >>>> --
>>>> >> >>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>> >> >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
>>>> >> >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> > --
>>>> >> > Internet-history mailing list
>>>> >> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
>>>> >> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>> >>
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> Internet-history mailing list
>>>> >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto: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 <tel:(571)%20213-1346>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > until further notice
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto: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
>
>
>
More information about the Internet-history
mailing list