[ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
Steve Crocker
steve at shinkuro.com
Wed Aug 30 19:36:27 PDT 2023
IBM made a tentative attempt to get involved in the Arpanet sometime around 1972 or 1973. IIRC, Doug McKay visited the office and said he had a proposal but he couldn’t show it to us. Nothing came of it, but they were clearly trying to find a way in. I think this was from Yorktown Research, but I may be remembering incorrectly.
Steve
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 30, 2023, at 10:30 PM, vinton cerf via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> actually I thought Tony <help me out here, last name starts with "W" maybe>
> at DEC was involved in INWG.
>
> and could IBM Almaden have gotten involved in TCP?
>
> v
>
>
>
>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 7:20 PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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>> 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>> 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>>
>>>>>>>> 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>> 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>> 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>> 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>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>> 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 <(571)%20213-1346>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> until further notice
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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
More information about the Internet-history
mailing list