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

John Day jeanjour at comcast.net
Thu Aug 31 05:55:13 PDT 2023 

Braden was the IBM guy in those days. ;-)  The only one who showed up at NWG meetings in a coat and tie. ;-)

Yea, I know that changed later.

I know who you mean at DEC, but can’t think of his last name either. It will come to me.

> On Aug 30, 2023, at 22:37, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
> 
> well, Braden did TCP/IP for the 360/91 at UCLA and UCSB did it for 360/75
> (possibly with Braden's help? or was it the other way around). I had thought that IBM Almaden might have gotten involved at some point but perhaps that's just a made up memory. 
> 
> v
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 7:20 PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:(571)%20213-1346>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> until further notice
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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