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

[Jack Haverty]

Well...

I still have my red button.  I even sent a picture of it.  That message 
bounced back, notifying me that the limit is 400kb.  Made the picture 
smaller, 100kb or so, and sent it again.  Something along the way 
apparently decided to simply silently delete it.

Oh for the old days when email just worked....

Jack


On 9/4/23 14:44, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> Trying again:
>
> Your mail to 'Internet-history' with the subject
>     Re: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
> Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
> The reason it is being held:
>     Message body is too big: 1206130 bytes with a limit of 400 KB
>
>
>
>
> On 9/4/23 13:37, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
>>   Does anyone have their red button?  I think it said "I survived the 
>> tcp transition".  Dan Chernikoff, who worked in our group at SRI at 
>> the time, gave me his before he left SRI.  I remember he said 
>> something like you deserve it more; even though  I don't  think I had 
>> anything to do with the cutover. I don't know who made those or gave 
>> them out.  Can anyone fill me in? I looked for my button several 
>> years ago and I couldn't locate it where it should have  been. I hope 
>> it is somewhere waiting to be unearthed.
>> barbara
>>      On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:10:13 AM PDT, Dan Lynch via 
>> Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>     I was at ISI from 80-83 in charge of the (then) huge data center 
>> serving the researchers at ISI and running the email server for much 
>> of the outside world. Vint and Bob told me to coordinate all the 
>> software that needed to be changed and tested for not just at ISI, 
>> but all over the Arpanet. I guess that the kids ( we were all kids 
>> then) just pitched in and got their site specific software to run 
>> TCP/IP and we had a few internal “flag days “ of testing in 82. Of 
>> course I had Jon Postel just down the hall as my tech support!
>>
>> Fun times…
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> Cell 650-776-7313
>>
>>> On Sep 4, 2023, at 10:23 AM, Jack Haverty via 
>>> Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Two excellent observations about the early days!  1) Someone was in 
>>> charge and in control.  2) The goal was to make the system work and 
>>> be actually used.
>>> D
>>> Back in late 1981, you (Vint) asked me to take on the Gateway 
>>> Project at BBN, explicitly to make the Inoperate as a 24x7 reliable 
>>> service, following the lead that the Arpanet had developed over more 
>>> than a decade of operation as an infrastructure.  More about that 
>>> here for the 
>>> curious:https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-November/005595.html
>>>
>>> That task could have been a research effort, producing protocols, 
>>> algorithms, and mechanisms documented in RFCs for anyone to use. But 
>>> there wasn't time to wait, so instead we just copied the mechanisms 
>>> of the Arpanet, translating them into the world of TCP/IP.  Much of 
>>> the Arpanet "management" technology wasn't well known or documented, 
>>> but by locating the "Gateway Group" physically near the Arpanet 
>>> control center (NOC), and recruiting some people from that world, it 
>>> was possible to do "technology transfer" (a buzzword at the time).  
>>> The Internet acquired "operations" tools by plagiarizing what had 
>>> been working for years in the Arpanet. That was the fastest way to 
>>> "make it work".
>>>
>>> Separately, there were efforts, initiated by someone, to orchestrate 
>>> the "Flag Day" on the Arpanet, to declare TCP/IP a DoD Standard, to 
>>> define and implement a formal certification program for new TCP 
>>> implementations, and probably other efforts I never knew about.
>>>
>>> Someone was in charge, and someone was doing lots of things to "make 
>>> it work".
>>>
>>> It wasn't perfect.  Actually it was a bit chaotic IIRC.
>>>
>>> For example... Jon Postel took on the task of documenting TCP/IPV4 
>>> so it could be referenced as a Standard.  RFCs were released.  DoD 
>>> declared them mandatory for all military systems that involved 
>>> communicating computers.
>>>
>>> A bit later, at BBN we were assisting various pieces of the 
>>> government in getting their computer systems up and running with 
>>> their vendor's brand-new, certified, standard TCPIPV4s. It was a big 
>>> surprise to discover that, although TCP/IP was there, none of the 
>>> other "tools" we had been using for years had been implemented on 
>>> those machines.
>>>
>>> Much of that missing functionality was called "ICMP", well 
>>> documented in RFC 792.  But only TCP/IP had been declared a DoD 
>>> Standard.  Government contractors, who had not been involved in the 
>>> research community, had to implement the Standard.  But the Standard 
>>> didn't include ICMP.  So they didn't implement it.
>>>
>>> That made it much more difficult to "make it work".  For example, 
>>> without ICMP as the Internet's Swiss Army Knife, you couldn't even 
>>> "ping" a DoD Standard computer.  I remember we raised quite a fuss 
>>> about that, and implementations started to appear.  I'm not sure if 
>>> the Standard was ever modified to require ICMP.
>>>
>>> Other things, like SNMP, were useful but also missing.  Many people 
>>> apparently didn't consider ICMP and its cohorts to be part of 
>>> TCP/IP.  We considered such technology essential to be able to "make 
>>> it work".
>>>
>>> -----
>>>
>>> Looking back from 2023...
>>>
>>> IMHO, one of the inflection points occurred when the culture shifted 
>>> from "make it work" to "make money from the Internet". 
>>> Interoperability (everyone can interact with everyone else) is part 
>>> of "make it work", and conformance to Metcalfe's Law (google 
>>> it...).  Silos (everyone can interact, as long as you stay in *our* 
>>> silo) are (thought to be) preferable for "make money".
>>>
>>> I wasn't very involved in the Internet growth as NSF joined and 
>>> later as the first ISPs spun off to become commercial services. 
>>> Perhaps someone remembers if they had any kind of "standards" or 
>>> "certification" involved as the culture shifted.  E.g., was there a 
>>> "FRICC Standard" for computers joining their 'nets?  I recall there 
>>> were AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies), at least at first.  Did these 
>>> "fade away" and turn into "pay us to get on the Internet and you can 
>>> do whatever you want"?
>>>
>>> It's still puzzling (to me) that the Internet has become a global 
>>> infrastructure, and hasn't been surrounded by the web of 
>>> regulations, laws, codes, agencies, treaties, and such non-technical 
>>> mechanisms that have developed around other infrastructures.  Roads 
>>> and vehicles, electric power, marine activities, air transport, 
>>> railroads, finance, water, and even the air we breathe all have such 
>>> mechanisms.
>>>
>>> Is the Internet different?  Or just still too young to have accreted 
>>> such "management" mechanisms?
>>>
>>> Jack Haverty
>>>
>>>> On 9/2/23 02:19, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> I have only a brief moment to respond. The Arpanet, PRNET, SATNET, 
>>>> Internet
>>>> sequence gets its primary stability from the sole source funding of 
>>>> ARPA,
>>>> initially, and the pooling of resources from other DoD components 
>>>> using
>>>> Arpanet. Arpanet was managed by BBN initially (later under contract 
>>>> to DCA
>>>> vs ARPA). It really helped that the Internet development funding 
>>>> came from
>>>> a single source. Decision making was largely in the hands of the ARPA
>>>> program managers, well-informed by the people doing the work. In the
>>>> mid-1980s, ARPA, NSF, DOE and NASA collaborated through the Federal
>>>> Research Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC) made up of program
>>>> managers from each agency. ESNET, NSINET and NSFNET joined Arpanet as
>>>> backbones of the Internet. Again, common purpose welded the effort 
>>>> into a
>>>> coherent whole. MERIT played a major role in the NSFNET development 
>>>> which
>>>> really elaborated on the multi-network aspect of Internet. MERIT 
>>>> had to
>>>> deal with scaling of the Internet to a dozen or more intermediate 
>>>> level
>>>> networks linked together through the NSFNET backbone. BGP came out 
>>>> of that
>>>> work and has scaled well - now needing more security from 
>>>> abuse/mistakes.
>>>>
>>>> I think there was a common thread in all of this work: people who were
>>>> working on different aspects of the Internet and its constituent 
>>>> networks
>>>> really wanted this system to work. The goal was interoperability 
>>>> linking so
>>>> many different packet switched networks together. Even the Xerox 
>>>> PARC team,
>>>> whose work on PUP and later XNS was proprietary, did their best to 
>>>> give
>>>> hints to the Stanford development team (mostly me and my graduate 
>>>> students
>>>> during the 1974 campaign to specify TCP).
>>>>
>>>> It also helped that commonality and interoperability were key 
>>>> desirable
>>>> properties of the Internet system. These were the metrics by which 
>>>> success
>>>> was measured.
>>>>
>>>> That's all I have time for now - not sure this addresses your 
>>>> questions
>>>> squarely.
>>>>
>>>> v
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:14 PM Miles 
>>>> Fidelman<mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Vint!
>>>>>
>>>>> To follow up, if I might - since you were there from the beginning (I
>>>>> landed at MIT in 1971, just before Ray's first email, and saw how MIT
>>>>> adopted ARPANET technology, then got to BBN in 1985, just in time 
>>>>> to help
>>>>> split off the DDN - the period leading up to the Flag Day is mostly
>>>>> anecdotal history for me)...
>>>>>
>>>>> I've long used the Internet as a model for how communities can 
>>>>> approach
>>>>> infrastructure master planning - serving as the basis for our work 
>>>>> at the
>>>>> Center for Civic Networking, running a growth planning exercise for
>>>>> Cambridge, and later, in our work with communities around municipal
>>>>> broadband.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, I'm gearing up a new effort, focused on community-level 
>>>>> crowdsourcing
>>>>> for major infrastructure overhaul (as is started to be mandated by
>>>>> electrification ordinances).  The simple notion being that of 
>>>>> forming local
>>>>> working groups, to run grand-challenge like exercises, design 
>>>>> charettes,
>>>>> crowd funding for projects like a complete infrastructure rebuild 
>>>>> for a
>>>>> condo complex (like the one I'm living in, and serving on the 
>>>>> board of).
>>>>> How to pull such groups together remains a black art - and 
>>>>> insights from
>>>>> the original model are always helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> In that context, might you share some pithy observations of 
>>>>> significant
>>>>> events in the early life of the ARPANET & Internet - how various 
>>>>> working
>>>>> groups came together in the days following Lick's initial posting to
>>>>> ARPA/IPTO.  Who did what, to whom, leading to a bunch of folks coming
>>>>> together into ad hoc & ongoing working groups of various sorts?  
>>>>> And, in
>>>>> particular, what conditions/events provided impetus, urgency, and 
>>>>> built
>>>>> momentum?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Very Much,
>>>>>
>>>>> Miles
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> vinton cerf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> TCP/IP came out of work that Bob Kahn and I did along with my 
>>>>> graduate
>>>>> students at Stanford. But the INWG (slightly more formal extension 
>>>>> of NWG
>>>>> when it became IFIP WG 6.1) contributed in a highly collaborative 
>>>>> fashion.
>>>>> So did UCL and BBN in early implementation phases of TCP and TCP/IP.
>>>>>
>>>>> I tend to associate NWG with Arpanet Host-Host Protocols (and 
>>>>> application
>>>>> protocols)
>>>>> and IAB (later IETF) with TCP/IP and associated applications
>>>>>
>>>>> v
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:29 AM Miles Fidelman <
>>>>> mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well Vint might have a definitive voice on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So... Vint,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would you consider TCP/IP to have been initiated by the NWG?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that 
>>>>>> eventually
>>>>>> became SMTP)?  As I recall, that was initially announced via a 
>>>>>> postal mail
>>>>>> packet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Miles
>>>>>>
>>>>>> vinton cerf 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 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