<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [ih] IEN Notes and INWG</title></head><body>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>John,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>that's a great list of names - thanks for
taking time to try to remember so many of them.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Took me a while to remember Peter Shicker! I could see his
face, but the name wouldn't come.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>I think the term "IWG" was used
to emulate "NWG" that Steve Crocker led, but IWG was never
used much. By 1976 this group was mostly those funded by DARPA to TCP,
IP and higher level utility or applications - most of which were
initially ported from their NCP base on ARPANET.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Agreed. INWG was suppose to be the International version of the
NWG.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>ARPA was funding the UCL crowd, right? But wouldn't have
been funding Vissers, ETH, Linington was at Cambridge so probably not,
nor Gregor, nor the INRIA guys, Shepherd was working for a Canadian
bank. That was also when EIN had gotten started.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Is that really the distinction between INWG and IEN notes? IEN
was the DARPA funded guys and INWG was them and everyone else?
;-)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>There is a list of participants in the Liege conference
proceedings. It was a big meeting! Lots of old names
there. (I didn't go. We could afford to send one person
and Grossman was the senior guy. So Gary got to go. But I did
get the T-shirt!) ;-)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Take care,</div>
<div>John</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Take care,</div>
<div>John</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>vint</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 8:47 AM, John Day
<<a href="mailto:jeanjour@comcast.net">jeanjour@comcast.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote>Just an addendum to that last note:<br>
<br>
The FDT paper which was a bibliography of the current work in the area
may have been the first "network produced" conference paper.
Beginning in 1976, I was living in Houston (my wife was post-doc'ing
at Baylor) and working at Illinois and commuting over the 'Net.
(I used Telenet to get Multics and the Multics to get back to
Illinois over the ARPANet.)<br>
<br>
The database of citations was at Illinois. It was outputed and
moved to Multics, the Intro was added, and since I had no means to
print on the conference forms (remember those camera ready forms we
had to use?), ftp'ed it to Carl Sunshine in Southern California who
printed it and snail mailed it to Danthine in Leige!<br>
<br>
The FDT group was primarily Carl, Gregor Bochman at U of Quebec, Chris
Vissers Twente U, and myself. There were undoubtedly others but
I have forgotten who. Richard Tenney joined the effort later
when it moved to ISO. (I think but could be wrong about when
Richard showed up.)<br>
<br>
The VTP group was at least Peter Higginson, UCL; Peter
Linington(?), Don Shepherd, Canada; two people from ETH-Zurich (Ann
Duenki (sp?) and Peter Schicker, probably Michel Gien or Hubert
Zimmermann and maybe Najah Naffah from INRIA and myself. There
were undoubtedly others I can't remember. There were no authors
on the paper. Somewhere I have photos taken at a VTP meeting at INRIA
in the fall of 77 but not a real group photo.</blockquote>
<blockquote><br>
<br>
At 7:01 -0400 2010/03/24, John Day wrote:<br>
<blockquote>Correct. As someone stated before the IEN series and
the INWG series were documents for two different groups.<br>
<br>
INWG had 3 sub-groups. One working on Transport, one working on
a Virtual Terminal Protocol, and one working on Formal Description
Techniques. The final output of all three were published as
appendices to the conference proceedings of the conference in Liege in
Feb 1978.<br>
<br>
Interestingly, the VTP paper has an ISO TC97/SC16 cover sheet on it.
The first meeting of SC16 was still a few weeks away. The
other two do not. The INWG FDT work lead directly to the ISO FDT
work, so that would imply that all 3 papers were contributions to that
first meeting in DC.<br>
<br>
At 10:02 +0100 2010/03/24, Matthias Bärwolff wrote:<br>
<blockquote>Still, Noel's take on the name of the ARPA sponsored TCP
work as<br>
documented in the IEN series seems to be right, too. Browsing
through<br>
some of the IENs, the term "Internet Working Group" appears
-- though<br>
somewhat casually -- at least two times: in IEN 26 and IEN 60.
Obviously<br>
this in no relation whatsoever to the "official" INWG (as in
Internation<br>
Network Working Group, also: IFIP WG 6.1); and, sure enough,
"Internet</blockquote>
<blockquote>Protocol", or just "Internet" was
coming to be abbreviated "IN" in some<br>
of the IENs.<br>
<br>
John Day wrote:<br>
<blockquote> INWG originally stood for International Network
Working Group, as<br>
opposed to the NWG which was the ARPANET group.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 16:42 -0400 2010/03/23, Noel Chiappa wrote:<br>
<blockquote> > From:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_B=E4rwolff?= <<a
href="mailto:mbaer@cs.tu-berlin.de">mbaer@cs.tu-berlin.de</a>><br>
<br>
> Just a quick question: Is it fair to say the
IEN Notes came out of<br>
> INWG, or were these two different games?
(There were INWG Notes,<br>
too.)<br>
> Put differently, did the "group"
that produced the IENs have a<br>
name of<br>
> its own?<br>
<br>
Ah, you have, in that last sentence, put your finger on the
problem!<br>
<br>
The group of people working under the DARPA banner didn't,
AFAIK, have a<br>
formal name. However, the group that worked on IP was
occasionally<br>
called the<br>
"internet working group" (see, for instance, the first
sentence of IEN<br>
#26).<br>
<br>
When one remembers that the acronym used for 'Internet' at that
point<br>
in time<br>
was IN, you can see exactly where this is going... The INWG
that<br>
produced the<br>
INWG Notes was a _different_ Internet Working Group (as others
have<br>
already<br>
pointed out).<br>
<br>
Just to maximize the confusion, at different times it was either
one<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote> >> or two<br>
<blockquote>
<blockquote> groups! Originally there was just one TCP group,
then when TCP was<br>
split into<br>
TCP and IP, there were (for a while) separate TCP and IP groups
- or, at<br>
least, separate (temporally adjoining, I think) meetings.<br>
<br>
<br>
Anyway, if you see contemporaneous (or later - the matching
names have<br>
confused more than one incautious historian, I have
discovered)<br>
references to<br>
an "Internet Working Group", you need to dig a little
deeper and work out<br>
exactly _which_ "Internet Working Group" is being
talked about...<br>
<br>
Noel<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><br></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote><br>
--<br>
Matthias Bärwolff<br>
<a
href="http://www.xn--brwolff-5wa.de"><font color="red"><b>MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "www.xn--brwolff-5wa.de" claiming to be</b></font> www.bärwolff.de</a></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>