<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Vint Cerf <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vint@google.com" target="_blank">vint@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div id=":2ze">so we need to make the distinction between the subnet ... and the system of hosts,<br>
protocol stack, applications, etc. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>and must be further distinguished from the communities that grew around the latter.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div id=":2ze">A problem in discussions like this is the ambiguity of the term "ARPANET"<br></div></blockquote></div><br>I believe MAP as the self-designated 'Semantic Puritan' would have endorsed that statement. <div>
<br></div><div>The modern conflation of "WWW" (application level infrastructure, now with tiered apps on that) and "Internet" (lowest end to end protocol) and "Broadband" (physical and hop-wise protocol) is equally annoying and pernicious , but at least we the cognoscenti have separate words for them, rather than calling all three "ARPAnet".<div>
<br></div><div>( If it's turtles all the way down, are apps built on apps built on applications camels all the way up ? )<br clear="all"><div><br></div><div>Padlipsky also distinguished between the (Aristotelian) ARPAnet Refernce Model and the (evolving) protocol stack (as of some date: NCP/FTP/TELNET or TCP/IP/HTTP or IPv6/DNSsec/AQM someday).</div>
<div><br></div><div>DEB may overstate the case, but he is correct to the extent that Mike was regularly perturbed to peroration by folks who, whether by intent or ignorance, conflated the subnet and The Net, and pitched Kleinrock and BBN as sole founders of the ARPAnet (or laterly internet), defending the contributions Licklider, Vint, Postel, and rest of NWG/IETF/RFC community. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Mike was not blind to the contribution of BBN; he prized a copy of Sen. Kennedy's hilarious telegram to BBN congratulating them on their development of the "Interfaith Message Processor" [sic], and had respect for BBN NWG reps in protocol and security matters (e.g. Steve Kent, to name but one). </div>
<div><br></div><div>To direct an echo of Mike's defense of Vint (and Jon) against Vint (who has just volunteered to help defended Jon's memory in the other thread) is cosmic irony, a sort that MAP would have savored (although he'd have likely told me that properly it was not properly 'irony' in a rhetorical sense).</div>
<div><br></div>-- <br>Bill Ricker<div>MAP's literary estate<br>@n1vux <a href="mailto:bill.n1vux@gmail.com" target="_blank">bill.n1vux@gmail.com</a><br>
</div></div></div>