From touch at ISI.EDU Wed Aug 1 07:41:40 2001 From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 07:41:40 -0700 Subject: [ih] The List: for historians or for history actors? References: <3B6614DA.E29DF675@vlsm.org> <3B662C60.D2682693@isi.edu> <3B674372.19B1D19A@vlsm.org> Message-ID: <3B681524.DC6C19AB@isi.edu> "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" wrote: > > Joe Touch wrote: > > > The purpose of this list is to discuss issues of Internet > > history. These are decidedly not Internet issues. Please > > take the discussion to another list... > > Oh, I see. May I know who should participate: the historians > or the history actors? Everyone may participate in the discussion of Internet history. As noted before, discussions of other history, including history of other technologies, etc., not directly relevant to Internet history should be taken to other email lists or elsewhere. > Is there any intention to writing down the discussion result? > In what format? .DOC (historians main tool) ? .nroff (history > actors main tool)? We hope that, as information accumulates and is validated, list participants will create condensed FAQs on specific issues, to be posted on the Postel Center website. The FAQs will be in the most common portable format, also used for RFCs - ASCII text. Yes, most of the RFC formatting limitations will be assumed (no overstrike, no backspace, 72 column, etc.) FWIW, regarding RFCs are published in only two formats - ASCII text (with some limitations) and Postscript, and only the ASCII version is considered primary. It is certainly more convenient to perform some editing on a document with internal formatting info - which is why RFCs may be _submitted_ in nroff, used by the RFC Editors for years. RFCs are not published as nroff, however. Only the ASCII text is archival. Joe From adrian.j.hooke at jpl.nasa.gov Wed Aug 1 08:31:51 2001 From: adrian.j.hooke at jpl.nasa.gov (Adrian J. Hooke) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 08:31:51 -0700 Subject: [ih] "Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience" Message-ID: <4.2.2.20010801081640.00a45650@pop.jpl.nasa.gov> Joe: Though mot directly related to Internet history, the NASA history office has interesting information at: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/computers/contents.html To quote the Foreword: "NASA never asked for anything that could not be done with the current technology. But in response, the computer industry sometimes pushed itself just a little in a number of areas. Just a little better software development practices made onboard software safe, just a little better networking made the Launch Processing System more efficient, just a little better operating system made mission control easier, just a little better chip makes image processing faster. NASA did not push the state of the art, but nudged it enough times to make a difference." Many of these developments led directly to our current work on the "InterPlaNetary Internet". Some of the old guys mentioned in Part II are still around here at JPL. If anyone has a question, I'd be happy to see if I can get a first-hand answer. Best regards Adrian J. Hooke Manager, DARPA InterPlaNetary Internet (IPN) Project Jet Propulsion Laboratory, InterPlanetary Network and Information Systems Directorate M/S 303-400, 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena, California 91109-8099, USA +1.818.354.3063 or +1.818.354.0174 voice; +1.818.393.3575 fax http://www.ipnsig.org From phil at nesser.com Wed Aug 1 11:43:36 2001 From: phil at nesser.com (Philip J. Nesser II) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 11:43:36 -0700 Subject: [ih] Book on the History of Internet Protocols Message-ID: Hi Everyone, I just want this list to know that I have been working with a number of "oldtimers" to put together a book on the history of Internet protocols. The going has been slow and I only have commitments from about a dozen or so people to write essys. So I am opening a call here for people to contact me if they are interested in being contributors. I am looking for essays from about 5 pages in length (up to your hearts content in length). I am looking for something that describes the evolution of a protocol, not a technical description of a protocol. There are plenty of books/articles on how FOO behaves. I am looking for something on why FOO was concieved and how/why FOO evolved from FOOv1 to FOOv2 and so one. Why was the header field BAR put in and why. What were the competing protocols to FOO and why did it die. Who were the leading proponents and why did it carry the day? Hopefully you get the idea. I don't really care whether its a major protocol or a minor one. I don't really care if I get different viewpoints of the same thing. So if you were there or have intimate knowledge of some protocol please don't hesitate to contact me. It could even be something you wrote years ago, as long as it can be published. The book is intended to be dedicated to Jon and his work and dedicated to the Internet protocol suite. Phil P.S. For those of you on the list who have commited to an essay and I haven't heard from you for a while, take this as a not so subtle hint to talk to me and let me know where things stand. P.P.S. I will be in London for the IETF next week so feel free to talk to me. There are some of you I will be looking for :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Philip J. Nesser II President & CTO CISSP, CCNA, CCDA, MCSE Nesser & Nesser Consulting (425) 481-4303 (voice) 13501 100th Ave NE, #5202 (425) 482-9721 (fax) Kirkland, WA 98034 phil at nesser.com (email) www.nesser.com page-phil at nesser.com (text msg, 120 characters max) From keqinli at lucent.com Thu Aug 2 02:26:33 2001 From: keqinli at lucent.com (Li, Ke Qin (Peter)) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:26:33 +0800 Subject: [ih] OSPF convergency Message-ID: <31C0F08B0D18D511ACC800508BAE7B47031D20@CI0026EXCH001U> Hi, I want to know: When, how, and by whom was the convergency of the OSPF protocol proved. Thank you. Li, Keqin (Peter) Bell Labs Research China Tel: 86 10 6874 8088x8438 Fax: 86 10 6874 8225 Email: keqinli at lucent.com From bovik at best.com Fri Aug 3 19:19:09 2001 From: bovik at best.com (James P. Salsman) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:19:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Microsoft, please protect your stacks (was Re: [ih] ... stack?) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20010803085259.06e54960@mail.reed.com> Message-ID: <200108040219.TAA08785@shell9.ba.best.com> David, Thank you for your message which I guess started from the internet-history list, not the ietf discussion list. >... Lots of programs compile code into a temporary buffer and then execute > it. The most interesting ones that I know of are in graphics support, > where various bitblt's and other highly parameterized, highly loopy code > process a lot of data. So, locking the stack against execution would slow graphics applications? Maybe someone should let Intel know, since they are having a hard time convincing consumers that 2 GHz > 1 GHz. It is pathetic how audio applications have been ignored. Swaying my opinion would require a different example. > Putting the temporary buffer on the stack is *good* > design, not bad - using a static buffer requires unnecesary locking, and > allocating with malloc() means handling the possibility of an "out of > memory" in a sensitive part of the system.... On the contrary, there is nothing wrong with a seperate code stack in its own segment. Cheers, James From jg at pa.dec.com Mon Aug 6 10:48:55 2001 From: jg at pa.dec.com (Jim Gettys) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 10:48:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Subject: Re: Microsoft, please protect your stacks (was Re: [ih] ... Message-ID: <200108061748.f76Hmt573281@pachyderm.pa.dec.com> Few, if any graphics programs compile code and branch to it now: while Rob Pike did this trick on the Blit, and we did it early in X's existance, we did not continue this trick in X11. And the code which does most rendering is usually not in the user's address space. I'd be surprised if Microsoft did either, these days. It turns out on modern machines, we've recently experimentally determined that in fact the limit is not instructions, but buss cycles. Ergo, a couple years ago Keith Packard rewrote the horrific X code for rendering, which had been implementing Duff's algorithm in horrible macros, compiled N times to generate efficient code (but still not generated code) with small, compact code which pulls the raster operations tests into the inner loop, thereby saving .5 megabytes of code space (and having simple, easy to deal with code again). The new compact code generally has better cache behavior, and works as well or better than the old unrolled loops. So I don't think this is an issue for almost anyone. I could be wrong in the Microsoft case, of course: some people do wierd things there. - Jim > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 19:19:09 -0700 (PDT) > From: "James P. Salsman" > To: dpreed at reed.com > Subject: Re: Microsoft, please protect your stacks (was Re: [ih] ... stack?) > Cc: ietf at ietf.org, internet-history at postel.org > > David, > > Thank you for your message which I guess started from the > internet-history list, not the ietf discussion list. > > >... Lots of programs compile code into a temporary buffer and then execute > > it. The most interesting ones that I know of are in graphics support, > > where various bitblt's and other highly parameterized, highly loopy code > > process a lot of data. > > So, locking the stack against execution would slow graphics applications? > Maybe someone should let Intel know, since they are having a hard time > convincing consumers that 2 GHz > 1 GHz. It is pathetic how audio > applications have been ignored. Swaying my opinion would require a > different example. > > > Putting the temporary buffer on the stack is *good* > > design, not bad - using a static buffer requires unnecesary locking, and > > allocating with malloc() means handling the possibility of an "out of > > memory" in a sensitive part of the system.... > > On the contrary, there is nothing wrong with a seperate code stack in its > own segment. > > Cheers, > James Jim Gettys Technology and Corporate Development Compaq Computer Corporation jg at pa.dec.com From keqinli at lucent.com Tue Aug 7 01:19:46 2001 From: keqinli at lucent.com (Li, Ke Qin (Peter)) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:19:46 +0800 Subject: [ih] OSPF convergence Message-ID: <31C0F08B0D18D511ACC800508BAE7B47031D27@CI0026EXCH001U> Hi, I want to know: When, how, and by whom was the convergency of the OSPF protocol proved. Thank you. Li, Keqin (Peter) Bell Labs Research China Tel: 86 10 6874 8088x8438 Fax: 86 10 6874 8225 Email: keqinli at lucent.com From jnc at ginger.lcs.mit.edu Thu Aug 9 00:57:41 2001 From: jnc at ginger.lcs.mit.edu (J. Noel Chiappa) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 03:57:41 -0400 Subject: [ih] OSPF convergence Message-ID: <200108090757.DAA02523@ginger.lcs.mit.edu> > From: "Li, Ke Qin (Peter)" > I want to know: When, how, and by whom was the convergency of the OSPF > protocol proved. I'm not sure anyone has proved it for OSPF in particular. As you probably know, OSPF is an example of a broad class of algorithms called "link state", originally invented by John McQuillan (then of BBN), and it's possible that someone (either John, in his PhD thesis [which used to be available from the NTIS], or perhaps some other LS effort, like IS-IS) has proved that it converges. I'm not sure that anyone has bothered though, because proving converge is much less interesting (to most routing experts) than understanding the stabilization response curve (i.e. with %-age of cases along one axis, and stabilization time along another). I think that's probably too complex to do as a closed-form thing (and in any case it can be dependent on the actualy topology). So there has been a lot of simulation to compare LS algorithms with other kinds of routing algorithm - which had the side-effect of indicating good convergence properties for LS algorithms. I'm not sure who all has done such work; the I recall the most about was by Jose Garcia-Luna at SRI. Noel From Ivan.Arias-Rodriguez at nokia.com Tue Aug 14 09:06:05 2001 From: Ivan.Arias-Rodriguez at nokia.com (Ivan.Arias-Rodriguez at nokia.com) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:06:05 +0300 Subject: [ih] Simple question Message-ID: Hi all there! This is probably the simplest question related with Internet history you will ever receive. I have tried to look at the FAQ but it seems that this distribution list might be quite new... Anyway, the question is related to TCP origin. Actually I have several related questions: - When TCP started to be designed? - When its design was finished? - When its first implementation was available? - When it was really used in Internet? I don't need such a precise answer, with the year would be enough (if you have the month and even the day, it would be great). The point is that, ok, the RFCs of TCP, IP, ICMP and so on were written in September 1981, but what I have always thought is that Jon Postel made a nice compilation work, finally writing the RFC, but that TCP was used before than that date, even some years in advance... Am I wrong? What I have read about it seems to be incongruent... It would be also quite nice if somebody could answer those questions regarding IPv4 as well, instead of TCP. I hope somebody there can help me! Thanks! BR Iv?n Arias Rodr?guez From dragon at cs.utexas.edu Tue Aug 14 10:01:16 2001 From: dragon at cs.utexas.edu (Chris Edmondson-Yurkanan) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 12:01:16 -0500 Subject: [ih] Simple question Message-ID: <200108141701.MAA14839@neverland.cs.utexas.edu> Ivan, I am creating a repository of technical histories of various network architectures, including the origin of tcp and ip. Also, I have put online a few of the original documents as well. (Most of the design effort was documented as IENs, along with some memos, and INWG documents.) I call my project THINK Protocols (Technical Histories of the Internet and NetworK Protocols). At this point, I can only point you to the original docs that are online, courtesy of ACM SIGCOMM's funding, but check back with me in a few months for some of my group's collection and writings. I will announce it to the list when appropriate. http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/dragon/nph/digital_archive.html Thanks, Chris -- Chris Edmondson-Yurkanan I'm going to have a "YEAR of the dragon"+1 Computer Sciences, TAY2.124(C0500) My email addresses are: chris at cs.utexas.edu The University of Texas at Austin or dragon at cs.utexas.edu Austin, TX 78712-1188 URL: www.cs.utexas.edu/users/dragon/ +1 512 471 9546 fax: (471 8885) Office: TAY 4.136 (pls fedex to TAY 2.124) From craig at aland.bbn.com Wed Aug 15 03:20:30 2001 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 06:20:30 -0400 Subject: [ih] Simple question In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:06:05 +0300." Message-ID: <200108151020.f7FAKU337043@aland.bbn.com> In message , Iva n.Arias-Rodriguez at nokia.com writes: > - When TCP started to be designed? The first published paper was in May 1974 by Cerf and Kahn. TCP work obviously started before that time, and I've seen accounts of when Vint and Bob started their thinking, but don't have them handy. > - When its design was finished? I believe fairly close to when RFC 793 was written. > - When its first implementation was available? For which version? There were implementations in the late 1970s. I don't know which versions of TCP were implemented, but some were. Craig From rms46 at vlsm.org Thu Aug 16 03:52:15 2001 From: rms46 at vlsm.org (Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:52:15 +0700 Subject: [ih] Simple question References: <200108141701.MAA14839@neverland.cs.utexas.edu> Message-ID: <3B7BA5DF.82D0160C@vlsm.org> Chris Edmondson-Yurkanan wrote: > At this point, I can only point you to the original docs that are online, > courtesy of ACM SIGCOMM's funding, but check back with me in a few months > for some of my group's collection and writings. I will announce it to > the list when appropriate. > > http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/dragon/nph/digital_archive.html Suggestions (sorry, this is post is not directly related to history): - make sure that that URL last... forever... there are already too many dead URLs floating around. - perhaps ISOC or PCEN would like to host that archive on a permanent base? P.S. I myself do not use my employer address/URL/identifier anymore. regards, -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org - GET /default.ida?ZCZCNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN%u9090 From touch at ISI.EDU Sun Aug 19 22:49:36 2001 From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 22:49:36 -0700 Subject: [ih] Simple question References: <200108141701.MAA14839@neverland.cs.utexas.edu> <3B7BA5DF.82D0160C@vlsm.org> Message-ID: <3B80A4F0.4D203308@isi.edu> "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" wrote: > > Chris Edmondson-Yurkanan wrote: > > > At this point, I can only point you to the original docs that are online, > > courtesy of ACM SIGCOMM's funding, but check back with me in a few months > > for some of my group's collection and writings. I will announce it to > > the list when appropriate. > > > > http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/dragon/nph/digital_archive.html > > Suggestions (sorry, this is post is not directly related to > history): > > - make sure that that URL last... forever... there are > already too many dead URLs floating around. > - perhaps ISOC or PCEN would like to host that archive on a > permanent base? Hosting the archive at PCEN is feasible (if desired), but I'm not clear on why it would necessarily be more persistent there than at UTexas (UT's been around longer than PCEN :-) All URLs are unfortunately not persistent. The only way I know around this is to archive a CDROM of the data with a librarian, hopefully one who, in 20 years, will copy to whatever media replaces CDROMs (anyone have an 8" floppy? or 5.25"?) Joe From Ivan.Arias-Rodriguez at nokia.com Mon Aug 20 01:44:28 2001 From: Ivan.Arias-Rodriguez at nokia.com (Ivan.Arias-Rodriguez at nokia.com) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 11:44:28 +0300 Subject: [ih] Simple question Message-ID: Hi guys! I have been quite busy and out of the office for a little while, so I almost forgot to thank you about the information... Thanks! BR Iv?n Arias Rodr?guez > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Joe Touch [mailto:touch at ISI.EDU] > Sent: 20. August 2001 8:50 > To: Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim > Cc: Chris Edmondson-Yurkanan; internet-history at postel.org > Subject: Re: [ih] Simple question > > > > > "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" wrote: > > > > Chris Edmondson-Yurkanan wrote: > > > > > At this point, I can only point you to the original docs > that are online, > > > courtesy of ACM SIGCOMM's funding, but check back with me > in a few months > > > for some of my group's collection and writings. I will > announce it to > > > the list when appropriate. > > > > > > http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/dragon/nph/digital_archive.html > > > > Suggestions (sorry, this is post is not directly related to > > history): > > > > - make sure that that URL last... forever... there are > > already too many dead URLs floating around. > > - perhaps ISOC or PCEN would like to host that archive on a > > permanent base? > > Hosting the archive at PCEN is feasible (if desired), > but I'm not clear on why it would necessarily be more persistent > there than at UTexas (UT's been around longer than PCEN :-) > > All URLs are unfortunately not persistent. The only way I know > around this is to archive a CDROM of the data with a librarian, > hopefully one who, in 20 years, will copy to whatever media replaces > CDROMs (anyone have an 8" floppy? or 5.25"?) > > Joe > From rms46 at vlsm.org Mon Aug 20 02:01:39 2001 From: rms46 at vlsm.org (Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 16:01:39 +0700 Subject: [ih] Simple question References: <200108141701.MAA14839@neverland.cs.utexas.edu> <3B7BA5DF.82D0160C@vlsm.org> <3B80A4F0.4D203308@isi.edu> Message-ID: <3B80D1F3.C7D0662@vlsm.org> Joe Touch wrote: >>> http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/dragon/nph/digital_archive.html >> - make sure that that URL last... forever... there are >> already too many dead URLs floating around. >> - perhaps ISOC or PCEN would like to host that archive on a >> permanent base? > Hosting the archive at PCEN is feasible (if desired), > but I'm not clear on why it would necessarily be more persistent > there than at UTexas (UT's been around longer than PCEN :-) Although UT's been around longer than PCEN, it does not always mean that they are going to keep and maintain that URL. Yet another example. Suppose someone (actually myself :^) is (was) interested in what was going on in Boston 1992. Thus, he put a bookmark to http://info.internet.isi.edu/IAB/IABmins.910108.Arch and/ or a webpage that points to that URL. But kaboooom, somehow that page has been moved without notice to ftp://ftp.iab.org/in-notes/IAB/IABmins/IABmins.910108.Arch and who knows where that page will be the year after. > All URLs are unfortunately not persistent. Sure, but at least the URL address would be more stable if there is a commitment to make it so from the beginning. > (anyone have an 8" floppy? or 5.25"?) Yup, there were a 68k Dual 83/20 and the early version of Data General "Eagle" MV/8000 with 8" floppies. And not mention Digital's RL-02 saucers. Whoops, this is not related to Internet History :-). But, I still have no idea on since when and why exactly there exists "a 6 months expire limit" for Internet Drafts. Perhaps it is related with the disk capacities in the 1980s? regards, -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org - GET /default.ida?ZCZCNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN%u9090 From faber at ISI.EDU Mon Aug 20 17:26:09 2001 From: faber at ISI.EDU (Ted Faber) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 17:26:09 -0700 Subject: [ih] Simple question In-Reply-To: <3B80D1F3.C7D0662@vlsm.org>; from rms46@vlsm.org on Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 04:01:39PM +0700 References: <200108141701.MAA14839@neverland.cs.utexas.edu> <3B7BA5DF.82D0160C@vlsm.org> <3B80A4F0.4D203308@isi.edu> <3B80D1F3.C7D0662@vlsm.org> Message-ID: <20010820172608.N3970@ted.isi.edu> On Mon, Aug 20, 2001 at 04:01:39PM +0700, Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim wrote: > But, I still have no idea on since when and why exactly > there exists "a 6 months expire limit" for Internet Drafts. This requirement exists (in part) to avoid the problem you started out by bringing up. An ID lasts at most 6 months to discourage people from referencing them. The writers are explicitly freed from any concerns related to keeping them available because they're defined to be ephemeral. They're less citable than e-mail. To my (limited) knowledge, this type of document is unique to (or at least originated in) the Internet community. Can anyone confirm, deny or add any background? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 230 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rms46 at vlsm.org Mon Aug 20 20:45:22 2001 From: rms46 at vlsm.org (Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 10:45:22 +0700 Subject: [ih] Internet Draft: when and why exactly 6 months? References: <200108141701.MAA14839@neverland.cs.utexas.edu> <3B7BA5DF.82D0160C@vlsm.org> <3B80A4F0.4D203308@isi.edu> <3B80D1F3.C7D0662@vlsm.org> <20010820172608.N3970@ted.isi.edu> Message-ID: <3B81D952.AD0C6DD2@vlsm.org> I wrote before: > But, I still have no idea on since when and why exactly > there exists "a 6 months expire limit" for Internet Drafts. Well, I still have no idea on "when" and "why" EXACTLY there exist a six month expire limit. The earliest artifact that I could find is RFC-1310 section 2.4 (March 1992): "An Internet Draft that is published as an RFC is removed from the Internet Draft directory. A document that has remained unchanged in the Internet Drafts directory for more than six months without being recommended by the IESG for publication as an RFC is simply removed from the Internet Draft directory. At any time, an Internet Draft may be replace by a more recent version of the same specification, restarting the six-month timeout period." However, it does not say anything about when and why 6 months. Why not 5 or 9 months (ca. 1 or 2 IETF meeting intervals)? BTW, * I consider anything before mid 1990s (when .com < .others) as internet pre-history. * There are some (many?) "recycled expired I-Ds" that become RFC after reincarnation. Example: BCP-1. regards, -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org - GET /default.ida?ZCZCNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN%u9090 From Ivan.Arias-Rodriguez at nokia.com Tue Aug 21 02:16:07 2001 From: Ivan.Arias-Rodriguez at nokia.com (Ivan.Arias-Rodriguez at nokia.com) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 12:16:07 +0300 Subject: [ih] Internet Draft: when and why exactly 6 months? Message-ID: Just in case you would like to access almost any old internet draft written within the last 10 years or so, go to http://www.watersprings.org, it is really an amazing webpage... They have more than 18200 documents all together (about 15000 drafts and 3000 RFCs)... Unfortunately, I didn't find the early drafts of 1310... :-( But you can find there even the previous releases of RFC 1264 (October 1991) and the drafts that finished being lots of the RFCs in the 13XX-14XX range... Of course, the newer the RFC is, the more possibilities of finding there the drafts you have... Well, I have just checked that previous draft of RFC 1264 and it contains only the mail sent to tell about the existence of a new RFC... :-/ Maybe the one in charge of the webpage could put a link to this page... if you don't have it yet... Of course, the URL wouldn't last forever... ;-) BR Iv?n Arias Rodr?guez > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim [mailto:rms46 at vlsm.org] > Sent: 21. August 2001 6:45 > To: internet-history at postel.org > Subject: [ih] Internet Draft: when and why exactly 6 months? > > > I wrote before: > > But, I still have no idea on since when and why exactly > > there exists "a 6 months expire limit" for Internet Drafts. > > Well, I still have no idea on "when" and "why" EXACTLY > there exist a six month expire limit. The earliest > artifact that I could find is RFC-1310 section 2.4 > (March 1992): > "An Internet Draft that is published as an RFC is removed > from the Internet Draft directory. A document that has > remained unchanged in the Internet Drafts directory for > more than six months without being recommended by the > IESG for publication as an RFC is simply removed from > the Internet Draft directory. At any time, an Internet > Draft may be replace by a more recent version of the same > specification, restarting the six-month timeout period." > However, it does not say anything about when and why > 6 months. Why not 5 or 9 months (ca. 1 or 2 IETF meeting > intervals)? > > BTW, > * I consider anything before mid 1990s (when .com < .others) > as internet pre-history. > * There are some (many?) "recycled expired I-Ds" that become > RFC after reincarnation. Example: BCP-1. > > regards, > > -- > Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org > - GET /default.ida?ZCZCNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN%u9090 > From craig at aland.bbn.com Tue Aug 21 04:43:15 2001 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 07:43:15 -0400 Subject: [ih] Internet Draft: when and why exactly 6 months? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 21 Aug 2001 10:45:22 +0700." <3B81D952.AD0C6DD2@vlsm.org> Message-ID: <200108211143.f7LBhF368249@aland.bbn.com> I was involved in creating the 6 month expire rule was created, but I don't remember any of the details. I know that the expiration was created to encourage working groups to make progress (by making IDs ephemeral, you had to either move forward, or have the ID die and, potentially, the WG terminate). As to why 6 months, I don't know. Craig In message <3B81D952.AD0C6DD2 at vlsm.org>, "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" writes: >I wrote before: >> But, I still have no idea on since when and why exactly >> there exists "a 6 months expire limit" for Internet Drafts. > >Well, I still have no idea on "when" and "why" EXACTLY >there exist a six month expire limit. The earliest >artifact that I could find is RFC-1310 section 2.4 >(March 1992): > "An Internet Draft that is published as an RFC is removed > from the Internet Draft directory. A document that has > remained unchanged in the Internet Drafts directory for > more than six months without being recommended by the > IESG for publication as an RFC is simply removed from > the Internet Draft directory. At any time, an Internet > Draft may be replace by a more recent version of the same > specification, restarting the six-month timeout period." >However, it does not say anything about when and why >6 months. Why not 5 or 9 months (ca. 1 or 2 IETF meeting >intervals)? > >BTW, >* I consider anything before mid 1990s (when .com < .others) > as internet pre-history. >* There are some (many?) "recycled expired I-Ds" that become > RFC after reincarnation. Example: BCP-1. > >regards, > >-- >Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org >- GET /default.ida?ZCZCNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN%u9090 > From rms46 at vlsm.org Tue Aug 21 05:47:21 2001 From: rms46 at vlsm.org (Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 19:47:21 +0700 Subject: [ih] Internet Draft: when and why exactly 6 months? References: <200108211143.f7LBhF368249@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: <3B825859.A8D4A6BB@vlsm.org> Craig Partridge wrote: > I was involved in creating the 6 month expire rule was created, but I don't > remember any of the details. I know that the expiration was created to > encourage working groups to make progress (by making IDs ephemeral, you had > to either move forward, or have the ID die and, potentially, the WG terminate). > As to why 6 months, I don't know. thanks... was it around 1990-1992, since you were the USV AD then? -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org - GET /default.ida?ZCZCNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN%u9090 From faber at ISI.EDU Tue Aug 21 09:18:28 2001 From: faber at ISI.EDU (Ted Faber) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 09:18:28 -0700 Subject: [ih] Simple question In-Reply-To: ; from l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk on Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 01:46:51AM +0100 References: <20010820172608.N3970@ted.isi.edu> Message-ID: <20010821091827.A18585@ted.isi.edu> On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 01:46:51AM +0100, Lloyd Wood wrote: > On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Ted Faber wrote: > > This requirement exists (in part) to avoid the problem you started out > > by bringing up. An ID lasts at most 6 months to discourage people > > from referencing them. > > The real problem with internet-drafts is that other internet-drafts > promptly reference them. This immediately makes a mockery of that > whole 'you can't cite me' thing by fatally undermining it. Well, bad references in an ephemeral document are an interesting case. Since the whole thing is a work in progress, it seems that bad references are less of a sin. As James 'Kibo' Parry once asked: "Can I go to Hell for falsely claiming to be the Anti-Pope?" I think it's reasonable that an ephemeral document's references can be incomplete, both philosophically and as a means of bounding the rfc-editor's workload. > > They're less citable than e-mail. > > no, because they're to an unlimited audience, whereas emails are to a > more restricted audience (of one, even) without any established public > temporary archival method at all. It's reasonable to cite e-mail that you have a copy of and can produce, the same way it's acceptable to cite an interview that only you have a tape of. It's never acceptable to cite an ID in a published work. Publically available sources are better, but it's quite reasonable to cite non-public sources, when no public source will do. > > To my (limited) knowledge, this type of document is unique to (or at > > least originated in) the Internet community. Can anyone confirm, deny > > or add any background? > > usenet posts expire (well, they used to....) Papers referencing usenet > posts by message-id are legion. mostly amongst sociologists discussing > usenet behaviour, but... Yeah, they expire, but again, one could archive them and cite them, which I assume is what the sociologists do. I also believe that the expiration data for news was a matter of conserving disk space, not of philospohically enforcing a time limit. Expiration times weren't uniform, for example. I think the better analogy is that the USENET exprration time is more like how long a newsstand keeps a magazine on the shelf. It can affect how easy it is to get the information in the first place, but once you have it, it's yours forever. > > and now everyone has that 'delete emails after 90 days' to avoid > subpoenas. Really? No one told me... (Hmmm, and now I'm on th epublic record that way.) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 230 bytes Desc: not available URL: From faber at ISI.EDU Tue Aug 21 09:40:57 2001 From: faber at ISI.EDU (Ted Faber) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 09:40:57 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet Draft: when and why exactly 6 months? In-Reply-To: <3B81D952.AD0C6DD2@vlsm.org>; from rms46@vlsm.org on Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 10:45:22AM +0700 References: <200108141701.MAA14839@neverland.cs.utexas.edu> <3B7BA5DF.82D0160C@vlsm.org> <3B80A4F0.4D203308@isi.edu> <3B80D1F3.C7D0662@vlsm.org> <20010820172608.N3970@ted.isi.edu> <3B81D952.AD0C6DD2@vlsm.org> Message-ID: <20010821094057.B18585@ted.isi.edu> On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 10:45:22AM +0700, Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim wrote: > However, it does not say anything about when and why > 6 months. Why not 5 or 9 months (ca. 1 or 2 IETF meeting > intervals)? I don't know why 6 months was picked (I suspect because it's big and round), but it is an upper bound on the life of an ID. If I write an ID on the history of IDs and decide I want to change it to a history of all IETF docs, I can do so at my whim. This paragraph in all IDs ( that I copied from http://ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt) describes their lifetime : Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. In other words, the *longest* that an ID can exist for is 6 months. > > BTW, > * I consider anything before mid 1990s (when .com < .others) > as internet pre-history. How nice to know I'm pre-historic. > * There are some (many?) "recycled expired I-Ds" that become > RFC after reincarnation. Example: BCP-1. It's certainly possible to have an idea that's before its time, write up an ID or 2 and have them expire for lack of interest. Then later events make the idea feasible, and the old text is recycled into an RFC. "Before its time" can be a technical or political phenomenon. I don't know what happened with the ID you mention, but that's one possibility. There are many others. IDs are very human artifacts. They can refelect an organized drive for consensus, or some whack-o's idea he had in the shower one morning. Ultimately, though they're the scribbled notes on the coctail napkins of Internet design, just formatted with troff. Don't look for too much more there. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 230 bytes Desc: not available URL: From touch at ISI.EDU Fri Aug 24 17:57:44 2001 From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 17:57:44 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet Draft: when and why exactly 6 months? References: Message-ID: <3B86F808.DC7DE926@isi.edu> Ivan.Arias-Rodriguez at nokia.com wrote: > > Just in case you would like to access almost any old internet draft > written within the last 10 years or so, go to http://www.watersprings.org, > it is really an amazing webpage... They have more than 18200 documents all > together (about 15000 drafts and 3000 RFCs)... FWIW, that web site is violating the copyright of the document, and in some cases the copyright of the author by serving such documents, notably those that predate RFCs 2026 and 1610 (March 1994). Beyond 3/1994, they may be violating the copyright of that material by the ISOC. Prior to those dates, there was no explicit transferral of copyright to the ISOC (in which case they remain with the author). Joe From touch at ISI.EDU Fri Aug 24 18:05:15 2001 From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:05:15 -0700 Subject: [ih] Simple question References: <20010820172608.N3970@ted.isi.edu> <20010821091827.A18585@ted.isi.edu> Message-ID: <3B86F9CB.BFE473F5@isi.edu> Ted Faber wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 01:46:51AM +0100, Lloyd Wood wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Ted Faber wrote: > > > > > > To my (limited) knowledge, this type of document is unique to (or at > > > least originated in) the Internet community. Can anyone confirm, deny > > > or add any background? > > > > usenet posts expire (well, they used to....) Papers referencing usenet > > posts by message-id are legion. mostly amongst sociologists discussing > > usenet behaviour, but... > > Yeah, they expire, but again, one could archive them and cite them, > which I assume is what the sociologists do. I also believe that the > expiration data for news was a matter of conserving disk space, not of > philospohically enforcing a time limit. Having been involved in this discussion in the past, one significant purpose had nothing to do with space. The free exchange of ideas sometimes requires that things be said that disappear; bad ideas that don't always come back to haunt the author. The idea of IDs was to allow that free exchange, without the threat of an archival record. The bad news is that some of the bad ideas later became good ideas which others patented (or are still patenting). An archive of IDs would be useful to provide a trail to invalidate such patents. However, note that IDs published prior to March 1994 did not include a copyright transfer, as required by RFC 1602. In the absence of such a transfer, copyright remains with the author. Archiving and serving those documents is a violation of the copyright of the author, IMO. Expiration times of IDs were very explicit; serving them past their explicit expiry is a violation of copyright, again, IMO. Prior to 1994, it is the author's copyright; after 3/1994, it is unclear whether it is ISOC's or if the copyright reverted to the author at expiry. Joe From faber at ISI.EDU Fri Aug 24 18:18:52 2001 From: faber at ISI.EDU (Ted Faber) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:18:52 -0700 Subject: [ih] Simple question In-Reply-To: <3B86F9CB.BFE473F5@isi.edu>; from touch@ISI.EDU on Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 06:05:15PM -0700 References: <20010820172608.N3970@ted.isi.edu> <20010821091827.A18585@ted.isi.edu> <3B86F9CB.BFE473F5@isi.edu> Message-ID: <20010824181852.A25682@ted.isi.edu> On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 06:05:15PM -0700, Joe Touch wrote: > Ted Faber wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 01:46:51AM +0100, Lloyd Wood wrote: > > > On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Ted Faber wrote: > > > > > > > > To my (limited) knowledge, this type of document is unique to (or at > > > > least originated in) the Internet community. Can anyone confirm, deny > > > > or add any background? > > > > > > usenet posts expire (well, they used to....) Papers referencing usenet > > > posts by message-id are legion. mostly amongst sociologists discussing > > > usenet behaviour, but... > > > > Yeah, they expire, but again, one could archive them and cite them, > > which I assume is what the sociologists do. I also believe that the > > expiration data for news was a matter of conserving disk space, not of > > philospohically enforcing a time limit. > > Having been involved in this discussion in the past, one significant > purpose had nothing to do with space. The free exchange of ideas > sometimes requires that things be said that disappear; bad ideas > that don't always come back to haunt the author. > > The idea of IDs was to allow that free exchange, without the > threat of an archival record. Understood. Should I assume you just quoted sloppily (you're following up my first message not my second) or were you joining the discussion about USENET posts. > > The bad news is that some of the bad ideas later became good > ideas which others patented (or are still patenting). An archive > of IDs would be useful to provide a trail to invalidate such > patents. What legal standing does an ID have in such a case? (I suspect it's untested, but I'd be interested to hear otherwise.) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 230 bytes Desc: not available URL: From touch at ISI.EDU Fri Aug 24 23:39:26 2001 From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 23:39:26 -0700 Subject: [ih] Simple question References: <20010820172608.N3970@ted.isi.edu> <20010821091827.A18585@ted.isi.edu> <3B86F9CB.BFE473F5@isi.edu> <20010824181852.A25682@ted.isi.edu> Message-ID: <3B87481E.35A78BF2@isi.edu> Ted Faber wrote: > > > The idea of IDs was to allow that free exchange, without the > > threat of an archival record. > > Understood. Should I assume you just quoted sloppily (you're > following up my first message not my second) or were you joining the > discussion about USENET posts. USENET posts. Joe From rms46 at vlsm.org Sun Aug 26 22:04:22 2001 From: rms46 at vlsm.org (Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:04:22 +0700 Subject: [ih] Copyright Violation Claim References: <3B86F808.DC7DE926@isi.edu> Message-ID: <3B89D4D6.8D04B5F5@vlsm.org> >> Just in case you would like to access almost any old internet draft >> written within the last 10 years or so, go to http://www.watersprings.org, >> it is really an amazing webpage... They have more than 18200 documents all >> together (about 15000 drafts and 3000 RFCs)... > > FWIW, that web site is violating the copyright of the document, > and in some cases the copyright of the author by serving such > documents, notably those that predate RFCs 2026 and 1610 (March 1994). > Beyond 3/1994, they may be violating the copyright of that material > by the ISOC. > > Prior to those dates, there was no explicit transferral of > copyright to the ISOC (in which case they remain with the author). Perhaps this should be taken to Hale dan Dorr through Poisson. - who is claiming copyright violation? - what copyright is violated? >From an I-D: Status: RO > Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six > months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other > documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts > as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." If keeping an I-D six months after is illegal, then why not state it so? PS: - GFDL is better, right? regards, -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org . From rms46 at vlsm.org Sun Aug 26 22:04:22 2001 From: rms46 at vlsm.org (Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:04:22 +0700 Subject: [ih] Copyright Violation Claim References: <3B86F808.DC7DE926@isi.edu> Message-ID: <3B89D4D6.8D04B5F5@vlsm.org> >> Just in case you would like to access almost any old internet draft >> written within the last 10 years or so, go to http://www.watersprings.org, >> it is really an amazing webpage... They have more than 18200 documents all >> together (about 15000 drafts and 3000 RFCs)... > > FWIW, that web site is violating the copyright of the document, > and in some cases the copyright of the author by serving such > documents, notably those that predate RFCs 2026 and 1610 (March 1994). > Beyond 3/1994, they may be violating the copyright of that material > by the ISOC. > > Prior to those dates, there was no explicit transferral of > copyright to the ISOC (in which case they remain with the author). Perhaps this should be taken to Hale dan Dorr through Poisson. - who is claiming copyright violation? - what copyright is violated? >From an I-D: Status: RO > Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six > months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other > documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts > as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." If keeping an I-D six months after is illegal, then why not state it so? PS: - GFDL is better, right? regards, -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org . From ole at cisco.com Tue Aug 28 19:50:44 2001 From: ole at cisco.com (Ole J. Jacobsen) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 19:50:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ih] Re: Copyright Violation Claim In-Reply-To: <3B89D4D6.8D04B5F5@vlsm.org> Message-ID: The issue of copyright on RFCs and I-Ds comes up over and over and over again on this list. Would you please read past postings on this topic. It has been pointed out MANY times that there are specific reasons why the copyright statements are the way they are. The statements have nothing whatsoever to do do with "ownership" of the documents in the traditional copyright sense. This applies to all RFCs regardless of publication date. All of these documents are "public" and "distribution of this memo is unlimited". The copyright statements are in place to prevent people from MODIFYING documents and claiming the modified docs have the same status as the original. Do we really have to discuss this yet one more time?? Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher The Internet Protocol Journal Office of the CTO, Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 GSM: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: ole at cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj