From rms46 at vlsm.org Fri Oct 12 01:58:13 2001 From: rms46 at vlsm.org (Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 15:58:13 +0700 Subject: [ih] IETF as a Pentagon thing Message-ID: <3BC6B0A5.455D98E6@vlsm.org> Hello: I am just curious about the transition of IETF to become an "independent entity" from the USG, especially Pentagon. As in 1988, in a thread discussing "Running out of Internet addresses?", Vint Cerf (ISI) "informed" Jon Postel (ISI) that: "I sure hope so - several IETF working groups are addressing aspects of this problem. It is conceivable that a restructuring of the Class C address space, combined with an area routing strategy might relieve some of the scaling problems. I don't want to second guess the IETF teams, though." How/what was the IETF in 1988? Hans-Werner Braun wrote in 1992, "[...] I remember that I (and may be others) had a bit of a hard time to convince the IETF to allow the NSFNET constituents to be represented. It finally resulted in a small group of people meeting with Mike Corrigan in the Pentagon to discuss the issue to allow for the broadening of the INENG/IETF. [...]" It is not clear when, but I guess it was around 1986-1988. regards, -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org -- Yuk santap MieKocok XP bersama... OSLinux /bin/LaTeX -- From jtk at depaul.edu Wed Oct 24 10:59:17 2001 From: jtk at depaul.edu (John Kristoff) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 12:59:17 -0500 Subject: [ih] IP/TCP to TCP/IP Message-ID: <3BD70175.DE4F5A36@depaul.edu> Everyone now knows the suite of Internet protocols as TCP/IP, but a few of the early Internet documents I've seen have them documented as IP/TCP. Did they purposely get reversed? If so, why? Was it just a matter of personal preference and TCP/IP won out? John From jtk at depaul.edu Wed Oct 24 15:21:45 2001 From: jtk at depaul.edu (John Kristoff) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:21:45 -0500 Subject: [ih] IP/TCP to TCP/IP References: <5.0.2.1.2.20011024151410.00a4dae0@MailSys.Commerco.Com> Message-ID: <3BD73EF9.4246B3AB@depaul.edu> Alan, I hope you don't mind me following up to the list. I noticed it today when I was reviewing an older paper: Development of the Domain Name System Paul Mockapetris, Kevin J. Dunlap, ACM SIGCOMM 1988 When I saw it, I was curious, because I know I've seen it before and assumed that was how it was originally written. Perhaps its not as prevelant as I thought. I did a quick search and although TCP/IP seems to be at least as common if not more so even early on, it does turn up in: RFC 896, Congestion Control in IP/TCP Networks J. Nagle, 1984 NSL Technical Note TN-2 Using screend to Implement IP/TCP Security Policies J. Mogul, 1991 And most interestingly: http://www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk/multimedia/misc/tcp_ip/8502.mm.www/0144.html I wonder if it was a 'purist' thing not unlike the proper pronouniation of router. John "Alan J. Maitland" wrote: > I suppose the first time I even heard the term TCP/IP was around 1980, then > represented as an up and coming replacement for ARPANet. I don't believe > that I ever heard it expressed as IP/TCP. By the time I received any > formal training on networking, it was 1984/1985 and TCP/IP was expressed in > that way then. Which docs are you referring to? > > Perhaps it was just for emphasis of the Transport Control Protocol part in > anticipation that other protocols might fall on the other side of the '/'. > > I believe that I had read that some of the early developers of the DNS > service bemoaned the decision to go x.y.com vs com.y.x as the standard for > name hierarchy. Of course, my company uses the hierarchy to attempt to > logically order its portals, so I suppose that I am grateful for the > current system - I don't think that Net.Clothing.Mens look as good as > Mens.Clothing.Net ;-) > > On the other hand, sometimes things just happen. The decision to name the > company Hewlett-Packard verses Packard-Hewlett was decided on the toss of a > quarter by its founders! > > Best, > > Alan Maitland > The Commerce Company - Connect Your Dot(sm) > http://WWW.Commerco.Com/ > > At 12:59 PM 10/24/01 -0500, you wrote: > >Everyone now knows the suite of Internet protocols as TCP/IP, but a few > >of the early Internet documents I've seen have them documented as > >IP/TCP. Did they purposely get reversed? If so, why? Was it just a > >matter of personal preference and TCP/IP won out? > > > >John From dpreed at reed.com Wed Oct 24 17:35:11 2001 From: dpreed at reed.com (David P. Reed) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:35:11 -0400 Subject: [ih] IP/TCP to TCP/IP In-Reply-To: <3BD73EF9.4246B3AB@depaul.edu> References: <5.0.2.1.2.20011024151410.00a4dae0@MailSys.Commerco.Com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20011024202848.038b6698@mail.reed.com> Well, when we split TCP into TCP and IP, we thought of them as distinct. I've always thought of TCP/IP as an odd moniker. If it really meant "TCP over IP" it would not include IP alone, or UDP or RTP. And if it meant "TCP or IP" (like he/she) then it wouldn't be parallel - you'd expect TCP/UDP/RTP/ICMP to be the name. And if you wanted an all-encompassing name, you'd use "Internet Protocols". My bet is some marketing dude for operating systems at some point started including TCP and IP on checklists of features supported. It would be natural at that point to use an acronym he/she saw on a lot of whiteboards without spending the time to understand semantic distinctions. At 05:21 PM 10/24/2001 -0500, John Kristoff wrote: >Alan, I hope you don't mind me following up to the list. > >I noticed it today when I was reviewing an older paper: > >Development of the Domain Name System >Paul Mockapetris, Kevin J. Dunlap, ACM SIGCOMM 1988 > >When I saw it, I was curious, because I know I've seen it before and >assumed that was how it was originally written. Perhaps its not as >prevelant as I thought. I did a quick search and although TCP/IP seems >to be at least as common if not more so even early on, it does turn up >in: > >RFC 896, Congestion Control in IP/TCP Networks >J. Nagle, 1984 > >NSL Technical Note TN-2 >Using screend to Implement IP/TCP Security Policies >J. Mogul, 1991 > >And most interestingly: > >http://www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk/multimedia/misc/tcp_ip/8502.mm.www/0144.html > >I wonder if it was a 'purist' thing not unlike the proper pronouniation >of router. > >John > > >"Alan J. Maitland" wrote: > > I suppose the first time I even heard the term TCP/IP was around 1980, then > > represented as an up and coming replacement for ARPANet. I don't believe > > that I ever heard it expressed as IP/TCP. By the time I received any > > formal training on networking, it was 1984/1985 and TCP/IP was expressed in > > that way then. Which docs are you referring to? > > > > Perhaps it was just for emphasis of the Transport Control Protocol part in > > anticipation that other protocols might fall on the other side of the '/'. > > > > I believe that I had read that some of the early developers of the DNS > > service bemoaned the decision to go x.y.com vs com.y.x as the standard for > > name hierarchy. Of course, my company uses the hierarchy to attempt to > > logically order its portals, so I suppose that I am grateful for the > > current system - I don't think that Net.Clothing.Mens look as good as > > Mens.Clothing.Net ;-) > > > > On the other hand, sometimes things just happen. The decision to name the > > company Hewlett-Packard verses Packard-Hewlett was decided on the toss of a > > quarter by its founders! > > > > Best, > > > > Alan Maitland > > The Commerce Company - Connect Your Dot(sm) > > http://WWW.Commerco.Com/ > > > > At 12:59 PM 10/24/01 -0500, you wrote: > > >Everyone now knows the suite of Internet protocols as TCP/IP, but a few > > >of the early Internet documents I've seen have them documented as > > >IP/TCP. Did they purposely get reversed? If so, why? Was it just a > > >matter of personal preference and TCP/IP won out? > > > > > >John From rogers at ISI.EDU Thu Oct 25 11:13:07 2001 From: rogers at ISI.EDU (Craig Milo Rogers) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 11:13:07 -0700 Subject: [ih] IP/TCP to TCP/IP In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 Oct 2001 12:59:17 CDT." <3BD70175.DE4F5A36@depaul.edu> Message-ID: <14736.1004033587@ISI.EDU> >Everyone now knows the suite of Internet protocols as TCP/IP, but a few >of the early Internet documents I've seen have them documented as >IP/TCP. Did they purposely get reversed? If so, why? Was it just a >matter of personal preference and TCP/IP won out? I just tripped over the loose hanging threads of my memory on this one recently. Here's what I remember, based on a conversation with Jon Postel about 20 years ago: 1) Originally, TCP and IP were a single protocol level, called TCP. 2) Internet developers named protocol stacks starting (left-to-right) at the lowest protocol level: IP/TCP, IP/TCP/FTP, IP/UDP, IP/UDP/TFTP, etc., since the processing of incoming packets proceeds from the lowest level to the highest level in most implementations. It's interesting to note that the processing of incoming packets is considered more important than the construction of outgoing paclets. 3) "Press" articles put the TCP first, because the TCP name was more recognizable: TCP/IP, UDP/IP It's worth noting that, given that we read from left to right, and given that "/" can be interpreted as "over", such as in fractions, "TCP/IP" reads "TCP over IP", which is reasonably mnemonic. By and large, "TCP/IP" won out in general usage. However, technical projects, such as Active Networking, still represents protocol stacks from the bottom up, such as IF/IPv4/TCP ("IF" being the physical interface layer). Craig Milo Rogers From craig at aland.bbn.com Mon Oct 29 08:43:34 2001 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 11:43:34 -0500 Subject: [ih] IETF as a Pentagon thing In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 12 Oct 2001 15:58:13 +0700." <3BC6B0A5.455D98E6@vlsm.org> Message-ID: <200110291643.f9TGhcq33928@aland.bbn.com> If I remember my history right (and it has been a while), the IETF was a spinoff of the INARCH task force (chaired by Dave Mills of UDEL), and the fact that IETF had as its first chair someone from the military did *not* mean IETF was run by the Pentagon. What was more interesting was that when the NSFNET community needed a forum in which to discuss engineering aspects of IP networks, the IETF (which, like all Internet task forces at the time was a closed group) decided to open its doors to all comers. That happened sometime in 1987 as I recall (before the IETF meeting @ NASA Ames in Mountain View). At about the same time, Corrigan stepped down and Phill Gross became IETF chair. Craig In message <3BC6B0A5.455D98E6 at vlsm.org>, "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" writes: >Hello: > >I am just curious about the transition of IETF to become >an "independent entity" from the USG, especially Pentagon. > >As in 1988, in a thread discussing "Running out of Internet >addresses?", Vint Cerf (ISI) "informed" Jon Postel (ISI) >that: > "I sure hope so - several IETF working groups are > addressing aspects of this problem. It is conceivable > that a restructuring of the Class C address space, > combined with an area routing strategy might relieve > some of the scaling problems. I don't want to second > guess the IETF teams, though." >How/what was the IETF in 1988? > >Hans-Werner Braun wrote in 1992, > "[...] I remember that I (and may be others) had a bit > of a hard time to convince the IETF to allow the NSFNET > constituents to be represented. It finally resulted > in a small group of people meeting with Mike Corrigan > in the Pentagon to discuss the issue to allow for the > broadening of the INENG/IETF. [...]" > >It is not clear when, but I guess it was around 1986-1988. > > >regards, > >-- >Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org >-- Yuk santap MieKocok XP bersama... OSLinux /bin/LaTeX -- > From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Mon Oct 29 17:38:33 2001 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 17:38:33 -0800 Subject: [ih] IETF as a Pentagon thing In-Reply-To: <200110291643.f9TGhcq33928@aland.bbn.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20011029173309.0355b008@dcrocker.net> At 11:43 AM 10/29/2001 -0500, Craig Partridge wrote: >What was more interesting was that when the NSFNET community needed a >forum in which to discuss engineering aspects of IP networks, the IETF >(which, like all Internet task forces at the time was a closed group) >decided to open its doors to all comers. That happened sometime in 1987 For what it is worth: The IETF, itself, was definitely not wide open until 1987. In 1987, I was working for Ungermann-Bass and we were developing a PC card with TCP/IP on it. I asked to attend an IETF meeting and that caused an uproar, since I was "commercial". The only commercial companies in the community, up to that point, had an ARPA (or at least US government) contractual relationship. Ungermann-Bass did not. The debate ensued for awhile, until Bob Braden spoke up and pointed out that I had been around the community for a long time. That seemed to stop further debate. However the effect of letting me in was, of course, to let any and all other commercial vendors in. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 From hwb at nlanr.net Tue Oct 30 06:45:56 2001 From: hwb at nlanr.net (Hans-Werner Braun) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 06:45:56 -0800 Subject: Forwarded-> [craig@aland.bbn.com: Re: [ih] IETF as a Pentagon thing] Message-ID: <20011030064556.08682@nlanr.net> I am not on any of these lists, someone forwarded that to me. The below is not quite correct. Dave Mills chaired the GADS (Gateways and Data Structures Task Force). The INENG (engineering) and INARC (architecture) task forces were spinoffs of the GADS. INENG was lateron renamed to IETF. Mike Corrigan was the first engineering task force chair. I think Phil Gross was his assistant, and lateron became the task force chair. Dave Mills ran the architecture task force. What was more interesting was that when the NSFNET community needed a forum in which to discuss engineering aspects of IP networks, the IETF (which, like all Internet task forces at the time was a closed group) decided to open its doors to all comers. That is not correct. We had own fora and could have easily created more. I was under the gun from NSF to leverage more between the ARPAnet and NSFNET, as the ARPAnet was still considered critical Internet infrastructure then. Among them was tight interconnections (instead of just connecting to IMPs I wanted to connect to the mailbridges, as that seemed architecturally better (and I did not want the NSFNET have to buffer all the packets that IMP inflow control kept outside when the ARPAnet was highly congested (I remember 75 second round trip delay on occasion), hence the discussions with Milo Medin (then NASA), and Mike St.Johns (then DCA or whatever it was called back then), and later either Tony Hain or Jim Leighton (both then DOE/LLNL) in what resulted in the FEBAs, which then DoD insisted to rename to FIX, which then were followed up by CIX, NAP, and other critters like that). Among them was also more interactions with the then existing Internet Establishment (IAB and its task forces). That resulted in my organizing the Pentagon meeting to get Mike Corrigan to agree to open the engineering task force to NSFNET people. Mike agreed. Mike St.Johns was at the meeting, as was Scott Brim (then Cornell/NSFNET). I do not recall whether Phil Gross was at that meeting, but he may well have been. Over time it turned out that the IETF was a great facilitator to the evolution of the Internet, including the NSFNET component (though I do remember cases were it made things much worse (e.g., BGP, CIDR), but I guess that happens with consensus based standardization groups). ----- Forwarded message from Craig Partridge ----- To: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" cc: MILIS Internet History Subject: Re: [ih] IETF as a Pentagon thing From: Craig Partridge Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 11:43:34 -0500 If I remember my history right (and it has been a while), the IETF was a spinoff of the INARCH task force (chaired by Dave Mills of UDEL), and the fact that IETF had as its first chair someone from the military did *not* mean IETF was run by the Pentagon. What was more interesting was that when the NSFNET community needed a forum in which to discuss engineering aspects of IP networks, the IETF (which, like all Internet task forces at the time was a closed group) decided to open its doors to all comers. That happened sometime in 1987 as I recall (before the IETF meeting @ NASA Ames in Mountain View). At about the same time, Corrigan stepped down and Phill Gross became IETF chair. Craig In message <3BC6B0A5.455D98E6 at vlsm.org>, "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" writes: >Hello: > >I am just curious about the transition of IETF to become >an "independent entity" from the USG, especially Pentagon. > >As in 1988, in a thread discussing "Running out of Internet >addresses?", Vint Cerf (ISI) "informed" Jon Postel (ISI) >that: > "I sure hope so - several IETF working groups are > addressing aspects of this problem. It is conceivable > that a restructuring of the Class C address space, > combined with an area routing strategy might relieve > some of the scaling problems. I don't want to second > guess the IETF teams, though." >How/what was the IETF in 1988? > >Hans-Werner Braun wrote in 1992, > "[...] I remember that I (and may be others) had a bit > of a hard time to convince the IETF to allow the NSFNET > constituents to be represented. It finally resulted > in a small group of people meeting with Mike Corrigan > in the Pentagon to discuss the issue to allow for the > broadening of the INENG/IETF. [...]" > >It is not clear when, but I guess it was around 1986-1988. > > >regards, > >-- >Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org >-- Yuk santap MieKocok XP bersama... OSLinux /bin/LaTeX -- > -----End of forwarded message----- From mills at mail.eecis.udel.edu Tue Oct 30 09:23:36 2001 From: mills at mail.eecis.udel.edu (Dave Mills) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 12:23:36 EST Subject: Forwarded-> [craig@aland.bbn.com: Re: [ih] IETF as a Pentagon thing] Message-ID: <200110301223.aa23315@eecis.udel.edu> H-W, You are right in that our Palo Alto meeting created the INENG, later evolved to the IETF. There was also the NSF Technical Advisory Group (NTAG), of which I was a member until we had to shut it down circa 1986 due sunshine rules. I remember a NTAG meeting at NSF discussing the use of ARPAnet infrastructure to support the initial NSFnet. I remember that NSF was unhappy with the speed that ARPAnet connections could be turned up for NSF constituents. I also remember a stipulation that was written into the MOU that (1) Russian researchers would not be allowed access to NSF funded supercomputer sites and (2) a mechanism would be created to satisfy OMB requirements for charging other agencies for network use. I thought that bit of historic delight might amuse you. After that came the NSF Phase-I backbone 86-88. On that timeline I make the GADS -> INENG/INARC sometime 83-84. Betcha Bob Braden has all the documentation. All my archives are on 8" (sic) DSDD floppy disks with no living drive to read them. Dave