From braden at ISI.EDU  Fri Sep  6 10:30:52 2002
From: braden at ISI.EDU (Bob Braden)
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 17:30:52 GMT
Subject: [ih] Re: Common Questions, RFC-compliant Architecture
Message-ID: <200209061730.RAA08837@gra.isi.edu>

----- Begin Included Message -----

>From braden at ISI.EDU  Fri Sep  6 09:47:44 2002
From: Bob Braden <braden at ISI.EDU>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 16:47:40 GMT
To: ietf at ietf.org, Brian.Bisaillon at mbs.gov.on.ca
Subject: Re: Common Questions, RFC-compliant Architecture
Cc: braden at ISI.EDU
X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1

Brian,

You asked:

  *> 
  *> Hello,
  *> 
  *> Has the IETF ever created an RFC to aid organizations with what standards are absolutely mandatory in terms of interoperability and what other standards are optional?
  *> 

Yes.  Here is some history.

In 1988, at the request of DARPA, the [original incarnation of the] IAB
asked the RFC editor Jon Postel to regularly publish a list of all
Internet protocols.  This list was first published in December 1988 as
RFC 1083, "IAB Official Protocol Standards".  If you search the RFC
index for "official protocol standards", you will find that it has been
republished 29 time since, although the title shifted at some point to
"Internet Official Protocol Standards."  The most current list is now
available in the RFC Editor web site at
www.rfc-editor.org/rfcxx00.html.

Jon Postel's Official Protocol Standards lists always included an
attribute called "Status", which is the "requirement level".  I
reproduce Jon's words at the end; always the Computer Scientist, Jon
loved precise specifications.

However, as Jon noted in the more recent documents, "The status or
requirement level is difficult to portray in a one word label.  These
status labels should be considered only as an indication, and a further
description, or applicability statement, should be consulted."  In
fact, it became increasingly clear over the years that applicability is
a very complex set of interrelationships.  Simple yes/no rules are
simply not useful (NOT EVEN to marketing types, and CERTAINLY not to
technical people.)   Interoperability issues are a LOT more complex
than this, and protocols are complex in general.  Protocols feel
no moral necessity to be simple in order to please CAOs or
CIOs; complexity is the nature of the beast.

If you glance at the Status field in RFC 2400, you will see that it is
really totally meaningless and probably misleading.  It was therefore
dropped from RFC2500 and succeeding versions of the Official Protocol
Standards.

When the IAB originally laid out the Internet standards process, it
recognized the category of RFCs called "applicability statements",
which are intended to define precisely what you ask for: "what
standards are absolutely mandatory in terms of interoperability and
what other standards are optional".  These documents would also
hopefully provide motivations and explanations to allow a technical
person to make mature judgments, but they would be limited to specific
protocol areas.  For example, RFCs 1122 and 1123 were applicability
statements for hosts and RFC 1812 for routers.  These were both
monumental tasks, and both are today hopelessly out of date.

BTW, the IAB's applicability statements were in part inspired by
what they saw as the inadequacy of the OSI profiling efforts that
were in progress at the time.

I personally agree with you that the Internet community would benefit
from putting more energy into writing and rewriting applicability
statements rather than energy into generating new protocols, but
unfortunately it is hard to find the motivation and funding for doing
the right thing in this case.

I think that your question really points to what should be done in the
future rather than how we got where we are, but it is useful to start
by understanding the history in the IETF (and before).

Bob Braden


Excerpt from Jon Postel's Official Protocol Standards documents:

   There are two independent categorization of protocols.  The first is
   the "maturity level" or STATE of standardization, one of "standard",
   "draft standard", "proposed standard", "experimental",
   "informational" or "historic".  The second is the "requirement level"
   or STATUS of this protocol, one of "required", "recommended",
   "elective", "limited use", or "not recommended".

   The status or requirement level is difficult to portray in a one word
   label.  These status labels should be considered only as an
   indication, and a further description, or applicability statement,
   should be consulted.

   When a protocol is advanced to proposed standard or draft standard,
   it is labeled with a current status.

   At any given time a protocol occupies a cell of the following matrix.
   Protocols are likely to be in cells in about the following
   proportions (indicated by the relative number of Xs).  A new protocol
   is most likely to start in the (proposed standard, elective) cell, or
   the (experimental, limited use) cell.

                             S T A T U S
                     Req   Rec   Ele   Lim   Not
                   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Std     |  X  | XXX | XXX |     |     |
       S           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Draft   |  X  |  X  | XXX |     |     |
       T           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Prop    |     |  X  | XXX |     |     |
       A           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Info    |     |     |     |     |     |
       T           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Expr    |     |     |     | XXX |     |
       E           +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
           Hist    |     |     |     |     | XXX |
                   +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+


----- End Included Message -----



From day at std.com  Fri Sep  6 12:03:34 2002
From: day at std.com (John Day)
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 15:03:34 -0400
Subject: [ih] A few FTP questions
In-Reply-To: <002801c253c6$3553f580$c2a81942@jsweet>
References: <002801c253c6$3553f580$c2a81942@jsweet>
Message-ID: <v04220804b99ea05688e3@[10.0.1.34]>

At 22:50 -0500 9/3/02, Jeremy Neal wrote:
>           My name is Jeremy Neal, and I am a member of THINK, which 
>is a group lead by Dr. Chris Edmondson-Yurkanan to tell the history, 
>both technical and personal, of the internet.  The following is a 
>list of questions about the development and affect of FTP during the 
>70's.  The decisions made about what FTP are well documented, but 
>the questions of why and who remain uncertain.  Personal stories or 
>anecdotes for any part of the process or in response to any question 
>below would be much appreciated.  These questions extend from a goal 
>to establish a story of FTP and the people responsible for it?oh, 
>and I am intending to use any responses in a small paper I am 
>writing on the subject, so I would like to use some of this 
>information.  I would be happy to ask each of you personally for 
>permission to quote, but if you don't mind me letting you
>
>
>
>1.)  For those involved in the development of FTP through the years 
>can you recall what influenced you to work on FTP?

Hard to say, "through the years" since there really hasn't been much 
work on it since 1973.  These were the first tools we needed to make 
the Net useful.  All of the "innards" of the net, i.e. routing etc. 
were pretty tied up by specific groups with contracts to work on 
them.  For everyone else the only venue that was available was what 
we could build on top of that. That really wasn't much of a 
constraint since there was plenty to do and frankly, just getting the 
innards to work was a major accomplishment without even thinking 
about other ways to make the innards work!  ;-)

Also, unlike the Net today, the Net then was dominated by people with 
operating systems backgrounds, not data comm backgrounds.  So it was 
natural for us to try to re-create the facilities we had in OSs in 
the Net.  In fact, I always found that I learned something about the 
deeper nature of these facilities in OSs when I thought about solving 
the problem in a network.

>
>
>2.)  In the beginning of the Arpanet, what was the demand for 
>something like FTP?  Inside the group of IMP locations, what was 
>there a level of excitement/ambivalence over FTP?  How long did it 
>take for people to begin understanding the benefits of sharing 
>information, programs, or research?

Immediate.  In fact, before FTP was available.  The whole point of 
the building the ARPANet was to create a "heterogeneous resource 
sharing network".  I think the phrase is in the title of one of Larry 
Robert's earliest papers.  I don't think "excitement" is really the 
word.  To be able to use the network for anything with the existing 
OSs, we knew we needed to be able to do 3 things:  have terminal 
access, move files, and submit jobs.  Hence the 3 upper layer 
protocols that were undertaken.  The job needed to be done and the 
problem of figuring out what a canonical file system that wasn't a 
least common denominator would look like was interesting.

>
>
>3.)  How did ICCC affect the progress made on FTP?
>
>Was there a change in atmosphere or a since of urgency?
>
>Did more people contribute as a result?

I did not perceive any effect of the ICCC.  The primary factor in the 
number of people contributing was determined by number of different 
systems/sites on the Net.  The meeting needed people who knew what 
the OSs could and couldn't do easily.  More people didn't necessarily 
contribute to that.  And your ability to travel was directly 
determined by your role in that aspect of the problem.  It was not at 
all like deciding to go to an IETF meeting today.

>
>
>
>4.)  At the ICCC in October 1972, how important was the concept of 
>FTP to the people organizing the event and the people attending?

You will have to ask them.  I wasn't there.

>
>Did people immediately realize its usefulness or was everything out 
>shadowed by the concept of packet-switching?
>
  Odd question.  Comparing apples and oranges.  Packet switching does 
something different.  FTP was just a tool to make the demos look good!

>
>5.)  According to the ICCC manual many of the scenarios were 
>actually contributed from former programs used at workshops at MIT. 
>How early did scenarios appear involving FTP or software that 
>exploited FTP?

Someone else will have to answer this.

>
>
>6.)  In between the release of each RFC what was process that would 
>precede the release of the next RFC?

There weren't that many RFCs or drafts.  There was a meeting.  Issues 
were discussed and decided on.  Someone was designated to incorporate 
them in to the document.  People in close proximity might get 
together to work out some details and a new draft was circulated.

>
>           a.)  How were decisions made?

"consensus"  (and a lot of very loud debate).  Sometimes the decision 
was based on a good punch line.

>
>           b.)  What meetings do you recall?  What was the mood of 
>those meetings?

Meetings were lively.

>
>           c.)  How was everything organized?

Around a table.

>
>           d.)  Who did the talking?

Everyone.  Transmission was distinctly full duplex, broadcast.

>
>           e.)  What people stand out in your mind?

See the list on the front of the document.

Your questions seem to be a bit wide of the mark.  They remind me of 
the character in David Lodge's Small World who in a tongue tied 
moment says he is doing research on the effect of T. S. Eliot on 
Shakespeare and then tries to recover by saying the effect of Eliot 
on our view of Shakespeare looking back through Eliot.  ;-)

Your questions seem to generated from the point of view of how things 
work now and try to impose that model on how things worked then.  The 
times and mode of operating were very different.

As I said above, I think most of us saw applying what we knew about 
OSs to extending an OS-like environment to the Net.  (Note the list 
of things taken up *after* FTP and Telnet were in place by the USING 
group.) The most interesting problem at these meetings was that up 
that point each hardware type and its OS was a world unto itself.  It 
had its own way of doing things and terminology, and it was RIGHT. 
The meetings that created Telnet and FTP was one of the first where 
people from these different worlds were forced to sit down in a room 
and explain what their system did.  There was a lot of confusion 
because the same terms were used to describe different combinations 
of functions.  And franky, the participants were not use to people 
saying what their system did was "wrong" since clearly what their 
system did was "right".  The discussions to work out what a canonical 
file system were that we could easily build on the systems we had 
(some quite limited) was very interesting.  We often found that what 
someone thought their system needed to do wasn't really what the 
constraint was and that lead to a solution that was more of a 
synthesis of the competing approaches and actually stronger than any 
of the single approaches.

One of the greatest (unsung) accomplishments of this group was that 
when confronted with what everyone else took to be an "oil and water" 
dichotomy that couldn't be resolved.  We actually found a synthesis 
that was simpler and much more elegant and that melded the opposing 
views into degenerate cases.  We didn't resort to just smashing the 
two opposing views together the way every other standards committee I 
have seen do since (including the IETF).  This result of that work 
has been for the most part overlooked.  I hazard to think where we 
might be today if had been taken more to heart.

Take care,
John
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 9588 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20020906/f2ef07b5/attachment.bin>

From vinton.g.cerf at wcom.com  Fri Sep  6 13:54:13 2002
From: vinton.g.cerf at wcom.com (vinton g. cerf)
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 16:54:13 -0400
Subject: [ih] Fwd: Re: [ipnsig-discuss] Vint's draft
Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20020906165359.030ea620@pop.wcomnet.com>

per joe's request

>Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:04:48 -0700
>From: Joe Touch <touch at ISI.EDU>
>Subject: Re: [ipnsig-discuss] Vint's draft
>To: "vinton g. cerf" <vinton.g.cerf at wcom.com>
>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.1)
> Gecko/20020826
>
>Hi, Vint,
>
>Could you forward this to the internet-history at postel.org mailing list?
>
>It addresses exactly the kind of context we're trying to capture there...
>
>thanks,
>
>Joe
>
>
>vinton g. cerf wrote:
>>historically, of course, serial digital has been used to convey information with the deep space network (DSN) in the past. There has been an enormous amount of manual labor associated with scheduling and use of the DSN and the IPN, with its Bundle-based protocols, is an attempt to make this process far more automatic. Three way handshakes are tough with such high delays - and a non-starter for flow control. Unique identification of bundles is essential, though, and that's part of the design. Not the same way that SYN did it - we use full date/time strings that would only (!?) repeat if the clocks in the space craft fail. Since that is a non-zero possibility, I suppose we will need to think about how to detect such a problem. The Syn/ack mechanism was designed to deal with 32 bit wrap-around of the sequence numbers for serial octet streams in a TCP connection. There is still some danger on the terrestrial Internet that a wrap around occurs so quickly that it falls within the time
-to-live of the tcp segment. Example, operation of a TCP connection on a terabit channel. Extended numbering in the TCP protocol is intended to deal with that problem. For Bundles, a full date/time, unique source ID and sequence number is used for a similar purpose.
>>Hope this helps!
>>vint
>>At 06:20 AM 9/6/2002 -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>>
>>>First let me say Vint I'm glad to see in your draft that TCP/IP will be with
>>>us in the future for a long time to come. No ISO OSI here. I read you
>>>mention, this jumped out at me, NAK and ACK of course, but not synchronus
>>>idle. Is there no place in delayed networks of the type you propose for SYN?
>>>Will this network be serial digital transmission like here on earth? Or is
>>>it too slow?
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Ipnsig-discuss mailing list
>>>Ipnsig-discuss at isoc.org
>>>http://www.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ipnsig-discuss 
>>
>>Vint Cerf
>>SVP Architecture & Technology
>>WorldCom
>>22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
>>Ashburn, VA 20147
>>703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
>>703 886 0047 fax
>>_______________________________________________
>>Ipnsig-discuss mailing list
>>Ipnsig-discuss at isoc.org
>>http://www.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ipnsig-discuss
>
>Vint Cerf
>SVP Architecture & Technology
>WorldCom
>22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
>Ashburn, VA 20147
>703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
>703 886 0047 fax



From braden at ISI.EDU  Sat Sep  7 21:04:10 2002
From: braden at ISI.EDU (Bob Braden)
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 21:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ih] Early FTP development in the ARPAnet
Message-ID: <200209080404.g8844Af17599@boreas.isi.edu>


I have not received or seen Neal's questions (Chris, what's going on?)
but I do have some answers from the firing line.

  *> >
  *> >
  *> >
  *> >1.)  For those involved in the development of FTP through the years=20
  *> >can you recall what influenced you to work on FTP?
  *> 

My boss told me that UCLA's IBM 360/91 supercomputer, for whose
programming I was responsible, had to become a server on the ARPAnet.
You can't provide service if you can't move files.  And if you leave
the file moving protocols to the mercy of the folks in Cambridge, MA,
it is NOT going to support an IBM mainframe.  So I had to get involved.

Besides, it was a new and fun problem.

  *> 
  *> >
  *> >
  *> >2.)  In the beginning of the Arpanet, what was the demand for=20
  *> >something like FTP?  Inside the group of IMP locations, what was=20
  *> >there a level of excitement/ambivalence over FTP?  How long did it=20
  *> >take for people to begin understanding the benefits of sharing=20
  *> >information, programs, or research?
  *> 

Neither excitement or ambivalence.  The need to transfer files was
obvious.  The benefits of resource sharing were by definition,
because that is what ARPA thought the network was for.

  *> 
  *> >
  *> >
  *> >3.)  How did ICCC affect the progress made on FTP?

Oh, my.  Larry Roberts came to a Network Working Group meeting and gave
us designers/implementers holy hell!!  He made it perfectly clear that
if we expected to keep ARPA funding (he did not of course say that in
so many words, but we didn't need pictures), we WOULD make ICCC a
shining success, and we had better get a move on!!  Actually, Telnet
was more critical and difficult than FTP.
 
  *> >
  *> >Was there a change in atmosphere or a since of urgency?

Yes. See above.

  *> >
  *> >Did more people contribute as a result?
  *> 

??

  *> >
  *> >4.)  At the ICCC in October 1972, how important was the concept of=20
  *> >FTP to the people organizing the event and the people attending?

It was one of the basic tools.  See the ICCC manual for details.

  *> 
  *> >
  *> >Did people immediately realize its usefulness or was everything out=20
  *> >shadowed by the concept of packet-switching?
  *> >

Dumb apple/orchard question.

  *> 
  *> >
  *> >5.)  According to the ICCC manual many of the scenarios were=20
  *> >actually contributed from former programs used at workshops at MIT.=20
  *> >How early did scenarios appear involving FTP or software that=20
  *> >exploited FTP?
  *> 

I think that would have applied only to the MIT demos, but my memory
is hazy.  Certainly the UCLA demo had nothing to do with a workshop
at MIT.

  *> 
  *> >
  *> >
  *> >6.)  In between the release of each RFC what was process that would=20
  *> >precede the release of the next RFC?
  *> 
Do you mean releases of the FTP spec?  There is an extensive record of
this in the RFC series... various meetings, minutes of meetings, plans
for future meetings, etc., etc.

  *> >
  *> >=20          a.)  How were decisions made?
  *> 
  *> "consensus"  (and a lot of very loud debate).  Sometimes the decision=20
  *> was based on a good punch line.
  *> 

I agree with John Day here, except that sometimes (often?) the final
decision many technical details were actually made by the person who
wrote up the meeting notes or who next revised the protocol draft
;-)  Sometimes I was surprised, often bemused, to learn after the
fact what we had "decided".  But this was OK because the people
involved were very smart, and unless they really screwed up we
were content to accept their refereeing and get on with it.

  *> >
  *> >=20          b.)  What meetings do you recall?  What was the mood of=20
  *> >those meetings?
  *> 
  *> Meetings were lively.

Again I agree with John.  At this distance, I have only hazy recollections
of most of the meetings, and depend mostly on the written record.

No, I recall an very early meeting when magisterial Steve Crocker swept
in on his flying carpet and gave one of his now-familiar
back-to-fundamentals off-the cuff lectures, this one on what a file
transfer protocol ought to do.  He explained he had written the notes
on the back of an envelope during the train ride down (so help me!)
Completely mathematical and abstract, of course.  But I was impressed
and intrigued, in spite of the unexpected dunk into the cold water tank
of Computer Science, when we were deeply engaged in heavy-duty
engineering.

  *> 
  *> >
  *> >=20          c.)  How was everything organized?
  *> 
  *> Around a table.
  *> 
  *> >
  *> >=20          d.)  Who did the talking?
  *> 
  *> Everyone.  Transmission was distinctly full duplex, broadcast.
  *> 
  *> >
  *> >=20          e.)  What people stand out in your mind?
  *> 

Various people took the lead on the ARPAnet FTP spec at various times:
Abhay Bushan at MIT, then later Nancy Neigus at BBN, then Alex McKenzie
at BBN.  I recall Alex as contributing a lot of protocol maturity and
some really clever ideas, like the restart mechanism.  John Day brought
in a late proposal for a file access protocol, which seemed like a very
nice idea but terribly hard to implement with any generality in some
OSs (like mine), so I lobbied against it (sorry, John).

Steve Crocker (see above).  And of course the BBN guys were always
doing first class work on the Tenex platform, and the rest of us
scrambled to keep up.

If I thought more than 5 minutes, I would certainly think of others.
My apologies to good friends from that era whom I have slighted.

Bob Braden


From day at std.com  Mon Sep  9 06:34:46 2002
From: day at std.com (John Day)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:34:46 -0400
Subject: [ih] Early FTP development in the ARPAnet
In-Reply-To: <200209080404.g8844Af17599@boreas.isi.edu>
References: <200209080404.g8844Af17599@boreas.isi.edu>
Message-ID: <v04220807b9a25185e954@[10.0.1.35]>

At 21:04 -0700 9/7/02, Bob Braden wrote:
>I have not received or seen Neal's questions (Chris, what's going on?)
>but I do have some answers from the firing line.

You know, now that you mention it there was another reply that went 
by on this list a day or so ago and I would have swore I didn't see 
the original.  But at the time, I just thought I had zoned out 
deleting spam.  ;-)

>
>   *> >
>   *> >
>   *> >

<SNIP>

>   *> >
>   *> >=20          a.)  How were decisions made?
>   *>
>   *> "consensus"  (and a lot of very loud debate).  Sometimes the decision=20
>   *> was based on a good punch line.
>   *>
>
>I agree with John Day here, except that sometimes (often?) the final
>decision many technical details were actually made by the person who
>wrote up the meeting notes or who next revised the protocol draft
>;-)  Sometimes I was surprised, often bemused, to learn after the
>fact what we had "decided".  But this was OK because the people
>involved were very smart, and unless they really screwed up we
>were content to accept their refereeing and get on with it.

O, absolutely.  (This is a phenomena I have seen often abused in many 
committee projects.)  Although, I don't think so much here.  Here 
really the problem was how little we really knew about each other's 
systems.  So sometimes what you thought was perfectly reasonable 
wasn't.

>
>   *> >
>   *> >=20          b.)  What meetings do you recall?  What was the mood of=20
>   *> >those meetings?
>   *>
>   *> Meetings were lively.
>
>Again I agree with John.  At this distance, I have only hazy recollections
>of most of the meetings, and depend mostly on the written record.
>
>No, I recall an very early meeting when magisterial Steve Crocker swept
>in on his flying carpet and gave one of his now-familiar
>back-to-fundamentals off-the cuff lectures, this one on what a file
>transfer protocol ought to do.  He explained he had written the notes
>on the back of an envelope during the train ride down (so help me!)
>Completely mathematical and abstract, of course.  But I was impressed
>and intrigued, in spite of the unexpected dunk into the cold water tank
>of Computer Science, when we were deeply engaged in heavy-duty
>engineering.
>
>   *>
>   *> >
>   *> >=20          c.)  How was everything organized?
>   *>
>   *> Around a table.
>   *>
>   *> >
>   *> >=20          d.)  Who did the talking?
>   *>
>   *> Everyone.  Transmission was distinctly full duplex, broadcast.
>   *>
>   *> >
>   *> >=20          e.)  What people stand out in your mind?
>   *>
>
>Various people took the lead on the ARPAnet FTP spec at various times:
>Abhay Bushan at MIT, then later Nancy Neigus at BBN, then Alex McKenzie
>at BBN.  I recall Alex as contributing a lot of protocol maturity and
>some really clever ideas, like the restart mechanism.  John Day brought
>in a late proposal for a file access protocol, which seemed like a very
>nice idea but terribly hard to implement with any generality in some
>OSs (like mine), so I lobbied against it (sorry, John).
>
>Steve Crocker (see above).  And of course the BBN guys were always
>doing first class work on the Tenex platform, and the rest of us
>scrambled to keep up.

Actually, I have an old ARPANet Protocol Handbook dated 1978 that 
lists the 16 people who were at the meeting.  I believe this list is 
in RFC 542.  If not, let me know and I will get it to you.

>If I thought more than 5 minutes, I would certainly think of others.
>My apologies to good friends from that era whom I have slighted.

Take care,
John



From faber at ISI.EDU  Mon Sep  9 08:29:20 2002
From: faber at ISI.EDU (Ted Faber)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 08:29:20 -0700
Subject: [ih] Early FTP development in the ARPAnet
In-Reply-To: <v04220807b9a25185e954@[10.0.1.35]>
References: <200209080404.g8844Af17599@boreas.isi.edu> <v04220807b9a25185e954@[10.0.1.35]>
Message-ID: <20020909152920.GA69197@pun.isi.edu>

On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 09:34:46AM -0400, John Day wrote:
> At 21:04 -0700 9/7/02, Bob Braden wrote:
> >I have not received or seen Neal's questions (Chris, what's going on?)
> >but I do have some answers from the firing line.
> 
> You know, now that you mention it there was another reply that went 
> by on this list a day or so ago and I would have swore I didn't see 
> the original.  But at the time, I just thought I had zoned out 
> deleting spam.  ;-)

The original was sent on 3 Sep from a fellow name of Jeremy Neal.  If
you do any automatic spam blocking, it may well have been caught, as it
was a multi-representation MIME thingie that came in both HTML and plain
text.

If you're dying to see a copy I'm happy to forward one.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20020909/9d8ef41b/attachment.sig>

From braden at ISI.EDU  Mon Sep  9 20:50:32 2002
From: braden at ISI.EDU (Bob Braden)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 20:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ih] Early FTP development in the ARPAnet
Message-ID: <200209100350.g8A3oWO23517@boreas.isi.edu>

  *> 
  *> I seem to be getting mail from internet-history at postel.org just fine.
  *> But I don't recall seeing recent mail from end2end-interest at postel.org
  *> (latter half of August in its archive), which I'm apparently still
  *> subscribed to, and I can't find copies of those mails either.
  *> 

I guess you haven't been paying your dues.

Bob Braden



From touch at ISI.EDU  Tue Sep 17 13:51:40 2002
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 13:51:40 -0700
Subject: [ih] [Fwd: NEW JOURNAL: Iterations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Software
 History]
Message-ID: <3D8795DC.4090102@isi.edu>

Hi, all,

The following may be of interest to this list...

Joe

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Philip Frana <frana003 at tc.umn.edu>
Subject: NEW JOURNAL: Iterations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Software History
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 15:05:37 -0500
Size: 2513
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20020917/6a813bf7/attachment.eml>