[ih] RE: Dec 1969 meeting and Telnet

[John Day]

At 10:51 -0500 2/25/03, Steve Crocker wrote:
>In December 1969 we were in an awkward state.  The first few IMPs had
>been installed and we didn't have a protocol suite ready.  We had rigged
>a simple telnet-like protocol between UCLA and SRI as a demo.  Also, the
>SRI guys had rigged a way to pass files back and forth to Utah in an ad

I have a vague recollection that SRI-NLS were cross-compiling on the 
machine at Utah and then using the code files back at SRI. Is that 
right?

Take care,
John

>hoc fashion, although I'm unsure of the timing; it may have been later.
>We kept groping for the right primitives to use as the base layer and we
>hadn't quite settled on it.  Feeling pressured by the existence of the
>IMPs and no host level software, we proposed to Larry Roberts that we
>defer the general approach and simply build a telnet protocol directly.
>(I think that's accurate; Vint or others may have a different
>recollection.)  Larry firmly responded that he wanted to see the
>generality and could accept the delay.
>
>There weren't any formal minutes, but I don't recall whether someone
>jotted this down in an RFC.
>
>I don't quite understand your diagram, but perhaps the above answers
>your question.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: Adriana C. Arrington [mailto:aca at cs.utexas.edu]
>  > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 10:38 AM
>  > To: internet-history at postel.org
>  > Cc: steve at stevecrocker.com; vinton.g.cerf at wcom.com; Chris
>  > Edmondson-Yurkanan; Adriana C. Arrington
>  > Subject: Dec 1969 meeting and Telnet
>  >
>  >
>  > I need clarification for the meeting in December of 1969 when
>  > Larry Roberts "redirected" the implementers to try a more
>  > layered approach (RFC 1000, p 4). What happened at that
>  > meeting? Were there any minutes kept from that meeting?
>  >
>  > >From what I can tell in RFC 15 and RFC 1000, it seems that
>  > the first rejected version of the network protocols of
>  > December 1969 was not layered at all.  For instance, the
>  > "Telnet" at that time encapsulated everything between the
>  > transport and application layers, as we know them today. So
>  > then this solution was not broad enough requiring the
>  > "redirection", layering and the inventions of Host-Host and
>  > the next version of Telnet.
>  >
>  > So did the network look something like this (based on RFC 15):
>  >
>  >     -----------------------------
>  >     | telnet |  random | text   |
>  >     |        | compiler| editor |
>  >     -----------------------------
>  >     | OS with interface         |
>  >     | to Host-IMP layer         |
>  >     -----------------------------
>  >
>  > instead of the layered design of Telnet, ICP, and Host-Host,
>  > which came a year or so later??
>  >
>  > What kind of asymmetry was in this first set of protocols
>  > that is different than the asymmetry of Old Telnet
>  > (see RFC 1000 p.4)?
>  >
>  > Thanks again,
>  > Adriana
>  >
>mailto:aca at cs.utexas.edu
>http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~aca