[ih] RE: Dec 1969 meeting and Telnet

[Steve Crocker]

Yes, that's exactly right.  It was quite impressive.  I didn't mean to
slight their work by saying they passed files back and forth.

Now that I think about it, I recall Jeff Rulifson saying the process was
*faster* than doing it entirely locally on the SDS 940 machine because
it didn't burden their poor disk as much.  That is, it was faster to
send the file to Utah and get back the result than it was to read and
write on the local disk.  I forget the rest of the details, but it's
probably worth dredging up.

Steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Day [mailto:day at std.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:52 PM
> To: Steve Crocker; 'Adriana C. Arrington'; internet-history at postel.org
> Cc: vinton.g.cerf at wcom.com; 'Chris Edmondson-Yurkanan'; 
> 'Steve Crocker'
> Subject: [ih] RE: Dec 1969 meeting and Telnet
> 
> 
> 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
>