From braden at ISI.EDU  Thu Jan  2 08:41:54 2003
From: braden at ISI.EDU (Bob Braden)
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 16:41:54 GMT
Subject: [ih] Re: 20th Anniversary of the Internet
Message-ID: <200301021641.QAA21958@gra.isi.edu>

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

>From rh120 at columbia.edu  Wed Jan  1 22:44:12 2003
X-Authentication-Warning: tere.cc.columbia.edu: rh120 owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 01:44:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Ronda Hauben <rh120 at columbia.edu>
To: ietf at ietf.org
cc: braden at ISI.EDU, "" <rh120 at columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: 20th Anniversary of the Internet
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1


Good to see the cutover to TCP/IP from NCP on January 2, 1983 being
celebrated.

The TCP/IP Digest moderated by Mike Muuss contained an interesting
documentation of the problems and efforts that led up to and followed
the cutover. I have a draft paper on the digest at:


http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/tcpdigest_paper.txt

The paper is

               From the ARPANET to the Internet
              A Study of the ARPANET TCP/IP Digest
             and of the Role of Online Communication
     in the Transition from the ARPANET to the Internet
                       by Ronda Hauben
                       rh120 at columbia.edu

Cheers

Ronda
rh120 at columbia.edu








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



From braden at ISI.EDU  Thu Jan  2 13:21:26 2003
From: braden at ISI.EDU (Bob Braden)
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 21:21:26 GMT
Subject: [ih] Re: 20th anniversary of the Internet - Jan 1/2003
Message-ID: <200301022121.VAA22160@gra.isi.edu>

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

>From Daniel.MacKay at Dal.Ca  Thu Jan  2 12:50:46 2003
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: daniel at noc.dal.ca
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 16:48:56 -0400
To: braden at ISI.EDU
From: Daniel MacKay <Daniel.MacKay at Dal.Ca>
Subject: Re: 20th anniversary of the Internet - Jan 1/2003
X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1

Hi Bob, maybe you want to forward this to the internet-history list.

Howdy!

I just wanted to tell you that we had a very nice Internet 20th 
birthday levee (a tradition in our city -  an open house with free 
food and drink on New Years' Day.)  Anyone who was an internet geek 
by the mid-90s was invited.

Dalhousie University, TARA, and Cisco Systems were sponsors.

It got Canadian national news coverage.

The national clips are on line at the bottom of:

	http://noc.dal.ca/levee/

-- 
Daniel MacKay                           Daniel.MacKay at Dal.Ca
Network Services Manager                +1.902.494.danm
Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada


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



From btimar at euclid-hitachi.com  Fri Jan  3 13:02:12 2003
From: btimar at euclid-hitachi.com (btimar at euclid-hitachi.com)
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:02:12 -0500
Subject: [ih] (no subject)
Message-ID: <OF0E517FC1.CA9B65B4-ON85256CA3.00738CE0@euclid-hitachi.com>

"This message originates from Euclid-Hitachi Heavy Equipment. This e-mail
message and all attachments may contain legally privileged and confidential
information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not
the intended recipient, you should immediately stop reading this message,
contact sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorized reading,
distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is
strictly prohibited.

This message may not be copied or distributed without this disclaimer."



From postmaster at postel.org  Tue Jan  7 08:16:24 2003
From: postmaster at postel.org (postmaster)
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 10:16:24 -0600
Subject: [ih] Returned mail--"All rights reserved"
Message-ID: <20030107161623.FVJB2549.out007.verizon.net@Jqw>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20030107/0c25d0d9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: All.pif
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 93846 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20030107/0c25d0d9/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 3499675[1].jpg
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 3015 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20030107/0c25d0d9/attachment-0001.obj>

From cxsaida2 at esel.com.br  Wed Jan  8 08:55:17 2003
From: cxsaida2 at esel.com.br (Esel Indústria de Instrumentos Eletrônicos)
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 08:55:17
Subject: [ih] Instrumentos Eletrônicos
Message-ID: <200301081049.h08AnoC00955@boreas.isi.edu>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20030108/ab239ade/attachment.htm>

From lgenola at comcast.net  Sun Jan 12 09:55:11 2003
From: lgenola at comcast.net (lgenola)
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 12:55:11 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [ih] AYC racing webmaster
Message-ID: <200301121755.h0CHtBGr057192@logs-mtc-th.proxy.aol.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20030112/1233367d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: href.scr
Type: audio/x-wav
Size: 93121 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20030112/1233367d/attachment.wav>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 01frost-crew[2].htm
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 17851 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20030112/1233367d/attachment.obj>

From big at boss.com  Sun Jan 12 23:22:48 2003
From: big at boss.com (big at boss.com)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 8:22:48 +0100
Subject: [ih] Re: Movies
Message-ID: <200301130722.h0D7MrC05784@boreas.isi.edu>

Attached file:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: "Document003.pif
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 65536 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20030113/a12f7387/attachment.obj>

From big at boss.com  Mon Jan 13 04:31:56 2003
From: big at boss.com (big at boss.com)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 12:31:56 -0000
Subject: [ih] Re: Sample
Message-ID: <200301131239.h0DCdfC13893@boreas.isi.edu>

Attached file:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: "Document003.pif
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 65536 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20030113/150e20e4/attachment.obj>

From jnc at ginger.lcs.mit.edu  Mon Jan 13 07:48:56 2003
From: jnc at ginger.lcs.mit.edu (J. Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:48:56 -0500
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
Message-ID: <200301131548.h0DFmumg011846@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>

I was reading a paper by Paul Francis and Ramakrishna Gummadi, and a
reference caused me to re-read an interesting-sounding old paper they
referenced (RFC-1380, "IESG Deliberations on Routing and Addressing") to
refresh my memory of it, and further to read similar documents it referenced
(e.g. RFC-1287, "Towards the Future Internet Architecture").

In so doing, I was upset to see that the references included no mention of
the work of Carl-Herbert Rokitansky, whose "cluster addressing" scheme was
the first case I can recall of someone proposing to group a number of IP
network numbers together, and treat them as a single entity - the idea which
later became the key concept behind CIDR.

Granted, the original cluster addressing scheme had a different goal entirely
(it had to do with getting routing to work correctly with multiple X.25
networks) - but still, it put the thought of that mechanism in the heads of
everyone who was around at the time.

So, if anyone writes about CIDR in the future, can they please include a
reference to the cluster addressing work? Thanks.

	Noel


From braden at ISI.EDU  Mon Jan 13 09:02:38 2003
From: braden at ISI.EDU (Bob Braden)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 17:02:38 GMT
Subject: [ih] Re: Cluster Addressing and CIDR
Message-ID: <200301131702.RAA03175@gra.isi.edu>

Noel Chiappa wrote:

  *> (e.g. RFC-1287, "Towards the Future Internet Architecture").
  *> 
  *> In so doing, I was upset to see that the references included no mention of
  *> the work of Carl-Herbert Rokitansky, whose "cluster addressing" scheme was
  *> the first case I can recall of someone proposing to group a number of IP
  *> network numbers together, and treat them as a single entity - the idea which
  *> later became the key concept behind CIDR.
  *> 

Noel,

You are right.  I recall seeing drafts of Roki's work, but there does
not seem to be an RFC or IEN containing his work.  Was it published
in any archival form?

Bob Braden


From gregv at lucent.com  Mon Jan 13 09:50:45 2003
From: gregv at lucent.com (Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg))
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 11:50:45 -0600
Subject: [ih] RE: Cluster Addressing and CIDR
Message-ID: <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com>

I don't recall that any of the ID's from the Public Data Networks working group were published as RFC's.  There are references to the PDN drafts in old proceedings... back when we included the list of current ID's in each issue!! I have a reference in a copy of the FIfteenth IETF - Hawaii (October 31st, 1989 to:

"Internet Cluster Addressing Scheme", by Carl-Herbert Rokitanski/Fern Uni-Hagen, August 1989 <draft-ietf-pdn-clusterscheme-00.txt>

"Application of the Cluster Addressing Scheme to X.25 Public Data Networks and Worldwide Internet Network Reachability Information Exchange", by Carl-Herbert Rokitanski/Fern Uni-Hagen, August 1989, <draft-ietf-pen=pdncluster-00.txt>

"Assignment/Reservation of Internet Network Numbers for the PDN-Cluster", by Carl-Herbert Rokitanski/Fern Uni-Hagen, July 1989, <draft-ietf-pdn-pdnclusternetassignm-00.txt>

I guess there may be some old ID archives around that may have these documents.  

Wondering why I still have old paper proceedings in my office,

Greg V.



-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Braden [mailto:braden at ISI.EDU]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 11:03 AM
To: ietf at ietf.org; internet-history at postel.org; jnc at ginger.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: roki at cosy.sbg.ac.at
Subject: Re: Cluster Addressing and CIDR


Noel Chiappa wrote:

  *> (e.g. RFC-1287, "Towards the Future Internet Architecture").
  *> 
  *> In so doing, I was upset to see that the references included no mention of
  *> the work of Carl-Herbert Rokitansky, whose "cluster addressing" scheme was
  *> the first case I can recall of someone proposing to group a number of IP
  *> network numbers together, and treat them as a single entity - the idea which
  *> later became the key concept behind CIDR.
  *> 

Noel,

You are right.  I recall seeing drafts of Roki's work, but there does
not seem to be an RFC or IEN containing his work.  Was it published
in any archival form?

Bob Braden


From big at boss.com  Mon Jan 13 11:00:23 2003
From: big at boss.com (big at boss.com)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 20:00:23 +0100
Subject: [ih] Re: Here is that sample
Message-ID: <200301131900.h0DJ0QC10251@boreas.isi.edu>

Attached file:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: "Document003.pif
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 65536 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20030113/db22d69c/attachment.obj>

From quag7 at frostwarning.com  Mon Jan 13 12:35:37 2003
From: quag7 at frostwarning.com (Quag7)
Date: 13 Jan 2003 13:35:37 -0700
Subject: [ih] Someone on this list has a virus.
Message-ID: <1042490138.2335.5.camel@antarctica>

Someone on this list, presumably this individual, if the headers are
accurate --

213-96-25-136.uc.nombres.ttd.es [213.96.25.136]

has a virus.

Whoever you are, you have an e-mail virus of some sort, that is sending
out copies of itself via e-mail.

Please run a virus scanner.  For the love of god.  And if you're using
Outlook, please stop.  

         -Quag7
 
-- 

[WWW     ]: http://www.frostwarning.com/~quag7
[ E-Mail ]: quag7 at frostwarning.com
[IRC     ]: #gentoo    (irc.oftc.net)
[IRC     ]: #jiggyweek (irc.sorcery.net)




From touch at ISI.EDU  Mon Jan 13 13:55:13 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:55:13 -0800
Subject: [ih] Someone on this list has a virus.
References: <1042490138.2335.5.camel@antarctica>
Message-ID: <3E2335C1.4010606@isi.edu>

Quag7 wrote:
> Someone on this list, presumably this individual, if the headers are
> accurate --
> 
> 213-96-25-136.uc.nombres.ttd.es [213.96.25.136]
> 
> has a virus.
> 
> Whoever you are, you have an e-mail virus of some sort, that is sending
> out copies of itself via e-mail.
> 
> Please run a virus scanner.  For the love of god.  And if you're using
> Outlook, please stop.  

PS - we are in the process of installing virus filters on our end at the 
mail server. We had been testing them on another postel.org list, and 
they are ready to transfer here.

I'll post as soon as they're in place...

Joe




From perry at piermont.com  Mon Jan 13 15:04:35 2003
From: perry at piermont.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Date: 13 Jan 2003 18:04:35 -0500
Subject: [ih] Someone on this list has a virus.
In-Reply-To: <3E2335C1.4010606@isi.edu>
References: <1042490138.2335.5.camel@antarctica> <3E2335C1.4010606@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <87d6n0648s.fsf@snark.piermont.com>

My copy of postfix happily rejected the mail from internet-history
before it ever entered my servers. All the hosts I run reject .exe, .pif,
.scr etc. before it is even queued.

I also block vast amounts of crud just by refusing to accept mail from
people that send things like "HELO <string of unprintable characters>"
and other basic syntax errors.

"Be fascist in what you accept, but neo-fascist in what you send"...


Perry

Joe Touch <touch at ISI.EDU> writes:
> Quag7 wrote:
> > Someone on this list, presumably this individual, if the headers are
> > accurate --
> > 213-96-25-136.uc.nombres.ttd.es [213.96.25.136]
> > has a virus.
> > Whoever you are, you have an e-mail virus of some sort, that is
> > sending
> > out copies of itself via e-mail.
> > Please run a virus scanner.  For the love of god.  And if you're
> > using
> > Outlook, please stop.
> 
> PS - we are in the process of installing virus filters on our end at
> the mail server. We had been testing them on another postel.org list,
> and they are ready to transfer here.
> 
> I'll post as soon as they're in place...
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Perry E. Metzger		perry at piermont.com


From rms46 at vLSM.org  Mon Jan 13 17:07:34 2003
From: rms46 at vLSM.org (Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:07:34 +0700
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
References: <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com>
Message-ID: <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org>

> "Internet Cluster Addressing Scheme", by Carl-Herbert Rokitanski/
> Fern Uni-Hagen, August 1989 <draft-ietf-pdn-clusterscheme-00.txt>
 
> "Application of the Cluster Addressing Scheme to X.25 Public Data 
> Networks and Worldwide Internet Network Reachability Information 
> Exchange", by Carl-Herbert Rokitanski/Fern Uni-Hagen, August 1989, 
> <draft-ietf-pen=pdncluster-00.txt>

> "Assignment/Reservation of Internet Network Numbers for the PDN-Cluster", 
> by Carl-Herbert Rokitanski/Fern Uni-Hagen, July 1989, 
> <draft-ietf-pdn-pdnclusternetassignm-00.txt>

So, IDs could be as valuable as RFCs.
Then, why imposing a 6 month limit for IDs, when diskspace is so
cheap?

regards,

-- 
Rahmat M.  Samik-Ibrahim -- vLSM.org  -- http://rms46.vLSM.org --
-- Dear ALL: Enlarge your Peni^Hsion safely and naturally! ------


From touch at ISI.EDU  Mon Jan 13 20:23:44 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 20:23:44 -0800
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
References: <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com> <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org>
Message-ID: <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu>


Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim wrote:
>>"Internet Cluster Addressing Scheme", by Carl-Herbert Rokitanski/
>>Fern Uni-Hagen, August 1989 <draft-ietf-pdn-clusterscheme-00.txt>
> 
>  
> 
>>"Application of the Cluster Addressing Scheme to X.25 Public Data 
>>Networks and Worldwide Internet Network Reachability Information 
>>Exchange", by Carl-Herbert Rokitanski/Fern Uni-Hagen, August 1989, 
>><draft-ietf-pen=pdncluster-00.txt>
> 
> 
>>"Assignment/Reservation of Internet Network Numbers for the PDN-Cluster", 
>>by Carl-Herbert Rokitanski/Fern Uni-Hagen, July 1989, 
>><draft-ietf-pdn-pdnclusternetassignm-00.txt>
> 
> 
> So, IDs could be as valuable as RFCs.
> Then, why imposing a 6 month limit for IDs, when diskspace is so
> cheap?

The reason for ID disappearance has nothing to do with space.

The IDs are deliberately ephemeral, intended to foster the open exchange 
of partial ideas. Establishing them as archival from the start imposes a 
hurdle that was percieved to inhibit this exchange.

Some ideas do fall by the wayside, ideas which could have been archived 
as Informational RFCs, technical reports, or published papers. In cases 
where that has not been done, it was the authors' choice not to pursue 
that route.

FYI...

Joe



From simone.molendini at unile.it  Tue Jan 14 04:15:28 2003
From: simone.molendini at unile.it (Simone Molendini)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:15:28 +0100
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
In-Reply-To: <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu>
References:  <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com>
 <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org> <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <p05111705ba49979d846e@[62.11.49.137]>

>>So, IDs could be as valuable as RFCs.
>>Then, why imposing a 6 month limit for IDs, when diskspace is so
>>cheap?
>
>The reason for ID disappearance has nothing to do with space.
>
>The IDs are deliberately ephemeral, intended to foster the open 
>exchange of partial ideas. Establishing them as archival from the 
>start imposes a hurdle that was percieved to inhibit this exchange.
>
>Some ideas do fall by the wayside, ideas which could have been 
>archived as Informational RFCs, technical reports, or published 
>papers. In cases where that has not been done, it was the authors' 
>choice not to pursue that route.
>
>FYI...
>
>Joe

You're right, but having a repository of the old drafts means saving 
almost all the (good or bad) Internet research in a much more 
complete manner than archiving the RFCs.

IDs could be tagged as "WORK IN PROGRESS" and shifted to "HISTORICAL" 
once they expire after 6 months; these drafts could be saved into two 
different directories.

I have a private collection of the drafts published in the last 
years: looking at the evolution of a protocol (e.g. CIDR) is a very 
useful exercise.

BTW:
Does the copyright prevent a site from allowng the access to old IDs 
? Does a (non-official) repository of old drafts exist in the 
Internet?

regards,
Simone


From dpreed at reed.com  Tue Jan 14 04:59:00 2003
From: dpreed at reed.com (David P. Reed)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 07:59:00 -0500
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
In-Reply-To: <p05111705ba49979d846e@[62.11.49.137]>
References: <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu>
 <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com>
 <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org>
 <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20030114075422.03c20850@mail.reed.com.>

The long-term history of ideas is hurt by the non-preservation of ID's, 
etc.   The ideas had influence, almost certainly, even if they turned out 
to be weak or "wrong".

One of the problems with scientific progress is the lack of documentation 
of experiments that didn't pan out, because the authors are presumed to 
have "failed" and want to avoid embarrassment.

Most of us, if we are honest, have learned far more from making mistakes 
and debugging them.  Why then, do we refuse to pass on our hard-won 
knowledge?   This is not because of science, but because of ego-driven fear.

At 01:15 PM 1/14/2003 +0100, Simone Molendini wrote:

>>>So, IDs could be as valuable as RFCs.
>>>Then, why imposing a 6 month limit for IDs, when diskspace is so
>>>cheap?
>>
>>The reason for ID disappearance has nothing to do with space.
>>
>>The IDs are deliberately ephemeral, intended to foster the open exchange 
>>of partial ideas. Establishing them as archival from the start imposes a 
>>hurdle that was percieved to inhibit this exchange.
>>
>>Some ideas do fall by the wayside, ideas which could have been archived 
>>as Informational RFCs, technical reports, or published papers. In cases 
>>where that has not been done, it was the authors' choice not to pursue 
>>that route.
>>
>>FYI...
>>
>>Joe
>
>You're right, but having a repository of the old drafts means saving 
>almost all the (good or bad) Internet research in a much more complete 
>manner than archiving the RFCs.
>
>IDs could be tagged as "WORK IN PROGRESS" and shifted to "HISTORICAL" once 
>they expire after 6 months; these drafts could be saved into two different 
>directories.
>
>I have a private collection of the drafts published in the last years: 
>looking at the evolution of a protocol (e.g. CIDR) is a very useful exercise.
>
>BTW:
>Does the copyright prevent a site from allowng the access to old IDs ? 
>Does a (non-official) repository of old drafts exist in the Internet?
>
>regards,
>Simone



From chris at cs.utexas.edu  Tue Jan 14 07:26:58 2003
From: chris at cs.utexas.edu (Chris Edmondson-Yurkanan)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:26:58 -0600
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
Message-ID: <200301141526.h0EFQwvE029568@neverland.cs.utexas.edu>

	I absolutely agree with this thread (Rahmat/David/Simone's comments)
	on preserving IDs to record the evolution of design, i.e. our
	history.  The "path" can be more interesting than the "end result". 

	Since my focus (this last year ) has been on the early Arpanet 
	design issues, I have been aided by the abundance of RFCs which discuss
	a specific design.  (of course, I still wish that more minutes of the
	design meetings were preserved   -- if anyone has any non-published
	minutes 1969-1974 please let me know ....;-) 

------>	It's important to note that the early RFCs functioned in the role 
	of both of the following: 
		* today's Internet Drafts, and 
		* email: some of the early RFCs would today just have been
		  in today's email archives of the working groups. 

	While current IETF working groups seem to be great about archiving
	email, a similar issue of lost resources seems to be occurring when 
	working groups conclude.   At this point, no email archive is linked 
	into the IETF web pages that describe the work of the concluded 
	groups...   http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/OLD/index.html

	So, I suggest that the IETF web masters should archive
	the concluded email as well. 

	Thanks, Chris

>The long-term history of ideas is hurt by the non-preservation of ID's, 
>etc.   The ideas had influence, almost certainly, even if they turned out 
>to be weak or "wrong".
>
>One of the problems with scientific progress is the lack of documentation 
>of experiments that didn't pan out, because the authors are presumed to 
>have "failed" and want to avoid embarrassment.
>
>Most of us, if we are honest, have learned far more from making mistakes 
>and debugging them.  Why then, do we refuse to pass on our hard-won 
>knowledge?   This is not because of science, but because of ego-driven fear.
>

-- 
The University of Texas at Austin  TAY 4.136; +1 512 471 9546    Fax: 471 8885  
Chris Edmondson-Yurkanan           My email addresses are: chris at cs.utexas.edu
Computer Sciences Department          or dragon at cs.utexas.edu
1 University Station C0500         URL:  www.cs.utexas.edu/users/chris/
Austin, TX   78712-1188            Fedex: please send to Taylor Hall 2.124 


From touch at ISI.EDU  Tue Jan 14 07:34:26 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 07:34:26 -0800
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
References: <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com> <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org> <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu> <p05111705ba49979d846e@[62.11.49.137]>
Message-ID: <3E242E02.7040000@isi.edu>


Simone Molendini wrote:
> 
>>> So, IDs could be as valuable as RFCs.
>>> Then, why imposing a 6 month limit for IDs, when diskspace is so
>>> cheap?
>>
>>
>> The reason for ID disappearance has nothing to do with space.
>>
>> The IDs are deliberately ephemeral, intended to foster the open 
>> exchange of partial ideas. Establishing them as archival from the 
>> start imposes a hurdle that was percieved to inhibit this exchange.
>>
>> Some ideas do fall by the wayside, ideas which could have been 
>> archived as Informational RFCs, technical reports, or published 
>> papers. In cases where that has not been done, it was the authors' 
>> choice not to pursue that route.
>>
>> FYI...
>>
>> Joe
> 
> You're right, but having a repository of the old drafts means saving 
> almost all the (good or bad) Internet research in a much more complete 
> manner than archiving the RFCs.

What this and several followups ignores is the impact on the authors.

Authors will cease to present partially-complete ideas. There will be 
fewer work-in-progress drafts. There will, in summary, be less of this 
'good or bad' research to preserve.

Once the IDs become archival, they end up being an undistinguished tech 
report series. We already have them - all over the place.

The thing that makes IDs unique is _exactly_ the fact that they are NOT 
archived. Were that property to disappear, there would be a void.

Consider the impact on the stream of published information, as well as 
the fact that there are already other ways to publish archival information.

Joe



From big at boss.com  Tue Jan 14 09:14:11 2003
From: big at boss.com (big at boss.com)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 9:14:11 --0700
Subject: [ih] Re: Here is that sample
Message-ID: <200301141615.h0EGFKC05717@boreas.isi.edu>

Attached file:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: "Movie_0074.mpeg.pif
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 65536 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20030114/5b090581/attachment.obj>

From touch at ISI.EDU  Tue Jan 14 09:24:33 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:24:33 -0800
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
References: <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com> <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org> <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu> <p05111705ba49979d846e@[62.11.49.137]> <3E242E02.7040000@isi.edu> <Pine.GSO.4.50.0301141550020.1090-100000@artemis.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <3E2447D1.1060204@isi.edu>

Lloyd Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> 
>>Simone Molendini wrote:
>>
>>>>>So, IDs could be as valuable as RFCs.
>>>>>Then, why imposing a 6 month limit for IDs, when diskspace is so
>>>>>cheap?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The reason for ID disappearance has nothing to do with space.
>>>>
>>>>The IDs are deliberately ephemeral, intended to foster the open
>>>>exchange of partial ideas. Establishing them as archival from the
>>>>start imposes a hurdle that was percieved to inhibit this exchange.
>>>
> 
> Yes, but the process becomes increasingly formalised - originally RFCs
> were informal and barriers to publication were low. Now RFCs are
> formal and the draft process formalises the documents while rasising
> the barrier to publication as an RFC.
> 
> I've increasingly seen draft deltas go to a small off-WG audience
> before popping up when submitted as an 'official' draft just before a
> meet closing deadline; I'm not sure that this is good, since it limits
> on-list discussion before the meet.

I'm not clear that the two are related. There are few barriers to 
putting out an ID, except timing. Due to the manual processing 
requirements and the desire for a modicum of sanity checking, it's 
infeasible to handle the burst of submissions before each IETF meeting 
without including a buffer period.

This is the reason that many IDs submitted just before the deadline are 
concurrently posted to newsgroups; it allows open discussion while 
waiting for the burst to be processed. I agree that this isn't optimal - 
IMO, any idea that isn't sufficiently solid a few weeks before the IETF 
isn't sufficiently solid to warrant burning the $$ of people's time 
discussing it ;-)

> I'm worried that the process will even become more formal still, if:
> 
> http://ftp.ietf.org/iesg/iesg.2002-12-12
> IP     o Thomas to write (or cause to be written) a draft on "how to
>          get to Draft"

It's generally useful to help people design drafts in a way that reduces 
the repeated feedback from the RFC Editor. Most venues have some 
publication guidelines; it's not clear they're aiming at formalizing the 
process so much as providing editorial structure.

Joe




From touch at ISI.EDU  Tue Jan 14 09:27:57 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:27:57 -0800
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
References: <200301141526.h0EFQwvE029568@neverland.cs.utexas.edu>
Message-ID: <3E24489D.6080800@isi.edu>

Chris Edmondson-Yurkanan wrote:
> 	I absolutely agree with this thread (Rahmat/David/Simone's comments)
> 	on preserving IDs to record the evolution of design, i.e. our
> 	history.  The "path" can be more interesting than the "end result". 
> 
> 	Since my focus (this last year ) has been on the early Arpanet 
> 	design issues, I have been aided by the abundance of RFCs which discuss
> 	a specific design.  (of course, I still wish that more minutes of the
> 	design meetings were preserved   -- if anyone has any non-published
> 	minutes 1969-1974 please let me know ....;-) 
> 
> ------>	It's important to note that the early RFCs functioned in the role 
> 	of both of the following: 
> 		* today's Internet Drafts, and 
> 		* email: some of the early RFCs would today just have been
> 		  in today's email archives of the working groups. 
> 
> 	While current IETF working groups seem to be great about archiving
> 	email, a similar issue of lost resources seems to be occurring when 
> 	working groups conclude.   At this point, no email archive is linked 
> 	into the IETF web pages that describe the work of the concluded 
> 	groups...   http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/OLD/index.html
> 
> 	So, I suggest that the IETF web masters should archive
> 	the concluded email as well. 

I agree that archiving mail that was archived to begin with would be 
useful. I'm opposed to archiving intermediate process when the authors 
explicitly chose to provide a non-archival form.

If authors want to archive their results, they are free to publish them 
in more conventional venues, even in their intermediate form.

When someone says "this is off the record" it is off the record. That's 
what IDs are, very explicitly.

Joe




From gih at telstra.net  Tue Jan 14 11:57:51 2003
From: gih at telstra.net (Geoff Huston)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 06:57:51 +1100
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
In-Reply-To: <3E242E02.7040000@isi.edu>
References: <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com>
 <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org>
 <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu>
 <p05111705ba49979d846e@[62.11.49.137]>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030115065000.00b55810@kahuna.telstra.net>

>The thing that makes IDs unique is _exactly_ the fact that they are NOT 
>archived. Were that property to disappear, there would be a void.


This is a curious claim in so far as they _are_ archived,  all over the 
world in thousands of
locations. There is no concept in today's world of being able to 
'unpublish" anything, or to
be able to withdraw a document from the online public space. IETF meeting 
proceedings
publish and archive the drafts used by the WGs at the time. Google has more 
than an
significant number of hits for expired drafts, and so on.

Regardless of the merits of Joe's arguments, and I must admit that there is 
considerable
merit in his view of the role of drafts, the harsh reality is that these 
documents
do not and will not disappear from public availability. Accordingly, It 
makes more sense
to me to recognize and work within the  characteristics and properties of 
the world we
live in than to insist that somehow something that is happening should not 
happen and
that we should behave as if it is not happening.

But this is well beyond Internet History and I will not post further on 
this topic to this mailer.
My apologies for the diversion.

regards,

   Geoff






From touch at ISI.EDU  Tue Jan 14 13:20:47 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:20:47 -0800
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
References: <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com> <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org> <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu> <p05111705ba49979d846e@[62.11.49.137]> <5.1.0.14.2.20030115065000.00b55810@kahuna.telstra.net>
Message-ID: <3E247F2F.7080303@isi.edu>

Geoff Huston wrote:
> 
>> The thing that makes IDs unique is _exactly_ the fact that they are 
>> NOT archived. Were that property to disappear, there would be a void.
> 
> This is a curious claim in so far as they _are_ archived,  all over the 
> world in thousands of
> locations.

Agreed. Though personal use archives are different from "available for 
others publicly", at least according to copyright law.

> There is no concept in today's world of being able to 
> 'unpublish" anything, or to
> be able to withdraw a document from the online public space. IETF 
> meeting proceedings
> publish and archive the drafts used by the WGs at the time. Google has 
> more than an
> significant number of hits for expired drafts, and so on.

And, as Geoff and I have discussed elswhere, there are those of us who 
are glad to educate those who illegally post documents for which they do 
not hold copyright.

I.e., that there are archives and they are public does not make them 
either legal or appropriate.

> Regardless of the merits of Joe's arguments, and I must admit that there 
> is considerable
> merit in his view of the role of drafts, the harsh reality is that these 
> documents
> do not and will not disappear from public availability. Accordingly, It 
> makes more sense
> to me to recognize and work within the  characteristics and properties 
> of the world we
> live in than to insist that somehow something that is happening should 
> not happen and
> that we should behave as if it is not happening.

The world we live in includes many things that are illegal and/or 
inappropriate. I hope we strive to rise above and/or correct those 
things, rather than admit defeat per se.

Joe





From dpreed at reed.com  Tue Jan 14 13:19:50 2003
From: dpreed at reed.com (David P. Reed)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 16:19:50 -0500
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
In-Reply-To: <3E242E02.7040000@isi.edu>
References: <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com>
 <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org>
 <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu>
 <p05111705ba49979d846e@[62.11.49.137]>
Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20030114161233.03c28df0@mail.reed.com.>

At 07:34 AM 1/14/2003 -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
>Authors will cease to present partially-complete ideas. There will be 
>fewer work-in-progress drafts. There will, in summary, be less of this 
>'good or bad' research to preserve.

This claim raises two issues:

1. The assertion that "authors will cease..." unless things they write are 
deleted from institutional memory (or at least not actively preserved) is 
falsifiable by straightforward experimental evidence.  There is no need to 
claim it without proof.   It does indeed remind me of the idea that the 
POTUS and his office should be immune from sunlight in their contacts with 
lobbyists, etc. lest those lobbyists be unwilling to share their true views.

2. Shouldn't the authors be given the choice to preserve in an archival 
form their thoughts, along with all other IDs, etc. in such a way that 
makes it much less work for historians and students of design options to 
understand old proposals?



From dpreed at reed.com  Tue Jan 14 13:53:55 2003
From: dpreed at reed.com (David P. Reed)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 16:53:55 -0500
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
In-Reply-To: <3E247F2F.7080303@isi.edu>
References: <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com>
 <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org>
 <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu>
 <p05111705ba49979d846e@[62.11.49.137]>
 <5.1.0.14.2.20030115065000.00b55810@kahuna.telstra.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20030114164432.03c1eca8@mail.reed.com.>

Fair use is explicitly part of copyright law.   History is clearly a policy 
goal of fair use.   IANAL, but I would expect that there is precedent 
protecting people who share personal archives of documents for the purpose 
of historical research.

Just a reminder from someone dedicated to educating people that copyright 
includes rights of fair use, as well as other exceptions.   Electronic 
rights are complex, as well.  The Internet crosses jurisdictions, and 
documents such as IDs are published in many locations at once, so the right 
to "unpublish" is determined by jurisdiction.

IMO, standing behind copyright really distorts the issue of desirable 
dissemination of knowledge and scientific knowledge, in particular.



From day at std.com  Tue Jan 14 14:21:01 2003
From: day at std.com (John Day)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:21:01 -0500
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
In-Reply-To: <3E242E02.7040000@isi.edu>
References:  <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com>
 <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org> <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu>
 <p05111705ba49979d846e@[62.11.49.137]> <3E242E02.7040000@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <v04220800ba4a3c7e0fa4@[10.0.1.17]>

>
>Authors will cease to present partially-complete ideas. There will 
>be fewer work-in-progress drafts. There will, in summary, be less of 
>this 'good or bad' research to preserve.

This is not the case and has not been the case with other groups. 
You can most other standards groups and find written contributions 
suggesting changes to all or part of a draft under development along 
with rationale as to why the change should be made.  In some groups, 
you will even find a written record of how each comment or 
contribution on a document underdeveloped was dealt with and why.

I have not noticed that the fact this material is available in the 
group's paper trail has any effect on the amount or quality of the 
contributions.


>Once the IDs become archival, they end up being an undistinguished 
>tech report series. We already have them - all over the place.

Depends on how they are dealt with.

>The thing that makes IDs unique is _exactly_ the fact that they are 
>NOT archived. Were that property to disappear, there would be a void.

No the problem we have is there is a void.  To modify an old adage, 
those who can not know history are doomed to repeat it.  Actually now 
that you mention it that may explain alot.

>
>Consider the impact on the stream of published information, as well 
>as the fact that there are already other ways to publish archival 
>information.

Huh?

Take care,
John



From day at std.com  Tue Jan 14 14:26:44 2003
From: day at std.com (John Day)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:26:44 -0500
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
In-Reply-To:  <Pine.GSO.4.50.0301141550020.1090-100000@artemis.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
References:  <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com>
 <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org> <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu>
 <p05111705ba49979d846e@[62.11.49.137]> <3E242E02.7040000@isi.edu>
 <Pine.GSO.4.50.0301141550020.1090-100000@artemis.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <v04220801ba4a3df86891@[10.0.1.17]>

>.
>
>Yes, but the process becomes increasingly formalised - originally RFCs
>were informal and barriers to publication were low. Now RFCs are
>formal and the draft process formalises the documents while rasising
>the barrier to publication as an RFC.

That is more because for some Orwellian reason Requests for Comments 
became Standards and Internet Draft (which sounds like a preliminary 
standard) become comments.  But we have hashed that issue before 
elsewhere.  It is still pretty informal.

>
>I've increasingly seen draft deltas go to a small off-WG audience
>before popping up when submitted as an 'official' draft just before a
>meet closing deadline; I'm not sure that this is good, since it limits
>on-list discussion before the meet.

But it is typical behavior as committees age, the participation 
broadens, and people participating are playing their own agendas. 
This one of the oldest games in the book.

>
>I'm worried that the process will even become more formal still, if:
>
>http://ftp.ietf.org/iesg/iesg.2002-12-12
>IP     o Thomas to write (or cause to be written) a draft on "how to
>          get to Draft"
>
>is anything to go by.

My experience is that formality creeps in primarily as the process is 
abused.  The more it is abused the more necessary it is to make rules 
about things where it could be assumed that good and fair behavior 
would prevail.  As the stakes increase, that becomes less the case. 
The only way for it not to happen is to work on things that few 
people care about!  Either because they don't know it is important or 
because it isn't!

Take care,
John



From touch at ISI.EDU  Tue Jan 14 15:11:22 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:11:22 -0800
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
References: <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com> <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org> <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu> <p05111705ba49979d846e@[62.11.49.137]> <3E242E02.7040000@isi.edu> <v04220800ba4a3c7e0fa4@[10.0.1.17]>
Message-ID: <3E24991A.4000407@isi.edu>

John Day wrote:
>>
>> Authors will cease to present partially-complete ideas. There will be 
>> fewer work-in-progress drafts. There will, in summary, be less of this 
>> 'good or bad' research to preserve.
> 
> This is not the case and has not been the case with other groups.

There are some people (myself included) who will cease to publish 
drafts. That decreases (by definition) the set of what is published; to 
the extent that others care, it will further decrease that set.

> I have not noticed that the fact this material is available in the 
> group's paper trail has any effect on the amount or quality of the 
> contributions.

That's nearly impossible to measure. We have no series that was 
explicitly not archived then archived to compare. All we have are 
different communities right now.

...
>> The thing that makes IDs unique is _exactly_ the fact that they are 
>> NOT archived. Were that property to disappear, there would be a void.
> 
> No the problem we have is there is a void.  To modify an old adage, 
> those who can not know history are doomed to repeat it.  Actually now 
> that you mention it that may explain alot.

There always was, and continues to be a path for publication that some 
draft authors have chosen and others have not. Draft authors can always 
submit documents for Informational RFC; some have, others have not. 
Although there are some submissions which have been rejected (every 
system has its minimum standards), overall we already have a solution to 
this problem, and it doesn't involve archiving all drafts for historical 
purposes.

I agree that the world is less informed by not having the intermediate 
forms of "the Shining", e.g. That is as it has been - the choice of the 
author. All we do by archiving drafts is to take the ephemeral track away.

Joe




From touch at ISI.EDU  Tue Jan 14 15:16:45 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:16:45 -0800
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
References: <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com> <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org> <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu> <p05111705ba49979d846e@[62.11.49.137]> <5.1.0.14.2.20030115065000.00b55810@kahuna.telstra.net> <5.1.1.6.2.20030114164432.03c1eca8@mail.reed.com.>
Message-ID: <3E249A5D.8060804@isi.edu>

David P. Reed wrote:
> Fair use is explicitly part of copyright law.   History is clearly a 
> policy goal of fair use.   IANAL, but I would expect that there is 
> precedent protecting people who share personal archives of documents for 
> the purpose of historical research.

I cannot provide you with a photographic copy of copyrighted material 
without the permission of the publisher. You can make one for yourself, 
but you cannot distribute it. That precedent already exists for paper 
works. IANAL either, but I would expect that this is a reasonable 
analog, and that regardless of the "public good" of distributing those 
copies "for historical purposes," it would still be a blatent violation 
of copyright law.

> Just a reminder from someone dedicated to educating people that 
> copyright includes rights of fair use, as well as other exceptions.   
> Electronic rights are complex, as well.  The Internet crosses 
> jurisdictions, and documents such as IDs are published in many locations 
> at once, so the right to "unpublish" is determined by jurisdiction.

"unpublish" is a bit misleading. When IDs are published, they are 
distributed by the IETF by authority of the author under explicit 
time-limited terms. Once those terms cease, (again, IANAL), it seems 
that further public distribution constitutes continued "publication", 
and would be a violation of copyright law.

I cannot remove it from everyone's personal archives, but I believe I 
can prevent anyone from passing it on to anyone else, whether posting it 
for the 'public good' or otherwise.

> IMO, standing behind copyright really distorts the issue of desirable 
> dissemination of knowledge and scientific knowledge, in particular.

Doing things that violate private rights for the "public good," despite 
the current fashion, are detestable.

Joe





From touch at ISI.EDU  Tue Jan 14 15:22:24 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:22:24 -0800
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
References: <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com> <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org> <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu> <p05111705ba49979d846e@[62.11.49.137]> <5.1.1.6.2.20030114161233.03c28df0@mail.reed.com.>
Message-ID: <3E249BB0.9070001@isi.edu>

David P. Reed wrote:
> At 07:34 AM 1/14/2003 -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>> Authors will cease to present partially-complete ideas. There will be 
>> fewer work-in-progress drafts. There will, in summary, be less of this 
>> 'good or bad' research to preserve.
> 
> This claim raises two issues:
> 
> 1. The assertion that "authors will cease..." unless things they write 
> are deleted from institutional memory (or at least not actively 
> preserved) is falsifiable by straightforward experimental evidence.  

There are IDs which authors chose not to publish as RFCs or as tech 
reports elsewhere.

Thus concludes the contradiction of the falsification. By those 
examples, removing all documents that authors never intended for 
archival publication reduces the set of IDs.

> 2. Shouldn't the authors be given the choice to preserve in an archival 
> form their thoughts, along with all other IDs, etc. in such a way that 
> makes it much less work for historians and students of design options to 
> understand old proposals?

They are - Informational RFCs. Note that not all IDs went that route. 
Again, proof by example.

IMO, the authors should continue to be given the choice they already 
have - NOT to publish archivally. They already have the alternate choice 
in spades.

Joe





From faber at ISI.EDU  Tue Jan 14 15:35:23 2003
From: faber at ISI.EDU (Ted Faber)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:35:23 -0800
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20030114164432.03c1eca8@mail.reed.com.>
References: <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com> <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org> <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu> <p05111705ba49979d846e@[62.11.49.137]> <5.1.0.14.2.20030115065000.00b55810@kahuna.telstra.net> <5.1.1.6.2.20030114164432.03c1eca8@mail.reed.com.>
Message-ID: <20030114233523.GA97888@pun.isi.edu>

On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 04:53:55PM -0500, David P. Reed wrote:
> Fair use is explicitly part of copyright law.   History is clearly a policy 
> goal of fair use.   IANAL, but I would expect that there is precedent 
> protecting people who share personal archives of documents for the purpose 
> of historical research.

Fair use is deep water with dangerous currents.  I'm not a lawyer,
either, but I wouldn't try to assert a fair use claim in the face of
opposition without one either.

I'd want to see that precedent before I'd rely on there being one.  More
to the point, I'd want my laywer to see that precedent.

Keeping a private collection of documents and allowing specific people
access to them for historical puproses is one thing, making a collection
of documents publically available is another.  Anything intended to be
detected by Google feels more like the former than the latter to me.
The UCLA film library can't start showing their copyrighted films to the
general public on a regular basis no matter how noble or scholarly their
intent.
> 
> Just a reminder from someone dedicated to educating people that copyright 
> includes rights of fair use, as well as other exceptions.   Electronic 
> rights are complex, as well.  The Internet crosses jurisdictions, and 
> documents such as IDs are published in many locations at once, so the right 
> to "unpublish" is determined by jurisdiction.

It's not at all clear to me that the idea of unpublishing has been
legally tested.  I don't know if there's any legal precedent at all.
For all I know, the very idea of unpublishing something may well be a
nonsense idea in the legal world.  I'd love to see a relevant legal
citation.

I'm just worrying about the US system, though you are correct that the
Internet situation is even more complex.

> 
> IMO, standing behind copyright really distorts the issue of desirable 
> dissemination of knowledge and scientific knowledge, in particular.

Perhaps, but cranky ID authors are not the primary problem in this
regard.  Many conferences and journals also enforce copyright on
scientific knowledge.

More practically, if people are concerned about keeping the majority of
the IDs available, the simplest tack is not to futz with the lawyers,
but to get the IDs, set up a website and make them available.  When an
ID expires (a situation detectable with a perl script) mail the author
(their e-mail address is also part of the ID) and request permission to
archive the thing.  If the author says OK, you leave the copy up
(perhaps appending a notice that the expired draft appears with the
author's permission), otherwise you delete the draft.  The whole thing
can be largely automated (including the author's reply for prolific
authors).  I suspect that the negative responses would be very few.

Results: ID's (other than authors who'd be a pain about it anyway)
legally archived in the web for posterity, and I don't have to hear this
argument for the one thousand and first time.
-------------- 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/20030114/67a79c45/attachment.sig>

From faber at ISI.EDU  Tue Jan 14 15:42:54 2003
From: faber at ISI.EDU (Ted Faber)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:42:54 -0800
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
In-Reply-To: <3E249A5D.8060804@isi.edu>
References: <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com> <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org> <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu> <p05111705ba49979d846e@[62.11.49.137]> <5.1.0.14.2.20030115065000.00b55810@kahuna.telstra.net> <5.1.1.6.2.20030114164432.03c1eca8@mail.reed.com.> <3E249A5D.8060804@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <20030114234254.GB97888@pun.isi.edu>

On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 03:16:45PM -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
> David P. Reed wrote:
> >IMO, standing behind copyright really distorts the issue of desirable 
> >dissemination of knowledge and scientific knowledge, in particular.
> 
> Doing things that violate private rights for the "public good," despite 
> the current fashion, are detestable.

You're posting angry again, Joe. :-)

That statement is false on its face (and I think your earlier statements
about your rights to stop publication were also a little too sweeping).
Most laws are about balancing public goods and private rights, and I
know you know it.  My private right to free speech is violated in
crowded movie houses all over the country for the public good of
avoiding mass tramplings.

Maybe you'd like to unpublish this 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/20030114/8fdfd4f1/attachment.sig>

From touch at ISI.EDU  Tue Jan 14 16:47:28 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 16:47:28 -0800
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
References: <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com> <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org> <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu> <p05111705ba49979d846e@[62.11.49.137]> <5.1.0.14.2.20030115065000.00b55810@kahuna.telstra.net> <5.1.1.6.2.20030114164432.03c1eca8@mail.reed.com.> <3E249A5D.8060804@isi.edu> <20030114234254.GB97888@pun.isi.edu>
Message-ID: <3E24AFA0.7040605@isi.edu>

Ted Faber wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 03:16:45PM -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>>David P. Reed wrote:
>>
>>>IMO, standing behind copyright really distorts the issue of desirable 
>>>dissemination of knowledge and scientific knowledge, in particular.
>>
>>Doing things that violate private rights for the "public good," despite 
>>the current fashion, are detestable.
> 
> 
> You're posting angry again, Joe. :-)
> 
> That statement is false on its face (and I think your earlier statements
> about your rights to stop publication were also a little too sweeping).
> Most laws are about balancing public goods and private rights, and I
> know you know it.  My private right to free speech is violated in
> crowded movie houses all over the country for the public good of
> avoiding mass tramplings.
> 
> Maybe you'd like to unpublish this one. :-)

Unpublishing isn't the issue, FWIW; the issue is permission to publish 
for a finite period of time. That's fairly common. When the granted time 
expires, the source is no longer permitted to publish.

Putting things on web servers is publishing. I never said I could erase 
things from archives, just prohibit them from being put on web servers 
everyone could access.

As to balancing public good, I agree. I said _violate_, not balance.

Joe





From day at std.com  Tue Jan 14 16:48:11 2003
From: day at std.com (John Day)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:48:11 -0500
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
In-Reply-To: <3E24991A.4000407@isi.edu>
References:  <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com>
 <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org> <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu>
 <p05111705ba49979d846e@[62.11.49.137]> <3E242E02.7040000@isi.edu>
 <v04220800ba4a3c7e0fa4@[10.0.1.17]> <3E24991A.4000407@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <v04220805ba4a5d4bc46a@[10.0.1.17]>

At 15:11 -0800 1/14/03, Joe Touch wrote:
>John Day wrote:
>>>
>>>Authors will cease to present partially-complete ideas. There will 
>>>be fewer work-in-progress drafts. There will, in summary, be less 
>>>of this 'good or bad' research to preserve.
>>
>>This is not the case and has not been the case with other groups.
>
>There are some people (myself included) who will cease to publish 
>drafts. That decreases (by definition) the set of what is published; 
>to the extent that others care, it will further decrease that set.

Somehow I doubt that ;-)  but statistically I think you would find 
that the number who would not submit contributions would be 
insignificant.  And since no one person's ideas are so important that 
the rest can not get on without them, it is doubtful they would be 
missed.  This effort is not personal, it is stochastic.

>
>>I have not noticed that the fact this material is available in the 
>>group's paper trail has any effect on the amount or quality of the 
>>contributions.
>
>That's nearly impossible to measure. We have no series that was 
>explicitly not archived then archived to compare. All we have are 
>different communities right now.

Actually, not true.  If you look at IEEE, T1, ISO, ITU, ANSI, ABA, 
IEC, and many other groups you will find that such paper trails exist 
and perhaps not readily available they are available.

>
>...
>>>The thing that makes IDs unique is _exactly_ the fact that they 
>>>are NOT archived. Were that property to disappear, there would be 
>>>a void.
>>
>>No the problem we have is there is a void.  To modify an old adage, 
>>those who can not know history are doomed to repeat it.  Actually 
>>now that you mention it that may explain alot.
>
>There always was, and continues to be a path for publication that 
>some draft authors have chosen and others have not. Draft authors 
>can always submit documents for Informational RFC; some have, others 
>have not. Although there are some submissions which have been 
>rejected (every system has its minimum standards), overall we 
>already have a solution to this problem, and it doesn't involve 
>archiving all drafts for historical purposes.
>
>I agree that the world is less informed by not having the 
>intermediate forms of "the Shining", e.g. That is as it has been - 
>the choice of the author. All we do by archiving drafts is to take 
>the ephemeral track away.

This is not at all the case.  Science is a much different process 
than writing a novel.  The exploration of the domain of inquiry and 
the process by which it takes place is as important as the final 
answer.  More often than not the process may provide more 
understanding for the next problem than the answer ever will.

Take care,
John



From touch at ISI.EDU  Tue Jan 14 17:03:47 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:03:47 -0800
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
References: <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com> <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org> <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu> <p05111705ba49979d846e@[62.11.49.137]> <3E242E02.7040000@isi.edu> <v04220800ba4a3c7e0fa4@[10.0.1.17]> <3E24991A.4000407@isi.edu> <v04220805ba4a5d4bc46a@[10.0.1.17]>
Message-ID: <3E24B373.40009@isi.edu>

John Day wrote:
> At 15:11 -0800 1/14/03, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>> John Day wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Authors will cease to present partially-complete ideas. There will 
>>>> be fewer work-in-progress drafts. There will, in summary, be less of 
>>>> this 'good or bad' research to preserve.
>>>
>>> This is not the case and has not been the case with other groups.
>>
>> There are some people (myself included) who will cease to publish 
>> drafts. That decreases (by definition) the set of what is published; 
>> to the extent that others care, it will further decrease that set.
> 
> Somehow I doubt that ;-)  but statistically I think you would find that 
> the number who would not submit contributions would be insignificant.  

OK - so we disagree on what might happen.

>>> I have not noticed that the fact this material is available in the 
>>> group's paper trail has any effect on the amount or quality of the 
>>> contributions.
>>
>> That's nearly impossible to measure. We have no series that was 
>> explicitly not archived then archived to compare. All we have are 
>> different communities right now.
> 
> Actually, not true.  If you look at IEEE, T1, ISO, ITU, ANSI, ABA, IEC, 
> and many other groups you will find that such paper trails exist and 
> perhaps not readily available they are available.

That is not a metric. You are not citing groups that changed policies; 
they were archival from the start. Agreed that they have open exchange, 
but by design.

>> ...
>>
>>>> The thing that makes IDs unique is _exactly_ the fact that they are 
>>>> NOT archived. Were that property to disappear, there would be a void.
>>>
>>> No the problem we have is there is a void.  To modify an old adage, 
>>> those who can not know history are doomed to repeat it.  Actually now 
>>> that you mention it that may explain alot.
>>
>>
>> There always was, and continues to be a path for publication that some 
>> draft authors have chosen and others have not. Draft authors can 
>> always submit documents for Informational RFC; some have, others have 
>> not. Although there are some submissions which have been rejected 
>> (every system has its minimum standards), overall we already have a 
>> solution to this problem, and it doesn't involve archiving all drafts 
>> for historical purposes.
>>
>> I agree that the world is less informed by not having the intermediate 
>> forms of "the Shining", e.g. That is as it has been - the choice of 
>> the author. All we do by archiving drafts is to take the ephemeral 
>> track away.
> 
> This is not at all the case.  Science is a much different process than 
> writing a novel.  The exploration of the domain of inquiry and the 
> process by which it takes place is as important as the final answer.  
> More often than not the process may provide more understanding for the 
> next problem than the answer ever will.

That may be the case, but it is the authors' decision, absent a-priori 
arrangements of a forum (e.g., this forum is archived, and that is known 
by participants when they sign-up).

IDs are a place where exploration comes without the threat of persistent 
archives of proposals, _by design_. As mentioned before, there are 
plenty of other archival forums, including RFCs themselves.

Joe




From andrew.russell at colorado.edu  Tue Jan 14 17:21:43 2003
From: andrew.russell at colorado.edu (Andrew Russell)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:21:43 -0700
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
In-Reply-To: <v04220801ba4a3df86891@[10.0.1.17]>
References:   <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com>
 <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org> <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu>
 <p05111705ba49979d846e@[62.11.49.137]> <3E242E02.7040000@isi.edu>
 <Pine.GSO.4.50.0301141550020.1090-100000@artemis.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
 <v04220801ba4a3df86891@[10.0.1.17]>
Message-ID: <p05100300ba4a44640bde@[10.0.0.2]>

>My experience is that formality creeps in primarily as the process 
>is abused.  The more it is abused the more necessary it is to make 
>rules about things where it could be assumed that good and fair 
>behavior would prevail.  As the stakes increase, that becomes less 
>the case. The only way for it not to happen is to work on things 
>that few people care about!  Either because they don't know it is 
>important or because it isn't!
>
>Take care,
>John

 From my research into the early institution-building of Internet 
standards (ICCB, IAB, IETF), it seems that another reason for 
building in formality is to allow open participation. As 
participation and interest grow, so too must the governing 
structures.  The history of ICCB, IAB, and IETF suggests that this 
sort of scalable governance was a key to the growth of the Internet - 
I've got a work-in-progress on some of this political and cultural 
history, a paper is available from   http://aconcept51.com/arussell/. 
I would love to hear comments, stories, etc if anyone's interested in 
contributing.

As for historians using Internet Drafts - anyone faithful to the 
Guidelines for Internet Drafts 
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt will note that the first 
paragraph states:  "These documents should not be cited or quoted in 
any formal document."  That's pretty clear.  On the surface, I don't 
see any harm in looking up an old ID in a personal archive or on 
google, especially if it helps the thinking process.  We'll know 
things are getting out of hand when the lawyers come in and the IETF 
begins a RIAA-style crackdown on distribution of old IDs....

Andy
http://ucsub.colorado.edu/~russelal/


From the.map at alum.mit.edu  Tue Jan 14 17:47:16 2003
From: the.map at alum.mit.edu (Mike Padlipsky)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:47:16 -0800
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20030114162057.01caccb0@mail.lafn.org>

what i take to be a false, or at best misleading, premise ['So, IDs could 
be as valuable as RFCs.'] and the non-sequitur drawn from it ['Then, why 
imposing a 6 month limit for IDs, when diskspace is so cheap?'] has 
generated an awful lot of fuss.

as a semi-outsider these days [well, make that years: i had to ask joe 
off-list whether 'id's' had been term-limited from the outset, since i'd 
given up writing rfc's by '89 and wasn't paying any particular attention to 
the to-me by-then rather byzantine process involved], perhaps i can offer a 
somewhat useful perspective:

joe's underlying objection seems to me to be that the rules should not be 
changed _retroactively_.  when extant id's were written, they were by 
definition meant to be 'ephemeral', hence coming along and somehow 
declaring them not to have been well after the fact does feel rather like 
the sort of trick the u.s. congress often plays, but at some level 
shouldn't, ex-post-facto-wise.

ted's to-me well-meant mechanization of an approval process to ameliorate 
the situation seems to me to be somewhere near the right track but does 
have a couple of flaws: in the first place, most of the 'id's' to be placed 
in his proposed more-or-less official archive have already expired [many by 
10 yrs or more], so at some level really shldn't be archived pending author 
approval/disapproval under the new disposition.  perhaps he meant 'from now 
on', tho; in wh/ case, in the second place, the procedure he suggests might 
well be in the true current spirit of the rfc process but does feel awfully 
byzantine to me.

granted, that might just make me a swine, before whom perls shldn't be 
dropped, but how about a simpler approach?  update whatever rfc [or other 
series] document it was that established the 6-month lifetime for 'id's', 
or write a new one if necessary, and, explicitly in light of the _possible_ 
'historical' value of making the information available for more than 6 
months, add a provision that when submitted, 'id's' may be declared by 
their authors to be archivable after 'expiration', iff [sic] the authors 
choose to make such declaration.  thus, those who wld be put off by the 
threat of casting their hipshots in concrete wldn't have to worry, and 
those who aren't put off [wld it be too cruel to say those who believe 
their every byte is a pearl, because it's theirs?  probably.  i suppose.] 
can play the new game.

after all, think of how much fun you can have with that -- in/on, i hope 
and trust, some far more appropriate e-venue than 'internet-history' -- 
including but not limited to debating the exact phrasing of the waiver, and 
whether it should only apply to some t/b/d official archive or to 
personally held copies or to both....

[in light of the half-dozen add'l msgs that came in while i was drafting 
this, better make that  IN/ON, I HOPE AND TRUST, SOME FAR MORE APPROPRIATE 
E-VENUE THAN 'INTERNET-HISTORY'.]


cheers, map

[whose shoulder problems caused him to break down some time ago and create
a 'signature' file to apologize for the lack of his formerly customary
e-volubility -- and who's been employing shiftless typing for a long time
now to spare his wristsnfingers, in case you didn't know ... and who's
further broken down and done http://www.lafn.org/~ba213/mapstuff.html ,
rather grudgingly]





From day at std.com  Tue Jan 14 17:53:10 2003
From: day at std.com (John Day)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 20:53:10 -0500
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
In-Reply-To: <p05100300ba4a44640bde@[10.0.0.2]>
References:  <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com>
 <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org> <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu>
 <p05111705ba49979d846e@[62.11.49.137]> <3E242E02.7040000@isi.edu>
 <Pine.GSO.4.50.0301141550020.1090-100000@artemis.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
 <v04220801ba4a3df86891@[10.0.1.17]> <p05100300ba4a44640bde@[10.0.0.2]>
Message-ID: <v04220809ba4a6d297ed7@[10.0.1.17]>

At 18:21 -0700 1/14/03, Andrew Russell wrote:
>>My experience is that formality creeps in primarily as the process 
>>is abused.  The more it is abused the more necessary it is to make 
>>rules about things where it could be assumed that good and fair 
>>behavior would prevail.  As the stakes increase, that becomes less 
>>the case. The only way for it not to happen is to work on things 
>>that few people care about!  Either because they don't know it is 
>>important or because it isn't!
>>
>>Take care,
>>John
>
>From my research into the early institution-building of Internet 
>standards (ICCB, IAB, IETF), it seems that another reason for 
>building in formality is to allow open participation. As 
>participation

I don't see how formality allows open participation.  Generally, the 
minimal number of rules is best and then only to ensure fair 
participation.  My experience has been that the number of rules and 
the formality of the process increases either when fairness is abused 
or one group attempts to maintain control of the process.  The first 
is a case where without written rules some try to use the fact that 
"there is no rule that says I can't" to abuse a fair and reasonable 
process.

Initially there were very few if any written rules.  My understanding 
is that the rules in place came about when it became clear that the 
IETF/IESG/IAB etc.  needed to be able to ensure that a process was 
followed that would not subject it to law suits or claims of 
anti-trust behavior.  The process was and always has been about as 
open as you can get without formality.  Frankly, I think the current 
process is so open that it provides the perfect disguise for 
manipulation by anyone with the resources to play the game.

Take care,
John



From rms46 at vLSM.org  Tue Jan 14 18:13:06 2003
From: rms46 at vLSM.org (Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:13:06 +0700
Subject: [ih] Let Me Preserve the CIDR thread
Message-ID: <3E24C3B2.7EB4BBD1@vLSM.org>

Ta da! 

Let me preserve the (edited) CIDR thread at:

       http://bebas.vlsm.org/v01/internet/ietf/00/0202.txt

Hopefully, this will become a permanent record, so that noone has
to worry about **DEAD 404 URLs** in future. 


PS:
- For example, the timeline of IPv6:
          http://vlsm.org/rms46/1/42.html
  is using that archive.

- Sigh... I just noticed that the IAB has again changed its URLs :-(.
  Therefore, I have copied the January 1991 minutes into 
  http://bebas.vlsm.org/v01/internet/ietf/00/0203.txt


-- 
Rahmat M.  Samik-Ibrahim -- vLSM.org  -- http://rms46.vLSM.org --
-- Dear ALL: Enlarge your Peni^Hsion safely and naturally! ------


From andrew.russell at colorado.edu  Tue Jan 14 21:24:33 2003
From: andrew.russell at colorado.edu (Andrew Russell)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:24:33 -0700
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
In-Reply-To: <v04220809ba4a6d297ed7@[10.0.1.17]>
References:   <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com>
 <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org> <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu>
 <p05111705ba49979d846e@[62.11.49.137]> <3E242E02.7040000@isi.edu>
 <Pine.GSO.4.50.0301141550020.1090-100000@artemis.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
 <v04220801ba4a3df86891@[10.0.1.17]> <p05100300ba4a44640bde@[10.0.0.2]>
 <v04220809ba4a6d297ed7@[10.0.1.17]>
Message-ID: <p05100300ba4a9c0e473d@[10.0.0.2]>

>At 18:21 -0700 1/14/03, Andrew Russell wrote:
>>>My experience is that formality creeps in primarily as the process 
>>>is abused.  The more it is abused the more necessary it is to make 
>>>rules about things where it could be assumed that good and fair 
>>>behavior would prevail.  As the stakes increase, that becomes less 
>>>the case. The only way for it not to happen is to work on things 
>>>that few people care about!  Either because they don't know it is 
>>>important or because it isn't!
>>>
>>>Take care,
>>>John
>>
>>From my research into the early institution-building of Internet 
>>standards (ICCB, IAB, IETF), it seems that another reason for 
>>building in formality is to allow open participation. As 
>>participation
>
>I don't see how formality allows open participation.  Generally, the 
>minimal number of rules is best and then only to ensure fair 
>participation.  My experience has been that the number of rules and 
>the formality of the process increases either when fairness is 
>abused or one group attempts to maintain control of the process. 
>The first is a case where without written rules some try to use the 
>fact that "there is no rule that says I can't" to abuse a fair and 
>reasonable process.

In this case I would think that the creation of rules is a healthy 
development for preserving a fair and reasonable process.

>Initially there were very few if any written rules.  My 
>understanding is that the rules in place came about when it became 
>clear that the IETF/IESG/IAB etc.  needed to be able to ensure that 
>a process was followed that would not subject it to law suits or 
>claims of anti-trust behavior.  The process was and always has been 
>about as open as you can get without formality.  Frankly, I think 
>the current process is so open that it provides the perfect disguise 
>for manipulation by anyone with the resources to play the game.

More formal structures allow a body to move away from a small 
"council of elders," thus making leadership somewhat accountable to 
the participants. Comparatively, the IETF has a minimum of rules and 
institutional structures; but those rules keep the process 
consistent, and therefore make the IETF more reliable as an 
institution. Without formal rules, a small group of people could make 
decisions that don't have broad support (such as was alleged of the 
IAB with CLNP in 1992). It's a classic constitution-building question 
- how much authority and structure is needed to preserve freedom? Is 
it too easy to manipulate the system?

Cheers,

Andy



From the.map at alum.mit.edu  Tue Jan 14 22:32:40 2003
From: the.map at alum.mit.edu (Mike Padlipsky)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:32:40 -0800
Subject: [ih] Let Me Preserve the CIDR thread
In-Reply-To: <3E24C3B2.7EB4BBD1@vLSM.org>
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20030114221121.026e7c10@mail.lafn.org>

At 06:13 PM 1/14/03, Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim wrote:
>Let me preserve the (edited) CIDR thread at:
>
>        http://bebas.vlsm.org/v01/internet/ietf/00/0202.txt

if i knew what preserving the 'thread' meant, i might not want to let you 
do it.

if i knew what you meant by 'edited', i probably wouldn't want to let you 
do it.

if, for either reason, i didn't want to let you do it, would that stop 
you?  or would you merely decline to define your terms and do what you 
wanted to anyway?

[or, for completeness, would you offer some sort of definitions of the 
terms, then do what you wanted to anyway?]

while we're at it, if you do whatever it is you want to do, will you 
include the 'Simple question',  'Internet Draft: when and why exactly 6 
months?', and 'Copyright Violation Claim' 'threads' from the summer and 
fall of '01, when you started the pretty much the same wheels spinning in 
pretty much the same mud before?

if not, why not?


cheers, map

[whose shoulder problems caused him to break down some time ago and create
a 'signature' file to apologize for the lack of his formerly customary
e-volubility -- and who's been employing shiftless typing for a long time
now to spare his wristsnfingers, in case you didn't know ... and who's
further broken down and done http://www.lafn.org/~ba213/mapstuff.html ,
rather grudgingly]





From touch at ISI.EDU  Tue Jan 14 22:41:51 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:41:51 -0800
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
References: <5.0.2.1.1.20030114162057.01caccb0@mail.lafn.org>
Message-ID: <3E2502AF.4060302@isi.edu>


Mike Padlipsky wrote:
> what i take to be a false, or at best misleading, premise ['So, IDs 
> could be as valuable as RFCs.'] and the non-sequitur drawn from it 
> ['Then, why imposing a 6 month limit for IDs, when diskspace is so 
> cheap?'] has generated an awful lot of fuss.
...
> joe's underlying objection seems to me to be that the rules should not 
> be changed _retroactively_. 

There are two separate threads that I have promoted:

	1) that the rules cannot be changed retroactively
	2) that the current rules are desirable and provide
	the characteristic uniqueness of the ID series,
	and should be preserved.

I accept that authors do, will, and have always had the chance to opt-in 
to a public archive. Perhaps paradoxically, I have vigorously defended 
my right to refuse permission to others to post my prior IDs (at least 
the ones that I was primary author on), but continue to serve some on my 
own website and have offered them without hesitation to individuals who 
requested them.

> granted, that might just make me a swine, before whom perls shldn't be 
> dropped, but how about a simpler approach?  update whatever rfc [or 
> other series] document it was that established the 6-month lifetime for 
> 'id's', or write a new one if necessary, and, explicitly in light of the 
> _possible_ 'historical' value of making the information available for 
> more than 6 months, add a provision that when submitted, 'id's' may be 
> declared by their authors to be archivable after 'expiration', iff [sic] 
> the authors choose to make such declaration.  

The ID "RFC" 'rules' state only that the IETF assures that it will serve 
the drafts for 6 months, and that they are not to be cited as other than 
work in progress.

Authors could always declare their works in the public domain, thus 
allowing anyone to serve them. It's simple - something akin to "Right is 
hereby granted, in perpituity, for non-profit use and disemmination of 
this document."

I have issue only that this not be required as a condition of 
publication of IDs, to ensure that the past character of the IDs as 
ephemeral (when desired, as always) is retained.

Joe



From dpreed at reed.com  Wed Jan 15 07:08:31 2003
From: dpreed at reed.com (David P. Reed)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:08:31 -0500
Subject: [ih] Cluster Addressing and CIDR
In-Reply-To: <3E249A5D.8060804@isi.edu>
References: <54E40201497DF142B06B27255953F79702AEEA49@il0015exch007u.ih.lucent.com>
 <3E2362D6.4BDB3232@vLSM.org>
 <3E2390D0.5060107@isi.edu>
 <p05111705ba49979d846e@[62.11.49.137]>
 <5.1.0.14.2.20030115065000.00b55810@kahuna.telstra.net>
 <5.1.1.6.2.20030114164432.03c1eca8@mail.reed.com.>
Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20030115100544.03bf1a10@mail.reed.com.>

At 03:16 PM 1/14/2003 -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
>Doing things that violate private rights for the "public good," despite 
>the current fashion, are detestable.

Copyright exists ONLY for the public good.   If it fails to improve the 
public good, and serves only private interests, the Government should no 
longer provide it.  It's not a natural law, it is merely a synthetic 
construct, constructed and enforced by the Government.

There are no "private rights" to transmit information to others, but then 
constrain what they do with it.

The most interesting analogy is in the patent law.   Once you share an 
invention with others, you lose the right to exclude, unless you use 
patents, in which case you gain a purely synthetic right for a very limited 
time, crafted entirely because of a public good argument.



From braden at ISI.EDU  Wed Jan 15 09:06:17 2003
From: braden at ISI.EDU (Bob Braden)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:06:17 GMT
Subject: [ih] Internet History list discussion of Internet Draft rules
Message-ID: <200301151706.RAA04262@gra.isi.edu>

HEY!!! THIS IS A TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE DISCUSSION TO BE HAVING
ON THIS LIST!

I happen to have strong views on this topic, and in fact I was
personally instrumental in creating the present sunset rule for
Internet Drafts 15 years ago.  Joe Touch has been carrying on with
great skill and persistence in upholding Virtue, and I could only
emphasize and amplify the points he is making.

However, THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, so let's
desist. NOW.

Bob Braden


From roki at cosy.sbg.ac.at  Mon Jan 13 16:21:56 2003
From: roki at cosy.sbg.ac.at (Rokitansky, Carl-Herbert)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 01:21:56 +0100
Subject: [ih] Re: Cluster Addressing and CIDR
In-Reply-To: <200301131548.h0DFmumg011846@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20030114011804.02eccd60@mail.cosy.sbg.ac.at>

Dear Noel,
Dear Bob,
Dear Greg,

As you might understand, I am quite happy to hear from you all, and of 
course memories pop up on the work of the IETF / PDN Group in which the 
"Cluster Addressing Scheme" was discussed intensively. In fact, the main 
idea was to extend the "Subnet Addressing Scheme" but in the "other 
direction", with the intention, that not only subnets, but even several 
different Internet networks appear to be reachable "locally" e.g. by direct 
X.25 links, so that similar routing decision algorithms can be be applied, 
using an appropriate "Cluster Addressing Mask", in which only those bits of 
the IP address corresponding to the same "cluster" are set to "1".

In fact, the "Cluster Addressing Scheme" was never published as RFC or IEN, 
but was published in:
[1] Carl-Herbert Rokitansky, "Internet Cluster Addressing Scheme and its 
Application to Public Data  Networks",  Proc.  9th International Conference 
on Computer Communication  (ICCC' 88), pp. 482-491, Tel Aviv, Israel, 
Oct./Nov. 1988.

[2] Carl-Herbert Rokitansky, "Hierarchical VAN-gateway 
Algorithms  and  PDN-Cluster  Addressing Scheme for Worldwide 
Interoperation between Local TCP/IP Networks via X.25 Networks", Informatik 
Fachberichte 205, Springer Verlag Berlin, pp. 758 - 774, Feb. 1989.

and as IETF/PDN Drafts:
- Carl-Herbert Rokitansky, "Internet Cluster Addressing Scheme", PDN Draft 
for Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), July 1989.

- Carl-Herbert Rokitansky, "Application of the Cluster Addressing Scheme to 
X.25 Public Data Networks and Worldwide Internet Reachability Information 
Exchange", PDN Draft for Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), July 1989.

It's "only" a bit more than 13 years ago, but it seems to be an eternity, 
taking into account, what happened since then !

Bob Braden wrote:
 >Roki,
 >It's never too late to repent! The RFC Editor would be glad to
 >publish your latest Internet-Draft, even at this late date. We
 >think it is important that seminal ideas be reflected in an
 >archival document series.
 >Regards,
 >Bob Braden

Of course, I would support, if the RFC Editor would be interested to 
publish the latest internet draft of the "Cluster Addressing Scheme", etc., 
in an archival document series, but I have to check, if I have an 
electronic (and readable) copy available myself, so I would appreciate if 
some appropriate people could also check if they have an easier access to 
such copies in an electronic archive !

So, please expect subsequent message(s) on this issue.
If you need any additional information, please let me know !

Thanks for bringing this issue up,
Best regards,

Carl-Herbert Rokitansky (Roki)
=======================

PS: As far as I can recall (having currently no access to any old 
documents) the IETF (or plans for it ?) was established in 1984 in a 
meeting in Malvern, UK at RSRE, in Sept (?) 1984 (could anyone please 
confirm), in which several of us participated ! Do you have any plans 
already to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the IETF 
! Please keep me informed. Thanks ! Roki.
==================================================================

Am 10:48 13.01.03 -0500 schrieben Sie:
>I was reading a paper by Paul Francis and Ramakrishna Gummadi, and a
>reference caused me to re-read an interesting-sounding old paper they
>referenced (RFC-1380, "IESG Deliberations on Routing and Addressing") to
>refresh my memory of it, and further to read similar documents it referenced
>(e.g. RFC-1287, "Towards the Future Internet Architecture").
>
>In so doing, I was upset to see that the references included no mention of
>the work of Carl-Herbert Rokitansky, whose "cluster addressing" scheme was
>the first case I can recall of someone proposing to group a number of IP
>network numbers together, and treat them as a single entity - the idea which
>later became the key concept behind CIDR.
>
>Granted, the original cluster addressing scheme had a different goal entirely
>(it had to do with getting routing to work correctly with multiple X.25
>networks) - but still, it put the thought of that mechanism in the heads of
>everyone who was around at the time.
>
>So, if anyone writes about CIDR in the future, can they please include a
>reference to the cluster addressing work? Thanks.
>
>         Noel

======================================================

H.-Prof. Dr. Carl-Herbert Rokitansky

Universit?t Salzburg
Inst. f. Computerwissenschaften
(Computer Science Institute)
Jakob-Haringerstr. 2
A-5020 Salzburg, Austria

Tel.: +49-172-241 04 71 (GSM)
Fax: +49-172-50-241 04 71 or +43-662-8044-611 or +43-662-64 69 90 18
EMail: <roki at cosy.sbg.ac.at> or <carl.rokitansky at sbg.ac.at>
======================================================



From rich at rd.vrx.net  Mon Jan 13 20:21:13 2003
From: rich at rd.vrx.net (Richard J. Sexton  Ph.D. J.D.)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 23:21:13 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [ih] Re: Cluster Addressing and CIDR
Message-ID: <20030114042113.AD2A0D2A2@ns1.vrx.net>

How does this relate to Postels catanet work?



--

 /"\  ASCII RIBBON      / richard at vrx.net sexton at mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
 \ /  CAMPAIGN AGAINST / http://open-rsc.org http://cr.yp.to/dnsroot.html
  X   HTML MAIL       / NEW -->   http://watches.mbz.org     http://mbz.org
 / \  AND POSTINGS   / http://font.gallery http://dnso.com http://watch.prices


 



From vinton.g.cerf at wcom.com  Tue Jan 14 15:06:58 2003
From: vinton.g.cerf at wcom.com (vinton g. cerf)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:06:58 -0500
Subject: [ih] Re: Cluster Addressing and CIDR
In-Reply-To: <20030114042113.AD2A0D2A2@ns1.vrx.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20030114180456.023bbdd0@pop.wcomnet.com>

"catanet" was a term invented by Louis Pouzin, a French researcher responsible for the design and construction of the Cyclades system that included the Cigale pure datagram network. The term appeared in Internet Experiment Note #48 but as I recall was not used thereafter, when the term "Internet" became the preferred descriptive name of the multiple network system sponsored by ARPA.

Vint

At 11:21 PM 1/13/2003 -0500, Richard J. Sexton  Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
>How does this relate to Postels catanet work?

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 jefsey at club-internet.fr  Tue Jan 14 17:59:09 2003
From: jefsey at club-internet.fr (J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 02:59:09 +0100
Subject: [ih] Re: Cluster Addressing and CIDR
In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20030114180456.023bbdd0@pop.wcomnet.com>
References: <20030114042113.AD2A0D2A2@ns1.vrx.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030115023521.02c2ea00@mail.club-internet.fr>

Louis, some old pre-IETFquestions. What was "cata" standing for?

FYI this thread started asking to remember Carl-Herbert Rokitansky's 
Cluster Adressing Scheme. He then recalled that IETF had probably orignated 
in 1984 in UK. in a meeting he attented. jfc

PS. Vint, when was the name Internet used for the first time? When you say 
'multiple net systems' did  you refer by then to mutiple networks, to 
multiple technologies or both?

At 00:06 15/01/03, vinton g. cerf wrote:
>"catanet" was a term invented by Louis Pouzin, a French researcher 
>responsible for the design and construction of the Cyclades system that 
>included the Cigale pure datagram network. The term appeared in Internet 
>Experiment Note #48 but as I recall was not used thereafter, when the term 
>"Internet" became the preferred description name of the multiple network 
>system sponsored by ARPA.
>
>Vint
>
>At 11:21 PM 1/13/2003 -0500, Richard J. Sexton  Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
> >How does this relate to Postels catanet work?
>
>Vint Cerf
>SVP Architecture & Technology
>WorldCom
>22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
>Ashburn, VA 20147
>703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
>703 886 0047 fax
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 06/12/02

From mstjohns at mindspring.com  Tue Jan 14 19:08:32 2003
From: mstjohns at mindspring.com (Michael StJohns)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:08:32 -0500
Subject: [ih] Re: Cluster Addressing and CIDR
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20030114011804.02eccd60@mail.cosy.sbg.ac.at>
References: <200301131548.h0DFmumg011846@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030114215708.0475ef68@pop.mindspring.com>

At 01:21 AM 1/14/2003 +0100, Rokitansky, Carl-Herbert wrote:
>PS: As far as I can recall (having currently no access to any old 
>documents) the IETF (or plans for it ?) was established in 1984 in a 
>meeting in Malvern, UK at RSRE, in Sept (?) 1984 (could anyone please 
>confirm), in which several of us participated ! Do you have any plans 
>already to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the IETF 
>! Please keep me informed. Thanks ! Roki.
>==================================================================

Hi Roki -

Sorry - wrong date.  The IETF was established as the result of an IAB 
meeting held just immediately before the 1st IETF meeting - which 
incidentally was actually the last GADS (Gateway Architecture and Data 
Structures) meeting.  Mike Corrigan (my boss and the Technical Manager for 
the Defense Data Network) came in late in the day on the first day of the 
meeting and informed us the IAB had decided to split GADS into the INENG 
and the INARC (Internet Engineering and Internet Architecture) and that the 
GADS chair (Dave Mills) was now the chair of INARC.  Mike Corrigan took 
over as the first chair of the INENG which pretty immediately became the 
IETF (it was easier on the tongue).

We spent about 1/2 of the 2nd day on engineering issues and I would really 
call that specific day the first IETF meeting.  According to the IETF 
website, that was January 17th, 1986 - so we've got a few years yet until 
the 20th anniversary.

Later, Mike



From pouzin at email.enst.fr  Tue Jan 14 19:48:19 2003
From: pouzin at email.enst.fr (Louis Pouzin)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 04:48:19 +0100 (MET)
Subject: [ih] re: Cluster Addressing and CIDR
Message-ID: <200301150348.h0F3mJ6v008534@ares.enst.fr>

On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 02:59:09 +0100, J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

>Louis, some old pre-IETFquestions. What was "cata" standing for?

It's mispelled. The word is "catenet". Obvious origin: latin catena -> chain; french: cat?naire; english: catena, catenation.

Cheers


From JimFleming at ameritech.net  Tue Jan 14 20:00:50 2003
From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Techno.C@T)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:00:50 -0600
Subject: [ih] Re: Cluster Addressing and CIDR
References: <200301150348.h0F3mJ6v008534@ares.enst.fr>
Message-ID: <088801c2bc4a$b266ab70$8500a8c0@repligate>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Pouzin" <pouzin at email.enst.fr>
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 9:48 PM
Subject: re: Cluster Addressing and CIDR


On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 02:59:09 +0100, J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

>Louis, some old pre-IETFquestions. What was "cata" standing for?

It's mispelled. The word is "catenet". Obvious origin: latin catena -> chain; french: cat?naire; english: catena, catenation.
=====

Thanks for the name...we partly named a programming language after it....C at T

http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9310/
http://www.computer.org/software/so1991/s3073abs.htm

C at T is also aka CALICO as in a C at T of Many Colors...
...and also C+@ because of the addition of the @ operator from Smalltalk to C...

Someday I may tell people the whole story behind it...
...but, 8 years of work resulted in Sun "studying it" and announcing Java...
...and now we have Microsoft with C#...
...instead of Go-Mono....maybe it should be Go Figure...
http://www.go-mono.com



From vinton.g.cerf at wcom.com  Wed Jan 15 00:04:21 2003
From: vinton.g.cerf at wcom.com (vinton g. cerf)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 03:04:21 -0500
Subject: [ih] Re: Cluster Addressing and CIDR
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030115023521.02c2ea00@mail.club-internet.fr>
References: <5.1.1.6.2.20030114180456.023bbdd0@pop.wcomnet.com>
 <20030114042113.AD2A0D2A2@ns1.vrx.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20030115030238.01720260@pop.wcomnet.com>

My first recollection of the documented use of the term "Internet" was in RFC 675 the specification of the Internet Transmission Control Protocol.

ARPA called the project "Internetting" starting in 1973, I believe.

Bob Kahn you know that point for sure.

vint

At 02:59 AM 1/15/2003 +0100, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:
>PS. Vint, when was the name Internet used for the first time? When you say 'multiple net systems' did  you refer by then to mutiple networks, to multiple technologies or both?

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 touch at ISI.EDU  Wed Jan 15 17:11:21 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:11:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ih] testing
Message-ID: <200301160111.h0G1BLk27178@boreas.isi.edu>

Test - please ignore.



From touch at ISI.EDU  Wed Jan 15 17:12:03 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:12:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ih] testing XGF132
Message-ID: <200301160112.h0G1C3628143@boreas.isi.edu>

Please ignore



From touch at ISI.EDU  Wed Jan 15 22:23:51 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 22:23:51 -0800
Subject: [ih] FYI - spam filters in place
Message-ID: <3E264FF7.7030704@isi.edu>

Hi, all,

In response to the recent flurry of both spam and viruses, I have 
installed a spam filter on this list, similar to that which was 
developed for use on the end2end-interest at postel.org list recently.

FYI: this filter will occasionally flag posts as "held for approval", 
sometimes indicating a "suspicious header". This header is the one our 
spam filter inserts, not a comment on the headers of the mail posted.

Held mail is checked periodically (typically at least once daily), and 
forwarded if OK.

Joe
(list maintainer)



From listsubs at dstudio.clara.net  Fri Jan 17 10:09:02 2003
From: listsubs at dstudio.clara.net (Rick)
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:09:02 -0000
Subject: [ih] History of Online Databases
Message-ID: <3E2846BE.18370.A364374@localhost>

Hello all ...

Does anyone know (or can point me in the right
direction) when the first online databases appeared?

I'm particularly interested in the first web-enabled
databases -- how long after the launch of the WWW was
it before anyone wrote a web-specific program, and
what were the first databases used for? 

Context: trying to produce useful teaching materials
for a  UK national qualification:
http://www.edexcel.org.uk/qualifications/QualificationAward.aspx?id=45013
Unit 4: "Internet - Past, Present and Future".

Thanks ...
(Rick)
--
listsubs `[at]` dstudio.clara.net




From mills at udel.edu  Fri Jan 17 13:17:40 2003
From: mills at udel.edu (David L. Mills)
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 21:17:40 +0000
Subject: [ih] History of Online Databases
References: <3E2846BE.18370.A364374@localhost>
Message-ID: <3E2872F4.3E7ABFBE@udel.edu>

Rick,

I submit the first online ubiquitous database was the ARPANET host name
file. This may not be what you have in mind.

Dave

Rick wrote:
> 
> Hello all ...
> 
> Does anyone know (or can point me in the right
> direction) when the first online databases appeared?
> 
> I'm particularly interested in the first web-enabled
> databases -- how long after the launch of the WWW was
> it before anyone wrote a web-specific program, and
> what were the first databases used for?
> 
> Context: trying to produce useful teaching materials
> for a  UK national qualification:
> http://www.edexcel.org.uk/qualifications/QualificationAward.aspx?id=45013
> Unit 4: "Internet - Past, Present and Future".
> 
> Thanks ...
> (Rick)
> --
> listsubs `[at]` dstudio.clara.net



From craig at aland.bbn.com  Wed Jan 15 18:01:38 2003
From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 21:01:38 -0500
Subject: [ih] Re: Cluster Addressing and CIDR 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:08:32 EST."
             <5.1.0.14.2.20030114215708.0475ef68@pop.mindspring.com> 
Message-ID: <200301160201.h0G21c7f044136@aland.bbn.com>

In message <5.1.0.14.2.20030114215708.0475ef68 at pop.mindspring.com>, Michael StJ
ohns writes:

>We spent about 1/2 of the 2nd day on engineering issues and I would really 
>call that specific day the first IETF meeting.  According to the IETF 
>website, that was January 17th, 1986 - so we've got a few years yet until 
>the 20th anniversary.

Mike:

Do you remember how many of the 1986 meetings were closed?

I first attended the Moffett Field meeting (which was periodically
interrupted by U-2s taking off) in Feburary 1987.  My recollection is that
it was the 2nd meeting open to all attendees, but I'm not sure.

Craig



From mstjohns at mindspring.com  Wed Jan 15 18:50:04 2003
From: mstjohns at mindspring.com (Michael StJohns)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 21:50:04 -0500
Subject: [ih] Re: Cluster Addressing and CIDR 
In-Reply-To: <200301160201.h0G21c7f044136@aland.bbn.com>
References: <Your message of "Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:08:32 EST." <5.1.0.14.2.20030114215708.0475ef68@pop.mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030115212406.047e9d50@pop.mindspring.com>

At 09:01 PM 1/15/2003 -0500, Craig Partridge wrote:

>In message <5.1.0.14.2.20030114215708.0475ef68 at pop.mindspring.com>, 
>Michael StJ
>ohns writes:
>
> >We spent about 1/2 of the 2nd day on engineering issues and I would really
> >call that specific day the first IETF meeting.  According to the IETF
> >website, that was January 17th, 1986 - so we've got a few years yet until
> >the 20th anniversary.
>
>Mike:
>
>Do you remember how many of the 1986 meetings were closed?
>
>I first attended the Moffett Field meeting (which was periodically
>interrupted by U-2s taking off) in Feburary 1987.  My recollection is that
>it was the 2nd meeting open to all attendees, but I'm not sure.
>
>Craig

Craig - I don't think that any of the meetings were explicitly closed, but 
definitely not well advertised.  If I were to pick a date where the 
expansion started, I'd probably pick meeting 6 at BBN where we had a co 
meeting with one of the ... ANSI subgroups? X3S3? (I forget the 
incantation).  I think at meeting 3 we explicitly started looking at the 
operations of the Internet - we had all 4 of the major players there (DOD, 
NASA, DOE and NSF) and that broadened it past the purely research bent of 
GADS.

Later, Mike



From lixia at CS.UCLA.EDU  Thu Jan 16 11:13:57 2003
From: lixia at CS.UCLA.EDU (Lixia Zhang)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:13:57 -0800
Subject: [ih] Re: Cluster Addressing and CIDR 
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030115212406.047e9d50@pop.mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <BA4C4475.2085F%lixia@cs.ucla.edu>

> Craig - I don't think that any of the meetings were explicitly closed, but
> definitely not well advertised.  If I were to pick a date where the
> expansion started, I'd probably pick meeting 6 at BBN where we had a co
> meeting with one of the ... ANSI subgroups? X3S3? (I forget the
> incantation).  I think at meeting 3 we explicitly started looking at the
> operations of the Internet - we had all 4 of the major players there (DOD,
> NASA, DOE and NSF) and that broadened it past the purely research bent of
> GADS.
> 
> Later, Mike

I don't think even GADS was pure search.  I recall that starting from its
meeting (Jan'85 in DC?? Cold and snowing), there were glitches between
people who wanted to pursue blue skies (Mills was developing NTP at the
time) and those who wanted to resolve burning operational issues.
The split was simply inevitable.

Lixia

PS: I took IETF off cc: list.



From listsubs at dstudio.clara.net  Fri Jan 17 19:08:12 2003
From: listsubs at dstudio.clara.net (Rick)
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 03:08:12 -0000
Subject: [ih] History of Online Databases
In-Reply-To: <3E2872F4.3E7ABFBE@udel.edu>
Message-ID: <3E28C51C.5681.C23F5C7@localhost>

On 17 Jan 2003 at 21:17, David L. Mills wrote:
> I submit the first online ubiquitous database was the ARPANET host name
> file. This may not be what you have in mind.

Good point + you must be right. But the host name file
was online of necessity, not through a choice of
online vs offline.

What I really had in mind is when were the first
databases designed for non-technical users -- research,
academic or commercial -- that were online as a result
of a conscious decision?

I would guess that the first such databases appeared
very soon after the WWW became public. The need for
dynamic content must have been apparent very quickly.

To me, it seems that it should have been a landmark
event, and I'm puzzled why I can't find anything about
it on the WWW today.

Could it be that online databases were already so common
(John Day's land-use management system dates from 1974)
that it was not considered anything special?

I'll give you another 'context' -- some people I know
who run a UK non-profit org have set up what they call
an 'online database'. In fact it is totally offline --
they use it to generate 20,000 web pages which they then
FTP to their server every week. I try to explain that
nobody else does that - and never have done since the
WWW began. I'm sure I'm correct, but is there any
evidence? Apart from that, as someone who teaches web
development and design, I have found that I need a
detailed historical undertanding to do the job properly.
I wasn't there at the time.

(Rick)
--
listsubs `[at]` dstudio.clara.net




From day at std.com  Fri Jan 17 19:21:57 2003
From: day at std.com (John Day)
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 22:21:57 -0500
Subject: [ih] History of Online Databases
In-Reply-To: <3E2872F4.3E7ABFBE@udel.edu>
References: <3E2846BE.18370.A364374@localhost> <3E2872F4.3E7ABFBE@udel.edu>
Message-ID: <v0422081aba4e736c57c6@[10.0.1.17]>

At 21:17 +0000 1/17/03, David L. Mills wrote:
>Rick,
>
>I submit the first online ubiquitous database was the ARPANET host name
>file. This may not be what you have in mind.

;-)  Well, strictly speaking yes, but . . .

Perhaps more closely,  actually I would say the NIC and NLS was 
really the first database system on the net.  Then there were the CCA 
guys who were really trying to do distributed databases.  But I don't 
remember when they were up and running.  And also the National 
Software Works!

Take care,
John



From mills at udel.edu  Sat Jan 18 05:51:54 2003
From: mills at udel.edu (David L. Mills)
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:51:54 +0000
Subject: [ih] History of Online Databases
References: <3E28C51C.5681.C23F5C7@localhost>
Message-ID: <3E295BFA.4A3609AF@udel.edu>

Rick,

Not to deflect your adventure; but, I take exception to the distinction
between technical database and otherwise. One of the things really
important about Internet development is the fact that the developers
were also the dedicated users of the technology. The host name database
evolved to the DNS and that surely fits your mold of a "nontechnical"
distributed database. I suspect you will be uncomfortable about the
degree of nerd involved, but hey, nerds rule.

Dave

Rick wrote:
> 
> On 17 Jan 2003 at 21:17, David L. Mills wrote:
> > I submit the first online ubiquitous database was the ARPANET host name
> > file. This may not be what you have in mind.
> 
> Good point + you must be right. But the host name file
> was online of necessity, not through a choice of
> online vs offline.
> 
> What I really had in mind is when were the first
> databases designed for non-technical users -- research,
> academic or commercial -- that were online as a result
> of a conscious decision?
> 
> I would guess that the first such databases appeared
> very soon after the WWW became public. The need for
> dynamic content must have been apparent very quickly.
> 
> To me, it seems that it should have been a landmark
> event, and I'm puzzled why I can't find anything about
> it on the WWW today.
> 
> Could it be that online databases were already so common
> (John Day's land-use management system dates from 1974)
> that it was not considered anything special?
> 
> I'll give you another 'context' -- some people I know
> who run a UK non-profit org have set up what they call
> an 'online database'. In fact it is totally offline --
> they use it to generate 20,000 web pages which they then
> FTP to their server every week. I try to explain that
> nobody else does that - and never have done since the
> WWW began. I'm sure I'm correct, but is there any
> evidence? Apart from that, as someone who teaches web
> development and design, I have found that I need a
> detailed historical undertanding to do the job properly.
> I wasn't there at the time.
> 
> (Rick)
> --
> listsubs `[at]` dstudio.clara.net



From perry at piermont.com  Sat Jan 18 08:47:53 2003
From: perry at piermont.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Date: 18 Jan 2003 11:47:53 -0500
Subject: [ih] History of Online Databases
In-Reply-To: <3E28C51C.5681.C23F5C7@localhost>
References: <3E28C51C.5681.C23F5C7@localhost>
Message-ID: <87el7a76bq.fsf@snark.piermont.com>

"Rick" <listsubs at dstudio.clara.net> writes:
> What I really had in mind is when were the first
> databases designed for non-technical users -- research,
> academic or commercial -- that were online as a result
> of a conscious decision?

Stuff like Lexis/Nexis is pretty old -- other services like it are
older still. The Internet is not the only place where things have been
placed on-line...

Perry



From day at std.com  Sat Jan 18 19:39:50 2003
From: day at std.com (John Day)
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 22:39:50 -0500
Subject: [ih] History of Online Databases
In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20030117230402.03ef4618@mail.reed.com.>
References: <3E2872F4.3E7ABFBE@udel.edu>
 <3E2846BE.18370.A364374@localhost> <3E2872F4.3E7ABFBE@udel.edu>
 <5.1.1.6.2.20030117230402.03ef4618@mail.reed.com.>
Message-ID: <v04220820ba4fcdc864ca@[10.0.1.17]>

Dave,

I was just answering another email off list with Rick and remembered 
what might be the first occurrence of the kind of thing he is 
thinking about.  Do you remember SAIL?

The Stanford AI Lab had the AP wire online 24 - 36 hours worth).  You 
could query it for stories having a boolean expression of keywords. 
We often telneted in and would use it.  If you were a registered user 
of SAIL, you could have it send you mail when articles you were 
interested in came by.  And believe me, it got a lot of use this was 
a very exciting time:  Agnew's resignation, Watergate, Allende's 
overthrow, etc. etc.

But I concur with your list below.  Although these were not 
"generally available."  SAIL was to us!  ;-)

Take care,
John


>Hey guys, depends on what you mean by "online" database and 
>"network".   Online databases predated the ARPANET by years. 
>Project MAC/CTSS had online databases accessible remotely over the 
>telephone network, used by ordinary people for research in the early 
>1960's. In the late 1960's and early 1970's there were lots of 
>databases that were replicated across networks and accessed across 
>networks - Lockheed, DRI, NEXIS, are just some examples.
>
>IBM had distributed databases that were accessible over SNA in the 
>early 1970's, using CICS.
>
>SABRE was distributed quite early, and again was a networked 
>high-volume transaction system.
>
>SAGE was a distributed database system itself, giving real-time 
>access to a wide variety of dynamic data, in the 1950's (I think).
>
>If you are looking for WWW browser accessible databases, the first 
>PERL-script systems that built dynamic web pages from databases that 
>I know of were created at U of Illinois, by folks like my friend 
>Brygg Ullmer, who was 14 or 15 years old at the time (1992 or so). 
>Probably at other early locations like CERN.
>
>But years prior to that, in 1983 or so Ray Ozzie built the core of 
>Lotus Notes, which is a fully distributed, replicated database 
>system.
>
>And the idea of decentralized replicated databases on networks 
>precedes my 1978 Ph.D. thesis about coordinating atomic actions on 
>them.   Examples include work by Stonebraker at Berkeley and System 
>R* at IBM in 1975 or 1976.
>
>At 10:21 PM 1/17/2003 -0500, John Day wrote:
>>At 21:17 +0000 1/17/03, David L. Mills wrote:
>>>Rick,
>>>
>>>I submit the first online ubiquitous database was the ARPANET host name
>>>file. This may not be what you have in mind.
>>
>>;-)  Well, strictly speaking yes, but . . .
>>
>>Perhaps more closely,  actually I would say the NIC and NLS was 
>>really the first database system on the net.  Then there were the 
>>CCA guys who were really trying to do distributed databases.  But I 
>>don't remember when they were up and running.  And also the 
>>National Software Works!
>>
>>Take care,
>>John



From dpreed at reed.com  Sat Jan 18 19:52:00 2003
From: dpreed at reed.com (David P. Reed)
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 22:52:00 -0500
Subject: [ih] History of Online Databases
In-Reply-To: <v04220820ba4fcdc864ca@[10.0.1.17]>
References: <5.1.1.6.2.20030117230402.03ef4618@mail.reed.com.>
 <3E2872F4.3E7ABFBE@udel.edu>
 <3E2846BE.18370.A364374@localhost>
 <3E2872F4.3E7ABFBE@udel.edu>
 <5.1.1.6.2.20030117230402.03ef4618@mail.reed.com.>
Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20030118225008.03dbc760@127.0.0.1>

>The Stanford AI Lab had the AP wire online 24 - 36 hours worth).  You 
>could query it for stories having a boolean expression of keywords. We 
>often telneted in and would use it.  If you were a registered user of 
>SAIL, you could have it send you mail when articles you were interested in 
>came by.  And believe me, it got a lot of use this was a very exciting 
>time:  Agnew's resignation, Watergate, Allende's overthrow, etc. etc.

I used it a lot myself!  And I think MIT-AI had the AP newswire and the 
NYTimes as well at about the same time.



From touch at ISI.EDU  Sat Jan 18 23:54:26 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 23:54:26 -0800
Subject: [ih] History of Online Databases
References: <3E28C51C.5681.C23F5C7@localhost>
Message-ID: <3E2A59B2.3000109@isi.edu>


Rick wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2003 at 21:17, David L. Mills wrote:
> 
>>I submit the first online ubiquitous database was the ARPANET host name
>>file. This may not be what you have in mind.
> 
> 
> Good point + you must be right. But the host name file
> was online of necessity, not through a choice of
> online vs offline.
> 
> What I really had in mind is when were the first
> databases designed for non-technical users -- research,
> academic or commercial -- that were online as a result
> of a conscious decision?
> 
> I would guess that the first such databases appeared
> very soon after the WWW became public. The need for
> dynamic content must have been apparent very quickly.

There were online FAQs, databases (including search engines - Archie), 
and even lists of jokes back in 1987 at least. I recall using FTP, later 
'fetch' on Apple Macs to access them regularly.

They definitely predate the web.

Joe



From perry at piermont.com  Mon Jan 20 11:53:14 2003
From: perry at piermont.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Date: 20 Jan 2003 14:53:14 -0500
Subject: [ih] spam...
In-Reply-To: <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>
References: <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>
Message-ID: <873cnnwqc5.fsf@snark.piermont.com>

marketing at blobj.com writes:
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

Reputedly there are now filters in place on the list -- I suggest that
HTML tags be added to the filter list.

Perry



From dpreed at reed.com  Mon Jan 20 16:40:23 2003
From: dpreed at reed.com (David P. Reed)
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:40:23 -0500
Subject: [ih] spam...
In-Reply-To: <873cnnwqc5.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
References: <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>
 <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>
Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20030120193122.03e138e0@127.0.0.1>

At 02:53 PM 1/20/2003 -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>Reputedly there are now filters in place on the list -- I suggest that
>HTML tags be added to the filter list.

Some of us aren't Luddites who fear every innovation like the villagers in 
Frankenstein.  HTML is a very useful standard for encoding information, and 
is no more related to spam than are source addresses in East Asian 
countries.  And further, it is open, and not proprietary, unlike PDF.

My email system (Eudora) lets me express things in HTML that cannot be 
expressed in ASCII, and my email filtering lets me manage spam in HTML as 
well..

Perhaps HTML mail should be scrutinized more effectively and discouraged by 
social convention except when it is the most useful way to convey points.





From the.map at alum.mit.edu  Mon Jan 20 18:56:58 2003
From: the.map at alum.mit.edu (Mike Padlipsky)
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:56:58 -0800
Subject: [ih] spam...
In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20030120193122.03e138e0@127.0.0.1>
References: <873cnnwqc5.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
 <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>
 <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20030120181304.01cc1580@mail.lafn.org>

At 04:40 PM 1/20/03, David P. Reed wrote:
>Some of us aren't Luddites who fear every innovation like the villagers in 
>Frankenstein.

resisting the temptation to observe that some of us don't find even 
second-order ad hominem arguments tasteful, i'll merely observe that the 
parallel between 'frankenstein' [presumably the book of that name, not the, 
er, innovator nor his, um, innovation] and html strikes me as being rather 
profound [perhaps, indeed, unintentionally so], if you think about a 
predeconstructionist reading of the book: both the markup language and the 
'monster' started out in a state of innocence, as it were, and were 
arguably rather appealing ... and both turned rather ugly [and perhaps, 
indeed, dangerous] after being misunderstood and abused by the mob.

couple that w/ the Law wh/ holds that 'optimality differs according to 
context' and it seems to me eminently arguable that irrespective of html's 
virtues in the abstract [and flaws in practice [*] ] nobody _needs_ to send 
html-bearing netmail [as we called it when we were inventing it] to the 
internet history list for purposes germane to the internet history list, so 
filtering out html-bearing netmail wld furnish a quick-and-dirty, but 
effective, means of frustrating at least some of the Bandwidth Bandits.

granted, there might be some practical reason i'm overlooking [**] for not 
applying the seemingly clever 'fix', but i strongly doubt any 
re-interpretation of the late mrs. shelley's literary milestone cld be 
convincing.


[*] a 'thread' on herb grosch's unfortunately foiled attempt to require 
that 'floor equals ceiling' on the 'features' repertoires of all 
government-acceptable cobol implementations when he was at nbs and its 
relevance to html might be edifying and amusing.  'what price "open"?' wld 
be a nice title.  i'm not going to start it, tho; i've already been tempted 
by [ih] stuff to spend more time keyboarding than i ought to lately.

[**] perhaps almost everybody else doesn't set 'his' mailer not to emit 
html as a matter of course, and courtesy, and perhaps most mailers stupidly 
stick the giveaway line in the headers even if no html was used in the 
making of the msg, so people wld have to go to some trouble to get past the 
filter for legitimate mail.  if so, most likely most people wldn't want to 
bother and the plan shldn't be put in place.  otherwise, tho, why not.


cheers, map

[whose shoulder problems caused him to break down some time ago and create
a 'signature' file to apologize for the lack of his formerly customary
e-volubility -- and who's been employing shiftless typing for a long time
now to spare his wristsnfingers, in case you didn't know ... and who's
further broken down and done http://www.lafn.org/~ba213/mapstuff.html ,
rather grudgingly]





From perry at piermont.com  Mon Jan 20 20:43:53 2003
From: perry at piermont.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Date: 20 Jan 2003 23:43:53 -0500
Subject: [ih] spam...
In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20030120193122.03e138e0@127.0.0.1>
References: <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>
	<9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>
	<5.1.1.6.2.20030120193122.03e138e0@127.0.0.1>
Message-ID: <87znpvru2e.fsf@snark.piermont.com>

"David P. Reed" <dpreed at reed.com> writes:
> At 02:53 PM 1/20/2003 -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> >Reputedly there are now filters in place on the list -- I suggest that
> >HTML tags be added to the filter list.
> 
> Some of us aren't Luddites who fear every innovation like the
> villagers in Frankenstein.

Neither do I, but if you're doing blocking on a mailing list, 95% of
the spam has html and 95% of the legitimate mail doesn't. Holding html
until it can be manually approved is a very useful anti-spam technique
-- the NetBSD mailing lists, which I help run, do this, and it works
beautifully. 

-- 
Perry E. Metzger		perry at piermont.com



From braden at ISI.EDU  Sat Jan 18 14:55:01 2003
From: braden at ISI.EDU (Bob Braden)
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 22:55:01 GMT
Subject: [ih] Re: internet-history digest, Vol 1 #107 - 9 msgs
Message-ID: <200301182255.WAA05767@gra.isi.edu>

  *> 
  *> Message: 5
  *> From: "Rick" <listsubs at dstudio.clara.net>
  *> To: internet-history at postel.org
  *> Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 03:08:12 -0000
  *> Subject: Re: [ih] History of Online Databases
  *> 
  *> On 17 Jan 2003 at 21:17, David L. Mills wrote:
  *> > I submit the first online ubiquitous database was the ARPANET host name
  *> > file. This may not be what you have in mind.
  *> 
  *> Good point + you must be right. But the host name file
  *> was online of necessity, not through a choice of
  *> online vs offline.
  *> 
  *> What I really had in mind is when were the first
  *> databases designed for non-technical users -- research,
  *> academic or commercial -- that were online as a result
  *> of a conscious decision?
  *> 

There was an early (1971...?) ARPA-funded effort to build the
Datacomputer, a database storage and access system, and connect it to
the ARPAnet.  I don't recall what actual databases were stored in the
Datacomputer -- oh, I think there was a weather database.

The other major example of an online database in the early days was the
Englebart's NLS system at SRI NIC.  Unlike (I suspect) the Datacomputer,
this was a production database that may even have been used by other
than its designers.  For example, documentation on how to use various
ARPAnet computer systems, as well as for the example the RFC files,
were accessed from the NIC by researchers and even real users.

Looking up bits on a disk is not that hard a concept, it turns out.
The Web just provided a standard encoding and a very convenient
GUI.

Bob Braden



From rkahn at cnri.reston.va.us  Mon Jan 20 21:46:17 2003
From: rkahn at cnri.reston.va.us (Robert Kahn)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:46:17 -0500
Subject: [ih] Re: Cluster Addressing and CIDR
In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20030115030238.01720260@pop.wcomnet.com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030115023521.02c2ea00@mail.club-internet.fr>
 <5.1.1.6.2.20030114180456.023bbdd0@pop.wcomnet.com>
 <20030114042113.AD2A0D2A2@ns1.vrx.net>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030121004500.02090eb8@newcnri.cnri.reston.va.us>

Vint,

The internetting terminology was in existence as we wrote the tcp paper in 
1973, but the internetting project got on the books formally in 1974, i 
think. I'd have to do a bit of digging to be sure.

bob

At 03:04 AM 1/15/2003 -0500, vinton g. cerf wrote:
>My first recollection of the documented use of the term "Internet" was in 
>RFC 675 the specification of the Internet Transmission Control Protocol.
>
>ARPA called the project "Internetting" starting in 1973, I believe.
>
>Bob Kahn you know that point for sure.
>
>vint
>
>At 02:59 AM 1/15/2003 +0100, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:
> >PS. Vint, when was the name Internet used for the first time? When you 
> say 'multiple net systems' did  you refer by then to mutiple networks, to 
> multiple technologies or both?
>
>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 touch at ISI.EDU  Tue Jan 21 08:25:59 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:25:59 -0800
Subject: [ih] spam...
References: <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>	<9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>	<5.1.1.6.2.20030120193122.03e138e0@127.0.0.1> <87znpvru2e.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
Message-ID: <3E2D7497.7020900@isi.edu>


Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> "David P. Reed" <dpreed at reed.com> writes:
> 
>>At 02:53 PM 1/20/2003 -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>>
>>>Reputedly there are now filters in place on the list -- I suggest that
>>>HTML tags be added to the filter list.
>>
>>Some of us aren't Luddites who fear every innovation like the
>>villagers in Frankenstein.
> 
> Neither do I, but if you're doing blocking on a mailing list, 95% of
> the spam has html and 95% of the legitimate mail doesn't. Holding html
> until it can be manually approved is a very useful anti-spam technique
> -- the NetBSD mailing lists, which I help run, do this, and it works
> beautifully. 

We will not block HTML. Even if the numbers above were correct, it would 
not solve the problem (foreign language isn't caught even in ASCII) and 
it would raise the number of false positives that require manual attention.

Feel free to install filters on your receiving end, however ;-)

Joe




From perry at piermont.com  Tue Jan 21 08:43:07 2003
From: perry at piermont.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Date: 21 Jan 2003 11:43:07 -0500
Subject: [ih] spam...
In-Reply-To: <3E2D7497.7020900@isi.edu>
References: <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>
	<9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>
	<5.1.1.6.2.20030120193122.03e138e0@127.0.0.1>
	<87znpvru2e.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <3E2D7497.7020900@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <877kcyqwro.fsf_-_@snark.piermont.com>

Joe Touch <touch at ISI.EDU> writes:
> We will not block HTML. Even if the numbers above were correct, it
> would not solve the problem (foreign language isn't caught even in
> ASCII) and it would raise the number of false positives that require
> manual attention.

I respect your decision, but experience shows your claims are not correct.

You (essentially) contend that blocking HTML and other similar things
doesn't improve the situation and just makes for more work.  Although
nothing "solves" the problem, actual experience running large numbers
of lists shows that filters that generally catch spam and not real
traffic are a valuable technique and do not pose a burden.

As a worked example: The NetBSD Project runs dozens of mailing lists
with this sort of filtering, and the amount of excess manual labor
involved is near zero, whereas the amount of spam blocked is extremely
high. I'm one of the moderators and our regular expression filters
have one false positive for every 40 or 50 correct blocks. The biggest
issue, in fact, is manually reading all the spam so we can approve the
very rare real message.

By the way, the NetBSD lists are unusual in that they allow postings
from non-members for technical reasons, so anti-spam filters are
important. Most lists I am involved with eliminate 100% of spam by
blocking postings from non-members. (And I know you claim your list
software would then make it difficult for people to post from multiple
accounts, but the documentation for your list software says how to do
it.)

> Feel free to install filters on your receiving end, however ;-)

I have.

-- 
Perry E. Metzger		perry at piermont.com



From touch at ISI.EDU  Tue Jan 21 09:04:05 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:04:05 -0800
Subject: [ih] Re: spam...
References: <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>	<9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>	<5.1.1.6.2.20030120193122.03e138e0@127.0.0.1>	<87znpvru2e.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <3E2D7497.7020900@isi.edu> <877kcyqwro.fsf_-_@snark.piermont.com>
Message-ID: <3E2D7D85.4070804@isi.edu>


Perry E. Metzger wrote:
 > Joe Touch <touch at ISI.EDU> writes:
 >
 >>We will not block HTML. Even if the numbers above were correct, it
 >>would not solve the problem (foreign language isn't caught even in
 >>ASCII) and it would raise the number of false positives that require
 >>manual attention.
 >
 >
 > I respect your decision, but experience shows your claims are not 
correct.

We've discussed this before on E2E.

But let's check your claims, first...

 > You (essentially) contend that blocking HTML and other similar things
 > doesn't improve the situation and just makes for more work.  Although
 > nothing "solves" the problem, actual experience running large numbers
 > of lists shows that filters that generally catch spam and not real
 > traffic are a valuable technique and do not pose a burden.

I'm using SpamAssasin. This has nothing to do with HTML. SA kills that, 
but only in English as far as I know. It doesn't catch spam in every 
obscure language, especially when written in  English character sets.

Spam which got by so far is because it is in a foreign language, not 
because it's in HTML. E2E has examples of similar posts in ASCII which 
are not caught either.

If you have a better solution that is equally packaged, let us all know.

 > By the way, the NetBSD lists are unusual in that they allow postings
 > from non-members for technical reasons, so anti-spam filters are
 > important. Most lists I am involved with eliminate 100% of spam by
 > blocking postings from non-members. (And I know you claim your list
 > software would then make it difficult for people to post from multiple
 > accounts, but the documentation for your list software says how to do
 > it.)

Saying "how to do it" is consistent with it being equally "difficult". 
We chose simple, given that no solution is 100% effective anyway.

I will address further questions about the management of the list 
off-line only.

Joe



From moore at cs.utk.edu  Tue Jan 21 10:45:54 2003
From: moore at cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:45:54 -0500
Subject: [ih] spam...
In-Reply-To: <87znpvru2e.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
References: <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>
	<9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>
	<5.1.1.6.2.20030120193122.03e138e0@127.0.0.1>
	<87znpvru2e.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
Message-ID: <20030121134554.294c5727.moore@cs.utk.edu>

On 20 Jan 2003 23:43:53 -0500
"Perry E. Metzger" <perry at piermont.com> wrote:

> 
> "David P. Reed" <dpreed at reed.com> writes:
> > At 02:53 PM 1/20/2003 -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > >Reputedly there are now filters in place on the list -- I suggest that
> > >HTML tags be added to the filter list.
> > 
> > Some of us aren't Luddites who fear every innovation like the
> > villagers in Frankenstein.
> 
> Neither do I, but if you're doing blocking on a mailing list, 95% of
> the spam has html and 95% of the legitimate mail doesn't.

well, that's like most of the spamassasin criteria - they correlate well with spam when you consider large aggregates of diverse traffic but this doesn't necessarily work well for a topical list with a self-selecting population.

there's nothing inherently wrong with HTML.  of course if the list wants to have a no HTML policy, there's nothing inherently wrong with that either.


-- 
I tried enlightenment but it kept crashing.



From JimFleming at ameritech.net  Tue Jan 21 07:58:36 2003
From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:58:36 -0600
Subject: [ih] Re: Cluster Addressing and CIDR
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030115023521.02c2ea00@mail.club-internet.fr> <5.1.1.6.2.20030114180456.023bbdd0@pop.wcomnet.com> <20030114042113.AD2A0D2A2@ns1.vrx.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20030121004500.02090eb8@newcnri.cnri.reston.va.us>
Message-ID: <08b301c2c165$f660ec80$8500a8c0@repligate>

Since I am not a "real person", I suppose I should not comment...
http://ipv8.dyn.ee/INFO/Papers/IPv4Plus6/
IPv6++ Header+Data
===

----- Original Message -----
From: "Clyde Ensslin" <CENSSLIN at ntia.doc.gov>
To: <JimFleming at Ameritech.Net>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Ms. Nancy J. Victory


> Thanks, Julie.  This happens all the time because NTIA has
> responsibility for the Internet domain name system.  Our critics bombard
> us, and other Dept of Commerce e-mail addresses, with junk.  I have
> received about ten copies of this message from "Jim Fleming" [who is not
> a real person].  Clyde
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Kahn" <rkahn at cnri.reston.va.us>
To: "vinton g. cerf" <vinton.g.cerf at wcom.com>; "J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey at club-internet.fr>; <pouzin at email.enst.fr>
Cc: <Jean-Louis.Grange at eurolinc.org>; "Richard J. Sexton Ph.D. J.D." <rich at rd.vrx.net>; "Rokitansky, Carl-Herbert"
<roki at cosy.sbg.ac.at>; "J. Noel Chiappa" <jnc at ginger.lcs.mit.edu>; "Bob Braden" <braden at ISI.EDU>; "Vaudreuil, Greg M (Greg)"
<gregv at lucent.com>; <ietf at ietf.org>; <internet-history at postel.org>; <JimFleming at Ameritech.Net>; <steinle at smartvia.de>; "Elisabeth
Porteneuve" <Elisabeth.Porteneuve at cetp.ipsl.fr>; <bortzmeyer at nic.fr>; <abel at able-towers.com>; "Simon Higgs" <simon at higgs.com>;
<richard.hill at itu.int>; <k at widgital.com>; "Bruce Young" <Bruce at barelyadequate.info>; "Alexander Svensson" <alexander at svensson.de>;
"Joe Baptista" <baptista at dot-god.com>; "David Goldstein" <goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au>; "Joop Teernstra" <terastra at terabytz.co.nz>;
<yjpark at myepark.com>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: Cluster Addressing and CIDR


> Vint,
>
> The internetting terminology was in existence as we wrote the tcp paper in
> 1973, but the internetting project got on the books formally in 1974, i
> think. I'd have to do a bit of digging to be sure.
>
> bob
>
> At 03:04 AM 1/15/2003 -0500, vinton g. cerf wrote:
> >My first recollection of the documented use of the term "Internet" was in
> >RFC 675 the specification of the Internet Transmission Control Protocol.
> >
> >ARPA called the project "Internetting" starting in 1973, I believe.
> >
> >Bob Kahn you know that point for sure.
> >
> >vint
> >
> >At 02:59 AM 1/15/2003 +0100, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:
> > >PS. Vint, when was the name Internet used for the first time? When you
> > say 'multiple net systems' did  you refer by then to mutiple networks, to
> > multiple technologies or both?
> >
> >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 dpreed at reed.com  Tue Jan 21 09:23:32 2003
From: dpreed at reed.com (David P. Reed)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:23:32 -0500
Subject: [ih] Re: internet-history digest, Vol 1 #107 - 9 msgs
In-Reply-To: <200301182255.WAA05767@gra.isi.edu>
Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030121121716.0240f518@127.0.0.1>

One ought to include the concept from Vannevar Bush's 1945 article "As we 
may think" (http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/computer/bushf.htm) 
as a predecessor for all of this.  I hope nearly everyone reads this in 
their computer science education, but I'm afraid not.

There is a direct historical linkage between this idea, Licklider's 1967 
paper on networks of networks, the Internet, and the WWW.

57 years of information systems engineering, guided by some real visionaries.



From perry at piermont.com  Tue Jan 21 15:57:42 2003
From: perry at piermont.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Date: 21 Jan 2003 18:57:42 -0500
Subject: ["Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@ameritech.net>] [ih] Re: Cluster Addressing and CIDR
Message-ID: <87ptqqys21.fsf@snark.piermont.com>


An argument for restricting the list to subscribers, I think...

Perry

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Jim Fleming" <JimFleming at ameritech.net>
Subject: [ih] Re: Cluster Addressing and CIDR
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:58:36 -0600
Size: 6218
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20030121/794214f8/attachment.eml>
-------------- next part --------------


-- 
Perry E. Metzger		perry at piermont.com

From touch at ISI.EDU  Tue Jan 21 16:24:57 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:24:57 -0800
Subject: [ih] Re: spam...
References: <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni> <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni> <5.1.1.6.2.20030120193122.03e138e0@127.0.0.1> <87znpvru2e.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <3E2D7497.7020900@isi.edu> <877kcyqwro.fsf_-_@snark.piermont.com> <5.0.2.1.1.20030121151028.01cba810@mail.lafn.org>
Message-ID: <3E2DE4D9.60402@isi.edu>

Mike Padlipsky wrote:
> At 09:04 AM 1/21/03, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>> Spam which got by so far is because it is in a foreign language, not 
>> because it's in HTML.
> 
> 
> while i'll grant, nay insist, that
> 
> From: "MR. DICKSON UDUM" <dicksonudum at hknetmail.com>
> To: internet-history at postel.org
...
> Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 03:20:51
...
> isn't very good english, it does appear to be english enough to refute 
> that statement.

Recall that the spam filters were put in place on 1/15/03. The above 
occurred before those filters were put in place; I never said the 
previous filters were anything but primitive ;-)

The current filters have indeed been successful at stopping all but 
foreign language spam. There has been exactly ONE spam since then, the 
one which looks like Italian.

Joe




From the.map at alum.mit.edu  Tue Jan 21 17:46:45 2003
From: the.map at alum.mit.edu (Mike Padlipsky)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:46:45 -0800
Subject: [ih] Re: spam...
In-Reply-To: <3E2DE4D9.60402@isi.edu>
References: <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>
 <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>
 <5.1.1.6.2.20030120193122.03e138e0@127.0.0.1>
 <87znpvru2e.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
 <3E2D7497.7020900@isi.edu>
 <877kcyqwro.fsf_-_@snark.piermont.com>
 <5.0.2.1.1.20030121151028.01cba810@mail.lafn.org>
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20030121174543.01cc9600@mail.lafn.org>

At 04:24 PM 1/21/03, Joe Touch wrote:
>I never said the previous filters were anything but primitive ;-)

yeah, but y'never said 'got by the new filters so far', either, y'said 'got 
by so far'.

[is there an 'emoticon' for 'nyah, nyah', i wonder?  if so, i might lift my 
personal ban on 'emoticons'.]

[hmmmm.  cld ^>~ be construed as a profile view of a raised eyebrow, a 
nose, and a stuck-out tongue, perhaps?  nah.  too contrived. ;>~ , or even 
;-~, might be closer to the mark, tho....]


cheers, map

[whose shoulder problems caused him to break down some time ago and create
a 'signature' file to apologize for the lack of his formerly customary
e-volubility -- and who's been employing shiftless typing for a long time
now to spare his wristsnfingers, in case you didn't know ... and who's
further broken down and done http://www.lafn.org/~ba213/mapstuff.html ,
rather grudgingly]





From touch at ISI.EDU  Thu Jan 23 10:13:32 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:13:32 -0800
Subject: [ih] DPR
References: <200301231001.h0NA1iH22499@boreas.isi.edu>
Message-ID: <3E3030CC.5070500@isi.edu>

ENGR JOE UDAH (MON) wrote:
> DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES
>  PLOT 225 KOFO ABAYOMI STREET VICTORIA ISLAND,LAGOS, NIGERIA. 
> DIRECT FAX: 234 1 759 0904. TEL; 234 1- 7763126
> 
> ATTENTION: THE PRESIDENT/C.E.O 
> 
> RE: URGENT & CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL


FYI, I'm not sure how these are slipping through SpamAssasin, but I'm 
working on it right now. Until I have a fix, please bear with the process...

Joe




From touch at ISI.EDU  Thu Jan 23 14:58:48 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:58:48 -0800
Subject: [ih] test - please ignore (xf3153)
Message-ID: <3E3073A8.7060806@isi.edu>

(this is a copy of mail that should be caught...)

DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES
  PLOT 225 KOFO ABAYOMI STREET VICTORIA ISLAND,LAGOS, NIGERIA.
DIRECT FAX: 234 1 759 0904. TEL; 234 1- 7763126

ATTENTION: THE PRESIDENT/C.E.O

RE: URGENT & CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS PROPOSAL

Dear Sir,

I am ENGR JOE UDAH (MON)member committee of the above department
My term of reference involves the award of contracts to multinational 
companies.
My office is saddled with the responsibility of contract award, screening,
categorization and prioritization of projects embarked upon by 
Department of Petroleum Resources
(DPR) as well as feasibility studies for selected projects and 
supervising the project consultants involved.
  A breakdown of the fiscal expenditure by this office as at the end of 
last fiscal quarter of 2000 indicates that DPR paid
out a whooping sum of US$736M(Seven Hundred And Thirty Six Million, 
United States Dollars) to successful contract beneficiaries.
The DPR is now compiling beneficiaries to be paid for the first Quarter 
of 2003.
The crux of this letter is that the finance/contract department of the 
DPR deliberately over invoiced the contract value of the various 
contracts awarded.
In the course of disbursements, this department has been able to 
accumulate the sum of US$38.2M(Thirty-eight Million,
two hundred Thousand U.S Dollars) as the over-invoiced sum.
This money is currently in a suspense account of the DPR account with 
the Debt Reconciliation Committee (DRC).
We now seek to process the transfer of this fund officially as contract 
payment to you as a foreign contractor,
who will be fronting for us as the beneficiary of the fund. In this way 
we can facilitate these funds into your nominated account for possible 
investment abroad.
We are not allowed as a matter of government policy to operate any 
foreign account to transfer this fund into.
However, for your involvement in assisting us with this transfer into 
your nominated account we have evolved a sharing formula as follows:
(1) 20% for you as the foreign partner
(2) 75% for I and my colleagues
(3) 5% will be set aside to defray all incidental expenses both Locally 
and Internationally during the course of this transaction.
We shall be relying on your advice as regard investment of our share in 
any business in your country.
Be informed that this business is genuine and 100% safe considering the 
high-power government officials involved.
Send your private fax/telephone numbers. Upon your response we shall 
provide you with further information on the procedures.
Feel free to send response by Fax: 234-1-7590904 / TEL: 234-1-7763126 
expecting your response urgently.
All enquiries should be directed to the undersigned by FAX OR PHONE.
Looking forward to a good business relationship with you.
Sincerely,

ENGR JOE UDAH (MON)





From touch at ISI.EDU  Thu Jan 23 15:44:46 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:44:46 -0800
Subject: [ih] spam filter bug fixed
Message-ID: <3E307E6E.7080708@isi.edu>

Hi, all,

FYI, the bug was in procmail, where a character that was previously used 
to delimit words wasn't valid anymore.

I.e., we had rules that include "hold all 
(petroleum|nigeria|angola|etc...)" - which I manually check - but the 
rule was getting ignored.

It is now getting caught. Thanks everyone for the numerous fixes 
suggested, but this one just turned out to be a bug... ;-)

Joe




From dhc2 at dcrocker.net  Fri Jan 24 08:13:53 2003
From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:13:53 -0600
Subject: [ih] History of Online Databases
In-Reply-To: <3E2846BE.18370.A364374@localhost>
References: <3E2846BE.18370.A364374@localhost>
Message-ID: <249098322.20030124101353@brandenburg.com>

Rick,

Friday, January 17, 2003, 12:09:02 PM, you wrote:
R> Does anyone know (or can point me in the right
R> direction) when the first online databases appeared?

R> I'm particularly interested in the first web-enabled
R> databases -- how long after the launch of the WWW was
R> it before anyone wrote a web-specific program, and
R> what were the first databases used for? 

The web came at least 15 years after there were significant online
databases, including commercial ones.

For example, there were databases for lawyers by the mid-70s, I
believe.  And the New York Times database (online morgue of articles)
was around by the mid-70s.   These, obviously, were for the kind of
non-technical users that you cite.

The NYT database was interesting.  The public history is that it was
wildly successful as a public service.  In fact, however, it was a
complete failure, relative to its original goal.  Its original goal
was to replace the experts, down in the morgue, who did research on
behalf of reporters.  (Reporters would call down to the morgue, say
what they wanted, and the expert would forage around to find it.) That
is, the goal was to have reporters directly make queries to the
database and find the articles they needed.

The problem was that the user interface was far too difficult to use.
So the reporters still had to talk to an expert -- an expert at the
database user interface -- to specify what was needed. However the
result of using the online database was *vastly* better research. And
the ability to make the search service available publicly.

Along with such examples as the host names database -- which I tend to
agree was probably the first large-scale distributed data base --
there was also the database of RFCs.  I do not know when it became
accessible online, but it would have been pretty early.

The folks active in Library and Information Sciences probably also had
online databases quite early. I know that the best computer user
interface design work at UCLA in the mid-70s was in that department.
Not engineering or psychology.

As to the CCA Datacomputer, it is probably worth noting that very
early on they operated a network service. You would connect to a
special port and it would spit out a randomly chosen limerick and then
close the connection. Most of the limericks were filthy. Exceptionally
filthy. But that was not a requirement.

If you contributed 3 limericks that were not already in the database,
you got a copy of the whole thing. I think this was around '73 or '74.

d/
-- 
 Dave <mailto:dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850



From perry at piermont.com  Fri Jan 24 09:33:58 2003
From: perry at piermont.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Date: 24 Jan 2003 12:33:58 -0500
Subject: HTML "transition" (was Re: [ih] spam...)
In-Reply-To: <345840267.20030124091935@brandenburg.com>
References: <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>
	<9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>
	<5.1.1.6.2.20030120193122.03e138e0@127.0.0.1>
	<87znpvru2e.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <3E2D7497.7020900@isi.edu>
	<877kcyqwro.fsf_-_@snark.piermont.com>
	<345840267.20030124091935@brandenburg.com>
Message-ID: <87isweo3jt.fsf_-_@snark.piermont.com>

Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net> writes:
> However, the point was made that the heuristic of filtering HTML does
> raise the count of false positives.  This is to be expected, since the
> correlation between HTML and spam is merely a transition effect, as
> HTML becomes more commonly used.
> 
> Imagine the transition from uppercase only ASCII to upper-lower case
> ASCII.  No doubt there were interesting usage correlations during that
> transition, too, but it would be a mistake to believe the correlation
> would hold true longer term.

An interesting question, away from the spam discussion, is whether or
not we are "transitioning" to HTML as the preferred email carrier.

Now, it is true that a lot of HTML email is going around out there,
but so are a lot of microsoft .doc files and I doubt that .doc will be
anything but a memory in 20 or 25 years. Experience says that no one
will have tools that will read .doc from now with anything like
original fidelity. Therefore, mere volume isn't entirely germane.

A lot of the HTML email going around these days isn't particularly
good or clean HTML, and often has things like external links -- which
are likely quite transient -- added in, frequently for nefarious
purposes like detecting the reading of the mail. For the most part,
sophisticated HTML email is unpleasant to compose, and simple HTML
email is usually conveyed as well as ASCII.

One might therefore ask whether or not ASCII email is, as is often the
case, an improvement over its successors as well as its predecessors.

-- 
Perry E. Metzger		perry at piermont.com



From touch at ISI.EDU  Fri Jan 24 12:51:29 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:51:29 -0800
Subject: HTML "transition" (was Re: [ih] spam...)
References: <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>	<9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>	<5.1.1.6.2.20030120193122.03e138e0@127.0.0.1>	<87znpvru2e.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <3E2D7497.7020900@isi.edu>	<877kcyqwro.fsf_-_@snark.piermont.com>	<345840267.20030124091935@brandenburg.com> <87isweo3jt.fsf_-_@snark.piermont.com>
Message-ID: <3E31A751.7000200@isi.edu>

Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> An interesting question, away from the spam discussion, is whether or
> not we are "transitioning" to HTML as the preferred email carrier.
> 
> Now, it is true that a lot of HTML email is going around out there,
> but so are a lot of microsoft .doc files and I doubt that .doc will be
> anything but a memory in 20 or 25 years.

I'm not a big MS OS fan, but MS-Word disproves this.

I can open a document written in May 1986 with Office XP (just did it to 
verify it works). That's 17 years, and I don't see that changing in the 
next 5.

 > Experience says that no one
> will have tools that will read .doc from now with anything like
> original fidelity.

With a little slack (17 isn't 20, but it's close), point disproven 
above. FWIW, this includes multiple fonts and font sizes, and embedded 
figures.

Joe





From perry at piermont.com  Fri Jan 24 12:51:46 2003
From: perry at piermont.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Date: 24 Jan 2003 15:51:46 -0500
Subject: HTML "transition" (was Re: [ih] spam...)
In-Reply-To: <3E31A751.7000200@isi.edu>
References: <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>
	<9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>
	<5.1.1.6.2.20030120193122.03e138e0@127.0.0.1>
	<87znpvru2e.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <3E2D7497.7020900@isi.edu>
	<877kcyqwro.fsf_-_@snark.piermont.com>
	<345840267.20030124091935@brandenburg.com>
	<87isweo3jt.fsf_-_@snark.piermont.com> <3E31A751.7000200@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <871y322rvh.fsf@snark.piermont.com>

Joe Touch <touch at ISI.EDU> writes:
> Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > An interesting question, away from the spam discussion, is whether or
> > not we are "transitioning" to HTML as the preferred email carrier.
> > Now, it is true that a lot of HTML email is going around out there,
> > but so are a lot of microsoft .doc files and I doubt that .doc will be
> > anything but a memory in 20 or 25 years.
> 
> I'm not a big MS OS fan, but MS-Word disproves this.
> 
> I can open a document written in May 1986 with Office XP (just did it
> to verify it works). That's 17 years, and I don't see that changing in
> the next 5.

I've had this fail on me, actually, on a large corpus of documentation
that is now largely lost as a result.


-- 
Perry E. Metzger		perry at piermont.com



From touch at ISI.EDU  Sun Jan 26 22:32:32 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 22:32:32 -0800
Subject: HTML "transition" (was Re: [ih] spam...)
References: <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni> <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni> <5.1.1.6.2.20030120193122.03e138e0@127.0.0.1> <87znpvru2e.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <3E2D7497.7020900@isi.edu> <877kcyqwro.fsf_-_@snark.piermont.com> <345840267.20030124091935@brandenburg.com> <87isweo3jt.fsf_-_@snark.piermont.com> <3E31A751.7000200@isi.edu> <Pine.GSO.4.50.0301262332500.2951-100000@artemis.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <3E34D280.5090600@isi.edu>


Lloyd Wood wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>>I'm not a big MS OS fan, but MS-Word disproves this.
>>
>>I can open a document written in May 1986 with Office XP (just did it to
>>verify it works). That's 17 years, and I don't see that changing in the
>>next 5.
>>
>>
>>>Experience says that no one
>>>will have tools that will read .doc from now with anything like
>>>original fidelity.
>>
>>With a little slack (17 isn't 20, but it's close), point disproven
>>above. FWIW, this includes multiple fonts and font sizes, and embedded
>>figures.
> 
> 
> Joe,
> 
> You've proven nothing. You've merely shown that a given task of
> unknown complexity may be possible, and described this with your usual
> absolute unshaken certainty.

He said "no one". Being "one", having read an original .doc 17 years 
later, including figures, with original fidelity intact, I've proven 
exactly what was needed to refute his claim. I never said every document 
would do this; I do have others, however- a few 16 year-old ones, and 
more as they get younger - all of which work fine. _I_ clearly have 
tools (Office XP) to extract files with original fidelity intact. _Your_ 
mileage may vary...

> Get back to us when you've tried recovering a document that used e.g.
> Master Document and fast save, or live embedded OLE. Or even an
> autogenerated list of contents and tables. Or footnotes.

There are plenty of ways to stress systems; even ASCII email has stress 
points that have failed over the years, and the bleeding edge of HTML 
fails regularly. MS has discouraged fast saves (at least when asked) 
since they were introduced, and a few hint books keep reminding us.

> I suspect the longevity of a document's readability is inversely
> proportional to the number of features involved in creating it, not
> the time between writing and reading it. Complexity is the killer.

On that we both agree.

Joe



From the.map at alum.mit.edu  Mon Jan 27 00:43:17 2003
From: the.map at alum.mit.edu (Mike Padlipsky)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:43:17 -0800
Subject: HTML "transition" (was Re: [ih] spam...)
In-Reply-To: <3E34D280.5090600@isi.edu>
References: <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>
 <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni>
 <5.1.1.6.2.20030120193122.03e138e0@127.0.0.1>
 <87znpvru2e.fsf@snark.piermont.com>
 <3E2D7497.7020900@isi.edu>
 <877kcyqwro.fsf_-_@snark.piermont.com>
 <345840267.20030124091935@brandenburg.com>
 <87isweo3jt.fsf_-_@snark.piermont.com>
 <3E31A751.7000200@isi.edu>
 <Pine.GSO.4.50.0301262332500.2951-100000@artemis.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20030127002211.01bb49f0@mail.lafn.org>

At 10:32 PM 1/26/03, Joe Touch wrote:
 >Lloyd Wood wrote:
[...]
>>I suspect the longevity of a document's readability is inversely
>>proportional to the number of features involved in creating it, not
>>the time between writing and reading it.  Complexity is the killer.
>
>On that we both agree.

why, then, y're both wrong.

to the optimist, 'the' killer is the naive belief, painfully widespread in 
both the techolaity and the technoclergy, that change equals progress.  to 
the pessimist [or, if you prefer, realist], 'the' killer is planned 
obsolescence.

both might well be correct, for reasonable values of 'the', but in any case 
complexity is merely a consequence of the former and a handmaiden [or, if 
you prefer, gun moll] of the latter.

[ok, ok: in my humble, but dogmatic, opinion [or, if you prefer, yr 
credulity may vary] ... but it makes a great maphorism -- imhbdo  -- and a 
goodly amount of sense, to me.]


cheers, map

[whose shoulder problems caused him to break down some time ago and create
a 'signature' file to apologize for the lack of his formerly customary
e-volubility -- and who's been employing shiftless typing for a long time
now to spare his wristsnfingers, in case you didn't know ... and who's
further broken down and done http://www.lafn.org/~ba213/mapstuff.html ,
rather grudgingly]





From touch at ISI.EDU  Mon Jan 27 11:47:25 2003
From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:47:25 -0800
Subject: [ih] back to History (or at least history related)
References: <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni> <9773403.1042993275762.JavaMail.gmanzo@Giovanni> <5.1.1.6.2.20030120193122.03e138e0@127.0.0.1> <87znpvru2e.fsf@snark.piermont.com> <3E2D7497.7020900@isi.edu> <877kcyqwro.fsf_-_@snark.piermont.com> <345840267.20030124091935@brandenburg.com> <87isweo3jt.fsf_-_@snark.piermont.com> <3E31A751.7000200@isi.edu> <Pine.GSO.4.50.0301262332500.2951-100000@artemis.ee.surrey.ac.uk> <3E34D280.5090600@isi.edu> <Pine.GSO.4.50.0301271410230.2951-100000@artemis.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <3E358CCD.7020701@isi.edu>

All this discussion of previous formats reminded me to ask, on behalf of 
the Postel Center:

	1) does anyone have a SCSI 4mm tape drive they could lend?

	2) we would very much like to try to keep some old-format
	drives as a community resource, in particular:
		SCSI 4mm tape
		SCSI 8mm tape
		5.25" diskette
		NeXT optical R/W
		9-track reel tape

If anyone has one they'd like to provide on extended-loan or as 
(deductable) donation, please let me know...

If anyone has data of historical interest, we are actively collecting it 
here at the Postel Center. Data should come with a letter releasing its 
content, indicating whether it can be posted to the web or at least made 
available on per-individual cases.

Thanks,

Joe




From dpreed at reed.com  Fri Jan 17 20:22:02 2003
From: dpreed at reed.com (David P. Reed)
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 23:22:02 -0500
Subject: [ih] History of Online Databases
In-Reply-To: <v0422081aba4e736c57c6@[10.0.1.17]>
References: <3E2872F4.3E7ABFBE@udel.edu>
 <3E2846BE.18370.A364374@localhost>
 <3E2872F4.3E7ABFBE@udel.edu>
Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20030117230402.03ef4618@mail.reed.com.>

Hey guys, depends on what you mean by "online" database and 
"network".   Online databases predated the ARPANET by years.   Project 
MAC/CTSS had online databases accessible remotely over the telephone 
network, used by ordinary people for research in the early 1960's. In the 
late 1960's and early 1970's there were lots of databases that were 
replicated across networks and accessed across networks - Lockheed, DRI, 
NEXIS, are just some examples.

IBM had distributed databases that were accessible over SNA in the early 
1970's, using CICS.

SABRE was distributed quite early, and again was a networked high-volume 
transaction system.

SAGE was a distributed database system itself, giving real-time access to a 
wide variety of dynamic data, in the 1950's (I think).

If you are looking for WWW browser accessible databases, the first 
PERL-script systems that built dynamic web pages from databases that I know 
of were created at U of Illinois, by folks like my friend Brygg Ullmer, who 
was 14 or 15 years old at the time (1992 or so).  Probably at other early 
locations like CERN.

But years prior to that, in 1983 or so Ray Ozzie built the core of Lotus 
Notes, which is a fully distributed, replicated database system.

And the idea of decentralized replicated databases on networks precedes my 
1978 Ph.D. thesis about coordinating atomic actions on them.   Examples 
include work by Stonebraker at Berkeley and System R* at IBM in 1975 or 1976.

At 10:21 PM 1/17/2003 -0500, John Day wrote:
>At 21:17 +0000 1/17/03, David L. Mills wrote:
>>Rick,
>>
>>I submit the first online ubiquitous database was the ARPANET host name
>>file. This may not be what you have in mind.
>
>;-)  Well, strictly speaking yes, but . . .
>
>Perhaps more closely,  actually I would say the NIC and NLS was really the 
>first database system on the net.  Then there were the CCA guys who were 
>really trying to do distributed databases.  But I don't remember when they 
>were up and running.  And also the National Software Works!
>
>Take care,
>John
>