From zbarrow at systechnologies.com Thu Mar 17 08:42:00 2005 From: zbarrow at systechnologies.com (Barrow, Zach) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:42:00 -0800 Subject: [ih] Proof of the date of first use of term "webcam" Message-ID: <0924D8C9ADE6C04D9FA73CC47C0FA8E4013212B5@SYSSDEX.syys.com> Hello everyone, I have an interesting question. It pertains to the first use of the word "webcam." The OED has it as 1995, first used in an Arizona Republic article. My friend is fairly certain that the term was in use before that, but is trying to find a source that can stand up to OED scrutiny to have the definition corrected. We're both fairly certain it had to be after 1990 since that is about the time WWW came into usage. Does anyone have or know of a reliable citation or some citable text where the term was used? My friend posted his question at http://www.the-ethic.blogspot.com/ Thanks for any help, Zach From lars.eggert at netlab.nec.de Thu Mar 17 10:37:29 2005 From: lars.eggert at netlab.nec.de (Lars Eggert) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:37:29 +0100 Subject: [ih] Proof of the date of first use of term "webcam" In-Reply-To: <0924D8C9ADE6C04D9FA73CC47C0FA8E4013212B5@SYSSDEX.syys.com> References: <0924D8C9ADE6C04D9FA73CC47C0FA8E4013212B5@SYSSDEX.syys.com> Message-ID: <4239CE69.5070108@netlab.nec.de> Barrow, Zach wrote: > > I have an interesting question. It pertains to the first use of the word "webcam." The OED has it as 1995, first used in an Arizona Republic article. My friend is fairly certain that the term was in use before that, but is trying to find a source that can stand up to OED scrutiny to have the definition corrected. We're both fairly certain it had to be after 1990 since that is about the time WWW came into usage. Does anyone have or know of a reliable citation or some citable text where the term was used? My friend posted his question at http://www.the-ethic.blogspot.com/ Google Groups has a usenet post about a webcam dated Sep 12 1994: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.providers/browse_thread/thread/c38f97b59e131ca9/e4e64fdb4efbf879?q=webcam#e4e64fdb4efbf879 ANNOUNCE: AIR FORCE SUPER LAB SERVER Sep 12 1994, 10:02 am Rome Laboratory, the US Air Force Super Lab for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence (C3I) would like to announce its WWW information service. A sample of the RL WWW's offerings include: * Interactive Air Force WWW map * On-line Touts * Technology Transfer Databases * and of course the "Web Cam" The URL for the Rome Laboratory WWW is: http://www.rl.af.mil:8001/ Thank you. Scott -- Lars Eggert NEC Network Laboratories -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3360 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From mirell at gmail.com Thu Mar 17 10:47:24 2005 From: mirell at gmail.com (Mark Miller) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:47:24 -0600 Subject: [ih] Proof of the date of first use of term "webcam" In-Reply-To: <4239CE69.5070108@netlab.nec.de> References: <0924D8C9ADE6C04D9FA73CC47C0FA8E4013212B5@SYSSDEX.syys.com> <4239CE69.5070108@netlab.nec.de> Message-ID: <5d3341c00503171047551e1615@mail.gmail.com> Well, I noted that post as well. But the thing is, "Web cam" is still different from "Webcam", at least to the OED's standards. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:37:29 +0100, Lars Eggert wrote: > Barrow, Zach wrote: > > > > I have an interesting question. It pertains to the first use of the word "webcam." The OED has it as 1995, first used in an Arizona Republic article. My friend is fairly certain that the term was in use before that, but is trying to find a source that can stand up to OED scrutiny to have the definition corrected. We're both fairly certain it had to be after 1990 since that is about the time WWW came into usage. Does anyone have or know of a reliable citation or some citable text where the term was used? My friend posted his question at http://www.the-ethic.blogspot.com/ > > Google Groups has a usenet post about a webcam dated Sep 12 1994: > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.providers/browse_thread/thread/c38f97b59e131ca9/e4e64fdb4efbf879?q=webcam#e4e64fdb4efbf879 > > ANNOUNCE: AIR FORCE SUPER LAB SERVER > Sep 12 1994, 10:02 am > > Rome Laboratory, the US Air Force Super Lab for Command, Control, > Communications and Intelligence (C3I) would like to announce its WWW > information service. > > A sample of the RL WWW's offerings include: > > * Interactive Air Force WWW map > * On-line Touts > * Technology Transfer Databases > * and of course the "Web Cam" > > The URL for the Rome Laboratory WWW is: > http://www.rl.af.mil:8001/ > > Thank you. > Scott > > -- > Lars Eggert NEC Network Laboratories > > > -- Mark A. Miller mark at mirell.org US +1 512 796 3592 http://mirell.org From lars.eggert at netlab.nec.de Thu Mar 17 10:55:04 2005 From: lars.eggert at netlab.nec.de (Lars Eggert) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:55:04 +0100 Subject: [ih] Proof of the date of first use of term "webcam" In-Reply-To: <5d3341c00503171047551e1615@mail.gmail.com> References: <0924D8C9ADE6C04D9FA73CC47C0FA8E4013212B5@SYSSDEX.syys.com> <4239CE69.5070108@netlab.nec.de> <5d3341c00503171047551e1615@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4239D288.9040808@netlab.nec.de> Mark Miller wrote: > Well, I noted that post as well. But the thing is, "Web cam" is still > different from "Webcam", at least to the OED's standards. Well, Google Groups has that too, a bit later. Left as an excercise to the reader to locate :-) -- Lars Eggert NEC Network Laboratories -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3360 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From zbarrow at systechnologies.com Thu Mar 17 12:25:02 2005 From: zbarrow at systechnologies.com (Barrow, Zach) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:25:02 -0800 Subject: [ih] Proof of the date of first use of term "webcam" Message-ID: <0924D8C9ADE6C04D9FA73CC47C0FA8E4013212BC@SYSSDEX.syys.com> Here is the definition from OED: ------- Brit. /wbkam/, U.S. /wbk?m/ Forms: 19- web cam, web-cam, webcam. Also with capital initial(s). [< WEB n. + cam- (in CAMERA n.).] A video camera which is connected to a computer so that its output may be viewed on a network, esp. the Internet. A proprietary name in the United States. ------- So, I think web cam, web-cam, or webcam, or any capitalized versions of such would be legitimate. -Zach -----Original Message----- From: Lars Eggert [mailto:lars.eggert at netlab.nec.de] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:37 AM To: Barrow, Zach Cc: internet-history at postel.org Subject: Re: [ih] Proof of the date of first use of term "webcam" Barrow, Zach wrote: > > I have an interesting question. It pertains to the first use of the word "webcam." The OED has it as 1995, first used in an Arizona Republic article. My friend is fairly certain that the term was in use before that, but is trying to find a source that can stand up to OED scrutiny to have the definition corrected. We're both fairly certain it had to be after 1990 since that is about the time WWW came into usage. Does anyone have or know of a reliable citation or some citable text where the term was used? My friend posted his question at http://www.the-ethic.blogspot.com/ Google Groups has a usenet post about a webcam dated Sep 12 1994: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.providers/browse_thread/thread/c38f97b59e131ca9/e4e64fdb4efbf879?q=webcam#e4e64fdb4efbf879 ANNOUNCE: AIR FORCE SUPER LAB SERVER Sep 12 1994, 10:02 am Rome Laboratory, the US Air Force Super Lab for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence (C3I) would like to announce its WWW information service. A sample of the RL WWW's offerings include: * Interactive Air Force WWW map * On-line Touts * Technology Transfer Databases * and of course the "Web Cam" The URL for the Rome Laboratory WWW is: http://www.rl.af.mil:8001/ Thank you. Scott -- Lars Eggert NEC Network Laboratories From mirell at gmail.com Thu Mar 17 14:32:33 2005 From: mirell at gmail.com (Mark Miller) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:32:33 -0600 Subject: [ih] Proof of the date of first use of term "webcam" In-Reply-To: <0924D8C9ADE6C04D9FA73CC47C0FA8E4013212BC@SYSSDEX.syys.com> References: <0924D8C9ADE6C04D9FA73CC47C0FA8E4013212BC@SYSSDEX.syys.com> Message-ID: <5d3341c00503171432648e91e8@mail.gmail.com> Well, the linguistical history of hyphenated versus unhyphenated versus capitalized letters (mailman versus MailMan, for instance. No "Manly Caps", they say), is something different from two words and a compound word. As is noted in quote from the OED, "web cam" was not a particular variant. Just my two cents as a Linguistics student. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:25:02 -0800, Barrow, Zach wrote: > Here is the definition from OED: > > ------- > Brit. /wbkam/, U.S. /wbk?m/ Forms: 19- web cam, web-cam, webcam. Also with capital initial(s). [< WEB n. + cam- (in CAMERA n.).] > > A video camera which is connected to a computer so that its output may be viewed on a network, esp. the Internet. > A proprietary name in the United States. > ------- > So, I think web cam, web-cam, or webcam, or any capitalized versions of such would be legitimate. > > -Zach > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lars Eggert [mailto:lars.eggert at netlab.nec.de] > Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:37 AM > To: Barrow, Zach > Cc: internet-history at postel.org > Subject: Re: [ih] Proof of the date of first use of term "webcam" > > Barrow, Zach wrote: > > > > I have an interesting question. It pertains to the first use of the word "webcam." The OED has it as 1995, first used in an Arizona Republic article. My friend is fairly certain that the term was in use before that, but is trying to find a source that can stand up to OED scrutiny to have the definition corrected. We're both fairly certain it had to be after 1990 since that is about the time WWW came into usage. Does anyone have or know of a reliable citation or some citable text where the term was used? My friend posted his question at http://www.the-ethic.blogspot.com/ > > Google Groups has a usenet post about a webcam dated Sep 12 1994: > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.providers/browse_thread/thread/c38f97b59e131ca9/e4e64fdb4efbf879?q=webcam#e4e64fdb4efbf879 > > ANNOUNCE: AIR FORCE SUPER LAB SERVER > Sep 12 1994, 10:02 am > > Rome Laboratory, the US Air Force Super Lab for Command, Control, > Communications and Intelligence (C3I) would like to announce its WWW > information service. > > A sample of the RL WWW's offerings include: > > * Interactive Air Force WWW map > * On-line Touts > * Technology Transfer Databases > * and of course the "Web Cam" > > The URL for the Rome Laboratory WWW is: > http://www.rl.af.mil:8001/ > > Thank you. > Scott > > -- > Lars Eggert NEC Network Laboratories > -- Mark A. Miller mark at mirell.org US +1 512 796 3592 http://mirell.org From zbarrow at systechnologies.com Thu Mar 17 14:42:52 2005 From: zbarrow at systechnologies.com (Barrow, Zach) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:42:52 -0800 Subject: [ih] Proof of the date of first use of term "webcam" Message-ID: <0924D8C9ADE6C04D9FA73CC47C0FA8E4013212BD@SYSSDEX.syys.com> > Brit. /wbkam/, U.S. /wbk?m/ Forms: 19- web cam, web-cam, webcam. Also with capital initial(s). [< WEB n. + cam- (in CAMERA n.).] I'm not a big reader of the OED. However, doesn't the section "Forms: 19- web cam, web-cam, webcam. Also with capital initial(s)" of the definition imply that these are all forms (variants) of the term webcam? Am I just reading the definition wrong? -Zach -----Original Message----- From: Mark Miller [mailto:mirell at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 2:33 PM To: Barrow, Zach Cc: internet-history at postel.org Subject: Re: [ih] Proof of the date of first use of term "webcam" Well, the linguistical history of hyphenated versus unhyphenated versus capitalized letters (mailman versus MailMan, for instance. No "Manly Caps", they say), is something different from two words and a compound word. As is noted in quote from the OED, "web cam" was not a particular variant. Just my two cents as a Linguistics student. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:25:02 -0800, Barrow, Zach wrote: > Here is the definition from OED: > > ------- > Brit. /wbkam/, U.S. /wbk?m/ Forms: 19- web cam, web-cam, webcam. Also with capital initial(s). [< WEB n. + cam- (in CAMERA n.).] > > A video camera which is connected to a computer so that its output may be viewed on a network, esp. the Internet. > A proprietary name in the United States. > ------- > So, I think web cam, web-cam, or webcam, or any capitalized versions of such would be legitimate. > > -Zach > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lars Eggert [mailto:lars.eggert at netlab.nec.de] > Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:37 AM > To: Barrow, Zach > Cc: internet-history at postel.org > Subject: Re: [ih] Proof of the date of first use of term "webcam" > > Barrow, Zach wrote: > > > > I have an interesting question. It pertains to the first use of the word "webcam." The OED has it as 1995, first used in an Arizona Republic article. My friend is fairly certain that the term was in use before that, but is trying to find a source that can stand up to OED scrutiny to have the definition corrected. We're both fairly certain it had to be after 1990 since that is about the time WWW came into usage. Does anyone have or know of a reliable citation or some citable text where the term was used? My friend posted his question at http://www.the-ethic.blogspot.com/ > > Google Groups has a usenet post about a webcam dated Sep 12 1994: > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.providers/browse_thread/thread/c38f97b59e131ca9/e4e64fdb4efbf879?q=webcam#e4e64fdb4efbf879 > > ANNOUNCE: AIR FORCE SUPER LAB SERVER > Sep 12 1994, 10:02 am > > Rome Laboratory, the US Air Force Super Lab for Command, Control, > Communications and Intelligence (C3I) would like to announce its WWW > information service. > > A sample of the RL WWW's offerings include: > > * Interactive Air Force WWW map > * On-line Touts > * Technology Transfer Databases > * and of course the "Web Cam" > > The URL for the Rome Laboratory WWW is: > http://www.rl.af.mil:8001/ > > Thank you. > Scott > > -- > Lars Eggert NEC Network Laboratories > -- Mark A. Miller mark at mirell.org US +1 512 796 3592 http://mirell.org From mirell at gmail.com Thu Mar 17 14:55:33 2005 From: mirell at gmail.com (Mark Miller) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:55:33 -0600 Subject: [ih] Proof of the date of first use of term "webcam" In-Reply-To: <0924D8C9ADE6C04D9FA73CC47C0FA8E4013212BD@SYSSDEX.syys.com> References: <0924D8C9ADE6C04D9FA73CC47C0FA8E4013212BD@SYSSDEX.syys.com> Message-ID: <5d3341c005031714557678c9a1@mail.gmail.com> I can't read. Disregard that last statement. On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 14:42:52 -0800, Barrow, Zach wrote: > > Brit. /wbkam/, U.S. /wbk?m/ Forms: 19- web cam, web-cam, webcam. Also with capital initial(s). [< WEB n. + cam- (in CAMERA n.).] > > I'm not a big reader of the OED. However, doesn't the section "Forms: 19- web cam, web-cam, webcam. Also with capital initial(s)" of the definition imply that these are all forms (variants) of the term webcam? Am I just reading the definition wrong? > > -Zach > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Miller [mailto:mirell at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 2:33 PM > To: Barrow, Zach > Cc: internet-history at postel.org > Subject: Re: [ih] Proof of the date of first use of term "webcam" > > Well, the linguistical history of hyphenated versus unhyphenated > versus capitalized letters (mailman versus MailMan, for instance. No > "Manly Caps", they say), is something different from two words and a > compound word. As is noted in quote from the OED, "web cam" was not a > particular variant. > > Just my two cents as a Linguistics student. > > On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:25:02 -0800, Barrow, Zach > wrote: > > Here is the definition from OED: > > > > ------- > > Brit. /wbkam/, U.S. /wbk?m/ Forms: 19- web cam, web-cam, webcam. Also with capital initial(s). [< WEB n. + cam- (in CAMERA n.).] > > > > A video camera which is connected to a computer so that its output may be viewed on a network, esp. the Internet. > > A proprietary name in the United States. > > ------- > > So, I think web cam, web-cam, or webcam, or any capitalized versions of such would be legitimate. > > > > -Zach > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lars Eggert [mailto:lars.eggert at netlab.nec.de] > > Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:37 AM > > To: Barrow, Zach > > Cc: internet-history at postel.org > > Subject: Re: [ih] Proof of the date of first use of term "webcam" > > > > Barrow, Zach wrote: > > > > > > I have an interesting question. It pertains to the first use of the word "webcam." The OED has it as 1995, first used in an Arizona Republic article. My friend is fairly certain that the term was in use before that, but is trying to find a source that can stand up to OED scrutiny to have the definition corrected. We're both fairly certain it had to be after 1990 since that is about the time WWW came into usage. Does anyone have or know of a reliable citation or some citable text where the term was used? My friend posted his question at http://www.the-ethic.blogspot.com/ > > > > Google Groups has a usenet post about a webcam dated Sep 12 1994: > > > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.providers/browse_thread/thread/c38f97b59e131ca9/e4e64fdb4efbf879?q=webcam#e4e64fdb4efbf879 > > > > ANNOUNCE: AIR FORCE SUPER LAB SERVER > > Sep 12 1994, 10:02 am > > > > Rome Laboratory, the US Air Force Super Lab for Command, Control, > > Communications and Intelligence (C3I) would like to announce its WWW > > information service. > > > > A sample of the RL WWW's offerings include: > > > > * Interactive Air Force WWW map > > * On-line Touts > > * Technology Transfer Databases > > * and of course the "Web Cam" > > > > The URL for the Rome Laboratory WWW is: > > http://www.rl.af.mil:8001/ > > > > Thank you. > > Scott > > > > -- > > Lars Eggert NEC Network Laboratories > > > > -- > Mark A. Miller > mark at mirell.org > US +1 512 796 3592 > http://mirell.org > -- Mark A. Miller mark at mirell.org US +1 512 796 3592 http://mirell.org From braden at ISI.EDU Fri Mar 18 14:45:36 2005 From: braden at ISI.EDU (Bob Braden) Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:45:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 6, Issue 2 Message-ID: <200503182245.OAA19855@gra.isi.edu> I don't know about the name, but AFAIK Dave Mills was the first person to point a camera at something and continuously multicast it over the Internet. I think he started as soon as Van Jacobson's nv program became available, maybe 1991? In Dave's case, the "something" was the campus walk outside his office at UDel, showing students hurrying/lounging by. Shortly after, I think (though I may have this reversed), Steve Casner began multicasting a scene of Marina del Rey from ISI. Bob Braden From mills at udel.edu Fri Mar 18 16:48:37 2005 From: mills at udel.edu (David L. Mills) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:48:37 +0000 Subject: [ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 6, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: <200503182245.OAA19855@gra.isi.edu> References: <200503182245.OAA19855@gra.isi.edu> Message-ID: <423B76E5.8090601@udel.edu> Bob, Most of us on the DARTnet/CAIRN projects pointed cameras outside our office windows and left them running 24/7 with nv. I'm not sure who was the first, but about that time NASA was broadcasting shuttle launches on the MBONE, UC Berkely was broadcasting a seminar series and then what were surely webcams popped up all over the world on the MBONE. Dave Bob Braden wrote: >I don't know about the name, but AFAIK Dave Mills was the first person >to point a camera at something and continuously multicast it over the >Internet. I think he started as soon as Van Jacobson's nv program >became available, maybe 1991? In Dave's case, the "something" was >the campus walk outside his office at UDel, showing students >hurrying/lounging by. Shortly after, I think (though I may have >this reversed), Steve Casner began multicasting a scene of Marina >del Rey from ISI. > >Bob Braden > From b_a_denny at yahoo.com Sat Mar 19 14:50:27 2005 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:50:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ih] Proof of the date of first use of term "webcam" Message-ID: <20050319225028.5694.qmail@web14301.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, I think prior to pointing the video cameras out of the windows, I did some experiments sending video across DARTnet from SRI. My memory is fuzzy but I am pretty sure the remote sight was BBN since I would often grab Charlie Lynn to do things. Sun had a video capture card and we were testing to see how it would do over the net. Mark Lewis helped in this effort and I think we basically used the software that came with the card (Mark may have made some modifications to put it over the net. I would need to ask him because I don't remember if he wrote some code or not). We didn't send the images for long periods of time. Ron Frederick was working on video at this point at PARC. He heard what we had done so he asked if we would help him try his stuff out which we did. regards, barbara denny From ptdeboer at cs.utwente.nl Tue Mar 22 07:38:10 2005 From: ptdeboer at cs.utwente.nl (Pieter-Tjerk de Boer) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:38:10 +0100 Subject: [ih] order of source and destination address in IP header Message-ID: <20050322153810.GC29458@cs.utwente.nl> Dear Internet Historians, I have been pondering and researching the following question: Why is the source address located *before* the destination address in the IPv4 header? In many link-layer protocol header formats (e.g., HDLC and ethernet), the destination address comes first, and one advantage of this is that it enables a receiving device to know very quickly whether the packet is destined for it or not. In principle, the same argument could be used at the IP layer, but apparently that was not done. One possible explanation is that the designers of the IPv4 header simply didn't care; possibly the IP header was not expected to be processed until the entire packet had already been received. However, studying some historical documents shows that the order of source and destination address was changed twice between 1973 and 1979, suggesting that there may actually have been a reason for this. To be precise, this is what I have been able to find so far: * 1973, a note entitled "A Partial Specification of an International Transmission Protocol", by Vint Cerf: SOURCE address first. * May 1974, "A Protocol for Packet Network Intercommunication" by Cerf and Kahn, in IEEE Trans. on Communications: SOURCE address first. * December 1974, RFC675: DESTINATION address first * March 1977, IEN5, TCP version 2: DESTINATION address first. * 26 October 1976, IEN18, "yielding protocol version 3": DESTINATION first. (Note: this date may well be wrong, since version 3 presumably would appear after version 2, and the date of version 2 is confirmed by IEN151.) * January 1978, IEN21, TCP version 3: DESTINATION address first. * August 1979, IEN111, IP version 4: SOURCE address first. (Henceforth all documents claim to specify version 4.) * December 1979, IEN123: SOURCE address first. * January 1980, RFC760: SOURCE address first. A list of IENs apparently obsoleted by IEN-111 is: (IEN-26) Cerf 14-Feb-78 A Proposed New Internet Header Format (IEN-28) Postel Feb-78 Draft Internetwork Protocol Specification (IEN-41) Postel Jun-78 Internetwork Protocol Specification - Version 4 (IEN-44) Postel Jun-78 Latest Header Formats (IEN-54) Postel Sep-78 Internetwork Protocol Specification Version 4 (IEN-80) Postel Feb-79 Internet Datagram Protocol Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any of these. It seems the final decision to put the source address first, must have been made between January 1978 and August 1979, with the transition from version 3 to version 4; if anywhere, the reason may be documented in one of the above six IENs, with IEN-26 seeming the most likely candidate. So: is there anyone on this mailing list who has access to these old IENs, or who actually knows the reason (if any) for this order of the address fields? Best regards, Pieter-Tjerk de Boer (ptdeboer at cs.utwente.nl) From zbarrow at systechnologies.com Tue Mar 22 08:19:13 2005 From: zbarrow at systechnologies.com (Barrow, Zach) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:19:13 -0800 Subject: [ih] Proof of the date of first use of term "webcam" Message-ID: <0924D8C9ADE6C04D9FA73CC47C0FA8E4013212BF@SYSSDEX.syys.com> This is all good info guys. Were there any major publications that you think would have mentioned this video over the net (research papers, white papers, brochures from companies, magazine articles, etc) back in that time frame of '91-'93? It seems that 1991/1992 had to be the earliest a device would have been called a "webcam" because the term World Wide Web was coined in 1990/1991 right? -Zach From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Tue Mar 22 09:48:19 2005 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:48:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ih] order of source and destination address in IP header Message-ID: <20050322174819.4DBB5872CA@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Pieter-Tjerk de Boer > Why is the source address located *before* the destination address > in the IPv4 header? > ... > One possible explanation is that the designers of the IPv4 header > simply didn't care; possibly the IP header was not expected to be > processed until the entire packet had already been received. Yes, exactly. Not only were all packets processed in software back then, the machine we were using were relatively slow (several hundred KIPS). Processing these things in hardware wasn't even a thought we had back then. The packets were completely received from the network interface before the software looked at them, so the address order simply didn't matter. I don't have any definitive memory on the matter, but I would guess they are in the order "source, destination" simply because that seemed logical (source -> destination). (I do recall distinctly being paired up with Ed Cain at one INWG meeting and being set to the task of editing the draft IPv4 RFC, but I have no memory of what changes we suggested!) > However, studying some historical documents shows that the order of > source and destination address was changed twice between 1973 and > 1979, suggesting that there may actually have been a reason for > this. Not as far as I know. Perhaps David Reed has a memory of why the order was changed? (In any event, looking at it from the viewpoint of being able to process it in hardware, there's only limited utility to being able to read the destination IP address early. For one, you don't need to see it quickly to know if the packet's for you - i.e. you need to read the whole thing in - by definition, the network-level header says that it is. For another, if there's a speed mismatch, you can't do "cut-through" routing, you'll have to buffer the whole packet anyway. The same thing is true if the output network is shared, and busy.) > To be precise, this is what I have been able to find so far: In addition to the list of versions you have there, there was also an IP/TCP version 3.5. It had the fixed length addresses of TCP 2, but was split into separate IP and TCP a la TCP 3. IIRC, there were basically no changes between IP/TCP 3.5 and IP/TCP 4 (except maybe some minor TCP changes like maybe getting rid of Rubber Baby Buffer Bumpers [aka Rubber EOL]). The best places to look for documentation of it are the IEN 26/28 pair, I would think. Also, I think some of the dates on those documents lag reality a little bit. I think that by January 1978 (the date on the TCP 3 spec) it had already been replaced by TCP 3.5. Again, my memory is not really to be relied on here; perhaps Dave Reed can corroborate this? (Also, I"m not sure anyone ever implemented TCP 3, actually - my guess is that keeping as much as possible of the implementations of TCP 2 was one reasons that variable length addresses were backed out of TCP 3.5.) Noel From jtk at northwestern.edu Tue Mar 22 10:00:37 2005 From: jtk at northwestern.edu (John Kristoff) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:00:37 -0600 Subject: [ih] order of source and destination address in IP header In-Reply-To: <20050322174819.4DBB5872CA@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20050322174819.4DBB5872CA@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <20050322180037.49599136C82@aharp.ittns.northwestern.edu> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:48:19 -0500 (EST) jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) wrote: > (In any event, looking at it from the viewpoint of being able to process > it in hardware, there's only limited utility to being able to read the > destination IP address early. For one, you don't need to see it quickly > to know if the packet's for you - i.e. you need to read the whole thing > in - by definition, the network-level header says that it is. For > another, if there's a speed mismatch, you can't do "cut-through" routing, > you'll have to buffer the whole packet anyway. The same thing is true if > the output network is shared, and busy.) It might also be nice to be able to get and verify the header checksum to see if you wouldn't be better off just throwing it away. John From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Tue Mar 22 12:04:13 2005 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:04:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ih] order of source and destination address in IP header Message-ID: <20050322200413.8BC08872C3@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > there was also an IP/TCP version 3.5. It had the fixed length addresses > of TCP 2, but was split into separate IP and TCP a la TCP 3. Stephen Casner has reminded me that my memory is playing tricks on me! There was an intermediate between 3 and 4, but it was numbered 3.1, not 3.5. See: V. Cerf, "A Proposal for TCP Version 3.1 Header Format", IEN 27 for 3.1. There were actually quite a few different revs of the TCP spec: as RFC-793 says: "There have been nine earlier editions of the ARPA TCP specification" Stephen recalls that here was also a TCP 2.5; I don't know where to find something about 2.5. While I'm at it, here's another error: I see that RFC-761 (January 1980) still has Rubber EOL, so it must have been later than the 3.1 -> 4 transition that that disappeared. Noel From braden at ISI.EDU Wed Mar 23 13:24:25 2005 From: braden at ISI.EDU (Bob Braden) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:24:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 6, Issue 6 Message-ID: <200503232124.NAA22044@gra.isi.edu> *> *> Stephen recalls that here was also a TCP 2.5; I don't know where to find *> something about 2.5. *> *> I am glad to hear that I am not the only one who distinctly recalls 2.5. But I have been unable to locate any documentation of it. Perhaps it was quickly renumbered 3 (and 3 became 3.1?). Bob Braden From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Wed Mar 23 16:01:16 2005 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:01:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ih] TCP 2.5 Message-ID: <20050324000116.F0FB0872C5@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Bob Braden > I am glad to hear that I am not the only one who distinctly recalls > 2.5. But I have been unable to locate any documentation of it. > Perhaps it was quickly renumbered 3 Hmm. Well, RFC-750 contains the following number for protocol type: Decimal Octal Format References ------- ----- ------ ---------- 0 0 Reserved 1 1 raw internet [42] 2 2 TCP-3 [36] 3 3 DSP [37,38] 4 4 Gateway Monitoring Message [41] 5 5 TCP-3.1 [45] 6 6 TCP-4 [46] Not much help there... However, there's also a table of IP header version numbers: Decimal Octal Version References ------- ----- ------- ---------- 0 0 March 1977 version [35] 1 1 January 1978 version [36] 2 2 February 1978 version A [42] 3 3 February 1978 version B [43] 4 4 September 1978 version 4 [44] [35] Cerf, V. "Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program -- TCP (version 2)," March 1977. [36] Cerf, V. and J. Postel, "Specification of Internetwork Transmission Control Program -- TCP Version 3," USC-Information Sciences Institute, January 1978. [42] Postel, J. "Draft Internetwork Protocol Specification -- Version 2," USC-Information Sciences Institute, February 1978. [43] Cerf, V. "A Proposed New Internet Header Format," Advanced Research Projects Agency, IEN 26, 14 February 1978. [44] Postel, J. "Internetwork Protocol Specification -- Version 4," IEN-54, USC-Information Sciences Institute, September 1978. [45] Cerf, V. "A Proposal for TCP Version 3.1 Header Format," Advanced Research Projects Agency, IEN 26, 14 February 1978. [46] Postel, J. "Specification of Internetwork Transmission Control Protocol -- Version 4," IEN-55, USC-Information Sciences Institute, September 1978. Now, this is interesting. "Internet" header version 0 was TCP 2, and header version 1 was TCP 3. So either 2.5 got renamed to 3, or it was just a paper exercise, or something, would be my guess. Noel From braden at ISI.EDU Wed Mar 23 16:16:13 2005 From: braden at ISI.EDU (Bob Braden) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:16:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ih] TCP 2.5 Message-ID: <200503240016.QAA22084@gra.isi.edu> The way I recall it, we had a meeting (maybe at ISI?) at which it was decided to split TCP from IP. We implementors went home with the task of implementing that split in our code base, an interesting exercise as I recall... no other changes in the header format but the split. We called that 2.5. Meanwhile the protocol gurus were going to write up a new version, with some mods to the header formats, which became version 3. I would sure like someone else from that time to verify my memory on this. Bob Braden From dpreed at reed.com Fri Mar 25 06:24:39 2005 From: dpreed at reed.com (David P. Reed) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:24:39 -0500 Subject: [ih] Proof of the date of first use of term "webcam" In-Reply-To: <0924D8C9ADE6C04D9FA73CC47C0FA8E4013212BF@SYSSDEX.syys.com> References: <0924D8C9ADE6C04D9FA73CC47C0FA8E4013212BF@SYSSDEX.syys.com> Message-ID: <42441F27.70605@reed.com> Regarding the term, webcam, rather than people's focus on video at the router level (not suprising since there are few apps layer people on this list, apparently), I would ask several people: 1. At Interval Research in 1993-1994 we spoke to many people and groups who were putting up webcams - cameras "on the web" (which means cameras that generated Web-browser viewable pictures, *not* video streaming, but "webcams") - that is camera servers that generated GIF images on demand via web servers with appropriate HTML. Marc Davis (now a prof. at UCBerkeley) was one of the students interested in that, as were many others in the collaborative work community. Andrew Singer and Brenda Laurel were certainly involved in inviting people to share those ideas with us. 2. Many of the early "webcams" of this sort were based on the original Macintosh hosted Connectix cameras (as were the servers mentioned above). Since the term "webcam" is of interest (as opposed to some kind of pride of place for people from the protocol streaming people thinking about movies over the net), I'd track back the hacker literature on how to get images out of old Connectix cameras for a clue. Don't believe academics when they claim credit for stuff that may have first been demonstrated at a Hackers' Conference.... :-) 3. In the early days of Wired Magazine, the "Tired/Wired" column actually was generated by the people involved in inventing ideas in the first place. Later it became a PR-hype-driven thing. In particular, there's a 50-50 chance that Webcam was mentioned explicitly as a "new term" in that column, and in the early days, each term was credited to a specific individual contributor who passed the term on to the Wired compiler. I knew many of the contributors personally, and in most cases those contributors were reporting neologisms very close to the time of invention. You can probably find a person who would remember by looking for the actual term "webcam" when it first appeared in that Wired Column. From dpreed at reed.com Fri Mar 25 06:45:59 2005 From: dpreed at reed.com (David P. Reed) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:45:59 -0500 Subject: [ih] order of source and destination address in IP header In-Reply-To: <20050322174819.4DBB5872CA@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20050322174819.4DBB5872CA@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <42442427.9000201@reed.com> I don't remember destination ever being first, nor do I remember anyone proposing the "performance benefit" that might have obtained. That doesn't mean that such a consideration didn't motivate one of the intermediate references. I'd like to amplify and clarify "state of mind" regarding TCP in the early days related to such matters. The historians need to understand that there are many Johnny-come-latelies who seem to think that TCP and IP were invented as "network protocols" rather than protocols for a heterogeneous "network of networks" that each implemented their own low-level headers, ... There was no notion of IP as the protocol that would be implemented at the switch level in the project at any time. TCP and later the IP layer was expected to be a protocol *between gateways* at all the points in time being described. I do know (because my predecessor protocol called DSP at MIT did it, and our work on source routing argued against it even having a clear meaning...) that we had some occasional discussions about why include a "source" at all in the header. Most protcols that might be used to implement IP routing didn't really use a source, and the source introduced another information channel that routers didn't really use. Those of us in the security business viewed the creation of covert channels as worth tightening down (remember that part of the reason for splitting checksums and ports out of IP was our interest in being able to encrypt the payload end-to-end). But in the end, including a source in a standard place in the IP header (rather than in the TCP header where it was needed for connection-establishment protocols to demux WKS session creation) was useful for practical engineering/debugging reasons. Many of those who were going to have to debug the damn inter-gateway routing algorithms really needed some kind of tracing info that could be dumped about packets flowing through the network to figure out what was going on... From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Fri Mar 25 08:00:31 2005 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:00:31 -0800 Subject: [ih] order of source and destination address in IP header In-Reply-To: <42442427.9000201@reed.com> Message-ID: <20053258031.479016@BBPRIME> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:45:59 -0500, David P. Reed wrote: > TCP and later the IP layer was expected to be a protocol *between > > gateways* at all the points in time being described. David, this implies a role like x.75, rather than end-to-end. it also would make the need for tcp questionable. i wasn't tracking the work very closely, at the time it was being done, by my understanding was that it was always envisioned as an end-to-end overlay, rather than merely between gateways. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net From craig at aland.bbn.com Fri Mar 25 11:50:00 2005 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:50:00 -0500 Subject: [ih] order of source and destination address in IP header In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:45:59 EST." <42442427.9000201@reed.com> Message-ID: <20050325195000.0BC281FF@aland.bbn.com> In message <42442427.9000201 at reed.com>, "David P. Reed" writes: >TCP and later the IP layer was expected to be a protocol *between >gateways* at all the points in time being described. Hi Dave: You were there and I wasn't, but I find this statement a bit surprising. Certainly the original Cerf/Kahn paper clearly states TCP operates between HOSTS, with GATEWAYS doing the relaying. Also, I note that IP's fragmentation model requires a source address. (Or perhaps, better said, would have been extremely difficult to do without either a source address or a unique, destination-created, nonce that was given to the source and placed in each datagram). Craig From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Fri Mar 25 12:34:28 2005 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:34:28 -0800 Subject: [ih] order of source and destination address in IP header In-Reply-To: <20050325195000.0BC281FF@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: <2005325123428.743759@BBPRIME> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:50:00 -0500, Craig Partridge wrote: > IP's fragmentation model requires a source address. ahh, yes. now i remember that i was told that the ultimate rationale for having fragmentation -- rather than simply requiring each network that does fragmentation in the inbound side do reassembly on the outbound side -- was because of the last hop -- TO THE RECIPIENT END-SYSTEM. In other words, fragmentation could not be restricted to relaying components. yet-another indication that all this was an end-to-end overlay. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net From dpreed at reed.com Fri Mar 25 14:25:21 2005 From: dpreed at reed.com (David P. Reed) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:25:21 -0500 Subject: [ih] order of source and destination address in IP header In-Reply-To: <20053258031.479016@BBPRIME> References: <20053258031.479016@BBPRIME> Message-ID: <42448FD1.5050509@reed.com> Oops, Dave - Your comment showed I said it wrong. I meant IP was *among gateways* not between them, to achieve an end-to-end goal, of course. The point was that it was not intended to be the framing structure and addressing that was used by packet switches within the networks (what we now call AS's). We Internet guys expected that our role was to be an overlay. Only in some of our wildest dreams were we expecting that people would build IP-native networks. From dpreed at reed.com Fri Mar 25 18:15:52 2005 From: dpreed at reed.com (David P. Reed) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:15:52 -0500 Subject: [ih] order of source and destination address in IP header In-Reply-To: <20050325195000.0BC281FF@aland.bbn.com> References: <20050325195000.0BC281FF@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: <4244C5D8.8050108@reed.com> Craig Partridge wrote: > >Certainly the original Cerf/Kahn paper clearly states TCP operates >between HOSTS, with GATEWAYS doing the relaying. > > I misspoke my point, as I said to Dave Crocker. I meant that it was an inter-network protocol - that is the protocol spoken on the overlay network that spanned multiple networks. So the idea that optimizing the "switching" via cutthrough was not even in the design space. >Also, I note that IP's fragmentation model requires a source address. >(Or perhaps, better said, would have been extremely difficult to do >without either a source address or a unique, destination-created, nonce >that was given to the source and placed in each datagram). > > Good point. However, you can do fragmentation/reassembly without ambiguity without the source host address... remember that source host/dest host still doesn't provide an unambiguous reassembly (there may be many simultaneous connections between source and dest at the host level.) It may not be ideal, and is quasi-non-deterministic, but if you have a crypto-based authenticator (SHA-1, e.g.) instead of a checksum, you can just deliver all fragments to every destination socket, and then try combining fragments until the authenticator checks correctly... not proposing that for lots of reasons, but just to demonstrate that "source host address" is not the critical element needed for frag/reassembly. From craig at aland.bbn.com Sat Mar 26 07:55:06 2005 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 10:55:06 -0500 Subject: [ih] order of source and destination address in IP header In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 25 Mar 2005 21:15:52 EST." <4244C5D8.8050108@reed.com> Message-ID: <20050326155506.7907F1FF@aland.bbn.com> In message <4244C5D8.8050108 at reed.com>, "David P. Reed" writes: >Good point. However, you can do fragmentation/reassembly without >ambiguity without the source host address... remember that source >host/dest host still doesn't provide an unambiguous reassembly (there >may be many simultaneous connections between source and dest at the host >level.) That assumes the source doesn't manage identifiers to peers. If the source does manage identifiers, then reassembly is unambiguous. (The problem is that if the source address is not present, then even if the source uses unique IDs, there's a chance its ID space will overlap with another senders). It may not be ideal, and is quasi-non-deterministic, but if you >have a crypto-based authenticator (SHA-1, e.g.) instead of a checksum, >you can just deliver all fragments to every destination socket, and then >try combining fragments until the authenticator checks correctly... >not proposing that for lots of reasons, but just to demonstrate that >"source host address" is not the critical element needed for >frag/reassembly. I didn't assert it was -- cf my comment re: a nonce in the first note. Craig From zbarrow at systechnologies.com Tue Mar 29 09:19:27 2005 From: zbarrow at systechnologies.com (Barrow, Zach) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 09:19:27 -0800 Subject: [ih] Proof of the date of first use of term "webcam" Message-ID: <0924D8C9ADE6C04D9FA73CC47C0FA8E4013212C7@SYSSDEX.syys.com> Thanks for the info! Those are exactly the type of leads I'm looking for! -Zach > -----Original Message----- > From: David P. Reed [mailto:dpreed at reed.com] > Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 6:25 AM > To: Barrow, Zach > Cc: Internet History List (E-mail) > Subject: Re: [ih] Proof of the date of first use of term "webcam" > > > Regarding the term, webcam, rather than people's focus on > video at the > router level (not suprising since there are few apps layer people on > this list, apparently), I would ask several people: > > 1. At Interval Research in 1993-1994 we spoke to many people > and groups > who were putting up webcams - cameras "on the web" (which > means cameras > that generated Web-browser viewable pictures, *not* video > streaming, but > "webcams") - that is camera servers that generated GIF images > on demand > via web servers with appropriate HTML. Marc Davis (now a prof. at > UCBerkeley) was one of the students interested in that, as were many > others in the collaborative work community. Andrew Singer > and Brenda > Laurel were certainly involved in inviting people to share > those ideas > with us. > > 2. Many of the early "webcams" of this sort were based on the > original > Macintosh hosted Connectix cameras (as were the servers mentioned > above). Since the term "webcam" is of interest (as opposed to some > kind of pride of place for people from the protocol streaming people > thinking about movies over the net), I'd track back the hacker > literature on how to get images out of old Connectix cameras for a > clue. Don't believe academics when they claim credit for stuff that > may have first been demonstrated at a Hackers' Conference.... :-) > > 3. In the early days of Wired Magazine, the "Tired/Wired" column > actually was generated by the people involved in inventing > ideas in the > first place. Later it became a PR-hype-driven thing. In > particular, > there's a 50-50 chance that Webcam was mentioned explicitly as a "new > term" in that column, and in the early days, each term was > credited to a > specific individual contributor who passed the term on to the Wired > compiler. I knew many of the contributors personally, and in most > cases those contributors were reporting neologisms very close to the > time of invention. You can probably find a person who would > remember > by looking for the actual term "webcam" when it first > appeared in that > Wired Column. > From braden at ISI.EDU Tue Mar 29 10:58:39 2005 From: braden at ISI.EDU (Bob Braden) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:58:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ih] TCP 2.5 (Forwarded for Vint Cerf) Message-ID: <200503291858.KAA23991@gra.isi.edu> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:19:52 -0500 From: "Vinton G. Cerf" Subject: RE: [ih] TCP 2.5 In-reply-to: <6.1.1.1.2.20050323174456.093cdc88 at mail1.jpl.nasa.gov> To: "'Adrian J. Hooke'" , Message-id: <0IDV008C9C9I4N at dgismtp03.mcilink.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Thread-index: AcUwEyTPYZPhoPF/Qp2WWFXBTHkMgwAcfkzg X-ISI-4-39-6-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: vinton.g.cerf at mci.com I think "2.5" was a temporary nomenclature that resolved to tcp 3.0 pretty quickly. V