From braden at ISI.EDU  Wed Sep 13 11:45:41 2006
From: braden at ISI.EDU (Bob Braden)
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ih] RFC 495
Message-ID: <200609131845.LAA20367@gra.isi.edu>


  *> From rfc-ed at ISI.EDU  Sat Apr 22 02:13:09 2006
  *> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham 
  *> 	version=3.1.0
  *> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 05:11:37 -0400
  *> From: John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com>
  *> To: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org
  *> Subject: RFC 495
  *> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
  *> X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
  *> 
  *> Hi.
  *> 
  *> As I continue in my project in archeology about the NVT concept
  *> and definition, I notice that RFC 495, one of the key original
  *> Telnet specifications, is online in form but not in content.
  *> 
  *> The text that is online is essentially a cover letter.  It
  *> refers to two attachments, 
  *> 
  *> 	"(TELNET Protocol Specification, NIC #15372, and TELNET
  *> 	Option Specifications, NIC #15373)"
  *> 

John,

I have not been able to locate any paper copies of those attachments.
They are NIC documents that were never directly part of the RFC series.
They may exist in Jake Feinler's archive of NIC documents (or now
in the Computer Museum in Mountain View).

I am ccing the history list, in hopes that someone out there might
have a copies.


  *> Which contain the actually consensus protocol specifications.
  *> And those documents do not appear to be online.
  *> 
  *> There is also at least one typographical error in the RFC text
  *> (I don't know whether it appears in the original or not): the
  *> second reference to Dave Crocker's affiliation has him at
  *> "ULCA-NMC".
  *> 

Not that was not in the original... I just checked.  I will fix it.

  *> Since these reconstructed early RFCs are not the inviolate
  *> originals in any event, may I suggest that rfc495.txt be
  *> supplemented by an rfc495.pdf that is produced by an image scan
  *> of the original and that actually contains the scanned
  *> attachments?

Sure, when/if we find the originals.

Bob

  *> 
  *> I am happy to offer scanning services if someone can supply
  *> copies of the two NIC-numbered documents.
  *> 
  *>     thanks,
  *>        john
  *> 


From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu  Wed Sep 13 12:16:51 2006
From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:16:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ih] RFC 495
Message-ID: <20060913191651.7E8F18731A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>

    > From: Bob Braden <braden at ISI.EDU>

    >> From: John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com>

    >> It refers to two attachments,
    >>    "(TELNET Protocol Specification, NIC #15372, and TELNET
    >>    Option Specifications, NIC #15373)"

    > They are NIC documents that were never directly part of the RFC series.
    > They may exist in Jake Feinler's archive of NIC documents (or now in
    > the Computer Museum in Mountain View).

    > I am ccing the history list, in hopes that someone out there might have
    > copies.

Alas, I don't, but I have a suggestion.

My copy of the "ARPANet Protocol Handbook" (NIC 7104, Rev. January 1978) has
later versions of these two (NIC 18639 for TELNET, and NIC 18640 for the
Options). An earlier revision of this book (I see one listed from December,
1974, but that might not be early enough, because NIC 18639 is dated August,
1973) might have the earlier versions. Alas, while I have many different revs
of the 1822 spec in my library, I only have the 1978 version of the APH...

Interestingly, many of the *other* TELNET spec documents in the January, 1978
version of the APH appear to be of the same earlier vintage as the two base
TELNET documents in question; e.g. BINARY Option, NIC 15389 (August, 1973);
ECHO Option, NIC 15390 (August, 1973); etc. What's even more interesting is
that the date on these is the same as the date on the (presumably later) NIC
18639/18640, leaving me somewhat curious as to what differences (if any) there
are between 15372/15373 and 18639/18640. I note that 18639/18640 was printed
on some device that handled variable-width fonts, whereas 15389/15390/etc were
all clearly printed on a line-printer - I wonder if that's the only difference
(given the likely identical dates)?

If nobody else can find any of this stuff, I can certainly scan/OCR in
18639/18640, if those would be of any use (assuming they aren't in fact
identical to some later RFC, something I have not as yet checked).

	Noel


From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu  Wed Sep 13 15:39:45 2006
From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:39:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ih] RFC 495
Message-ID: <20060913223945.1CDE08730C@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>

    > From: John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com>

    >> I see one listed from December, 1974, but that might not be early
    >> enough, because NIC 18639 is dated August, 1973
    >> ..
    >> Interestingly, many of the *other* TELNET spec documents in
    >> the January, 1978 version of the APH appear to be of the same
    >> earlier vintage as the two base TELNET documents in question;
    >> e.g. BINARY Option, NIC 15389 (August, 1973); ECHO Option, NIC
    >> 15390 (August, 1973); etc. What's even more interesting is
    >> that the date on these is the same as the date on the
    >> (presumably later) NIC 18639/18640

    > a preliminary search came up with the same result you found: a volume
    > too late to contain 15372 and 15373

What's the date on the one you have? Is it the December, 1974, version? I ask
because my current theory is that in fact that version probably does contain
15372/15373.

My reasoning is that we know documents with roughly the same numbers (15389,
etc) date from August, 1973, so very probably the original 15372/15373 also
date from then, so there's a good chance the December, 1974 version of the APH
has those earlier versions. I fairly strongly suspect that the 18639/18640
ones were probably prepared (in a snappy font) for the January, 1978 version
of the APH, and only retained the August, 1973 dates because of an editorial
oversight (and perhaps because the content hadn't changed).

So, if anyone has a copy of the December, 1974 version of the APH, I think
it's definitely worth a quick look to see which NIC number of the TELNET spec
it has.

	Noel


From feinler at earthlink.net  Wed Sep 13 22:03:17 2006
From: feinler at earthlink.net (Jake Feinler)
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 22:03:17 -0700
Subject: [ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 17, Issue 1
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1158174001.18196.internet-history@postel.org>
References: <mailman.1.1158174001.18196.internet-history@postel.org>
Message-ID: <07C016C5-92C1-4294-9D34-A5EAD2ECE641@earthlink.net>

Hi Bob,

I will take a look and see if I can unearth the documents you are  
looking for - no promises!  It will be a few days before I can get  
down to the museum again as I will be on a short vaccation up to  
Tomales Bay, back next week.  I'll get back to you.

Cheers,

Jake
On Sep 13, 2006, at 12:00 PM, internet-history-request at postel.org wrote:

> Send internet-history mailing list submissions to
> 	internet-history at postel.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	internet-history-request at postel.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	internet-history-owner at postel.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of internet-history digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: RFC 495 (Bob Braden)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Bob Braden <braden at ISI.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [ih] RFC 495
> To: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org, klensin at jck.com
> Cc: internet-history at postel.org
> Message-ID: <200609131845.LAA20367 at gra.isi.edu>
>
>
>   *> From rfc-ed at ISI.EDU  Sat Apr 22 02:13:09 2006
>   *> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00  
> autolearn=ham
>   *> 	version=3.1.0
>   *> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 05:11:37 -0400
>   *> From: John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com>
>   *> To: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org
>   *> Subject: RFC 495
>   *> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>   *> X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
>   *>
>   *> Hi.
>   *>
>   *> As I continue in my project in archeology about the NVT concept
>   *> and definition, I notice that RFC 495, one of the key original
>   *> Telnet specifications, is online in form but not in content.
>   *>
>   *> The text that is online is essentially a cover letter.  It
>   *> refers to two attachments,
>   *>
>   *> 	"(TELNET Protocol Specification, NIC #15372, and TELNET
>   *> 	Option Specifications, NIC #15373)"
>   *>
>
> John,
>
> I have not been able to locate any paper copies of those attachments.
> They are NIC documents that were never directly part of the RFC  
> series.
> They may exist in Jake Feinler's archive of NIC documents (or now
> in the Computer Museum in Mountain View).
>
> I am ccing the history list, in hopes that someone out there might
> have a copies.
>
>
>   *> Which contain the actually consensus protocol specifications.
>   *> And those documents do not appear to be online.
>   *>
>   *> There is also at least one typographical error in the RFC text
>   *> (I don't know whether it appears in the original or not): the
>   *> second reference to Dave Crocker's affiliation has him at
>   *> "ULCA-NMC".
>   *>
>
> Not that was not in the original... I just checked.  I will fix it.
>
>   *> Since these reconstructed early RFCs are not the inviolate
>   *> originals in any event, may I suggest that rfc495.txt be
>   *> supplemented by an rfc495.pdf that is produced by an image scan
>   *> of the original and that actually contains the scanned
>   *> attachments?
>
> Sure, when/if we find the originals.
>
> Bob
>
>   *>
>   *> I am happy to offer scanning services if someone can supply
>   *> copies of the two NIC-numbered documents.
>   *>
>   *>     thanks,
>   *>        john
>   *>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
>
> End of internet-history Digest, Vol 17, Issue 1
> ***********************************************



From feinler at earthlink.net  Thu Sep 21 13:19:11 2006
From: feinler at earthlink.net (Jake Feinler)
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:19:11 -0700
Subject: [ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 17, Issue 2
In-Reply-To: <mailman.3.1158260403.22317.internet-history@postel.org>
References: <mailman.3.1158260403.22317.internet-history@postel.org>
Message-ID: <D5AD5048-5499-4D84-AF1E-0700BF52CB63@earthlink.net>

Dear group,

I was able to unearth the following NIC documents per your request

18639
18640
15372
15373
15389
15390

In some cases there are two versions:  the original and a transcribed  
version.  Because mistakes
were sometimes made in the transcriptions, you may want to look at both.

I have left the docs with Paul Jabloner, the Computer History Museum  
Archivist as I am taking off for Australia soon.
You need to send her an address to which she can mail the documents.  
Also, she can let you know if there is a charge or not.  If you scan  
or otherwise use the documents, I would appreciate an acknowledgment  
of the Computer History Museum as the source.

Hope this helps put the picture back together.

Regards to all,

Jake


>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: RFC 495 (Noel Chiappa)
>    2. Re: RFC 495 (Noel Chiappa)
>    3. Re: internet-history Digest, Vol 17, Issue 1 (Jake Feinler)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:16:51 -0400 (EDT)
> From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
> Subject: Re: [ih] RFC 495
> To: internet-history at postel.org, klensin at jck.com
> Cc: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu, rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org
> Message-ID: <20060913191651.7E8F18731A at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
>
>> From: Bob Braden <braden at ISI.EDU>
>
>>> From: John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com>
>
>>> It refers to two attachments,
>>>    "(TELNET Protocol Specification, NIC #15372, and TELNET
>>>    Option Specifications, NIC #15373)"
>
>> They are NIC documents that were never directly part of the RFC  
>> series.
>> They may exist in Jake Feinler's archive of NIC documents (or now in
>> the Computer Museum in Mountain View).
>
>> I am ccing the history list, in hopes that someone out there might  
>> have
>> copies.
>
> Alas, I don't, but I have a suggestion.
>
> My copy of the "ARPANet Protocol Handbook" (NIC 7104, Rev. January  
> 1978) has
> later versions of these two (NIC 18639 for TELNET, and NIC 18640  
> for the
> Options). An earlier revision of this book (I see one listed from  
> December,
> 1974, but that might not be early enough, because NIC 18639 is  
> dated August,
> 1973) might have the earlier versions. Alas, while I have many  
> different revs
> of the 1822 spec in my library, I only have the 1978 version of the  
> APH...
>
> Interestingly, many of the *other* TELNET spec documents in the  
> January, 1978
> version of the APH appear to be of the same earlier vintage as the  
> two base
> TELNET documents in question; e.g. BINARY Option, NIC 15389  
> (August, 1973);
> ECHO Option, NIC 15390 (August, 1973); etc. What's even more  
> interesting is
> that the date on these is the same as the date on the (presumably  
> later) NIC
> 18639/18640, leaving me somewhat curious as to what differences (if  
> any) there
> are between 15372/15373 and 18639/18640. I note that 18639/18640  
> was printed
> on some device that handled variable-width fonts, whereas  
> 15389/15390/etc were
> all clearly printed on a line-printer - I wonder if that's the only  
> difference
> (given the likely identical dates)?
>
> If nobody else can find any of this stuff, I can certainly scan/OCR in
> 18639/18640, if those would be of any use (assuming they aren't in  
> fact
> identical to some later RFC, something I have not as yet checked).
>
> 	Noel
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:39:45 -0400 (EDT)
> From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
> Subject: Re: [ih] RFC 495
> To: internet-history at postel.org, klensin at jck.com
> Cc: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu, rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org
> Message-ID: <20060913223945.1CDE08730C at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
>
>> From: John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com>
>
>>> I see one listed from December, 1974, but that might not be early
>>> enough, because NIC 18639 is dated August, 1973
>>> ..
>>> Interestingly, many of the *other* TELNET spec documents in
>>> the January, 1978 version of the APH appear to be of the same
>>> earlier vintage as the two base TELNET documents in question;
>>> e.g. BINARY Option, NIC 15389 (August, 1973); ECHO Option, NIC
>>> 15390 (August, 1973); etc. What's even more interesting is
>>> that the date on these is the same as the date on the
>>> (presumably later) NIC 18639/18640
>



From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu  Thu Sep 21 14:45:51 2006
From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:45:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 17, Issue 2
Message-ID: <20060921214551.8745C86AEE@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>

    > From: Jake Feinler <feinler at earthlink.net>

    > I was able to unearth the following NIC documents per your request

Ah, thanks very much!

    > 15372
    > 15373

These are the two that nobody else has found yet, and therefore the ones that
would be of most interest.


    > 18639
    > 18640

These two are in the January 1978 revision of the "ARPANet Protocol Handbook",
which I have a copy of. If anyone who doesn't have access to that wants to see
them, it might be best to start with the copies that Jake just unearthed,
because mine are bound into a volume, and so would therefore be difficult to
scan.

    > 15389
    > 15390

Ditto these.


    > In some cases there are two versions: the original and a transcribed
    > version. Because mistakes were sometimes made in the transcriptions,
    > you may want to look at both.

Good point...

	Noel


From feinler at earthlink.net  Fri Sep 22 14:45:44 2006
From: feinler at earthlink.net (Jake Feinler)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:45:44 -0700
Subject: [ih] Oops!
In-Reply-To: <mailman.3.1158951601.2048.internet-history@postel.org>
References: <mailman.3.1158951601.2048.internet-history@postel.org>
Message-ID: <B8EC8246-A27C-4E68-90B6-2B5B6A305B68@earthlink.net>

Isn't that ironic - I'm talking about typos and mangled Paula's  
name.  My apologies, Paula (with an "a")

Yes, Paula is a terrific woman who is making great headway in  
getting  the Computer History Museum's extensive document collection  
cleaned up, sorted and cataloged.  Eventually much of the collection  
will be made available via the web.   If any of you are in Mountain  
View be sure to stop by the museum on Shoreline.  It is quite  
impressive.  Open to the public Weds., Fri. Sat, and Sun.

Cheers,

Jake
On Sep 22, 2006, at 12:00 PM, internet-history-request at postel.org wrote:

> Send internet-history mailing list submissions to
> 	internet-history at postel.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	internet-history-request at postel.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	internet-history-owner at postel.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of internet-history digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: internet-history Digest, Vol 17, Issue 2 (Jake Feinler)
>    2. Re: internet-history Digest, Vol 17, Issue 2 (Noel Chiappa)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:19:11 -0700
> From: Jake Feinler <feinler at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 17, Issue 2
> To: internet-history at postel.org
> Cc: Jabloner Paula <jabloner at computerhistory.org>,	Feinler Elizabeth
> 	<feinler at earthlink.net>
> Message-ID: <D5AD5048-5499-4D84-AF1E-0700BF52CB63 at earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> Dear group,
>
> I was able to unearth the following NIC documents per your request
>
> 18639
> 18640
> 15372
> 15373
> 15389
> 15390
>
> In some cases there are two versions:  the original and a transcribed
> version.  Because mistakes
> were sometimes made in the transcriptions, you may want to look at  
> both.
>
> I have left the docs with Paul Jabloner, the Computer History Museum
> Archivist as I am taking off for Australia soon.
> You need to send her an address to which she can mail the documents.
> Also, she can let you know if there is a charge or not.  If you scan
> or otherwise use the documents, I would appreciate an acknowledgment
> of the Computer History Museum as the source.
>
> Hope this helps put the picture back together.
>
> Regards to all,
>
> Jake
>
>
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>    1. Re: RFC 495 (Noel Chiappa)
>>    2. Re: RFC 495 (Noel Chiappa)
>>    3. Re: internet-history Digest, Vol 17, Issue 1 (Jake Feinler)
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> -
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:16:51 -0400 (EDT)
>> From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
>> Subject: Re: [ih] RFC 495
>> To: internet-history at postel.org, klensin at jck.com
>> Cc: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu, rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org
>> Message-ID: <20060913191651.7E8F18731A at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
>>
>>> From: Bob Braden <braden at ISI.EDU>
>>
>>>> From: John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com>
>>
>>>> It refers to two attachments,
>>>>    "(TELNET Protocol Specification, NIC #15372, and TELNET
>>>>    Option Specifications, NIC #15373)"
>>
>>> They are NIC documents that were never directly part of the RFC
>>> series.
>>> They may exist in Jake Feinler's archive of NIC documents (or now in
>>> the Computer Museum in Mountain View).
>>
>>> I am ccing the history list, in hopes that someone out there might
>>> have
>>> copies.
>>
>> Alas, I don't, but I have a suggestion.
>>
>> My copy of the "ARPANet Protocol Handbook" (NIC 7104, Rev. January
>> 1978) has
>> later versions of these two (NIC 18639 for TELNET, and NIC 18640
>> for the
>> Options). An earlier revision of this book (I see one listed from
>> December,
>> 1974, but that might not be early enough, because NIC 18639 is
>> dated August,
>> 1973) might have the earlier versions. Alas, while I have many
>> different revs
>> of the 1822 spec in my library, I only have the 1978 version of the
>> APH...
>>
>> Interestingly, many of the *other* TELNET spec documents in the
>> January, 1978
>> version of the APH appear to be of the same earlier vintage as the
>> two base
>> TELNET documents in question; e.g. BINARY Option, NIC 15389
>> (August, 1973);
>> ECHO Option, NIC 15390 (August, 1973); etc. What's even more
>> interesting is
>> that the date on these is the same as the date on the (presumably
>> later) NIC
>> 18639/18640, leaving me somewhat curious as to what differences (if
>> any) there
>> are between 15372/15373 and 18639/18640. I note that 18639/18640
>> was printed
>> on some device that handled variable-width fonts, whereas
>> 15389/15390/etc were
>> all clearly printed on a line-printer - I wonder if that's the only
>> difference
>> (given the likely identical dates)?
>>
>> If nobody else can find any of this stuff, I can certainly scan/ 
>> OCR in
>> 18639/18640, if those would be of any use (assuming they aren't in
>> fact
>> identical to some later RFC, something I have not as yet checked).
>>
>> 	Noel
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:39:45 -0400 (EDT)
>> From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
>> Subject: Re: [ih] RFC 495
>> To: internet-history at postel.org, klensin at jck.com
>> Cc: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu, rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org
>> Message-ID: <20060913223945.1CDE08730C at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
>>
>>> From: John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com>
>>
>>>> I see one listed from December, 1974, but that might not be early
>>>> enough, because NIC 18639 is dated August, 1973
>>>> ..
>>>> Interestingly, many of the *other* TELNET spec documents in
>>>> the January, 1978 version of the APH appear to be of the same
>>>> earlier vintage as the two base TELNET documents in question;
>>>> e.g. BINARY Option, NIC 15389 (August, 1973); ECHO Option, NIC
>>>> 15390 (August, 1973); etc. What's even more interesting is
>>>> that the date on these is the same as the date on the
>>>> (presumably later) NIC 18639/18640
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 17:45:51 -0400 (EDT)
> From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
> Subject: Re: [ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 17, Issue 2
> To: feinler at earthlink.net, internet-history at postel.org
> Cc: jabloner at computerhistory.org, jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu
> Message-ID: <20060921214551.8745C86AEE at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
>
>> From: Jake Feinler <feinler at earthlink.net>
>
>> I was able to unearth the following NIC documents per your request
>
> Ah, thanks very much!
>
>> 15372
>> 15373
>
> These are the two that nobody else has found yet, and therefore the  
> ones that
> would be of most interest.
>
>
>> 18639
>> 18640
>
> These two are in the January 1978 revision of the "ARPANet Protocol  
> Handbook",
> which I have a copy of. If anyone who doesn't have access to that  
> wants to see
> them, it might be best to start with the copies that Jake just  
> unearthed,
> because mine are bound into a volume, and so would therefore be  
> difficult to
> scan.
>
>> 15389
>> 15390
>
> Ditto these.
>
>
>> In some cases there are two versions: the original and a transcribed
>> version. Because mistakes were sometimes made in the transcriptions,
>> you may want to look at both.
>
> Good point...
>
> 	Noel
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
>
> End of internet-history Digest, Vol 17, Issue 3
> ***********************************************



From lars.eggert at netlab.nec.de  Tue Sep 26 08:06:10 2006
From: lars.eggert at netlab.nec.de (Lars Eggert)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:06:10 +0200
Subject: [ih] Fwd: 25th Anniversary!
References: <E1GSDnN-0004TK-D3@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <63E76B9A-53A0-4225-9652-8DB24F9919EC@netlab.nec.de>

Begin forwarded message:
> From: IETF Administrative Director <iad at ietf.org>
> Date: September 26, 2006 4:20:25 PM GMT+02:00
> To: IETF Announcement list <ietf-announce at ietf.org>
> Subject: 25th Anniversary!
>
> It was 25 years ago this month that IP and TCP were formally  
> standardized
> by the publication of RFC 791 and RFC 793.
>
> "Vint Cerf and Robert Kahn are widely credited with the design of  
> TCP/IP,
> and many others involved in the ARPANET project made significant
> contributions," says the Internet Society. "The core of the  
> documents was
> RFC 675, published in December 1974 by Cerf together with co- 
> authors Carl
> Sunshine and Yogen Dalal. The subsequent sequence of documents  
> leading up
> to RFC 791 and 793 benefited from the participation of many people
> including Dave Clark, Jon Postel, Bob Braden, Ray Tomlinson, Bill  
> Plummer,
> and Jim Mathis, as well as other unnamed contributors to the  
> definition
> and implementation of what became the Internet's core protocols."
>
> You can learn more about this seminal achievement at the Internet  
> Society
> web site: http://www.isoc.org/isoc/media/releases/060926pr.shtml.
>
> Many thanks to those who have gone before, those who continue to  
> toil in
> this fruitful vineyard and those who will follow.
>
> All the best,
> Ray Pelletier
> IAD

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3668 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20060926/077031f1/attachment.p7s>

From braden at ISI.EDU  Tue Sep 26 13:25:18 2006
From: braden at ISI.EDU (Bob Braden)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 13:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ih] RFC 495
Message-ID: <200609262025.NAA25292@gra.isi.edu>


John Klensin wrote: 

  *> 
  *> --On Wednesday, 13 September, 2006 18:39 -0400 Noel Chiappa
  *> <jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
  *> 
  *> >...
  *> > What's the date on the one you have? Is it the December, 1974,
  *> > version? I ask because my current theory is that in fact that
  *> > version probably does contain 15372/15373.
  *> 
  *> Don't remember.  I checked for 15372/3 while I was up there,
  *> decided they were not in it, and then left it there without
  *> making further notes.  Next trip.
  *> 

John,

I have new news on this.  I was looking over our progress on the
"rfc-online" project (to get all RFCs online), and I found a .txt file
that contains not only the cover page now online as RFC 495, but ALSO
NIC #s 15372, 15373, and 15389-15393 (options).  Feeling too lazy to do
anything useful on a Monday afternoon, I went 70% of the way to
producing an nroff source for it.

I don't know where this .txt file came from, actually.  It may (presumably
was) typed in by some generous volunteer under the rfc-online program.
It has some typos and perhaps some missing sentences, but I don't
have an authoritative paper copy to verify.

So I will shortly be able to give you a 95% correct version, which is
probably good enough for government work, eh?

Bob Braden