[ih] Oops!

Fri Sep 22 14:45:44 PDT 2006

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
> ***********************************************