From vint at google.com Fri Mar 5 06:44:20 2010 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 09:44:20 -0500 Subject: [ih] Fate of Alohanet In-Reply-To: <4B86458E.5020501@cs.tu-berlin.de> References: <4B86458E.5020501@cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: from Bob Kahn: >> The Alohanet funding began (I think, because it was before my >> time) with funds from AFOSR. Then, around 1969, DARPA got into the >> picture and augmented the AF funding (via AFOSR as agent). Most >> likely the last funding was in FY 1974 or 75. If you Google "richard binder alohanet" you should turn up the final report of the Alohanet project that is dated late in 1974 so Bob's guess as to funding appears to be correct. As far as landlines, I don't think they got any better. The project itself successfully demonstrated the feasibility of the stochastic method for sharing capacity and by mid-1973, Bob Metcalfe, stimulated by his exposure to the Alohanet project, had invented and demonstrated Ethernet at Xerox PARC. The Internetting project, initiated by bob kahn at ARPA had already started in 1973 and was well underway in 1974 at Stanford. Packet Radio and Packet Satellite were also well underway and these also used some of the Alohanet ideas. In some sense, these other projects instantiated the Alohanet notions in more powerful, higher speed forms and it might have been thought that the Hawaiian project would not yield more beneficial results. vint Dick Binder is copied and may have more precision to offer. vint On Feb 25, 2010, at 4:40 AM, Matthias B?rwolff wrote: > Dear all, > > I gather from the literature (largely Abramson and Kuo) that Alohanet > got connected to the Arpanet by means of an IMP at the Hawaii > University > in late 1972; then, by 1974 they had NCP and Telnet sufficiently up in > the Menehune to allow terminal connections to the Arpanet; and, > finally, > in 1976 the whole project died for lack of further funding. No further > information was provided for the latter point. > > Does anyone know a specific reason why they discontinued Alohanet? Did > the landlines get better, and thus the raison d'etre vanished? What > happened to the IMP, did it stay connected to the Arpanet? > > Thanks, > Matthias > > -- > Matthias B?rwolff > www.b?rwolff.de > From vint at google.com Fri Mar 5 06:34:35 2010 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 09:34:35 -0500 Subject: [ih] Fate of Alohanet In-Reply-To: <4B86458E.5020501@cs.tu-berlin.de> References: <4B86458E.5020501@cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <028AB2C2-2F12-4526-9A58-607F07396B22@google.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eric.gade at gmail.com Mon Mar 8 11:32:26 2010 From: eric.gade at gmail.com (Eric Gade) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:32:26 -0500 Subject: [ih] DNS History Message-ID: Hello all, I have begun my masters thesis work on the history of DNS and I have several questions that perhaps some of you can address. First, in terms of the RFC system, where are the comments themselves? Were they hard-copies that no longer exist, or mailing lists that have been tucked away somewhere? Is there any correspondence left (for DNS related RFCs) or has it all been lost? Second, does anyone have or know where to find details about the debates/conversations that took place leading up to RFC 1591 and what appears to be a "compromise" between generic and ccTLDs? Third, it is not entirely clear to me exactly why DNS was engineered in place of X.500. It is my understanding at this early point in my research that OSI standards seemed inevitable at one point, and sources have told me that DNS was designed to get something out the door quickly (presumably something that *wasn't* X.500). Was X.500 simply based on an old paradigm (white pages / old telecom) and seen as a bulky and slow alternative? When, and with whom, was the actual decision made to ditch X.500 altogether? This part of the story goes a long way to explaining why everyone in the world doesn't have a unique identifier. I have also been informed that people may not want to speak to me because of the more recent controversy surrounding Domain Name issues and the formation of ICANN, etc. I want to put out a disclaimer that my research will not be centered on the White Paper and those later developments. For the most part, I am interested in the 80s and early-to-mid 90s. Thanks! -- Eric Gade -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dcrocker at gmail.com Mon Mar 8 12:03:10 2010 From: dcrocker at gmail.com (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:03:10 -0800 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B9557FE.8090407@gmail.com> > Third, it is not entirely clear to me exactly why DNS was engineered in > place of X.500. It is my understanding at this early point in my > research that OSI standards seemed inevitable at one point, and sources > have told me that DNS was designed to get something out the door quickly > (presumably something that /wasn't/ X.500). Was X.500 simply based on > an old paradigm (white pages / old telecom) and seen as a bulky and slow > alternative? When, and with whom, was the actual decision made to ditch > X.500 altogether? This part of the story goes a long way to explaining > why everyone in the world doesn't have a unique identifier. DNS predates x.500 by quite a lot. X.500 specification work was /begun/ around 1984, whereas DNS was getting early deployment around that time, and had become critical infrastructure within a few years. In contrast, X.500 never gained widespread use. The usual assessment is that simplicity won out over complexity, since it's far easier to develop, deploy and use. Note, for example, that LDAP was developed much later, to provide simplified x.500 service. But there is also the first-to-market benefit and riding along on the more successful boat. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From craig at aland.bbn.com Mon Mar 8 12:31:12 2010 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:31:12 -0500 Subject: [ih] DNS History Message-ID: <20100308203112.53AEC28E138@aland.bbn.com> > First, in terms of the RFC system, where are the comments themselves? Were > they hard-copies that no longer exist, or mailing lists that have been > tucked away somewhere? Is there any correspondence left (for DNS related > RFCs) or has it all been lost? There was no formal comment system (nor is there now). But there were lots of comments on drafts on various mailing lists. For DNS issues the archives of the namedroppers list is probably your best place (http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers and kudos to Randy Bush for bringing it up) > Second, does anyone have or know where to find details about the > debates/conversations that took place leading up to RFC 1591 and what > appears to be a "compromise" between generic and ccTLDs? RFC 1591 is awfully late -- most key technical issues, as I recall, were determined when RFC973 came out. > Third, it is not entirely clear to me exactly why DNS was engineered in > place of X.500. It is my understanding at this early point in my research > that OSI standards seemed inevitable at one point, and sources have told me > that DNS was designed to get something out the door quickly (presumably > something that *wasn't* X.500). Was X.500 simply based on an old paradigm > (white pages / old telecom) and seen as a bulky and slow alternative? When, > and with whom, was the actual decision made to ditch X.500 altogether? This > part of the story goes a long way to explaining why everyone in the world > doesn't have a unique identifier. I have my theory on that subject -- I'll send you the relevant paper I wrote on the history of email, there's a brief discussion. Thanks! Craig From richard at bennett.com Mon Mar 8 12:58:03 2010 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:58:03 -0800 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: <20100308203112.53AEC28E138@aland.bbn.com> References: <20100308203112.53AEC28E138@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: <4B9564DB.9010308@bennett.com> X.500 was a much broader-reaching directory service, whereas DNS was a simple name-to-address mapper. Companies such as Novell did their own directory services, and X.500 never took off because of the skullduggery that killed OSI. John Day's Patterns in Network Architecture covers some of the drama. On 3/8/2010 12:31 PM, Craig Partridge wrote: >> First, in terms of the RFC system, where are the comments themselves? Were >> they hard-copies that no longer exist, or mailing lists that have been >> tucked away somewhere? Is there any correspondence left (for DNS related >> RFCs) or has it all been lost? >> > There was no formal comment system (nor is there now). But there were lots > of comments on drafts on various mailing lists. For DNS issues the > archives of the namedroppers list is probably your best place > (http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers and kudos to Randy Bush for bringing it > up) > > >> Second, does anyone have or know where to find details about the >> debates/conversations that took place leading up to RFC 1591 and what >> appears to be a "compromise" between generic and ccTLDs? >> > RFC 1591 is awfully late -- most key technical issues, as I recall, were > determined when RFC973 came out. > > >> Third, it is not entirely clear to me exactly why DNS was engineered in >> place of X.500. It is my understanding at this early point in my research >> that OSI standards seemed inevitable at one point, and sources have told me >> that DNS was designed to get something out the door quickly (presumably >> something that *wasn't* X.500). Was X.500 simply based on an old paradigm >> (white pages / old telecom) and seen as a bulky and slow alternative? When, >> and with whom, was the actual decision made to ditch X.500 altogether? This >> part of the story goes a long way to explaining why everyone in the world >> doesn't have a unique identifier. >> > I have my theory on that subject -- I'll send you the relevant paper I wrote > on the history of email, there's a brief discussion. > > Thanks! > > Craig > -- Richard Bennett Research Fellow Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Washington, DC From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Mon Mar 8 13:51:13 2010 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:51:13 -0800 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: <20100308203112.53AEC28E138@aland.bbn.com> References: <20100308203112.53AEC28E138@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: <4B957151.1030606@dcrocker.net> Small tidbits: By accident, RFC 822 published a spec for domain /names/ slightly before the DNS specification came out. The efforts were parallel and 822 was a revision to 733 that included positioning for Internet (as opposed to Arpanet) usage. This included support for the scalable host naming system. And RFC 821 contained the support also. I remember being confused that each hop in the SMTP sequence was being given the /full/ domain name, rather than some incrementally stripped version and Jon Postel gave me a tutorial about the difference between global naming and route-based naming. Up to that time, any multi-part naming really was route-based, in some fashion, including the work we had done with CSNet (user at host@gateway). d/ On 3/8/2010 12:31 PM, Craig Partridge wrote: >> First, in terms of the RFC system, where are the comments themselves? Were >> they hard-copies that no longer exist, or mailing lists that have been >> tucked away somewhere? Is there any correspondence left (for DNS related >> RFCs) or has it all been lost? > > There was no formal comment system (nor is there now). But there were lots > of comments on drafts on various mailing lists. For DNS issues the > archives of the namedroppers list is probably your best place > (http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers and kudos to Randy Bush for bringing it > up) > >> Second, does anyone have or know where to find details about the >> debates/conversations that took place leading up to RFC 1591 and what >> appears to be a "compromise" between generic and ccTLDs? > > RFC 1591 is awfully late -- most key technical issues, as I recall, were > determined when RFC973 came out. > >> Third, it is not entirely clear to me exactly why DNS was engineered in >> place of X.500. It is my understanding at this early point in my research >> that OSI standards seemed inevitable at one point, and sources have told me >> that DNS was designed to get something out the door quickly (presumably >> something that *wasn't* X.500). Was X.500 simply based on an old paradigm >> (white pages / old telecom) and seen as a bulky and slow alternative? When, >> and with whom, was the actual decision made to ditch X.500 altogether? This >> part of the story goes a long way to explaining why everyone in the world >> doesn't have a unique identifier. > > I have my theory on that subject -- I'll send you the relevant paper I wrote > on the history of email, there's a brief discussion. > > Thanks! > > Craig > -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From kevin at Dunlap.Org Mon Mar 8 14:13:21 2010 From: kevin at Dunlap.Org (Kevin Dunlap) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:13:21 -0800 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The original RFC are available, a good list can be found in "Development of the Domain Name System". X.500 came after the initial DNS design. Grapevine was another distributed name server that was available at the time. Here are a few links to published early design papers for DNS. Development of the Domain Name System, PV Mockapetris, KJ Dunlap, ACM Sigcom 1988 http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/wi01/cse222/papers/mockapetris-dns-sigcomm88.pdf The Berkeley Internet Name Domain Server http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/1984/CSD-84-182.pdf A Name Server Database http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/1984/CSD-84-174.pdf The Design and Implementation of a "Domain Names" Resolver http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/1984/CSD-84-176.pdf The Design and Implementation of Berkeley Name (BIND) Server http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/1984/CSD-84-177.pdf Distributed Nane Servers: Naming and Cachine in Large Distributed Computing Environments http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/1985/CSD-85-228.pdf Kevin Dunlap On Mar 8, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Eric Gade wrote: > Hello all, > > I have begun my masters thesis work on the history of DNS and I have several questions that perhaps some of you can address. > > First, in terms of the RFC system, where are the comments themselves? Were they hard-copies that no longer exist, or mailing lists that have been tucked away somewhere? Is there any correspondence left (for DNS related RFCs) or has it all been lost? > > Second, does anyone have or know where to find details about the debates/conversations that took place leading up to RFC 1591 and what appears to be a "compromise" between generic and ccTLDs? > > Third, it is not entirely clear to me exactly why DNS was engineered in place of X.500. It is my understanding at this early point in my research that OSI standards seemed inevitable at one point, and sources have told me that DNS was designed to get something out the door quickly (presumably something that wasn't X.500). Was X.500 simply based on an old paradigm (white pages / old telecom) and seen as a bulky and slow alternative? When, and with whom, was the actual decision made to ditch X.500 altogether? This part of the story goes a long way to explaining why everyone in the world doesn't have a unique identifier. > > I have also been informed that people may not want to speak to me because of the more recent controversy surrounding Domain Name issues and the formation of ICANN, etc. I want to put out a disclaimer that my research will not be centered on the White Paper and those later developments. For the most part, I am interested in the 80s and early-to-mid 90s. > > Thanks! > > -- > Eric Gade -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From craig at aland.bbn.com Mon Mar 8 14:15:08 2010 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:15:08 -0500 Subject: [ih] DNS History Message-ID: <20100308221508.2D96928E137@aland.bbn.com> Intriguingly 822 contains support for multi-level domain names (at a time they were largely not being considered) including several examples and also the early version of DNS names -- what I referred to in the day as the "appellation controlee" approach of using one's company as the last part of the name. In many ways it was a spec bullet-proofed for whever the DNS ended up (belated kudos on that foresight!). Craig > Small tidbits: > > By accident, RFC 822 published a spec for domain /names/ slightly before the > DNS > specification came out. The efforts were parallel and 822 was a revision to > 733 > that included positioning for Internet (as opposed to Arpanet) usage. This > included support for the scalable host naming system. > > And RFC 821 contained the support also. > > I remember being confused that each hop in the SMTP sequence was being given > the > /full/ domain name, rather than some incrementally stripped version and Jon > Postel gave me a tutorial about the difference between global naming and > route-based naming. Up to that time, any multi-part naming really was > route-based, in some fashion, including the work we had done with CSNet > (user at host@gateway). > > d/ > > On 3/8/2010 12:31 PM, Craig Partridge wrote: > >> First, in terms of the RFC system, where are the comments themselves? Wer > e > >> they hard-copies that no longer exist, or mailing lists that have been > >> tucked away somewhere? Is there any correspondence left (for DNS related > >> RFCs) or has it all been lost? > > > > There was no formal comment system (nor is there now). But there were lots > > of comments on drafts on various mailing lists. For DNS issues the > > archives of the namedroppers list is probably your best place > > (http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers and kudos to Randy Bush for bringing it > > up) > > > >> Second, does anyone have or know where to find details about the > >> debates/conversations that took place leading up to RFC 1591 and what > >> appears to be a "compromise" between generic and ccTLDs? > > > > RFC 1591 is awfully late -- most key technical issues, as I recall, were > > determined when RFC973 came out. > > > >> Third, it is not entirely clear to me exactly why DNS was engineered in > >> place of X.500. It is my understanding at this early point in my research > >> that OSI standards seemed inevitable at one point, and sources have told m > e > >> that DNS was designed to get something out the door quickly (presumably > >> something that *wasn't* X.500). Was X.500 simply based on an old paradigm > >> (white pages / old telecom) and seen as a bulky and slow alternative? Whe > n, > >> and with whom, was the actual decision made to ditch X.500 altogether? Th > is > >> part of the story goes a long way to explaining why everyone in the world > >> doesn't have a unique identifier. > > > > I have my theory on that subject -- I'll send you the relevant paper I wrot > e > > on the history of email, there's a brief discussion. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Craig > > > > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net ******************** Craig Partridge Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com Phone: +1 517 324 3425 From richard at bennett.com Mon Mar 8 14:47:40 2010 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:47:40 -0800 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: <20100308221508.2D96928E137@aland.bbn.com> References: <20100308221508.2D96928E137@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: <4B957E8C.5040102@bennett.com> Wasn't all that Archie and Veronica stuff an attempt to provide the Internet with a directory service? On 3/8/2010 2:15 PM, Craig Partridge wrote: > Intriguingly 822 contains support for multi-level domain names (at > a time they were largely not being considered) including several examples > and also the early version of DNS names -- what I referred to in the day > as the "appellation controlee" approach of using one's company as the > last part of the name. In many ways it was a spec bullet-proofed for > whever the DNS ended up (belated kudos on that foresight!). > > Craig > > >> Small tidbits: >> >> By accident, RFC 822 published a spec for domain /names/ slightly before the >> DNS >> specification came out. The efforts were parallel and 822 was a revision to >> 733 >> that included positioning for Internet (as opposed to Arpanet) usage. This >> included support for the scalable host naming system. >> >> And RFC 821 contained the support also. >> >> I remember being confused that each hop in the SMTP sequence was being given >> the >> /full/ domain name, rather than some incrementally stripped version and Jon >> Postel gave me a tutorial about the difference between global naming and >> route-based naming. Up to that time, any multi-part naming really was >> route-based, in some fashion, including the work we had done with CSNet >> (user at host@gateway). >> >> d/ >> >> On 3/8/2010 12:31 PM, Craig Partridge wrote: >> >>>> First, in terms of the RFC system, where are the comments themselves? Wer >>>> >> e >> >>>> they hard-copies that no longer exist, or mailing lists that have been >>>> tucked away somewhere? Is there any correspondence left (for DNS related >>>> RFCs) or has it all been lost? >>>> >>> There was no formal comment system (nor is there now). But there were lots >>> of comments on drafts on various mailing lists. For DNS issues the >>> archives of the namedroppers list is probably your best place >>> (http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers and kudos to Randy Bush for bringing it >>> up) >>> >>> >>>> Second, does anyone have or know where to find details about the >>>> debates/conversations that took place leading up to RFC 1591 and what >>>> appears to be a "compromise" between generic and ccTLDs? >>>> >>> RFC 1591 is awfully late -- most key technical issues, as I recall, were >>> determined when RFC973 came out. >>> >>> >>>> Third, it is not entirely clear to me exactly why DNS was engineered in >>>> place of X.500. It is my understanding at this early point in my research >>>> that OSI standards seemed inevitable at one point, and sources have told m >>>> >> e >> >>>> that DNS was designed to get something out the door quickly (presumably >>>> something that *wasn't* X.500). Was X.500 simply based on an old paradigm >>>> (white pages / old telecom) and seen as a bulky and slow alternative? Whe >>>> >> n, >> >>>> and with whom, was the actual decision made to ditch X.500 altogether? Th >>>> >> is >> >>>> part of the story goes a long way to explaining why everyone in the world >>>> doesn't have a unique identifier. >>>> >>> I have my theory on that subject -- I'll send you the relevant paper I wrot >>> >> e >> >>> on the history of email, there's a brief discussion. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> >> -- >> >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net >> > ******************** > Craig Partridge > Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies > E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com > Phone: +1 517 324 3425 > -- Richard Bennett Research Fellow Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Washington, DC From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Mon Mar 8 14:53:37 2010 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave CROCKER) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:53:37 -0800 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: <20100308221508.2D96928E137@aland.bbn.com> References: <20100308221508.2D96928E137@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: <4B957FF1.7090304@dcrocker.net> On 3/8/2010 2:15 PM, Craig Partridge wrote: > Intriguingly 822 contains support for multi-level domain names (at > a time they were largely not being considered) including several examples > and also the early version of DNS names -- what I referred to in the day > as the "appellation controlee" approach of using one's company as the > last part of the name. In many ways it was a spec bullet-proofed for > whever the DNS ended up (belated kudos on that foresight!). I don't remember there being a question about the multi-level hierarchy. A hierarchical delegation scheme was the only way to achieve scaling. Let me stress that 822 merely documented what I/we were told to support. I believe I/we were not trying to be creative, but merely reflect the work we were told of that was being done separately. My only clear memory was of interacting with Postel about this, but my memory sucks. The effort was of course not just him. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Mar 8 14:59:42 2010 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 17:59:42 -0500 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: <4B9564DB.9010308@bennett.com> References: <20100308203112.53AEC28E138@aland.bbn.com> <4B9564DB.9010308@bennett.com> Message-ID: X.500 in essence killed itself. (Hoyt Kesterson will kill me for saying so . . . ) As usual a number of things came together to kill X.500. For the most part, it was outside the rest of the OSI train wreck. Like most OSI application protocols, it tried to do too much with no real approach to reasonable subsets. (We tried to impress this idea on the Europeans from the early 80s on but they would have none of it.) The primary problem was that the directory wasn't an application protocol in the usual sense in the first place. First of all, a "directory" was suppose to be something that *only* did application name to address mapping. This is how it is defined in the Naming and Addressing Part of the OSI Reference Model (7498-3). (DNS does something entirely different. Initially, DNS translate a string representation of an IP address to a bit string representation. Today, it has morphed into something in between that isn't really a clean separation of application name and network address and hence not as rich as is needed for a complete architecture. See Shoch and Saltzer. Grapevine was the first attempt to get it right.) However, X.500 couldn't just do *that* one thing. They had to make it directory for everything. In essence, X.500 tried to be an 80s concept of Google and a directory all rolled into one, when they should really be two different things. In fact, the early drafts had something called a descriptive name that was indistinguishable from a query. X.500 was done at the height of the RPC fad. *Everything could be done with RPC!* Request/Response is everything. One of the more foolish ideas to sweep through computer science, even then. (I made more than a few of them unhappy when I pointed out their wonderful new idea was nothing more than COBOL coroutines.) X.500 was done by the same crew that did X.400 who were madly in love with client/server and RPC and none too swift. They would have pages of syntax definitions (in ASN.1) labeled "Formal Description of the Protocol." When you tried to explain to them that there was more to specifying a protocol than just the syntax, you would get blank stares. When you pointed out that you needed to specify the *procedures* what to do when a PDU arrived, the still looked at you blankly. I remember a big meeting that Jack Veenstra and I had with John White, PARC and the rest of the X.500 crew. They thought the names of the attributes in X.500 *were* the definition. That was when I pointed out that I could use the letter "Z" as a value in every field in their protocol and it would be conformant. "But that is not what we meant!" But it was what you specified. ;-) Their RPC is everything model sort of broke down as well, when they realized querying the directory wasn't the only thing that had to be done. There had to be directory updates as well and they would be really bad if they had to request changes rather than be notified of them. It was a classic case of generalizing off a model that was in fact a special case. I was always surprised that it lasted as long as it did. Take care, John At 12:58 -0800 2010/03/08, Richard Bennett wrote: >X.500 was a much broader-reaching directory service, whereas DNS was >a simple name-to-address mapper. Companies such as Novell did their >own directory services, and X.500 never took off because of the >skullduggery that killed OSI. John Day's Patterns in Network >Architecture covers some of the drama. > >On 3/8/2010 12:31 PM, Craig Partridge wrote: >>>First, in terms of the RFC system, where are the comments themselves? Were >>>they hard-copies that no longer exist, or mailing lists that have been >>>tucked away somewhere? Is there any correspondence left (for DNS related >>>RFCs) or has it all been lost? >>> >>There was no formal comment system (nor is there now). But there were lots >>of comments on drafts on various mailing lists. For DNS issues the >>archives of the namedroppers list is probably your best place >>(http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers and kudos to Randy Bush for bringing it >>up) >> >> >>>Second, does anyone have or know where to find details about the >>>debates/conversations that took place leading up to RFC 1591 and what >>>appears to be a "compromise" between generic and ccTLDs? >>> >>RFC 1591 is awfully late -- most key technical issues, as I recall, were >>determined when RFC973 came out. >> >> >>>Third, it is not entirely clear to me exactly why DNS was engineered in >>>place of X.500. It is my understanding at this early point in my research >>>that OSI standards seemed inevitable at one point, and sources have told me >>>that DNS was designed to get something out the door quickly (presumably >>>something that *wasn't* X.500). Was X.500 simply based on an old paradigm >>>(white pages / old telecom) and seen as a bulky and slow alternative? When, >>>and with whom, was the actual decision made to ditch X.500 altogether? This >>>part of the story goes a long way to explaining why everyone in the world >>>doesn't have a unique identifier. >>> >>I have my theory on that subject -- I'll send you the relevant paper I wrote >>on the history of email, there's a brief discussion. >> >>Thanks! >> >>Craig >> > >-- >Richard Bennett >Research Fellow >Information Technology and Innovation Foundation >Washington, DC From vint at google.com Mon Mar 8 15:19:20 2010 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 18:19:20 -0500 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: <4B957E8C.5040102@bennett.com> References: <20100308221508.2D96928E137@aland.bbn.com> <4B957E8C.5040102@bennett.com> Message-ID: yes - add jugnead, WAIS, alta-vista, ... On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: > Wasn't all that Archie and Veronica stuff an attempt to provide the > Internet with a directory service? > > > On 3/8/2010 2:15 PM, Craig Partridge wrote: > >> Intriguingly 822 contains support for multi-level domain names (at >> a time they were largely not being considered) including several examples >> and also the early version of DNS names -- what I referred to in the day >> as the "appellation controlee" approach of using one's company as the >> last part of the name. In many ways it was a spec bullet-proofed for >> whever the DNS ended up (belated kudos on that foresight!). >> >> Craig >> >> >> >>> Small tidbits: >>> >>> By accident, RFC 822 published a spec for domain /names/ slightly before >>> the >>> DNS >>> specification came out. The efforts were parallel and 822 was a revision >>> to >>> 733 >>> that included positioning for Internet (as opposed to Arpanet) usage. >>> This >>> included support for the scalable host naming system. >>> >>> And RFC 821 contained the support also. >>> >>> I remember being confused that each hop in the SMTP sequence was being >>> given >>> the >>> /full/ domain name, rather than some incrementally stripped version and >>> Jon >>> Postel gave me a tutorial about the difference between global naming and >>> route-based naming. Up to that time, any multi-part naming really was >>> route-based, in some fashion, including the work we had done with CSNet >>> (user at host@gateway). >>> >>> d/ >>> >>> On 3/8/2010 12:31 PM, Craig Partridge wrote: >>> >>> >>>> First, in terms of the RFC system, where are the comments themselves? >>>>> Wer >>>>> >>>>> >>>> e >>> >>> >>>> they hard-copies that no longer exist, or mailing lists that have been >>>>> tucked away somewhere? Is there any correspondence left (for DNS >>>>> related >>>>> RFCs) or has it all been lost? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> There was no formal comment system (nor is there now). But there were >>>> lots >>>> of comments on drafts on various mailing lists. For DNS issues the >>>> archives of the namedroppers list is probably your best place >>>> (http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers and kudos to Randy Bush for bringing >>>> it >>>> up) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Second, does anyone have or know where to find details about the >>>>> debates/conversations that took place leading up to RFC 1591 and what >>>>> appears to be a "compromise" between generic and ccTLDs? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> RFC 1591 is awfully late -- most key technical issues, as I recall, were >>>> determined when RFC973 came out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Third, it is not entirely clear to me exactly why DNS was engineered in >>>>> place of X.500. It is my understanding at this early point in my >>>>> research >>>>> that OSI standards seemed inevitable at one point, and sources have >>>>> told m >>>>> >>>>> >>>> e >>> >>> >>>> that DNS was designed to get something out the door quickly (presumably >>>>> something that *wasn't* X.500). Was X.500 simply based on an old >>>>> paradigm >>>>> (white pages / old telecom) and seen as a bulky and slow alternative? >>>>> Whe >>>>> >>>>> >>>> n, >>> >>> >>>> and with whom, was the actual decision made to ditch X.500 altogether? >>>>> Th >>>>> >>>>> >>>> is >>> >>> >>>> part of the story goes a long way to explaining why everyone in the >>>>> world >>>>> doesn't have a unique identifier. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I have my theory on that subject -- I'll send you the relevant paper I >>>> wrot >>>> >>>> >>> e >>> >>> >>>> on the history of email, there's a brief discussion. >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> Craig >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> >>> Dave Crocker >>> Brandenburg InternetWorking >>> bbiw.net >>> >>> >> ******************** >> Craig Partridge >> Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies >> E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com >> Phone: +1 517 324 3425 >> >> > > -- > Richard Bennett > Research Fellow > Information Technology and Innovation Foundation > Washington, DC > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vint at google.com Mon Mar 8 16:02:11 2010 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 19:02:11 -0500 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: References: <20100308203112.53AEC28E138@aland.bbn.com> <4B9564DB.9010308@bennett.com> Message-ID: John, what a wonderfully pithy description - thanks for sharing it and shedding a bit more light on that period. vint On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:59 PM, John Day wrote: > X.500 in essence killed itself. (Hoyt Kesterson will kill me for saying so > . . . ) > > As usual a number of things came together to kill X.500. For the most > part, it was outside the rest of the OSI train wreck. Like most OSI > application protocols, it tried to do too much with no real approach to > reasonable subsets. (We tried to impress this idea on the Europeans from > the early 80s on but they would have none of it.) The primary problem was > that the directory wasn't an application protocol in the usual sense in the > first place. > > First of all, a "directory" was suppose to be something that *only* did > application name to address mapping. This is how it is defined in the > Naming and Addressing Part of the OSI Reference Model (7498-3). (DNS does > something entirely different. Initially, DNS translate a string > representation of an IP address to a bit string representation. Today, it > has morphed into something in between that isn't really a clean separation > of application name and network address and hence not as rich as is needed > for a complete architecture. See Shoch and Saltzer. Grapevine was the > first attempt to get it right.) > > However, X.500 couldn't just do *that* one thing. They had to make it > directory for everything. In essence, X.500 tried to be an 80s concept of > Google and a directory all rolled into one, when they should really be two > different things. In fact, the early drafts had something called a > descriptive name that was indistinguishable from a query. > > X.500 was done at the height of the RPC fad. *Everything could be done > with RPC!* Request/Response is everything. One of the more foolish ideas > to sweep through computer science, even then. (I made more than a few of > them unhappy when I pointed out their wonderful new idea was nothing more > than COBOL coroutines.) X.500 was done by the same crew that did X.400 who > were madly in love with client/server and RPC and none too swift. They > would have pages of syntax definitions (in ASN.1) labeled "Formal > Description of the Protocol." > > When you tried to explain to them that there was more to specifying a > protocol than just the syntax, you would get blank stares. When you pointed > out that you needed to specify the *procedures* what to do when a PDU > arrived, the still looked at you blankly. I remember a big meeting that > Jack Veenstra and I had with John White, PARC and the rest of the X.500 > crew. They thought the names of the attributes in X.500 *were* the > definition. That was when I pointed out that I could use the letter "Z" as > a value in every field in their protocol and it would be conformant. "But > that is not what we meant!" But it was what you specified. ;-) > > Their RPC is everything model sort of broke down as well, when they > realized querying the directory wasn't the only thing that had to be done. > There had to be directory updates as well and they would be really bad if > they had to request changes rather than be notified of them. > > It was a classic case of generalizing off a model that was in fact a > special case. > > I was always surprised that it lasted as long as it did. > > Take care, > John > > > At 12:58 -0800 2010/03/08, Richard Bennett wrote: > >> X.500 was a much broader-reaching directory service, whereas DNS was a >> simple name-to-address mapper. Companies such as Novell did their own >> directory services, and X.500 never took off because of the skullduggery >> that killed OSI. John Day's Patterns in Network Architecture covers some of >> the drama. >> >> On 3/8/2010 12:31 PM, Craig Partridge wrote: >> >>> First, in terms of the RFC system, where are the comments themselves? >>>> Were >>>> they hard-copies that no longer exist, or mailing lists that have been >>>> tucked away somewhere? Is there any correspondence left (for DNS >>>> related >>>> RFCs) or has it all been lost? >>>> >>>> There was no formal comment system (nor is there now). But there were >>> lots >>> of comments on drafts on various mailing lists. For DNS issues the >>> archives of the namedroppers list is probably your best place >>> (http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers and kudos to Randy Bush for bringing >>> it >>> up) >>> >>> >>> Second, does anyone have or know where to find details about the >>>> debates/conversations that took place leading up to RFC 1591 and what >>>> appears to be a "compromise" between generic and ccTLDs? >>>> >>>> RFC 1591 is awfully late -- most key technical issues, as I recall, >>> were >>> determined when RFC973 came out. >>> >>> >>> Third, it is not entirely clear to me exactly why DNS was engineered in >>>> place of X.500. It is my understanding at this early point in my >>>> research >>>> that OSI standards seemed inevitable at one point, and sources have told >>>> me >>>> that DNS was designed to get something out the door quickly (presumably >>>> something that *wasn't* X.500). Was X.500 simply based on an old >>>> paradigm >>>> (white pages / old telecom) and seen as a bulky and slow alternative? >>>> When, >>>> and with whom, was the actual decision made to ditch X.500 altogether? >>>> This >>>> part of the story goes a long way to explaining why everyone in the >>>> world >>>> doesn't have a unique identifier. >>>> >>>> I have my theory on that subject -- I'll send you the relevant paper I >>> wrote >>> on the history of email, there's a brief discussion. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> >> -- >> Richard Bennett >> Research Fellow >> Information Technology and Innovation Foundation >> Washington, DC >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From craig at aland.bbn.com Mon Mar 8 16:25:10 2010 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:25:10 -0500 Subject: [ih] DNS History Message-ID: <20100309002510.7B3ED28E137@aland.bbn.com> Nope -- early attempt to do the web. > Wasn't all that Archie and Veronica stuff an attempt to provide the > Internet with a directory service? > > On 3/8/2010 2:15 PM, Craig Partridge wrote: > > Intriguingly 822 contains support for multi-level domain names (at > > a time they were largely not being considered) including several examples > > and also the early version of DNS names -- what I referred to in the day > > as the "appellation controlee" approach of using one's company as the > > last part of the name. In many ways it was a spec bullet-proofed for > > whever the DNS ended up (belated kudos on that foresight!). > > > > Craig > > > > > >> Small tidbits: > >> > >> By accident, RFC 822 published a spec for domain /names/ slightly before t > he > >> DNS > >> specification came out. The efforts were parallel and 822 was a revision > to > >> 733 > >> that included positioning for Internet (as opposed to Arpanet) usage. Thi > s > >> included support for the scalable host naming system. > >> > >> And RFC 821 contained the support also. > >> > >> I remember being confused that each hop in the SMTP sequence was being giv > en > >> the > >> /full/ domain name, rather than some incrementally stripped version and Jo > n > >> Postel gave me a tutorial about the difference between global naming and > >> route-based naming. Up to that time, any multi-part naming really was > >> route-based, in some fashion, including the work we had done with CSNet > >> (user at host@gateway). > >> > >> d/ > >> > >> On 3/8/2010 12:31 PM, Craig Partridge wrote: > >> > >>>> First, in terms of the RFC system, where are the comments themselves? W > er > >>>> > >> e > >> > >>>> they hard-copies that no longer exist, or mailing lists that have been > >>>> tucked away somewhere? Is there any correspondence left (for DNS relate > d > >>>> RFCs) or has it all been lost? > >>>> > >>> There was no formal comment system (nor is there now). But there were lo > ts > >>> of comments on drafts on various mailing lists. For DNS issues the > >>> archives of the namedroppers list is probably your best place > >>> (http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers and kudos to Randy Bush for bringing i > t > >>> up) > >>> > >>> > >>>> Second, does anyone have or know where to find details about the > >>>> debates/conversations that took place leading up to RFC 1591 and what > >>>> appears to be a "compromise" between generic and ccTLDs? > >>>> > >>> RFC 1591 is awfully late -- most key technical issues, as I recall, were > >>> determined when RFC973 came out. > >>> > >>> > >>>> Third, it is not entirely clear to me exactly why DNS was engineered in > >>>> place of X.500. It is my understanding at this early point in my resear > ch > >>>> that OSI standards seemed inevitable at one point, and sources have told > m > >>>> > >> e > >> > >>>> that DNS was designed to get something out the door quickly (presumably > >>>> something that *wasn't* X.500). Was X.500 simply based on an old paradi > gm > >>>> (white pages / old telecom) and seen as a bulky and slow alternative? W > he > >>>> > >> n, > >> > >>>> and with whom, was the actual decision made to ditch X.500 altogether? > Th > >>>> > >> is > >> > >>>> part of the story goes a long way to explaining why everyone in the worl > d > >>>> doesn't have a unique identifier. > >>>> > >>> I have my theory on that subject -- I'll send you the relevant paper I wr > ot > >>> > >> e > >> > >>> on the history of email, there's a brief discussion. > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> Craig > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> > >> Dave Crocker > >> Brandenburg InternetWorking > >> bbiw.net > >> > > ******************** > > Craig Partridge > > Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies > > E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com > > Phone: +1 517 324 3425 > > > > -- > Richard Bennett > Research Fellow > Information Technology and Innovation Foundation > Washington, DC ******************** Craig Partridge Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com Phone: +1 517 324 3425 From richard at bennett.com Mon Mar 8 16:45:37 2010 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:45:37 -0800 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: <20100309002510.7B3ED28E137@aland.bbn.com> References: <20100309002510.7B3ED28E137@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: <4B959A31.2090303@bennett.com> Could you say the same thing about X.500? On 3/8/2010 4:25 PM, Craig Partridge wrote: > Nope -- early attempt to do the web. > > >> Wasn't all that Archie and Veronica stuff an attempt to provide the >> Internet with a directory service? >> >> On 3/8/2010 2:15 PM, Craig Partridge wrote: >> >>> Intriguingly 822 contains support for multi-level domain names (at >>> a time they were largely not being considered) including several examples >>> and also the early version of DNS names -- what I referred to in the day >>> as the "appellation controlee" approach of using one's company as the >>> last part of the name. In many ways it was a spec bullet-proofed for >>> whever the DNS ended up (belated kudos on that foresight!). >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> >>> >>>> Small tidbits: >>>> >>>> By accident, RFC 822 published a spec for domain /names/ slightly before t >>>> >> he >> >>>> DNS >>>> specification came out. The efforts were parallel and 822 was a revision >>>> >> to >> >>>> 733 >>>> that included positioning for Internet (as opposed to Arpanet) usage. Thi >>>> >> s >> >>>> included support for the scalable host naming system. >>>> >>>> And RFC 821 contained the support also. >>>> >>>> I remember being confused that each hop in the SMTP sequence was being giv >>>> >> en >> >>>> the >>>> /full/ domain name, rather than some incrementally stripped version and Jo >>>> >> n >> >>>> Postel gave me a tutorial about the difference between global naming and >>>> route-based naming. Up to that time, any multi-part naming really was >>>> route-based, in some fashion, including the work we had done with CSNet >>>> (user at host@gateway). >>>> >>>> d/ >>>> >>>> On 3/8/2010 12:31 PM, Craig Partridge wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> First, in terms of the RFC system, where are the comments themselves? W >>>>>> >> er >> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> e >>>> >>>> >>>>>> they hard-copies that no longer exist, or mailing lists that have been >>>>>> tucked away somewhere? Is there any correspondence left (for DNS relate >>>>>> >> d >> >>>>>> RFCs) or has it all been lost? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> There was no formal comment system (nor is there now). But there were lo >>>>> >> ts >> >>>>> of comments on drafts on various mailing lists. For DNS issues the >>>>> archives of the namedroppers list is probably your best place >>>>> (http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers and kudos to Randy Bush for bringing i >>>>> >> t >> >>>>> up) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Second, does anyone have or know where to find details about the >>>>>> debates/conversations that took place leading up to RFC 1591 and what >>>>>> appears to be a "compromise" between generic and ccTLDs? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> RFC 1591 is awfully late -- most key technical issues, as I recall, were >>>>> determined when RFC973 came out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Third, it is not entirely clear to me exactly why DNS was engineered in >>>>>> place of X.500. It is my understanding at this early point in my resear >>>>>> >> ch >> >>>>>> that OSI standards seemed inevitable at one point, and sources have told >>>>>> >> m >> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> e >>>> >>>> >>>>>> that DNS was designed to get something out the door quickly (presumably >>>>>> something that *wasn't* X.500). Was X.500 simply based on an old paradi >>>>>> >> gm >> >>>>>> (white pages / old telecom) and seen as a bulky and slow alternative? W >>>>>> >> he >> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> n, >>>> >>>> >>>>>> and with whom, was the actual decision made to ditch X.500 altogether? >>>>>> >> Th >> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> is >>>> >>>> >>>>>> part of the story goes a long way to explaining why everyone in the worl >>>>>> >> d >> >>>>>> doesn't have a unique identifier. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I have my theory on that subject -- I'll send you the relevant paper I wr >>>>> >> ot >> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> e >>>> >>>> >>>>> on the history of email, there's a brief discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks! >>>>> >>>>> Craig >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Dave Crocker >>>> Brandenburg InternetWorking >>>> bbiw.net >>>> >>>> >>> ******************** >>> Craig Partridge >>> Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies >>> E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com >>> Phone: +1 517 324 3425 >>> >>> >> -- >> Richard Bennett >> Research Fellow >> Information Technology and Innovation Foundation >> Washington, DC >> > ******************** > Craig Partridge > Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies > E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com > Phone: +1 517 324 3425 > -- Richard Bennett Research Fellow Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Washington, DC From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Mar 8 17:17:05 2010 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:17:05 -0500 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: <4B959A31.2090303@bennett.com> References: <20100309002510.7B3ED28E137@aland.bbn.com> <4B959A31.2090303@bennett.com> Message-ID: X.500 was more an attempt to be Google. It was viewed by some as the white and yellow pages. And after all isn't Google more and more just elaborate yellow pages? Archie, Veronica, gopher, and www were all the same kettle of the fish. There was little remarkable about the web until it got a browser. At 16:45 -0800 2010/03/08, Richard Bennett wrote: >Could you say the same thing about X.500? > >On 3/8/2010 4:25 PM, Craig Partridge wrote: >>Nope -- early attempt to do the web. >> >> >>>Wasn't all that Archie and Veronica stuff an attempt to provide the >>>Internet with a directory service? >>> >>>On 3/8/2010 2:15 PM, Craig Partridge wrote: >>> >>>>Intriguingly 822 contains support for multi-level domain names (at >>>>a time they were largely not being considered) including several examples >>>>and also the early version of DNS names -- what I referred to in the day >>>>as the "appellation controlee" approach of using one's company as the >>>>last part of the name. In many ways it was a spec bullet-proofed for >>>>whever the DNS ended up (belated kudos on that foresight!). >>>> >>>>Craig >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Small tidbits: >>>>> >>>>>By accident, RFC 822 published a spec for domain /names/ slightly before t >>>>> >>>he >>> >>>>>DNS >>>>>specification came out. The efforts were parallel and 822 was a revision >>>>> >>>to >>> >>>>>733 >>>>>that included positioning for Internet (as opposed to Arpanet) usage. Thi >>>>> >>>s >>> >>>>>included support for the scalable host naming system. >>>>> >>>>>And RFC 821 contained the support also. >>>>> >>>>>I remember being confused that each hop in the SMTP sequence was being giv >>>>> >>>en >>> >>>>>the >>>>>/full/ domain name, rather than some incrementally stripped version and Jo >>>>> >>>n >>> >>>>>Postel gave me a tutorial about the difference between global naming and >>>>>route-based naming. Up to that time, any multi-part naming really was >>>>>route-based, in some fashion, including the work we had done with CSNet >>>>>(user at host@gateway). >>>>> >>>>>d/ >>>>> >>>>>On 3/8/2010 12:31 PM, Craig Partridge wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>First, in terms of the RFC system, where are the comments themselves? W >>>>>>> >>>er >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>e >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>they hard-copies that no longer exist, or mailing lists that have been >>>>>>>tucked away somewhere? Is there any correspondence left (for DNS relate >>>>>>> >>>d >>> >>>>>>>RFCs) or has it all been lost? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>There was no formal comment system (nor is there now). But there were lo >>>>>> >>>ts >>> >>>>>>of comments on drafts on various mailing lists. For DNS issues the >>>>>>archives of the namedroppers list is probably your best place >>>>>>(http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers and kudos to Randy Bush for bringing i >>>>>> >>>t >>> >>>>>>up) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Second, does anyone have or know where to find details about the >>>>>>>debates/conversations that took place leading up to RFC 1591 and what >>>>>>>appears to be a "compromise" between generic and ccTLDs? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>RFC 1591 is awfully late -- most key technical issues, as I recall, were >>>>>>determined when RFC973 came out. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Third, it is not entirely clear to me exactly why DNS was engineered in >>>>>>>place of X.500. It is my understanding at this early point in my resear >>>>>>> >>>ch >>> >>>>>>>that OSI standards seemed inevitable at one point, and sources have told >>>>>>> >>> m >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>e >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>that DNS was designed to get something out the door quickly (presumably >>>>>>>something that *wasn't* X.500). Was X.500 simply based on an old paradi >>>>>>> >>>gm >>> >>>>>>>(white pages / old telecom) and seen as a bulky and slow alternative? W >>>>>>> >>>he >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>n, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>and with whom, was the actual decision made to ditch X.500 altogether? >>>>>>> >>>Th >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>is >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>part of the story goes a long way to explaining why everyone in the worl >>>>>>> >>>d >>> >>>>>>>doesn't have a unique identifier. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>I have my theory on that subject -- I'll send you the relevant paper I wr >>>>>> >>>ot >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>e >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>on the history of email, there's a brief discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>>Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>>Craig >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>> >>>>> Dave Crocker >>>>> Brandenburg InternetWorking >>>>> bbiw.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>******************** >>>>Craig Partridge >>>>Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies >>>>E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com >>>>Phone: +1 517 324 3425 >>>> >>>> >>>-- >>>Richard Bennett >>>Research Fellow >>>Information Technology and Innovation Foundation >>>Washington, DC >>> >>******************** >>Craig Partridge >>Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies >>E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com >>Phone: +1 517 324 3425 >> > >-- >Richard Bennett >Research Fellow >Information Technology and Innovation Foundation >Washington, DC From dcrocker at gmail.com Mon Mar 8 17:26:01 2010 From: dcrocker at gmail.com (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:26:01 -0800 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: <4B959A31.2090303@bennett.com> References: <20100309002510.7B3ED28E137@aland.bbn.com> <4B959A31.2090303@bennett.com> Message-ID: <4B95A3A9.6080603@gmail.com> > Could you say the same thing about X.500? > >> Nope -- early attempt to do the web. >> >>> Wasn't all that Archie and Veronica stuff an attempt to provide the >>> Internet with a directory service? This exchange is confusing things a bit. The Web publishes documents and has evolved into something that is probably best viewed as allowing interaction with documents. (That might be a Procrustean view, given the lofty views of web 2.0, etc., but I'm trying to stay with basics.) Google, et all, scan the web and index it. A search engine is not 'the web', although it is a tool of the web. The web is either the documents or the full set of things that touch the documents. But a search engine is not 'the' web. Anonymous FTP published documents. Lousy usability characteristics. Gopher published documents. Reasonable usability, but limited document style. They were the early sequence that led to the actual Web. Archie indexed ftp. Veronica indexed gopher. Early search engines. These are services that are layered on top of the publication service and the publication service is passive, in that there was no organized registration of the documents, particularly, with respect to the indexing (more recent active web page support of search engines not withstanding.) X.500 was a user name registration scheme, originally designed to lookup users, especially for email. It started with the premise that, done in scale, a human name is not unique so that other attributes would be needed to distinguish the target user. Since if flowed from X.400, the concept of a simple, global, unique email address was already a lost cause. (Your global address was relative to your provider, which led to some interesting business cards, for folks who had multiple providers.) In its earliest discussions, the function description was strikingly similar to what we built for MCI Mail, so that crocker, brandenburg, california might produce my address. (My first participation in the X.500 discussions was shortly after we had MCI Mail running, so I was able to confirm the utility of this basic model, though not the later technical design for achieving it in scale. MCI Mail was a closed system.) But note that the data base that X.500 used was for actively registered email users, not passively available (rather than listed) documents. This was meant to be more like a White Pages than a more general searching service, even as constrained as a Yellow Pages. (But yes, goals expanded.) Besides having a search function, X.500 differed from the goals of the DNS by being finer-grained, targeting personal addresses, rather than host addresses. The differences between document publishing, personnel registration, name lookup and name (or, more generally, attribute) searching each warrant distinction from the other. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Mar 8 17:46:32 2010 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:46:32 -0500 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: <4B95A3A9.6080603@gmail.com> References: <20100309002510.7B3ED28E137@aland.bbn.com> <4B959A31.2090303@bennett.com> <4B95A3A9.6080603@gmail.com> Message-ID: > >X.500 was a user name registration scheme, originally designed to >lookup users, especially for email. It started with the premise >that, done in scale, a human name is not unique so that other Actually, it wasn't. >attributes would be needed to distinguish the target user. Since if >flowed from X.400, the concept of a simple, global, unique email >address was already a lost cause. (Your global address was Actually it didn't flow from X.400, it was just the same people. The plan to a directory was in place from early on. >relative to your provider, which led to some interesting business >cards, for folks who had multiple providers.) But then since you were in all those meetings that reviewed their work, you knew all of that didn't you? > >In its earliest discussions, the function description was strikingly >similar to what we built for MCI Mail, so that > > crocker, brandenburg, california > >might produce my address. (My first participation in the X.500 >discussions was shortly after we had MCI Mail running, so I was able >to confirm the utility of this basic model, though not the later >technical design for achieving it in scale. MCI Mail was a closed >system.) > >But note that the data base that X.500 used was for actively >registered email users, not passively available (rather than listed) >documents. This was meant to be more like a White Pages than a more >general searching service, even as constrained as a Yellow Pages. >(But yes, goals expanded.) Not really. > >Besides having a search function, X.500 differed from the goals of >the DNS by being finer-grained, targeting personal addresses, rather >than host addresses. That is because by 1983, OSI had realized that naming hosts was irrelevant to communication. A crutch the Intenet still seems to have trouble getting past. >The differences between document publishing, personnel registration, >name lookup and name (or, more generally, attribute) searching each >warrant distinction from the other. Not as much as you might think. Take care, John >d/ >-- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From richard at bennett.com Mon Mar 8 17:51:18 2010 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:51:18 -0800 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: <4B95A3A9.6080603@gmail.com> References: <20100309002510.7B3ED28E137@aland.bbn.com> <4B959A31.2090303@bennett.com> <4B95A3A9.6080603@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B95A996.4070606@bennett.com> And now there's this Semantic Web thing and the Bob Kahn Digital Object Identifier systems that aim to expose structure in web sites so that the content can be more easily indexed, searched, and grabbed. In the end, it's all about granularity and aggregating local indexes. On 3/8/2010 5:26 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > >> Could you say the same thing about X.500? >> >>> Nope -- early attempt to do the web. >>> >>>> Wasn't all that Archie and Veronica stuff an attempt to provide the >>>> Internet with a directory service? > > > This exchange is confusing things a bit. > > The Web publishes documents and has evolved into something that is > probably best viewed as allowing interaction with documents. (That > might be a Procrustean view, given the lofty views of web 2.0, etc., > but I'm trying to stay with basics.) > > Google, et all, scan the web and index it. A search engine is not > 'the web', although it is a tool of the web. The web is either the > documents or the full set of things that touch the documents. But a > search engine is not 'the' web. > > Anonymous FTP published documents. Lousy usability characteristics. > Gopher published documents. Reasonable usability, but limited document > style. They were the early sequence that led to the actual Web. > > Archie indexed ftp. Veronica indexed gopher. Early search engines. > These are services that are layered on top of the publication service > and the publication service is passive, in that there was no organized > registration of the documents, particularly, with respect to the > indexing (more recent active web page support of search engines not > withstanding.) > > X.500 was a user name registration scheme, originally designed to > lookup users, especially for email. It started with the premise that, > done in scale, a human name is not unique so that other attributes > would be needed to distinguish the target user. Since if flowed from > X.400, the concept of a simple, global, unique email address was > already a lost cause. (Your global address was relative to your > provider, which led to some interesting business cards, for folks who > had multiple providers.) > > In its earliest discussions, the function description was strikingly > similar to what we built for MCI Mail, so that > > crocker, brandenburg, california > > might produce my address. (My first participation in the X.500 > discussions was shortly after we had MCI Mail running, so I was able > to confirm the utility of this basic model, though not the later > technical design for achieving it in scale. MCI Mail was a closed > system.) > > But note that the data base that X.500 used was for actively > registered email users, not passively available (rather than listed) > documents. This was meant to be more like a White Pages than a more > general searching service, even as constrained as a Yellow Pages. > (But yes, goals expanded.) > > Besides having a search function, X.500 differed from the goals of the > DNS by being finer-grained, targeting personal addresses, rather than > host addresses. > > The differences between document publishing, personnel registration, > name lookup and name (or, more generally, attribute) searching each > warrant distinction from the other. > > d/ -- Richard Bennett Research Fellow Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Washington, DC From dcrocker at gmail.com Mon Mar 8 18:14:43 2010 From: dcrocker at gmail.com (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:14:43 -0800 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: References: <20100309002510.7B3ED28E137@aland.bbn.com> <4B959A31.2090303@bennett.com> <4B95A3A9.6080603@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B95AF13.9010909@gmail.com> On 3/8/2010 5:46 PM, John Day wrote: >> >> X.500 was a user name registration scheme, originally designed to >> lookup users, especially for email. It started with the premise that, >> done in scale, a human name is not unique so that other > > Actually, it wasn't. The key word was "originally". That was the specific goal in the initial design sessions I attended. Things evolve. IPv6 started simple, too. So did Internet Mail, the Web, etc., etc. Sometimes bloat sets in during initial discussion, sometimes during design, sometimes after a decade of use. It isn't inevitable. Perhaps. >> attributes would be needed to distinguish the target user. Since if >> flowed from X.400, the concept of a simple, global, unique email >> address was already a lost cause. (Your global address was > > Actually it didn't flow from X.400, it was just the same people. The > plan to a directory was in place from early on. It came directly from needing to find email addresses. It was not an accident that it was the same people. They knew that X.400 addresses were unwieldy and they knew that the global scale of an email service required some way of finding addresses. (Odd historical note, given your citing him: John White wrote an early Arpanet NCP implementation for an IBM 360, at UC Santa Barbara. I've heard rumors that it was the first NCP that was operational.) >> relative to your provider, which led to some interesting business >> cards, for folks who had multiple providers.) > > But then since you were in all those meetings that reviewed their work, > you knew all of that didn't you? I included "earliest discussions" and "My first participation" with the intent of constraining the scope of my comments. These were the formative meetings for the standards effort. I've no idea what "all those meetings" refers to, particularly in terms of reviewing the X.500 effort. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Mar 8 19:09:50 2010 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 22:09:50 -0500 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: <4B95AF13.9010909@gmail.com> References: <20100309002510.7B3ED28E137@aland.bbn.com> <4B959A31.2090303@bennett.com> <4B95A3A9.6080603@gmail.com> <4B95AF13.9010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: At 18:14 -0800 2010/03/08, Dave Crocker wrote: >On 3/8/2010 5:46 PM, John Day wrote: >>> >>>X.500 was a user name registration scheme, originally designed to >>>lookup users, especially for email. It started with the premise that, >>>done in scale, a human name is not unique so that other >> >>Actually, it wasn't. > >The key word was "originally". That was the specific goal in the >initial design sessions I attended. > >Things evolve. IPv6 started simple, too. So did Internet Mail, the >Web, etc., etc. Sometimes bloat sets in during initial discussion, >sometimes during design, sometimes after a decade of use. It isn't >inevitable. Perhaps. Ah, yes, Dave attending one design session would certainly be definitive. Whereas, I was probably in only 50-100+ X.500 related meetings from before it was even a Work Item or it was known as X.500 and was the designated arbiter by SC21 on some of their more controversial issues. But then what would I know? > >>>attributes would be needed to distinguish the target user. Since if >>>flowed from X.400, the concept of a simple, global, unique email >>>address was already a lost cause. (Your global address was >> >>Actually it didn't flow from X.400, it was just the same people. The >>plan to a directory was in place from early on. > >It came directly from needing to find email addresses. It was not >an accident that it was the same people. They knew that X.400 >addresses were unwieldy and they knew that the global scale of an >email service required some way of finding addresses.\ As I said, actually it didn't. That was later as the scope expanded. > >(Odd historical note, given your citing him: John White wrote an >early Arpanet NCP implementation for an IBM 360, at UC Santa >Barbara. I've heard rumors that it was the first NCP that was >operational.) Jack White was at SRI in the early days and was responsible for much of the NSW. > >>>relative to your provider, which led to some interesting business >>>cards, for folks who had multiple providers.) >> >>But then since you were in all those meetings that reviewed their work, >>you knew all of that didn't you? > >I included "earliest discussions" and "My first participation" with >the intent of constraining the scope of my comments. These were the >formative meetings for the standards effort. Really. I don't remember seeing your name on any of the delegate lists representing the US. Once again, I think you only perceived them to the be the formative discussions. Discussions had been going on for some time. > >I've no idea what "all those meetings" refers to, particularly in >terms of reviewing the X.500 effort. You do remember Hoyt Kesterson's participation in X.500? Who do you think put him there? Take care, John >d/ >-- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Mar 8 19:18:21 2010 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 22:18:21 -0500 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: <4B95A996.4070606@bennett.com> References: <20100309002510.7B3ED28E137@aland.bbn.com> <4B959A31.2090303@bennett.com> <4B95A3A9.6080603@gmail.com> <4B95A996.4070606@bennett.com> Message-ID: Yes but much this pays no attention to issues of security, access control or scope. At 17:51 -0800 2010/03/08, Richard Bennett wrote: >And now there's this Semantic Web thing and the Bob Kahn Digital >Object Identifier systems that aim to expose structure in web sites >so that the content can be more easily indexed, searched, and >grabbed. In the end, it's all about granularity and aggregating >local indexes. > >On 3/8/2010 5:26 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> >> >> >>>Could you say the same thing about X.500? >>> >>>>Nope -- early attempt to do the web. >>>> >>>>>Wasn't all that Archie and Veronica stuff an attempt to provide the >>>>>Internet with a directory service? >> >> >>This exchange is confusing things a bit. >> >>The Web publishes documents and has evolved into something that is >>probably best viewed as allowing interaction with documents. (That >>might be a Procrustean view, given the lofty views of web 2.0, >>etc., but I'm trying to stay with basics.) >> >>Google, et all, scan the web and index it. A search engine is not >>'the web', although it is a tool of the web. The web is either the >>documents or the full set of things that touch the documents. But >>a search engine is not 'the' web. >> >>Anonymous FTP published documents. Lousy usability >>characteristics. Gopher published documents. Reasonable usability, >>but limited document style. They were the early sequence that led >>to the actual Web. >> >>Archie indexed ftp. Veronica indexed gopher. Early search engines. >>These are services that are layered on top of the publication >>service and the publication service is passive, in that there was >>no organized registration of the documents, particularly, with >>respect to the indexing (more recent active web page support of >>search engines not withstanding.) >> >>X.500 was a user name registration scheme, originally designed to >>lookup users, especially for email. It started with the premise >>that, done in scale, a human name is not unique so that other >>attributes would be needed to distinguish the target user. Since >>if flowed from X.400, the concept of a simple, global, unique email >>address was already a lost cause. (Your global address was >>relative to your provider, which led to some interesting business >>cards, for folks who had multiple providers.) >> >>In its earliest discussions, the function description was >>strikingly similar to what we built for MCI Mail, so that >> >> crocker, brandenburg, california >> >>might produce my address. (My first participation in the X.500 >>discussions was shortly after we had MCI Mail running, so I was >>able to confirm the utility of this basic model, though not the >>later technical design for achieving it in scale. MCI Mail was a >>closed system.) >> >>But note that the data base that X.500 used was for actively >>registered email users, not passively available (rather than >>listed) documents. This was meant to be more like a White Pages >>than a more general searching service, even as constrained as a >>Yellow Pages. (But yes, goals expanded.) >> >>Besides having a search function, X.500 differed from the goals of >>the DNS by being finer-grained, targeting personal addresses, >>rather than host addresses. >> >>The differences between document publishing, personnel >>registration, name lookup and name (or, more generally, attribute) >>searching each warrant distinction from the other. >> >>d/ > >-- >Richard Bennett >Research Fellow >Information Technology and Innovation Foundation >Washington, DC From dcrocker at gmail.com Mon Mar 8 19:20:03 2010 From: dcrocker at gmail.com (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:20:03 -0800 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: References: <20100309002510.7B3ED28E137@aland.bbn.com> <4B959A31.2090303@bennett.com> <4B95A3A9.6080603@gmail.com> <4B95AF13.9010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B95BE63.7050106@gmail.com> On 3/8/2010 7:09 PM, John Day wrote: > Ah, yes, Dave attending one design session would certainly be > definitive. Whereas, I was probably in only 50-100+ X.500 related > meetings from before it was even a Work Item or it was known as X.500 > and was the designated arbiter by SC21 on some of their more > controversial issues. But then what would I know? That's probably the disconnect. The meetings I went to were before that. They well might have been IFIP WG 6.5 meetings, feeding into the start of the ISO/CCITT effort, since for example I didn't go to Geneva. This was the same model as had been done for what became x.400 (but was initially known as X.MHS during the first round of specification.) >>>> attributes would be needed to distinguish the target user. Since if >>>> flowed from X.400, the concept of a simple, global, unique email >>>> address was already a lost cause. (Your global address was >>> >>> Actually it didn't flow from X.400, it was just the same people. The >>> plan to a directory was in place from early on. >> >> It came directly from needing to find email addresses. It was not an >> accident that it was the same people. They knew that X.400 addresses >> were unwieldy and they knew that the global scale of an email service >> required some way of finding addresses.\ > > As I said, actually it didn't. That was later as the scope expanded. Which is quite strange, since it was the only focus on the initial discussions. >> (Odd historical note, given your citing him: John White wrote an early >> Arpanet NCP implementation for an IBM 360, at UC Santa Barbara. I've >> heard rumors that it was the first NCP that was operational.) > > Jack White was at SRI in the early days and was responsible for much of > the NSW. John was first at UCSB. He moved to SRI later. While he was there, around 1980, he supervised a CMU summer student who created the RPC scheme that you love. This was during the IFIP WG 6.5 discussions that were starting up the X.400 effort. > Really. I don't remember seeing your name on any of the delegate lists > representing the US. Once again, I think you only perceived them to the > be the formative discussions. Discussions had been going on for some time. Yes they had. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Mar 8 19:28:05 2010 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 22:28:05 -0500 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: <4B95AF13.9010909@gmail.com> References: <20100309002510.7B3ED28E137@aland.bbn.com> <4B959A31.2090303@bennett.com> <4B95A3A9.6080603@gmail.com> <4B95AF13.9010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: O, I am sorry Dave. It finally occurred to me what the source of your misconception was. Working for MCI, you were seeing X.500 from the CCITT side of things. They never did have much imagination and probably did see X.500 as primarily an email address database. However, most of OSI was being driven out ISO and there the focus was quite different. Still wrong but quite different. OSI was primarily an ISO affair severely compromised by CCITT lack of vision and the fact that most of the European participants had never written a line of network code for anything but X.25. At 18:14 -0800 2010/03/08, Dave Crocker wrote: >On 3/8/2010 5:46 PM, John Day wrote: >>> >>>X.500 was a user name registration scheme, originally designed to >>>lookup users, especially for email. It started with the premise that, >>>done in scale, a human name is not unique so that other >> >>Actually, it wasn't. > >The key word was "originally". That was the specific goal in the >initial design sessions I attended. > >Things evolve. IPv6 started simple, too. So did Internet Mail, the >Web, etc., etc. Sometimes bloat sets in during initial discussion, >sometimes during design, sometimes after a decade of use. It isn't >inevitable. Perhaps. > >>>attributes would be needed to distinguish the target user. Since if >>>flowed from X.400, the concept of a simple, global, unique email >>>address was already a lost cause. (Your global address was >> >>Actually it didn't flow from X.400, it was just the same people. The >>plan to a directory was in place from early on. > >It came directly from needing to find email addresses. It was not >an accident that it was the same people. They knew that X.400 >addresses were unwieldy and they knew that the global scale of an >email service required some way of finding addresses. > >(Odd historical note, given your citing him: John White wrote an >early Arpanet NCP implementation for an IBM 360, at UC Santa >Barbara. I've heard rumors that it was the first NCP that was >operational.) > >>>relative to your provider, which led to some interesting business >>>cards, for folks who had multiple providers.) >> >>But then since you were in all those meetings that reviewed their work, >>you knew all of that didn't you? > >I included "earliest discussions" and "My first participation" with >the intent of constraining the scope of my comments. These were the >formative meetings for the standards effort. > >I've no idea what "all those meetings" refers to, particularly in >terms of reviewing the X.500 effort. > >d/ >-- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From richard at bennett.com Mon Mar 8 19:29:55 2010 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:29:55 -0800 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: References: <20100309002510.7B3ED28E137@aland.bbn.com> <4B959A31.2090303@bennett.com> <4B95A3A9.6080603@gmail.com> <4B95A996.4070606@bennett.com> Message-ID: <4B95C0B3.70102@bennett.com> Revised OSI Model: Layer 0 = Authentication; Layer 8 = Money. On 3/8/2010 7:18 PM, John Day wrote: > Yes but much this pays no attention to issues of security, access > control or scope. > > At 17:51 -0800 2010/03/08, Richard Bennett wrote: >> And now there's this Semantic Web thing and the Bob Kahn Digital >> Object Identifier systems that aim to expose structure in web sites >> so that the content can be more easily indexed, searched, and >> grabbed. In the end, it's all about granularity and aggregating local >> indexes. >> >> On 3/8/2010 5:26 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Could you say the same thing about X.500? >>>> >>>>> Nope -- early attempt to do the web. >>>>> >>>>>> Wasn't all that Archie and Veronica stuff an attempt to provide the >>>>>> Internet with a directory service? >>> >>> >>> This exchange is confusing things a bit. >>> >>> The Web publishes documents and has evolved into something that is >>> probably best viewed as allowing interaction with documents. (That >>> might be a Procrustean view, given the lofty views of web 2.0, etc., >>> but I'm trying to stay with basics.) >>> >>> Google, et all, scan the web and index it. A search engine is not >>> 'the web', although it is a tool of the web. The web is either the >>> documents or the full set of things that touch the documents. But a >>> search engine is not 'the' web. >>> >>> Anonymous FTP published documents. Lousy usability characteristics. >>> Gopher published documents. Reasonable usability, but limited >>> document style. They were the early sequence that led to the actual >>> Web. >>> >>> Archie indexed ftp. Veronica indexed gopher. Early search engines. >>> These are services that are layered on top of the publication >>> service and the publication service is passive, in that there was no >>> organized registration of the documents, particularly, with respect >>> to the indexing (more recent active web page support of search >>> engines not withstanding.) >>> >>> X.500 was a user name registration scheme, originally designed to >>> lookup users, especially for email. It started with the premise >>> that, done in scale, a human name is not unique so that other >>> attributes would be needed to distinguish the target user. Since if >>> flowed from X.400, the concept of a simple, global, unique email >>> address was already a lost cause. (Your global address was relative >>> to your provider, which led to some interesting business cards, for >>> folks who had multiple providers.) >>> >>> In its earliest discussions, the function description was strikingly >>> similar to what we built for MCI Mail, so that >>> >>> crocker, brandenburg, california >>> >>> might produce my address. (My first participation in the X.500 >>> discussions was shortly after we had MCI Mail running, so I was able >>> to confirm the utility of this basic model, though not the later >>> technical design for achieving it in scale. MCI Mail was a closed >>> system.) >>> >>> But note that the data base that X.500 used was for actively >>> registered email users, not passively available (rather than listed) >>> documents. This was meant to be more like a White Pages than a more >>> general searching service, even as constrained as a Yellow Pages. >>> (But yes, goals expanded.) >>> >>> Besides having a search function, X.500 differed from the goals of >>> the DNS by being finer-grained, targeting personal addresses, rather >>> than host addresses. >>> >>> The differences between document publishing, personnel registration, >>> name lookup and name (or, more generally, attribute) searching each >>> warrant distinction from the other. >>> >>> d/ >> >> -- >> Richard Bennett >> Research Fellow >> Information Technology and Innovation Foundation >> Washington, DC > -- Richard Bennett Research Fellow Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Washington, DC From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Mar 8 19:45:12 2010 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 22:45:12 -0500 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: <4B95BE63.7050106@gmail.com> References: <20100309002510.7B3ED28E137@aland.bbn.com> <4B959A31.2090303@bennett.com> <4B95A3A9.6080603@gmail.com> <4B95AF13.9010909@gmail.com> <4B95BE63.7050106@gmail.com> Message-ID: That was the limited view that CCITT and IFIP WG6.5 brought to it. If I remember right, the work of IFIP WG6 was significantly diminished after 79. IFIP was only a liaison organization to ISO (as opposed to a Member Body) and had no real relation with CCITT. I don't think there were liaison representatives to CCITT. Discussions of the directory and what would be in the NWI were initiated as a result of the work on the Naming and Addressing Part of the Model. (Although, the Naming and Addressing Part just provided the official impetus for something that had been in the plan for some time. ) The IFIP contribution was merely one feeder into that broader work. From the point of the model, the primary purpose of the Directory was application name to address mapping. Anything beyond that was gravy. At 19:20 -0800 2010/03/08, Dave Crocker wrote: >On 3/8/2010 7:09 PM, John Day wrote: >>Ah, yes, Dave attending one design session would certainly be >>definitive. Whereas, I was probably in only 50-100+ X.500 related >>meetings from before it was even a Work Item or it was known as X.500 >>and was the designated arbiter by SC21 on some of their more >>controversial issues. But then what would I know? > >That's probably the disconnect. > >The meetings I went to were before that. They well might have been >IFIP WG 6.5 meetings, feeding into the start of the ISO/CCITT >effort, since for example I didn't go to Geneva. This was the same >model as had been done for what became x.400 (but was initially >known as X.MHS during the first round of specification.) > >>>>>attributes would be needed to distinguish the target user. Since if >>>>>flowed from X.400, the concept of a simple, global, unique email >>>>>address was already a lost cause. (Your global address was >>>> >>>>Actually it didn't flow from X.400, it was just the same people. The >>>>plan to a directory was in place from early on. >>> >>>It came directly from needing to find email addresses. It was not an >>>accident that it was the same people. They knew that X.400 addresses >>>were unwieldy and they knew that the global scale of an email service >>>required some way of finding addresses.\ >> >>As I said, actually it didn't. That was later as the scope expanded. > >Which is quite strange, since it was the only focus on the initial >discussions. > >>>(Odd historical note, given your citing him: John White wrote an early >>>Arpanet NCP implementation for an IBM 360, at UC Santa Barbara. I've >>>heard rumors that it was the first NCP that was operational.) >> >>Jack White was at SRI in the early days and was responsible for much of >>the NSW. > >John was first at UCSB. He moved to SRI later. While he was >there, around 1980, he supervised a CMU summer student who created >the RPC scheme that you love. > >This was during the IFIP WG 6.5 discussions that were starting up >the X.400 effort. > >>Really. I don't remember seeing your name on any of the delegate lists >>representing the US. Once again, I think you only perceived them to the >>be the formative discussions. Discussions had been going on for some time. > >Yes they had. > >d/ >-- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Mar 8 19:46:58 2010 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 22:46:58 -0500 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: <4B95C0B3.70102@bennett.com> References: <20100309002510.7B3ED28E137@aland.bbn.com> <4B959A31.2090303@bennett.com> <4B95A3A9.6080603@gmail.com> <4B95A996.4070606@bennett.com> <4B95C0B3.70102@bennett.com> Message-ID: At 19:29 -0800 2010/03/08, Richard Bennett wrote: >Revised OSI Model: Layer 0 = Authentication; Layer 8 = Money. Authentication was part of ACSE. Money was the real subject of every layer. > >On 3/8/2010 7:18 PM, John Day wrote: >>Yes but much this pays no attention to issues of security, access >>control or scope. >> >>At 17:51 -0800 2010/03/08, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>And now there's this Semantic Web thing and the Bob Kahn Digital >>>Object Identifier systems that aim to expose structure in web >>>sites so that the content can be more easily indexed, searched, >>>and grabbed. In the end, it's all about granularity and >>>aggregating local indexes. >>> >>>On 3/8/2010 5:26 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Could you say the same thing about X.500? >>>>> >>>>>>Nope -- early attempt to do the web. >>>>>> >>>>>>>Wasn't all that Archie and Veronica stuff an attempt to provide the >>>>>>>Internet with a directory service? >>>> >>>> >>>>This exchange is confusing things a bit. >>>> >>>>The Web publishes documents and has evolved into something that >>>>is probably best viewed as allowing interaction with documents. >>>>(That might be a Procrustean view, given the lofty views of web >>>>2.0, etc., but I'm trying to stay with basics.) >>>> >>>>Google, et all, scan the web and index it. A search engine is >>>>not 'the web', although it is a tool of the web. The web is >>>>either the documents or the full set of things that touch the >>>>documents. But a search engine is not 'the' web. >>>> >>>>Anonymous FTP published documents. Lousy usability >>>>characteristics. Gopher published documents. Reasonable >>>>usability, but limited document style. They were the early >>>>sequence that led to the actual Web. >>>> >>>>Archie indexed ftp. Veronica indexed gopher. Early search >>>>engines. These are services that are layered on top of the >>>>publication service and the publication service is passive, in >>>>that there was no organized registration of the documents, >>>>particularly, with respect to the indexing (more recent active >>>>web page support of search engines not withstanding.) >>>> >>>>X.500 was a user name registration scheme, originally designed to >>>>lookup users, especially for email. It started with the premise >>>>that, done in scale, a human name is not unique so that other >>>>attributes would be needed to distinguish the target user. Since >>>>if flowed from X.400, the concept of a simple, global, unique >>>>email address was already a lost cause. (Your global address was >>>>relative to your provider, which led to some interesting business >>>>cards, for folks who had multiple providers.) >>>> >>>>In its earliest discussions, the function description was >>>>strikingly similar to what we built for MCI Mail, so that >>>> >>>> crocker, brandenburg, california >>>> >>>>might produce my address. (My first participation in the X.500 >>>>discussions was shortly after we had MCI Mail running, so I was >>>>able to confirm the utility of this basic model, though not the >>>>later technical design for achieving it in scale. MCI Mail was a >>>>closed system.) >>>> >>>>But note that the data base that X.500 used was for actively >>>>registered email users, not passively available (rather than >>>>listed) documents. This was meant to be more like a White Pages >>>>than a more general searching service, even as constrained as a >>>>Yellow Pages. (But yes, goals expanded.) >>>> >>>>Besides having a search function, X.500 differed from the goals >>>>of the DNS by being finer-grained, targeting personal addresses, >>>>rather than host addresses. >>>> >>>>The differences between document publishing, personnel >>>>registration, name lookup and name (or, more generally, >>>>attribute) searching each warrant distinction from the other. >>>> >>>>d/ >>> >>>-- >>>Richard Bennett >>>Research Fellow >>>Information Technology and Innovation Foundation >>>Washington, DC >> > >-- >Richard Bennett >Research Fellow >Information Technology and Innovation Foundation >Washington, DC From kevin at Dunlap.Org Mon Mar 8 20:40:47 2010 From: kevin at Dunlap.Org (Kevin Dunlap) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:40:47 -0800 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: <4B95C0B3.70102@bennett.com> References: <20100309002510.7B3ED28E137@aland.bbn.com> <4B959A31.2090303@bennett.com> <4B95A3A9.6080603@gmail.com> <4B95A996.4070606@bennett.com> <4B95C0B3.70102@bennett.com> Message-ID: <55048BFB-788C-4A8F-922D-10B64EEC8E9A@dunlap.org> You forgot layer 9 = Political http://www.isc.org/store/logoware-clothing/isc-9-layer-osi-model-cotton-t-shirt On Mar 8, 2010, at 7:29 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: > Revised OSI Model: Layer 0 = Authentication; Layer 8 = Money. > > On 3/8/2010 7:18 PM, John Day wrote: >> Yes but much this pays no attention to issues of security, access control or scope. >> >> At 17:51 -0800 2010/03/08, Richard Bennett wrote: >>> And now there's this Semantic Web thing and the Bob Kahn Digital Object Identifier systems that aim to expose structure in web sites so that the content can be more easily indexed, searched, and grabbed. In the end, it's all about granularity and aggregating local indexes. >>> >>> On 3/8/2010 5:26 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Could you say the same thing about X.500? >>>>> >>>>>> Nope -- early attempt to do the web. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Wasn't all that Archie and Veronica stuff an attempt to provide the >>>>>>> Internet with a directory service? >>>> >>>> >>>> This exchange is confusing things a bit. >>>> >>>> The Web publishes documents and has evolved into something that is probably best viewed as allowing interaction with documents. (That might be a Procrustean view, given the lofty views of web 2.0, etc., but I'm trying to stay with basics.) >>>> >>>> Google, et all, scan the web and index it. A search engine is not 'the web', although it is a tool of the web. The web is either the documents or the full set of things that touch the documents. But a search engine is not 'the' web. >>>> >>>> Anonymous FTP published documents. Lousy usability characteristics. Gopher published documents. Reasonable usability, but limited document style. They were the early sequence that led to the actual Web. >>>> >>>> Archie indexed ftp. Veronica indexed gopher. Early search engines. These are services that are layered on top of the publication service and the publication service is passive, in that there was no organized registration of the documents, particularly, with respect to the indexing (more recent active web page support of search engines not withstanding.) >>>> >>>> X.500 was a user name registration scheme, originally designed to lookup users, especially for email. It started with the premise that, done in scale, a human name is not unique so that other attributes would be needed to distinguish the target user. Since if flowed from X.400, the concept of a simple, global, unique email address was already a lost cause. (Your global address was relative to your provider, which led to some interesting business cards, for folks who had multiple providers.) >>>> >>>> In its earliest discussions, the function description was strikingly similar to what we built for MCI Mail, so that >>>> >>>> crocker, brandenburg, california >>>> >>>> might produce my address. (My first participation in the X.500 discussions was shortly after we had MCI Mail running, so I was able to confirm the utility of this basic model, though not the later technical design for achieving it in scale. MCI Mail was a closed system.) >>>> >>>> But note that the data base that X.500 used was for actively registered email users, not passively available (rather than listed) documents. This was meant to be more like a White Pages than a more general searching service, even as constrained as a Yellow Pages. (But yes, goals expanded.) >>>> >>>> Besides having a search function, X.500 differed from the goals of the DNS by being finer-grained, targeting personal addresses, rather than host addresses. >>>> >>>> The differences between document publishing, personnel registration, name lookup and name (or, more generally, attribute) searching each warrant distinction from the other. >>>> >>>> d/ >>> >>> -- >>> Richard Bennett >>> Research Fellow >>> Information Technology and Innovation Foundation >>> Washington, DC >> > > -- > Richard Bennett > Research Fellow > Information Technology and Innovation Foundation > Washington, DC Kevin Dunlap 425-296-9255 Kevin at Dunlap.org LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kjdunlap -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richard at bennett.com Mon Mar 8 23:31:08 2010 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:31:08 -0800 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: <55048BFB-788C-4A8F-922D-10B64EEC8E9A@dunlap.org> References: <20100309002510.7B3ED28E137@aland.bbn.com> <4B959A31.2090303@bennett.com> <4B95A3A9.6080603@gmail.com> <4B95A996.4070606@bennett.com> <4B95C0B3.70102@bennett.com> <55048BFB-788C-4A8F-922D-10B64EEC8E9A@dunlap.org> Message-ID: <4B95F93C.2010203@bennett.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Mar 8 20:44:05 2010 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 23:44:05 -0500 Subject: [ih] DNS History In-Reply-To: <55048BFB-788C-4A8F-922D-10B64EEC8E9A@dunlap.org> References: <20100309002510.7B3ED28E137@aland.bbn.com> <4B959A31.2090303@bennett.com> <4B95A3A9.6080603@gmail.com> <4B95A996.4070606@bennett.com> <4B95C0B3.70102@bennett.com> <55048BFB-788C-4A8F-922D-10B64EEC8E9A@dunlap.org> Message-ID: Only for those who weren't there. Politics were the means to protect the Money in all layers and still is in all standards efforts. At 20:40 -0800 2010/03/08, Kevin Dunlap wrote: >You forgot layer 9 = Political >http://www.isc.org/store/logoware-clothing/isc-9-layer-osi-model-cotton-t-shirt > >On Mar 8, 2010, at 7:29 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: > >>Revised OSI Model: Layer 0 = Authentication; Layer 8 = Money. >> >>On 3/8/2010 7:18 PM, John Day wrote: >> >>>Yes but much this pays no attention to issues of security, access >>>control or scope. >>> >>> >>>At 17:51 -0800 2010/03/08, Richard Bennett wrote: >>> >>>>And now there's this Semantic Web thing and the Bob Kahn Digital >>>>Object Identifier systems that aim to expose structure in web >>>>sites so that the content can be more easily indexed, searched, >>>>and grabbed. In the end, it's all about granularity and >>>>aggregating local indexes. >>>> >>>> >>>>On 3/8/2010 5:26 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Could you say the same thing about X.500? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Nope -- early attempt to do the web. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Wasn't all that Archie and Veronica stuff an attempt to provide the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Internet with a directory service? >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>This exchange is confusing things a bit. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>The Web publishes documents and has evolved into something that >>>>>is probably best viewed as allowing interaction with documents. >>>>> (That might be a Procrustean view, given the lofty views of web >>>>>2.0, etc., but I'm trying to stay with basics.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Google, et all, scan the web and index it. A search engine is >>>>>not 'the web', although it is a tool of the web. The web is >>>>>either the documents or the full set of things that touch the >>>>>documents. But a search engine is not 'the' web. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Anonymous FTP published documents. Lousy usability >>>>>characteristics. Gopher published documents. Reasonable >>>>>usability, but limited document style. They were the early >>>>>sequence that led to the actual Web. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Archie indexed ftp. Veronica indexed gopher. Early search >>>>>engines. These are services that are layered on top of the >>>>>publication service and the publication service is passive, in >>>>>that there was no organized registration of the documents, >>>>>particularly, with respect to the indexing (more recent active >>>>>web page support of search engines not withstanding.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>X.500 was a user name registration scheme, originally designed >>>>>to lookup users, especially for email. It started with the >>>>>premise that, done in scale, a human name is not unique so that >>>>>other attributes would be needed to distinguish the target user. >>>>> Since if flowed from X.400, the concept of a simple, global, >>>>>unique email address was already a lost cause. (Your global >>>>>address was relative to your provider, which led to some >>>>>interesting business cards, for folks who had multiple >>>>>providers.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>In its earliest discussions, the function description was >>>>>strikingly similar to what we built for MCI Mail, so that >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> crocker, brandenburg, california >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>might produce my address. (My first participation in the X.500 >>>>>discussions was shortly after we had MCI Mail running, so I was >>>>>able to confirm the utility of this basic model, though not the >>>>>later technical design for achieving it in scale. MCI Mail was >>>>>a closed system.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>But note that the data base that X.500 used was for actively >>>>>registered email users, not passively available (rather than >>>>>listed) documents. This was meant to be more like a White Pages >>>>>than a more general searching service, even as constrained as a >>>>>Yellow Pages. (But yes, goals expanded.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Besides having a search function, X.500 differed from the goals >>>>>of the DNS by being finer-grained, targeting personal addresses, >>>>>rather than host addresses. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>The differences between document publishing, personnel >>>>>registration, name lookup and name (or, more generally, >>>>>attribute) searching each warrant distinction from the other. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>d/ >>>>> >>>> >>>>-- >>>> >>>>Richard Bennett >>>> >>>>Research Fellow >>>> >>>>Information Technology and Innovation Foundation >>>> >>>>Washington, DC >>>> >>> >> >>-- >>Richard Bennett >>Research Fellow >>Information Technology and Innovation Foundation >>Washington, DC >> > >Kevin Dunlap >425-296-9255 >Kevin at Dunlap.org >LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kjdunlap -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de Tue Mar 9 21:37:25 2010 From: mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_B=E4rwolff?=) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:37:25 +0100 Subject: [ih] Fate of Alohanet In-Reply-To: <4B9187EE.8050402@comcast.net> References: <4B86458E.5020501@cs.tu-berlin.de> <4B9187EE.8050402@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4B973015.3060903@cs.tu-berlin.de> Thanks for all of your responses, I have written to Frank Kuo, and it turns out that not only did funding stop; also, both Abramson and Kuo left for DoD jobs, Abramson from 1974 to 75, and Kuo from 1976 to 77. So, I take it the project kind of died somewhat silently. I could not find out, though, whether Menehune service continued once funding ceased; after all, the modems (TCUs, PCUs) plus the software had been in place. Possibly it did for some more time, but this is mere speculation. Matthias Richard Binder wrote: > Matthias , > > I believe the arpanet connection was via a TIP at UH, but can't recall > the connection details from the Menehune side. I left Hawaii in early > 1975, but a good person to ask about the project's fate is Frank Kuo > (ffkuo at mindspring.com). > > Dick > >> from Bob Kahn: >> >>>> The Alohanet funding began (I think, because it was before my >>>> time) with funds from AFOSR. Then, around 1969, DARPA got into the >>>> picture and augmented the AF funding (via AFOSR as agent). Most >>>> likely the last funding was in FY 1974 or 75. >> >> If you Google "richard binder alohanet" you should turn up the final >> report of the Alohanet project that is dated late in 1974 so Bob's >> guess as to funding appears to be correct. As far as landlines, I >> don't think they got any better. The project itself successfully >> demonstrated the feasibility of the stochastic method for sharing >> capacity and by mid-1973, Bob Metcalfe, stimulated by his exposure to >> the Alohanet project, had invented and demonstrated Ethernet at Xerox >> PARC. The Internetting project, initiated by bob kahn at ARPA had >> already started in 1973 and was well underway in 1974 at Stanford. >> Packet Radio and Packet Satellite were also well underway and these >> also used some of the Alohanet ideas. In some sense, these other >> projects instantiated the Alohanet notions in more powerful, higher >> speed forms and it might have been thought that the Hawaiian project >> would not yield more beneficial results. >> >> vint >> >> >> >> Dick Binder is copied and may have more precision to offer. >> >> vint >> >> >> On Feb 25, 2010, at 4:40 AM, Matthias B?rwolff wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I gather from the literature (largely Abramson and Kuo) that Alohanet >>> got connected to the Arpanet by means of an IMP at the Hawaii >>> University >>> in late 1972; then, by 1974 they had NCP and Telnet sufficiently up in >>> the Menehune to allow terminal connections to the Arpanet; and, >>> finally, >>> in 1976 the whole project died for lack of further funding. No further >>> information was provided for the latter point. >>> >>> Does anyone know a specific reason why they discontinued Alohanet? Did >>> the landlines get better, and thus the raison d'etre vanished? What >>> happened to the IMP, did it stay connected to the Arpanet? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Matthias >>> >>> -- >>> Matthias B?rwolff >>> www.b?rwolff.de >>> >> >> -- Matthias B?rwolff www.b?rwolff.de From mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de Tue Mar 9 21:46:24 2010 From: mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_B=E4rwolff?=) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:46:24 +0100 Subject: [ih] Fate of Alohanet In-Reply-To: <4B9187EE.8050402@comcast.net> References: <4B86458E.5020501@cs.tu-berlin.de> <4B9187EE.8050402@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4B973230.2010707@cs.tu-berlin.de> Mind you, may I add two more questions to the soup: Did the Arpanet connection actually ever work fine? The final report indicates that only by 1974 did NCP and Telnet work well enough on the Alohanet side so as to allow terminal connections over to the Arpanet. And, did people from the Arpanet connect to Alohanet terminals, too? Second, what about the experiences with the retransmission scheme which in the initial design required users to reinitiate retransmission after three failed transmission attempts for a packet. How did that work out. I'd suspect it must have happened quite often that such user initiated retransmissions were required. Matthias Richard Binder wrote: > Matthias , > > I believe the arpanet connection was via a TIP at UH, but can't recall > the connection details from the Menehune side. I left Hawaii in early > 1975, but a good person to ask about the project's fate is Frank Kuo > (ffkuo at mindspring.com). > > Dick > >> from Bob Kahn: >> >>>> The Alohanet funding began (I think, because it was before my >>>> time) with funds from AFOSR. Then, around 1969, DARPA got into the >>>> picture and augmented the AF funding (via AFOSR as agent). Most >>>> likely the last funding was in FY 1974 or 75. >> >> If you Google "richard binder alohanet" you should turn up the final >> report of the Alohanet project that is dated late in 1974 so Bob's >> guess as to funding appears to be correct. As far as landlines, I >> don't think they got any better. The project itself successfully >> demonstrated the feasibility of the stochastic method for sharing >> capacity and by mid-1973, Bob Metcalfe, stimulated by his exposure to >> the Alohanet project, had invented and demonstrated Ethernet at Xerox >> PARC. The Internetting project, initiated by bob kahn at ARPA had >> already started in 1973 and was well underway in 1974 at Stanford. >> Packet Radio and Packet Satellite were also well underway and these >> also used some of the Alohanet ideas. In some sense, these other >> projects instantiated the Alohanet notions in more powerful, higher >> speed forms and it might have been thought that the Hawaiian project >> would not yield more beneficial results. >> >> vint >> >> >> >> Dick Binder is copied and may have more precision to offer. >> >> vint >> >> >> On Feb 25, 2010, at 4:40 AM, Matthias B?rwolff wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I gather from the literature (largely Abramson and Kuo) that Alohanet >>> got connected to the Arpanet by means of an IMP at the Hawaii >>> University >>> in late 1972; then, by 1974 they had NCP and Telnet sufficiently up in >>> the Menehune to allow terminal connections to the Arpanet; and, >>> finally, >>> in 1976 the whole project died for lack of further funding. No further >>> information was provided for the latter point. >>> >>> Does anyone know a specific reason why they discontinued Alohanet? Did >>> the landlines get better, and thus the raison d'etre vanished? What >>> happened to the IMP, did it stay connected to the Arpanet? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Matthias >>> >>> -- >>> Matthias B?rwolff >>> www.b?rwolff.de >>> >> >> -- Matthias B?rwolff www.b?rwolff.de From feinler at earthlink.net Wed Mar 10 15:14:38 2010 From: feinler at earthlink.net (Elizabeth Feinler) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:14:38 -0800 Subject: [ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 41, Issue 7 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8B865FEA-C86B-41A6-B20A-02E2A0A429FC@earthlink.net> FYI, I think you all are referring to James E. (Jim) White. He was a student at Santa Barbara, came to SRI in the 70s to work in Engelbart's group, was a member of IFIP 6.5, and if I remember rightly served on the ISO committees as well. Last I heard of Jim he was working for General Magic, but I have since lost track of him. On Mar 8, 2010, at 11:31 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: DNS History (John Day) > 2. Re: DNS History (John Day) > 3. Re: DNS History (Kevin Dunlap) > 4. Re: DNS History (Richard Bennett) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 22:45:12 -0500 > From: John Day > Subject: Re: [ih] DNS History > To: Dave Crocker , John Day > Cc: internet-history at postel.org > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > > That was the limited view that CCITT and IFIP WG6.5 brought to it. > If I remember right, the work of IFIP WG6 was significantly > diminished after 79. IFIP was only a liaison organization to ISO (as > opposed to a Member Body) and had no real relation with CCITT. I > don't think there were liaison representatives to CCITT. > > Discussions of the directory and what would be in the NWI were > initiated as a result of the work on the Naming and Addressing Part > of the Model. (Although, the Naming and Addressing Part just > provided the official impetus for something that had been in the plan > for some time. ) The IFIP contribution was merely one feeder into > that broader work. From the point of the model, the primary purpose > of the Directory was application name to address mapping. Anything > beyond that was gravy. > > > At 19:20 -0800 2010/03/08, Dave Crocker wrote: >> On 3/8/2010 7:09 PM, John Day wrote: >>> Ah, yes, Dave attending one design session would certainly be >>> definitive. Whereas, I was probably in only 50-100+ X.500 related >>> meetings from before it was even a Work Item or it was known as X.500 >>> and was the designated arbiter by SC21 on some of their more >>> controversial issues. But then what would I know? >> >> That's probably the disconnect. >> >> The meetings I went to were before that. They well might have been >> IFIP WG 6.5 meetings, feeding into the start of the ISO/CCITT >> effort, since for example I didn't go to Geneva. This was the same >> model as had been done for what became x.400 (but was initially >> known as X.MHS during the first round of specification.) >> >>>>>> attributes would be needed to distinguish the target user. Since if >>>>>> flowed from X.400, the concept of a simple, global, unique email >>>>>> address was already a lost cause. (Your global address was >>>>> >>>>> Actually it didn't flow from X.400, it was just the same people. The >>>>> plan to a directory was in place from early on. >>>> >>>> It came directly from needing to find email addresses. It was not an >>>> accident that it was the same people. They knew that X.400 addresses >>>> were unwieldy and they knew that the global scale of an email service >>>> required some way of finding addresses.\ >>> >>> As I said, actually it didn't. That was later as the scope expanded. >> >> Which is quite strange, since it was the only focus on the initial >> discussions. >> >>>> (Odd historical note, given your citing him: John White wrote an early >>>> Arpanet NCP implementation for an IBM 360, at UC Santa Barbara. I've >>>> heard rumors that it was the first NCP that was operational.) >>> >>> Jack White was at SRI in the early days and was responsible for much of >>> the NSW. >> >> John was first at UCSB. He moved to SRI later. While he was >> there, around 1980, he supervised a CMU summer student who created >> the RPC scheme that you love. >> >> This was during the IFIP WG 6.5 discussions that were starting up >> the X.400 effort. >> >>> Really. I don't remember seeing your name on any of the delegate lists >>> representing the US. Once again, I think you only perceived them to the >>> be the formative discussions. Discussions had been going on for some time. >> >> Yes they had. >> >> d/ >> -- >> >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 22:46:58 -0500 > From: John Day > Subject: Re: [ih] DNS History > To: Richard Bennett , John Day > > Cc: internet-history at postel.org > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > > At 19:29 -0800 2010/03/08, Richard Bennett wrote: >> Revised OSI Model: Layer 0 = Authentication; Layer 8 = Money. > > Authentication was part of ACSE. > > Money was the real subject of every layer. > >> >> On 3/8/2010 7:18 PM, John Day wrote: >>> Yes but much this pays no attention to issues of security, access >>> control or scope. >>> >>> At 17:51 -0800 2010/03/08, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>> And now there's this Semantic Web thing and the Bob Kahn Digital >>>> Object Identifier systems that aim to expose structure in web >>>> sites so that the content can be more easily indexed, searched, >>>> and grabbed. In the end, it's all about granularity and >>>> aggregating local indexes. >>>> >>>> On 3/8/2010 5:26 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Could you say the same thing about X.500? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope -- early attempt to do the web. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wasn't all that Archie and Veronica stuff an attempt to provide the >>>>>>>> Internet with a directory service? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This exchange is confusing things a bit. >>>>> >>>>> The Web publishes documents and has evolved into something that >>>>> is probably best viewed as allowing interaction with documents. >>>>> (That might be a Procrustean view, given the lofty views of web >>>>> 2.0, etc., but I'm trying to stay with basics.) >>>>> >>>>> Google, et all, scan the web and index it. A search engine is >>>>> not 'the web', although it is a tool of the web. The web is >>>>> either the documents or the full set of things that touch the >>>>> documents. But a search engine is not 'the' web. >>>>> >>>>> Anonymous FTP published documents. Lousy usability >>>>> characteristics. Gopher published documents. Reasonable >>>>> usability, but limited document style. They were the early >>>>> sequence that led to the actual Web. >>>>> >>>>> Archie indexed ftp. Veronica indexed gopher. Early search >>>>> engines. These are services that are layered on top of the >>>>> publication service and the publication service is passive, in >>>>> that there was no organized registration of the documents, >>>>> particularly, with respect to the indexing (more recent active >>>>> web page support of search engines not withstanding.) >>>>> >>>>> X.500 was a user name registration scheme, originally designed to >>>>> lookup users, especially for email. It started with the premise >>>>> that, done in scale, a human name is not unique so that other >>>>> attributes would be needed to distinguish the target user. Since >>>>> if flowed from X.400, the concept of a simple, global, unique >>>>> email address was already a lost cause. (Your global address was >>>>> relative to your provider, which led to some interesting business >>>>> cards, for folks who had multiple providers.) >>>>> >>>>> In its earliest discussions, the function description was >>>>> strikingly similar to what we built for MCI Mail, so that >>>>> >>>>> crocker, brandenburg, california >>>>> >>>>> might produce my address. (My first participation in the X.500 >>>>> discussions was shortly after we had MCI Mail running, so I was >>>>> able to confirm the utility of this basic model, though not the >>>>> later technical design for achieving it in scale. MCI Mail was a >>>>> closed system.) >>>>> >>>>> But note that the data base that X.500 used was for actively >>>>> registered email users, not passively available (rather than >>>>> listed) documents. This was meant to be more like a White Pages >>>>> than a more general searching service, even as constrained as a >>>>> Yellow Pages. (But yes, goals expanded.) >>>>> >>>>> Besides having a search function, X.500 differed from the goals >>>>> of the DNS by being finer-grained, targeting personal addresses, >>>>> rather than host addresses. >>>>> >>>>> The differences between document publishing, personnel >>>>> registration, name lookup and name (or, more generally, >>>>> attribute) searching each warrant distinction from the other. >>>>> >>>>> d/ >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Richard Bennett >>>> Research Fellow >>>> Information Technology and Innovation Foundation >>>> Washington, DC >>> >> >> -- >> Richard Bennett >> Research Fellow >> Information Technology and Innovation Foundation >> Washington, DC > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:40:47 -0800 > From: Kevin Dunlap > Subject: Re: [ih] DNS History > To: Richard Bennett > Cc: internet-history at postel.org > Message-ID: <55048BFB-788C-4A8F-922D-10B64EEC8E9A at dunlap.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > You forgot layer 9 = Political > http://www.isc.org/store/logoware-clothing/isc-9-layer-osi-model-cotton-t-shirt > > On Mar 8, 2010, at 7:29 PM, Richard Bennett wrote: > >> Revised OSI Model: Layer 0 = Authentication; Layer 8 = Money. >> >> On 3/8/2010 7:18 PM, John Day wrote: >>> Yes but much this pays no attention to issues of security, access control or scope. >>> >>> At 17:51 -0800 2010/03/08, Richard Bennett wrote: >>>> And now there's this Semantic Web thing and the Bob Kahn Digital Object Identifier systems that aim to expose structure in web sites so that the content can be more easily indexed, searched, and grabbed. In the end, it's all about granularity and aggregating local indexes. >>>> >>>> On 3/8/2010 5:26 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Could you say the same thing about X.500? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope -- early attempt to do the web. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wasn't all that Archie and Veronica stuff an attempt to provide the >>>>>>>> Internet with a directory service? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This exchange is confusing things a bit. >>>>> >>>>> The Web publishes documents and has evolved into something that is probably best viewed as allowing interaction with documents. (That might be a Procrustean view, given the lofty views of web 2.0, etc., but I'm trying to stay with basics.) >>>>> >>>>> Google, et all, scan the web and index it. A search engine is not 'the web', although it is a tool of the web. The web is either the documents or the full set of things that touch the documents. But a search engine is not 'the' web. >>>>> >>>>> Anonymous FTP published documents. Lousy usability characteristics. Gopher published documents. Reasonable usability, but limited document style. They were the early sequence that led to the actual Web. >>>>> >>>>> Archie indexed ftp. Veronica indexed gopher. Early search engines. These are services that are layered on top of the publication service and the publication service is passive, in that there was no organized registration of the documents, particularly, with respect to the indexing (more recent active web page support of search engines not withstanding.) >>>>> >>>>> X.500 was a user name registration scheme, originally designed to lookup users, especially for email. It started with the premise that, done in scale, a human name is not unique so that other attributes would be needed to distinguish the target user. Since if flowed from X.400, the concept of a simple, global, unique email address was already a lost cause. (Your global address was relative to your provider, which led to some interesting business cards, for folks who had multiple providers.) >>>>> >>>>> In its earliest discussions, the function description was strikingly similar to what we built for MCI Mail, so that >>>>> >>>>> crocker, brandenburg, california >>>>> >>>>> might produce my address. (My first participation in the X.500 discussions was shortly after we had MCI Mail running, so I was able to confirm the utility of this basic model, though not the later technical design for achieving it in scale. MCI Mail was a closed system.) >>>>> >>>>> But note that the data base that X.500 used was for actively registered email users, not passively available (rather than listed) documents. This was meant to be more like a White Pages than a more general searching service, even as constrained as a Yellow Pages. (But yes, goals expanded.) >>>>> >>>>> Besides having a search function, X.500 differed from the goals of the DNS by being finer-grained, targeting personal addresses, rather than host addresses. >>>>> >>>>> The differences between document publishing, personnel registration, name lookup and name (or, more generally, attribute) searching each warrant distinction from the other. >>>>> >>>>> d/ >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Richard Bennett >>>> Research Fellow >>>> Information Technology and Innovation Foundation >>>> Washington, DC >>> >> >> -- >> Richard Bennett >> Research Fellow >> Information Technology and Innovation Foundation >> Washington, DC > > Kevin Dunlap > 425-296-9255 > Kevin at Dunlap.org > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kjdunlap > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20100308/601b4822/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:31:08 -0800 > From: Richard Bennett > Subject: Re: [ih] DNS History > To: Kevin Dunlap > Cc: internet-history at postel.org > Message-ID: <4B95F93C.2010203 at bennett.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20100308/a76ac1f8/attachment.html > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > End of internet-history Digest, Vol 41, Issue 7 > *********************************************** From mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de Thu Mar 11 03:00:18 2010 From: mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_B=E4rwolff?=) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:00:18 +0100 Subject: [ih] Early interconnection between Ethernets and Arpanet Message-ID: <4B98CD42.5060907@cs.tu-berlin.de> Dear all, is there any documentation (or tacit knowledge on this list) on early Ethernet-Arpanet gateways (obviously other than those built using IP in the late 1970s)? I found some documentation on how Alohanet terminals connected to the Arpanet, and how the NPL guys in the UK connected their IBM machines to their TIP, plus some notes on how people struggled to get the SRI port expanders working; but nothing on the much more obvious candidate, Ethernet, given its early popularity. Sorry if I've just been lazy. Thanks for all hints. Matthias -- Matthias B?rwolff www.b?rwolff.de From vint at google.com Thu Mar 11 03:31:47 2010 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 06:31:47 -0500 Subject: [ih] Early interconnection between Ethernets and Arpanet In-Reply-To: <4B98CD42.5060907@cs.tu-berlin.de> References: <4B98CD42.5060907@cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: there were gateways into the ARPANET from the Xerox PARC Ethernet. At least one of gateway was built using a packet radio as part of an early internet experiment. What I don't recall is whether this was a protocol converting gateway (from Xerox' PARC Universal Packet and associated TCP-like protocol to TELNET/NCP for example or whether there was an early TCP running on, e.g., either an ALTO work station or the MAXC server). PARC also had an ARPANET IMP (or TIP?) and connected the MAXC into the ARPANET as an NCP host. The Ethernet would have linked the ALTOs into the MAXC machine. PUP was being developed at the same time as TCP/IP so I expect there was protocol conversion going on somewhere; possibly in MAXC. I am not sure whether Bob Metcalfe, Yogen Dalal and John Shoch are on the history list so I am copying them directly. Bob and John were at PARC during the TCP/IP and PUP developments; Yogen was at Stanford working on TCP/IP during the 1974-1976 period and later joined PARC to work on XNS (Xerox Network System) that grew out of the PUP experiments. If I remember correctly, Larry Masinter did the work to link the Ethernet at PARC with the Bay Area Packet Radio network with a packet radio on the premises. vint On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Matthias B?rwolff wrote: > Dear all, > > is there any documentation (or tacit knowledge on this list) on early > Ethernet-Arpanet gateways (obviously other than those built using IP in > the late 1970s)? I found some documentation on how Alohanet terminals > connected to the Arpanet, and how the NPL guys in the UK connected their > IBM machines to their TIP, plus some notes on how people struggled to > get the SRI port expanders working; but nothing on the much more obvious > candidate, Ethernet, given its early popularity. > > Sorry if I've just been lazy. Thanks for all hints. > > Matthias > > -- > Matthias B?rwolff > www.b?rwolff.de > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rogers at ISI.EDU Thu Mar 11 04:53:20 2010 From: rogers at ISI.EDU (Craig Milo Rogers) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 04:53:20 -0800 Subject: [ih] Early interconnection between Ethernets and Arpanet In-Reply-To: <4B98CD42.5060907@cs.tu-berlin.de> References: <4B98CD42.5060907@cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <20100311125320.GA2802@isi.edu> On 10.03.11, Matthias B?rwolff wrote: > is there any documentation (or tacit knowledge on this list) on early > Ethernet-Arpanet gateways (obviously other than those built using IP in > the late 1970s)? I found some documentation on how Alohanet terminals > connected to the Arpanet, and how the NPL guys in the UK connected their > IBM machines to their TIP, plus some notes on how people struggled to > get the SRI port expanders working; but nothing on the much more obvious > candidate, Ethernet, given its early popularity. This may not be early enough for you, but here is my contribution, from memory. I started working at USC/ISI on 7-Jul-1980. My first major assignment was to interface a Xerox laser printer, called the Penguin, with the Tenex/TOPS-20 ARPANET hosts and other systems running at ISI, using an available PDP-11 system as a gateway. The Penguin printer connected to a 3-MBit Ethernet and spoke a PUP-based file transfer protocol, EFTP; it also offered a printer status protocol, I think. The Tenex/TOPS-20 systems connected to the ARPANET and offered experimental IP services. The PDP-11 ran the EPOS operating system, a real-time operating system developed in-house at ISI by Steve Casner and others. It had connections to the 3-Mbit Ethernet and to one of ISI's ARPANET IMPs. The Ethernet/Arpanet gateway I constructed offered the following categories of services: 1) Printer connections, implemented by dynamically translating TFTP file transfers (over UDP over IP), from the Tenex/TOPS-20 systems, into EFTP (over PUP) to the Penguin. It was convenient that the protocols involved were similar enough that translations could be done on a per-packet basis, with no byte stream repacking required in the gateway. 2) General IP gatewaying services: various systems at ISI, including PDP-11's running EPOS and Three Rivers PERQ systems, used the Ethernet-to-ARPANET gateway as their primary path to the outside world. 3) Diagnostic and experimental services, such as UDP Echo, UDP sink, traffic statistics, and so on. An instance of this gateway system was installed at DARPA, to service a Penguin printer installed there. There was a problem installing the gateway, which turned out to be a ground loop in the distant host interface to the IMP. Once that was solved, the system required minimal support during its lifetime. My gateway software went through two major iterations. When I was introduced to EPOS, Steve Casner said that EPOS IPC was very cheap, and I should not be shy of using it. So, I implemented the Ethernet manager, IP manager, UDP manager, TFTP manager, PUP manager, EFTP manager, and print connection translater all as seperate processes. I demonstrated that EPOS IPC was not sufficiently cheap for this system design. The second implementation minimized IPC usage, and achieved much better packet processing rates. I assume you;ve already read the documentation on Dave Mill's Fuzzball systems. Craig Milo Rogers From vint at google.com Thu Mar 11 14:53:53 2010 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:53:53 -0500 Subject: [ih] Early interconnection between Ethernets and Arpanet In-Reply-To: <4AA00E5E1F00E04E821BBB6DC50C9B12038AB6DB@e2k.alloyventures.com> References: <4AA00E5E1F00E04E821BBB6DC50C9B12038AB6DB@e2k.alloyventures.com> Message-ID: thanks for the lovely details! apologies to Larry Stewart - I knew it was Larry something.... v On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:02 PM, John Shoch wrote: > Friends, > > As I recall, Parc's initial Arpanet connection came via an IMP provided by > Arpa. The Xerox MAXC machine (a micro-programmed pseudo-PDP10) had a Data > General Nova as a front-end, and that was outfitted with an IMP interface. > Thus, we had Arpanet access for Maxc -- and email! But that was not an > internet. > > Although the work started much earlier, the PUP architecture was first > publically described in a Xerox PARC blue-and-white report in 1979, > available here: > http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/xerox/alto/pupArch.pdf > > The following year, the full paper was published in the IEEE Trans. on > Comm. > D. R. Boggs, J. F. Shoch, E. A. Taft, and R. M. Metcalfe, "Pup: An > Internetwork Architecture," IEEE Transactions on Communications, April 1980. > [I'm not sure what it takes to access an online version of this, through > the IEEE.] > [We really do need to get a scanned, OCR'd version of this online......] > > The system initially used a set of "gateways" (now called routers) > connecting end-user machines on Ethernets, on the Data General MCA, and > other systems. The gateways were connected by leased lines, to provide our > own packet-switched backbone; we also used the ARPANET and the Packet Radio > Network as transit networks, between PUP gateways. > > Some excerpts from the paper: > > "This work serves as the basis for a functioning internetwork system that > provides service to about 1000 computers, on 25 networks of 5 different > types, using 20 internetwork gateways." > > "Long-haul communication facilities include the ARPANET, the ARPA packet > radio network, and a collection of leased lines implementing an > ARPANET-style store-and forward network. These facilities have distinct > native protocols and exhibit as much as three orders of magnitude difference > in bandwidth." > > "We distinguish two kids of gateways: media translators and protocol > translators. Media gateways are hosts with interfaces to two or more packet > transport mechanisms among which they forward internet datagrams, using the > appropriate encapsulation for each. ... Protocol gateways are hosts which > speak two or more functionaly similar but incompatible higher-level > protocols used to transport information within networks, mapping one higher > level abstraction into the other." [Our gateways were packet-style media > translators; I don't believe we ever built a PUP-to-TCP protocol > translator.] > > "ARPANET: To cover longer distances, Pups can be routed throug the > ARPANET; the format for encapsulating a Pup in an ARPANET message is shown > in Fig. 2." > > "Packet Radio Network: On an experimental basis, the ARPA packet radio > network has been used to carry traffic among local networks in the SF Bay > area." > > "The Pup archiecture emerged against a background of ARPANET protocols. > Many of its important ideas -- and those of its key relative, TCP -- first > appeared during the coure of a series of meeting[s] of the International > Network Working Group (IFIP TC-6 WG6.1) during 1973. Pup and TCP share a > number of important principles....." > > Hope this helps. > > John Shoch > Alloy Ventures > > PS: Use of the Packet Radio net (based at SRI) as a transit network for > Pup was driven by "the other Larry" -- Larry Stewart. That work was also > published in 1979: > http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=800092.802993 Thanks again, Vint, > for helping to make the PRNet available for our experiment! > > PPS: I met Danny Cohen through the TCP working group meetings; he and I > had fun figuring out how you might encapsulate Pup packets in TCP packets, > and TCP packets in Pup packets -- what we called mutual encapsulation. The > paper, with Ed Taft, was published in 1981: Shoch, Cohen, and Taft, > Mutual Encapsulation of Internetwork Protocols", Computer Networks 5, > North-Holland, 1981, 287-300. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Vint Cerf [mailto:vint at google.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 11, 2010 3:32 AM > *To:* Matthias B?rwolff; Bob Metcalfe; John Shoch; Yogen Dalal; Larry > Masinter > *Cc:* internet history > *Subject:* Re: [ih] Early interconnection between Ethernets and Arpanet > > there were gateways into the ARPANET from the Xerox PARC Ethernet. At least > one of gateway was built using a packet radio as part of an early internet > experiment. What I don't recall is whether this was a protocol converting > gateway (from Xerox' PARC Universal Packet and associated TCP-like protocol > to TELNET/NCP for example or whether there was an early TCP running on, > e.g., either an ALTO work station or the MAXC server). PARC also had an > ARPANET IMP (or TIP?) and connected the MAXC into the ARPANET as an NCP > host. The Ethernet would have linked the ALTOs into the MAXC machine. PUP > was being developed at the same time as TCP/IP so I expect there was > protocol conversion going on somewhere; possibly in MAXC. > > I am not sure whether Bob Metcalfe, Yogen Dalal and John Shoch are on the > history list so I am copying them directly. Bob and John were at PARC during > the TCP/IP and PUP developments; Yogen was at Stanford working on TCP/IP > during the 1974-1976 period and later joined PARC to work on XNS (Xerox > Network System) that grew out of the PUP experiments. If I remember > correctly, Larry Masinter did the work to link the Ethernet at PARC with the > Bay Area Packet Radio network with a packet radio on the premises. > > vint > > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Matthias B?rwolff wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> is there any documentation (or tacit knowledge on this list) on early >> Ethernet-Arpanet gateways (obviously other than those built using IP in >> the late 1970s)? I found some documentation on how Alohanet terminals >> connected to the Arpanet, and how the NPL guys in the UK connected their >> IBM machines to their TIP, plus some notes on how people struggled to >> get the SRI port expanders working; but nothing on the much more obvious >> candidate, Ethernet, given its early popularity. >> >> Sorry if I've just been lazy. Thanks for all hints. >> >> Matthias >> >> -- >> Matthias B?rwolff >> www.b?rwolff.de >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de Fri Mar 12 21:46:17 2010 From: mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_B=E4rwolff?=) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 06:46:17 +0100 Subject: [ih] Early interconnection between Ethernets and Arpanet In-Reply-To: <4AA00E5E1F00E04E821BBB6DC50C9B12038AB6F0@e2k.alloyventures.com> References: <4AA00E5E1F00E04E821BBB6DC50C9B12038AB6F0@e2k.alloyventures.com> Message-ID: <4B9B26A9.4030500@cs.tu-berlin.de> Thanks, this is helpful. (ih-list cced, just for the record) John Shoch wrote: > --In the VERY early days PARC first built Maxc, the time-shared pseudo-PDP-10, which ran the regular Tenex operating system; we used terminals to access the machine. That provided initial access to the Arpanet, via the Tenex network code. We could Telnet to other sites, exchange email, FTP, etc. > > --As soon as the lab started to envision hundreds of Altos, on dozens of Ethernets, it was clear that the Arpanet protocol design was not appropriate. Thus, we designed our own internet architecture, PUP; created at about the same time as TCP, but actually implemented and refined well in advance of TCP (and its successor, the more layered TCP/IP). > > --This internet architecture allowed Alto users on our multiple networks (all around the world) to access our own set of PUP file servers, print servers (first laser printers), mail servers, etc. > > --Our PUP-based mail system supported our internal users, and could exchange mail externally, via the mail system on Maxc, to Arpanet mail sites. > > --I think you could Telnet from an Alto to Maxc (via a PUP-based internet telnet protocol), and from there Telnet out to a legacy Arpanet site; but there was little need or desire to do this. > > --So, all these machines had indirect access to Arpanet facilities, via Maxc. But there were no native Arpanet/NCP implementations on the end-user Alto machines. > > --We also had a gateway link from the PUP architecture using the Arpanet as a transit network. So, for example, after we gave some Alto computers to MIT, CMU, and others we could communicate with them using our internet architecture, and the Arpanet as a transit network. > > Hope this is helpful. > > John Shoch > Alloy Ventures > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthias B?rwolff [mailto:mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de] > Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 11:03 PM > To: John Shoch > Subject: Re: [ih] Early interconnection between Ethernets and Arpanet > > > > > John Shoch wrote: > >> Friends, >> >> As I recall, Parc's initial Arpanet connection came via an IMP provided by Arpa. The Xerox MAXC machine (a micro-programmed pseudo-PDP10) had a Data General Nova as a front-end, and that was outfitted with an IMP interface. Thus, we had Arpanet access for Maxc -- and email! But that was not an internet. >> >> > > Did you have other computers connect to the Maxc via Ethernet back then? > And, in which ways would the Maxc serve them as a gateway to the Arpanet > -- not in the Internet sense, but in the pre-Internet "here I am at > Xerox and want to access some host on the Arpanet via Telnet or FTP (or > whichever pendants applicable inside Xerox)" one? I am asking because I > am interested in pre-Internet network connections to the Arpanet and how > they fared. > > Thanks, > Matthias > > >> >> Although the work started much earlier, the PUP architecture was first publically described in a Xerox PARC blue-and-white report in 1979, available here: >> http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/xerox/alto/pupArch.pdf >> >> The following year, the full paper was published in the IEEE Trans. on Comm. >> D. R. Boggs, J. F. Shoch, E. A. Taft, and R. M. Metcalfe, "Pup: An Internetwork Architecture," IEEE Transactions on Communications, April 1980. >> [I'm not sure what it takes to access an online version of this, through the IEEE.] >> [We really do need to get a scanned, OCR'd version of this online......] >> >> The system initially used a set of "gateways" (now called routers) connecting end-user machines on Ethernets, on the Data General MCA, and other systems. The gateways were connected by leased lines, to provide our own packet-switched backbone; we also used the ARPANET and the Packet Radio Network as transit networks, between PUP gateways. >> >> Some excerpts from the paper: >> >> "This work serves as the basis for a functioning internetwork system that provides service to about 1000 computers, on 25 networks of 5 different types, using 20 internetwork gateways." >> >> "Long-haul communication facilities include the ARPANET, the ARPA packet radio network, and a collection of leased lines implementing an ARPANET-style store-and forward network. These facilities have distinct native protocols and exhibit as much as three orders of magnitude difference in bandwidth." >> >> "We distinguish two kids of gateways: media translators and protocol translators. Media gateways are hosts with interfaces to two or more packet transport mechanisms among which they forward internet datagrams, using the appropriate encapsulation for each. ... Protocol gateways are hosts which speak two or more functionaly similar but incompatible higher-level protocols used to transport information within networks, mapping one higher level abstraction into the other." [Our gateways were packet-style media translators; I don't believe we ever built a PUP-to-TCP protocol translator.] >> >> "ARPANET: To cover longer distances, Pups can be routed throug the ARPANET; the format for encapsulating a Pup in an ARPANET message is shown in Fig. 2." >> >> "Packet Radio Network: On an experimental basis, the ARPA packet radio network has been used to carry traffic among local networks in the SF Bay area." >> >> "The Pup archiecture emerged against a background of ARPANET protocols. Many of its important ideas -- and those of its key relative, TCP -- first appeared during the coure of a series of meeting[s] of the International Network Working Group (IFIP TC-6 WG6.1) during 1973. Pup and TCP share a number of important principles....." >> >> Hope this helps. >> >> John Shoch >> Alloy Ventures >> >> PS: Use of the Packet Radio net (based at SRI) as a transit network for Pup was driven by "the other Larry" -- Larry Stewart. That work was also published in 1979: >> http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=800092.802993 Thanks again, Vint, for helping to make the PRNet available for our experiment! >> >> PPS: I met Danny Cohen through the TCP working group meetings; he and I had fun figuring out how you might encapsulate Pup packets in TCP packets, and TCP packets in Pup packets -- what we called mutual encapsulation. The paper, with Ed Taft, was published in 1981: Shoch, Cohen, and Taft, Mutual Encapsulation of Internetwork Protocols", Computer Networks 5, North-Holland, 1981, 287-300. >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Vint Cerf [mailto:vint at google.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 3:32 AM >> To: Matthias B?rwolff; Bob Metcalfe; John Shoch; Yogen Dalal; Larry Masinter >> Cc: internet history >> Subject: Re: [ih] Early interconnection between Ethernets and Arpanet >> >> >> there were gateways into the ARPANET from the Xerox PARC Ethernet. At least one of gateway was built using a packet radio as part of an early internet experiment. What I don't recall is whether this was a protocol converting gateway (from Xerox' PARC Universal Packet and associated TCP-like protocol to TELNET/NCP for example or whether there was an early TCP running on, e.g., either an ALTO work station or the MAXC server). PARC also had an ARPANET IMP (or TIP?) and connected the MAXC into the ARPANET as an NCP host. The Ethernet would have linked the ALTOs into the MAXC machine. PUP was being developed at the same time as TCP/IP so I expect there was protocol conversion going on somewhere; possibly in MAXC. >> >> I am not sure whether Bob Metcalfe, Yogen Dalal and John Shoch are on the history list so I am copying them directly. Bob and John were at PARC during the TCP/IP and PUP developments; Yogen was at Stanford working on TCP/IP during the 1974-1976 period and later joined PARC to work on XNS (Xerox Network System) that grew out of the PUP experiments. If I remember correctly, Larry Masinter did the work to link the Ethernet at PARC with the Bay Area Packet Radio network with a packet radio on the premises. >> >> vint >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Matthias B?rwolff < mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote: >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> is there any documentation (or tacit knowledge on this list) on early >> Ethernet-Arpanet gateways (obviously other than those built using IP in >> the late 1970s)? I found some documentation on how Alohanet terminals >> connected to the Arpanet, and how the NPL guys in the UK connected their >> IBM machines to their TIP, plus some notes on how people struggled to >> get the SRI port expanders working; but nothing on the much more obvious >> candidate, Ethernet, given its early popularity. >> >> Sorry if I've just been lazy. Thanks for all hints. >> >> Matthias >> >> -- >> Matthias B?rwolff >> www.b?rwolff.de >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- Matthias B?rwolff www.b?rwolff.de From eric.gade at gmail.com Tue Mar 16 12:45:05 2010 From: eric.gade at gmail.com (Eric Gade) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:45:05 -0400 Subject: [ih] Google's Usenet Archives...Broken? Message-ID: All: Has anyone been able to successfully search Google's Usenet archives? I am able to get basic results through browsing, but anytime I try to put in a specific search it returns no results (even when there are *definitely* results). Trying to sort or search by date is the biggest problem. I can get access to a group (such as comp.protocols.dns.std), but it lists from the most recent posts first. The "list by oldest" filter doesn't work, and I cannot possibly click "Older" enough times to go through 30k posts. The last time I was able to perform good searches was back in September. I found a Wired article that addresses this at the end of the past year, and commented that Google had fixed or was fixing the problem, but I still can't make any productive use of this system. This Usenet archive should be a vital component of my research, if I can get to it. Are there any other Usenet archives that go back to the early 80s other than Google? I was under the impression that Google was the only one. -- Eric Gade -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From latzko-toth.guillaume at uqam.ca Wed Mar 17 21:33:47 2010 From: latzko-toth.guillaume at uqam.ca (Guillaume Latzko-Toth) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:33:47 -0400 Subject: [ih] Google's Usenet Archives...Broken? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I faced the same problem in my research: Google Groups search feature is disappointing. To the point I suspect it is on purpose... Whatever, here is a turn-around, that worked well for me. If an archive exists for the group, for a specific period, you can browse the posts by month, by using this URL format : http://groups.google.com/group//browse_frm/month/YYYY-MM where is the name of the group (ex: rec.antique), YYYY is the year, and MM the month (for instance: 1995-01). So, with my example, the URL would be: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.antiques/browse_frm/month/1995-01 You can then browse back (or forth) month by month or year by year by manually changing the date in the URL. I tested the method with comp.protocols.dns.std, and found that it was created in September 1996 (see: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.protocols.dns.std/browse_frm/month/1996-09). I would be very interested in reading other experiences with (and tips for) Usenet archives exploration... Regards, Guillaume Latzko-Toth >All: >Has anyone been able to successfully search Google's Usenet >archives? I am able to get basic results through browsing, but >anytime I try to put in a specific search it returns no results >(even when there are *definitely* results). Trying to sort or >search by date is the biggest problem. I can get access to a group >(such as comp.protocols.dns.std), but it lists from the most recent >posts first. The "list by oldest" filter doesn't work, and I cannot >possibly click "Older" enough times to go through 30k posts. > >The last time I was able to perform good searches was back in >September. I found a Wired article that addresses this at the end >of the past year, and commented that Google had fixed or was fixing >the problem, but I still can't make any productive use of this system. > >This Usenet archive should be a vital component of my research, if I >can get to it. Are there any other Usenet archives that go back to >the early 80s other than Google? I was under the impression that >Google was the only one. > >-- >Eric Gade From patrick at ianai.net Wed Mar 17 22:01:55 2010 From: patrick at ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 01:01:55 -0400 Subject: [ih] Google's Usenet Archives...Broken? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8FBEE17D-50EC-49ED-AEE9-CF6D05910383@ianai.net> On Mar 18, 2010, at 12:33 AM, Guillaume Latzko-Toth wrote: > I faced the same problem in my research: Google Groups search feature is disappointing. To the point I suspect it is on purpose... Google's search algorithm is suboptimal for non-linked based information. Try their in-house appliances on internal web pages - not wonderful at all. (I'm being kind.) Google looks for links to a page, and from where those links came. How many individual USENET articles are linked _to_? -- TTFN, patrick > Whatever, here is a turn-around, that worked well for me. If an archive exists for the group, for a specific period, you can browse the posts by month, by using this URL format : > > http://groups.google.com/group//browse_frm/month/YYYY-MM > > where is the name of the group (ex: rec.antique), YYYY is the year, and MM the month (for instance: 1995-01). So, with my example, the URL would be: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.antiques/browse_frm/month/1995-01 > > You can then browse back (or forth) month by month or year by year by manually changing the date in the URL. I tested the method with comp.protocols.dns.std, and found that it was created in September 1996 (see: > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.protocols.dns.std/browse_frm/month/1996-09). > > I would be very interested in reading other experiences with (and tips for) Usenet archives exploration... > > Regards, > Guillaume Latzko-Toth > > >> All: >> Has anyone been able to successfully search Google's Usenet archives? I am able to get basic results through browsing, but anytime I try to put in a specific search it returns no results (even when there are *definitely* results). Trying to sort or search by date is the biggest problem. I can get access to a group (such as comp.protocols.dns.std), but it lists from the most recent posts first. The "list by oldest" filter doesn't work, and I cannot possibly click "Older" enough times to go through 30k posts. >> >> The last time I was able to perform good searches was back in September. I found a Wired article that addresses this at the end of the past year, and commented that Google had fixed or was fixing the problem, but I still can't make any productive use of this system. >> >> This Usenet archive should be a vital component of my research, if I can get to it. Are there any other Usenet archives that go back to the early 80s other than Google? I was under the impression that Google was the only one. >> >> -- >> Eric Gade > From mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de Sun Mar 21 16:11:46 2010 From: mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_B=E4rwolff?=) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:11:46 +0100 Subject: [ih] IEN Notes and INWG Message-ID: <4BA6A7B2.90402@cs.tu-berlin.de> Just a quick question: Is it fair to say the IEN Notes came out of INWG, or were these two different games? (There were INWG Notes, too.) Put differently, did the "group" that produced the IENs have a name of its own? Thanks. -- Matthias B?rwolff www.b?rwolff.de From vint at google.com Sun Mar 21 16:29:46 2010 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:29:46 -0400 Subject: [ih] IEN Notes and INWG In-Reply-To: <4BA6A7B2.90402@cs.tu-berlin.de> References: <4BA6A7B2.90402@cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: inwg notes were a distinct series. IENs were produced by the DARPA contracts while INWG was a volunteer activity that eventually become IFIP 6.1. vint On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Matthias B?rwolff wrote: > Just a quick question: Is it fair to say the IEN Notes came out of INWG, > or were these two different games? (There were INWG Notes, too.) Put > differently, did the "group" that produced the IENs have a name of its own? > > Thanks. > > -- > Matthias B?rwolff > www.b?rwolff.de > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de Mon Mar 22 03:58:54 2010 From: mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_B=E4rwolff?=) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:58:54 +0100 Subject: [ih] IEN Notes and INWG In-Reply-To: References: <4BA6A7B2.90402@cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <4BA74D6E.1060302@cs.tu-berlin.de> Without wanting to go into excessive detail, up until TCP-1 (RFC 675, Dec 1974) the work on TCP seems to have been "part" of INWG, and by TCP-2 (IEN 5, Mar 1977) the work had been split from INWG (and the whole IFIP, CCITT attendant connotation) and moved to ARPA (as Vint has indicated), once the final common proposal along the Pouzin TS lines (INWG 96, "Proposal for an international end to end protocol", Jul 1975) turned out to go nowhere given (1) CCITT's decision to go with X.25 I wonder: when exactly did ARPA make the strategical decision to push ahead with TCP? Was there any thought of sticking with INWG and try implementing their stuff? And, what was first, INWG approaching ISO, or ARPA deciding to go with TCP? (Pardon if I am being lazy, those questions must have been answered a thousand times already, I take it. Thanks for the additional clarification.) Matthias Vint Cerf wrote: > inwg notes were a distinct series. IENs were produced by the DARPA contracts > while INWG was a volunteer activity that eventually become IFIP 6.1. > > vint > > > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Matthias B?rwolff wrote: > >> Just a quick question: Is it fair to say the IEN Notes came out of INWG, >> or were these two different games? (There were INWG Notes, too.) Put >> differently, did the "group" that produced the IENs have a name of its own? >> >> Thanks. >> >> -- >> Matthias B?rwolff >> www.b?rwolff.de >> > -- Matthias B?rwolff From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Mar 22 05:05:57 2010 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:05:57 -0400 Subject: [ih] IEN Notes and INWG In-Reply-To: <4BA74D6E.1060302@cs.tu-berlin.de> References: <4BA6A7B2.90402@cs.tu-berlin.de> <4BA74D6E.1060302@cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: Off list. And in confidence. The development efforts on individual protocols was always local with common discussions at INWG. So to characterize TCP development as being just at INWG would be incorrect. There were always ARPA sponsored meetings on TCP outside of INWG meetings. Also, INWG was not CCITTT oriented at all. In fact, quite the opposite. CCITT's decision to go with X.25 was made much earlier. The first version was 1976 and they were committed to it well before that. The final meeting on the INWG Transport was held in London in late 1977 and first published as an appendix to a conference held in Leige by Andre Danthine in . The first OSI meeting was in Feb 1978. The first OSI meeting was held in Washington DC in March 1978. The second in October in Paris. I don't remember but when the first official liaison contribution was made. You would have to check the TC97/SC16 document list. But it was probably soon there after. Tom Steel of ATT was the IFIP liaison representative. It would have been a contribution to WG3 on Lower Layers. Now for the in confidence part. INWG was originally created to promote TCP in 74. When INWG decided to do some thing different, it is pretty clear that Vint "decided to take his ball and go home." There were US meetings in 1978 and maybe into 1979 in which ARPA funded organizations participated. By probably 79 and definitely by 80, Vint prevented anyone with a DARPA contract from participating in OSI meetings. (I don't believe there were ever any ARPA funded researchers at any of the US architecture meetings (which I chaired). He tried to widen it to all DoD funding, but inter-agency rivalry kept that from happening. My funding and Hal Folts' was from DCA (Defense Communication Agency) and I remember it happening. But you are not starting to tread on a touchy subject. This is where the collaboraion of the international research community really begins to break down. Before this, ideas were flying back and forth and everyone was bouncing off everyone else. After this, it gets personal. (Notice how the Americans make a big deal about packet switching being the big breakthrough, not datagrams. And how everyone believes that the Internet is based on the ARPANet, when in fact it is based on CYCLADES. They have to keep the role of the French out of it. One can make a pretty good case that as happens often, the people who adopted someone else's idea didn't really understand it. The Internet didn't really understand CYCLADES and got caught flat-footed.) If you want to keep your sources contributing. I would be very careful how you approach this. The implications of what they didn't understand are only now coming out from under Moore's Law, so the subject is not just of historical interest. This is the start of the separation from the ARPA side. There was a US group that maintained participation in both and were the primary movers that got CLNP developed in OSI and engineered the ROAD process. However, the damage was done. The isolation of the two groups had created the suspicion and animosity within the IETF. So that when IPv7 was proposed it was soundly rejected by the IETF. Leading to the current impending crisis with IPv6. This is a lot more complicated. I have a presentation that I characterize as the "Guns, Germs, and Steel" of networking. That makes the case that we are where we are because of outside forces of economics and politics, not by science and technology. Once you have a picture of where we should be, it is pretty easy to see the current Internet has been basically stagnate since the mid-70s living on band-aids and Moore's Law. You might want to look at the preface and last chapter of my book, Patterns in Network Architecture. Take care, John At 11:58 +0100 2010/03/22, Matthias B?rwolff wrote: >Without wanting to go into excessive detail, up until TCP-1 (RFC 675, >Dec 1974) the work on TCP seems to have been "part" of INWG, and by >TCP-2 (IEN 5, Mar 1977) the work had been split from INWG (and the whole >IFIP, CCITT attendant connotation) and moved to ARPA (as Vint has >indicated), once the final common proposal along the Pouzin TS lines >(INWG 96, "Proposal for an international end to end protocol", Jul 1975) >turned out to go nowhere given (1) CCITT's decision to go with X.25 > >I wonder: when exactly did ARPA make the strategical decision to push >ahead with TCP? Was there any thought of sticking with INWG and try >implementing their stuff? > >And, what was first, INWG approaching ISO, or ARPA deciding to go with TCP? > >(Pardon if I am being lazy, those questions must have been answered a >thousand times already, I take it. Thanks for the additional clarification.) > >Matthias > >Vint Cerf wrote: >> inwg notes were a distinct series. IENs were produced by the DARPA contracts >> while INWG was a volunteer activity that eventually become IFIP 6.1. >> >> vint >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Matthias >>B?rwolff wrote: >> >>> Just a quick question: Is it fair to say the IEN Notes came out of INWG, >>> or were these two different games? (There were INWG Notes, too.) Put >>> differently, did the "group" that produced the IENs have a name of its own? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> -- >>> Matthias B?rwolff >>> www.b?rwolff.de >>> >> > >-- >Matthias B?rwolff From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Mar 22 06:10:11 2010 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:10:11 -0400 Subject: [ih] IEN Notes and INWG In-Reply-To: References: <4BA6A7B2.90402@cs.tu-berlin.de> <4BA74D6E.1060302@cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: Well, that will teach me to do things too early in the morning! Sorry about that. However, I will stand by my account and while it may not sound like I really don't take any of this personally. In fact, quite the opposite. I am fascinated by how forces (economics and politics) essentially outside our control were probably the primary determinants of the outcome. It is safe to say that most of us were new the global game we found ourselves in. The Europeans were probably more experienced than we were. In some sense, we were individuals each responding locally to a much bigger process that none us could see the whole thing. As to the details, no OSI didn't get it right and the Internet get it wrong. In my book, I detailed what was wrong with OSI technically and why it was destined to fail. It was too early for any of one to get it right. TS was simpler than TCP, but still not the answer. That honor goes to delta-t, which is not only simpler but also has better security properties than both. (Watson's proof that bounding 3 timers is necessary and sufficient is one of the most important results (as well as surprising and astounding) in all of networking and little understood or recognized. An incredible intellectual achievement.) Not doing CLNP was a major set back. Had we adopted it in 1992, we would not be staring the current IPv6 crisis in the face. And no, that crisis is not well in hand and still suffers from post IPng trauma: loc/id split. That problem is still to be dealt with. The implications of which are scary. If the Internet made any mistake, it was to not keep moving and leap frog where OSI was. But as I have argued elsewhere, it essentially stopped. The bunker mentality set in on both sides of the connectionless/connection debate. The Internet should have let OSI be tied down with the political debate which it couldn't escape and keep moving. None of us did the right thing every time. Least of all me. Again, taking the blinders off and really looking at what was happening is a far more interesting story, with far more interesting implications for not making the same mistakes than the narrow focus of most of the work in this field. It wasn't pretty. History seldom is. But it is edifying. Sorry if I upset some people. Take care, John At 8:05 -0400 2010/03/22, John Day wrote: >Off list. And in confidence. > >The development efforts on individual protocols >was always local with common discussions at >INWG. So to characterize TCP development as >being just at INWG would be incorrect. There >were always ARPA sponsored meetings on TCP >outside of INWG meetings. Also, INWG was not >CCITTT oriented at all. In fact, quite the >opposite. CCITT's decision to go with X.25 was >made much earlier. The first version was 1976 >and they were committed to it well before that. > >The final meeting on the INWG Transport was held >in London in late 1977 and first published as an >appendix to a conference held in Leige by Andre >Danthine in . The first OSI meeting was in Feb >1978. The first OSI meeting was held in >Washington DC in March 1978. The second in >October in Paris. I don't remember but when the >first official liaison contribution was made. >You would have to check the TC97/SC16 document >list. But it was probably soon there after. >Tom Steel of ATT was the IFIP liaison >representative. It would have been a >contribution to WG3 on Lower Layers. > >Now for the in confidence part. INWG was >originally created to promote TCP in 74. When >INWG decided to do some thing different, it is >pretty clear that Vint "decided to take his ball >and go home." There were US meetings in 1978 >and maybe into 1979 in which ARPA funded >organizations participated. By probably 79 and >definitely by 80, Vint prevented anyone with a >DARPA contract from participating in OSI >meetings. (I don't believe there were ever any >ARPA funded researchers at any of the US >architecture meetings (which I chaired). He >tried to widen it to all DoD funding, but >inter-agency rivalry kept that from happening. >My funding and Hal Folts' was from DCA (Defense >Communication Agency) and I remember it >happening. > >But you are not starting to tread on a touchy >subject. This is where the collaboraion of the >international research community really begins >to break down. Before this, ideas were flying >back and forth and everyone was bouncing off >everyone else. After this, it gets personal. >(Notice how the Americans make a big deal about >packet switching being the big breakthrough, not >datagrams. And how everyone believes that the >Internet is based on the ARPANet, when in fact >it is based on CYCLADES. They have to keep the >role of the French out of it. One can make a >pretty good case that as happens often, the >people who adopted someone else's idea didn't >really understand it. The Internet didn't >really understand CYCLADES and got caught >flat-footed.) If you want to keep your sources >contributing. I would be very careful how you >approach this. The implications of what they >didn't understand are only now coming out from >under Moore's Law, so the subject is not just of >historical interest. > >This is the start of the separation from the >ARPA side. There was a US group that maintained >participation in both and were the primary >movers that got CLNP developed in OSI and >engineered the ROAD process. However, the >damage was done. The isolation of the two groups >had created the suspicion and animosity within >the IETF. So that when IPv7 was proposed it was >soundly rejected by the IETF. Leading to the >current impending crisis with IPv6. > >This is a lot more complicated. I have a >presentation that I characterize as the "Guns, >Germs, and Steel" of networking. That makes the >case that we are where we are because of outside >forces of economics and politics, not by science >and technology. Once you have a picture of >where we should be, it is pretty easy to see the >current Internet has been basically stagnate >since the mid-70s living on band-aids and >Moore's Law. > >You might want to look at the preface and last >chapter of my book, Patterns in Network >Architecture. > >Take care, >John > >At 11:58 +0100 2010/03/22, Matthias B?rwolff wrote: >>Without wanting to go into excessive detail, up until TCP-1 (RFC 675, >>Dec 1974) the work on TCP seems to have been "part" of INWG, and by >>TCP-2 (IEN 5, Mar 1977) the work had been split from INWG (and the whole >>IFIP, CCITT attendant connotation) and moved to ARPA (as Vint has >>indicated), once the final common proposal along the Pouzin TS lines >>(INWG 96, "Proposal for an international end to end protocol", Jul 1975) >>turned out to go nowhere given (1) CCITT's decision to go with X.25 >> >>I wonder: when exactly did ARPA make the strategical decision to push >>ahead with TCP? Was there any thought of sticking with INWG and try >>implementing their stuff? >> >>And, what was first, INWG approaching ISO, or ARPA deciding to go with TCP? >> >>(Pardon if I am being lazy, those questions must have been answered a >>thousand times already, I take it. Thanks for the additional clarification.) >> >>Matthias >> >>Vint Cerf wrote: >>> inwg notes were a distinct series. IENs were >>>produced by the DARPA contracts >>> while INWG was a volunteer activity that eventually become IFIP 6.1. >>> >>> vint >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Matthias >>>B?rwolff wrote: >>> >>>> Just a quick question: Is it fair to say the IEN Notes came out of INWG, >>>> or were these two different games? (There were INWG Notes, too.) Put >>>> differently, did the "group" that produced >>>>the IENs have a name of its own? >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matthias B?rwolff >>>> www.b?rwolff.de >>>> >>> >> >>-- >>Matthias B?rwolff From el at lisse.na Mon Mar 22 07:52:41 2010 From: el at lisse.na (Dr Eberhard W Lisse) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:52:41 +0200 Subject: [ih] early ccTLD registrations Message-ID: <4BA78439.5070103@lisse.na> Hi, I registered .NA in 1991, but have unfortunately lost the emails from that time. I would love to reconstruct this, not only for my own personal use, but also, because during "work" in the ICANN ccNSO Delegation-, Re-delegation and Deletion Working Group where we are looking at current "policy" and "procedures" we found that we not only have no definitions what TLDs or even "domains" actually are, but we also do not really know how this all came about. I am looking for two people working at the DDN.MIL Hostmaster around 1990/1991, namely Sue Kirkpatrick, nee Romano and Douglas MacGowan, both of whom handled .ZA a few months before .NA and thus may be able to help (direct) my search. Thanks to Randy Bush kindly sending me some stuff he had already in 2003 I remember that James Revell who as postsmater at uunet.uu.net forwarded the application to DDN.MIL and set up the name servers. I was fortunate to be able to make contact with him again and we were wondering if there was someone around who would know whether and how one can find records from UUNET's side. Anyone else having information about how this was handled before let's say 1994 (when RFC 1591 became prevalent), for any ccTLD is also more than welcome to contact me directly. Two names I have come up with are Sue Kirkpatrick nee Romano Douglas MacGowan who both were hostmasters at DDN.MIL then, and I really would like to get in touch with either or both of them. Then there was a Mary Stahl mentioned in the monthly Internet Reports reporting for DDN.MIL. Anyone who registered ccTLDs during that time and is willing to share their email correspondence would be also greatly appreciated. greetings, el -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Please do NOT email to this address Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ if it is DNS related in ANY way From craig at aland.bbn.com Mon Mar 22 08:40:57 2010 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:40:57 -0400 Subject: [ih] early ccTLD registrations Message-ID: <20100322154057.9009428E137@aland.bbn.com> You might also talk with some of the CSNET folks -- as I recall, in the mid-1980s, we helped several countries get their TLD (as CSNET was providing the primary Internet connectivity to the country). I'd suggest Dick Edmiston or Laura Breeden. I don't have emails from the time but my recollection is that there ended up being some negotiation with the NIC about how we decided who in a country should be allowed to be responsible for that country's TLD. (This was not a simple question and often pitted Internet pioneers in some countries against their own governments). Thanks! Craig > Hi, > > I registered .NA in 1991, but have unfortunately lost the > emails from that time. I would love to reconstruct this, > not only for my own personal use, but also, because during > "work" in the ICANN ccNSO Delegation-, Re-delegation and > Deletion Working Group where we are looking at current > "policy" and "procedures" we found that we not only have no > definitions what TLDs or even "domains" actually are, but we > also do not really know how this all came about. > > I am looking for two people working at the DDN.MIL > Hostmaster around 1990/1991, namely Sue Kirkpatrick, nee > Romano and Douglas MacGowan, both of whom handled .ZA a few > months before .NA and thus may be able to help (direct) my > search. > > Thanks to Randy Bush kindly sending me some stuff he had > already in 2003 I remember that James Revell who as > postsmater at uunet.uu.net forwarded the application to DDN.MIL > and set up the name servers. I was fortunate to be able to > make contact with him again and we were wondering if there > was someone around who would know whether and how one can > find records from UUNET's side. > > Anyone else having information about how this was handled > before let's say 1994 (when RFC 1591 became prevalent), for > any ccTLD is also more than welcome to contact me directly. > > Two names I have come up with are > > Sue Kirkpatrick nee Romano > Douglas MacGowan > > who both were hostmasters at DDN.MIL then, and I really > would like to get in touch with either or both of them. > > Then there was a Mary Stahl mentioned in the monthly Internet > Reports reporting for DDN.MIL. > > Anyone who registered ccTLDs during that time and is willing > to share their email correspondence would be also greatly > appreciated. > > greetings, el > -- > Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist > el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) > PO Box 8421 \ / Please do NOT email to this address > Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ if it is DNS related in ANY way ******************** Craig Partridge Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com Phone: +1 517 324 3425 From wmaton at ottix.net Mon Mar 22 13:04:01 2010 From: wmaton at ottix.net (William F. Maton) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:04:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] Looking for archive of CDNnet Reports Message-ID: All, I've been looking into the early history of networking in Canada, largely inspired by John Quarterman's "The Matrix" (laments about the lack of Matrix II covering 1990 - 1999 aside, what a great work that would have been!). Some of the references used in that book point to something called the CDNnet Reports. Anyone know if those are around in any form on the Internet? Thanks, wfms From craig at aland.bbn.com Mon Mar 22 13:22:49 2010 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:22:49 -0400 Subject: [ih] Looking for archive of CDNnet Reports Message-ID: <20100322202249.53FD328E137@aland.bbn.com> I would ask John Demco, who played an important role in CDNnet operations. I think he might be the John Demco now of demco.tel (can't quite tell from the photo but the business address is right). Thanks! Craig > > All, > > I've been looking into the early history of networking in Canada, > largely inspired by John Quarterman's "The Matrix" (laments about the lack > of Matrix II covering 1990 - 1999 aside, what a great work that would > have been!). Some of the references used in that book point to something > called the CDNnet Reports. Anyone know if those are around in any form on > the Internet? > > Thanks, > > wfms ******************** Craig Partridge Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com Phone: +1 517 324 3425 From wmaton at ottix.net Mon Mar 22 14:50:22 2010 From: wmaton at ottix.net (William F. Maton) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:50:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] Looking for archive of CDNnet Reports In-Reply-To: <20100322202249.53FD328E137@aland.bbn.com> References: <20100322202249.53FD328E137@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: Craig, et al, thanks very much for the responses. I'll see if I can track him down. On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Craig Partridge wrote: > > I would ask John Demco, who played an important role in CDNnet operations. > I think he might be the John Demco now of demco.tel (can't quite tell from the > photo but the business address is right). > > Thanks! > > Craig > >> >> All, >> >> I've been looking into the early history of networking in Canada, >> largely inspired by John Quarterman's "The Matrix" (laments about the lack >> of Matrix II covering 1990 - 1999 aside, what a great work that would >> have been!). Some of the references used in that book point to something >> called the CDNnet Reports. Anyone know if those are around in any form on >> the Internet? >> >> Thanks, >> >> wfms > ******************** > Craig Partridge > Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies > E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com > Phone: +1 517 324 3425 > wfms From feinler at earthlink.net Mon Mar 22 15:20:18 2010 From: feinler at earthlink.net (Elizabeth Feinler) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:20:18 -0700 Subject: [ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 41, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9DA7EFE5-2131-4B0B-B7DF-CA0817EA3542@earthlink.net> FYI the Network Information Center (NIC) at SRI International, Menlo Park, CA developed the TLDs of .mil, .org, .gov, .edu, and .com. These are defined in RFC 1032 which also gives details of the registration procedures used then, and discusses country codes. I am trying to write a small blurb outlining the history of this, and will submit a copy to this group when I have it finished. I particularly want to reference what I say, as there is so much conjecture out there and I don't want to add to it, if possible. :-). In 1991 SRI lost the NIC contract in a competitive bid. Network Strategies, Inc (NSI) took over the naming portion of the contract. It is my understanding that NSI later became Verisign. (Note: I have been told this last sentence. I haven't verified it.) Regards, Jake Feinler On Mar 22, 2010, 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: early ccTLD registrations (Craig Partridge) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:40:57 -0400 > From: Craig Partridge > Subject: Re: [ih] early ccTLD registrations > To: el at lisse.na > Cc: 'Bernard Turcotte' , craig at aland.bbn.com, > internet-history at postel.org > Message-ID: <20100322154057.9009428E137 at aland.bbn.com> > > > You might also talk with some of the CSNET folks -- as I recall, in > the mid-1980s, we helped several countries get their TLD (as CSNET > was providing the primary Internet connectivity to the country). > I'd suggest Dick Edmiston or Laura Breeden. > > I don't have emails from the time but my recollection is that > there ended up being some negotiation with the NIC about how we > decided who in a country should be allowed to be responsible for that > country's TLD. (This was not a simple question and often pitted > Internet pioneers in some countries against their own governments). > > Thanks! > > Craig > > >> Hi, >> >> I registered .NA in 1991, but have unfortunately lost the >> emails from that time. I would love to reconstruct this, >> not only for my own personal use, but also, because during >> "work" in the ICANN ccNSO Delegation-, Re-delegation and >> Deletion Working Group where we are looking at current >> "policy" and "procedures" we found that we not only have no >> definitions what TLDs or even "domains" actually are, but we >> also do not really know how this all came about. >> >> I am looking for two people working at the DDN.MIL >> Hostmaster around 1990/1991, namely Sue Kirkpatrick, nee >> Romano and Douglas MacGowan, both of whom handled .ZA a few >> months before .NA and thus may be able to help (direct) my >> search. >> >> Thanks to Randy Bush kindly sending me some stuff he had >> already in 2003 I remember that James Revell who as >> postsmater at uunet.uu.net forwarded the application to DDN.MIL >> and set up the name servers. I was fortunate to be able to >> make contact with him again and we were wondering if there >> was someone around who would know whether and how one can >> find records from UUNET's side. >> >> Anyone else having information about how this was handled >> before let's say 1994 (when RFC 1591 became prevalent), for >> any ccTLD is also more than welcome to contact me directly. >> >> Two names I have come up with are >> >> Sue Kirkpatrick nee Romano >> Douglas MacGowan >> >> who both were hostmasters at DDN.MIL then, and I really >> would like to get in touch with either or both of them. >> >> Then there was a Mary Stahl mentioned in the monthly Internet >> Reports reporting for DDN.MIL. >> >> Anyone who registered ccTLDs during that time and is willing >> to share their email correspondence would be also greatly >> appreciated. >> >> greetings, el >> -- >> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist >> el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) >> PO Box 8421 \ / Please do NOT email to this address >> Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ if it is DNS related in ANY way > ******************** > Craig Partridge > Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies > E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com > Phone: +1 517 324 3425 > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > End of internet-history Digest, Vol 41, Issue 16 > ************************************************ From eric.gade at gmail.com Mon Mar 22 15:56:38 2010 From: eric.gade at gmail.com (Eric Gade) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:56:38 -0400 Subject: [ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 41, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: <9DA7EFE5-2131-4B0B-B7DF-CA0817EA3542@earthlink.net> References: <9DA7EFE5-2131-4B0B-B7DF-CA0817EA3542@earthlink.net> Message-ID: *It is my understanding that NSI later became Verisign. (Note: I have been told this last sentence. I haven't verified it.) * The naming of these companies has a confusing history. VeriSign acquired Network Solutions Inc in 2000 (I believe) and took over the registry duties under the name VeriSign. A few years later, VeriSign spun off the registrar portion and named it...Network Solutions Inc. So both companies exist, but now there is a much more explicit division of duties between them. This is my understanding of the situation. On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Elizabeth Feinler wrote: > FYI the Network Information Center (NIC) at SRI International, Menlo Park, > CA developed the TLDs of .mil, .org, .gov, .edu, and .com. These are > defined in RFC 1032 which also gives details of the registration procedures > used then, and discusses country codes. I am trying to write a small blurb > outlining the history of this, and will submit a copy to this group when I > have it finished. I particularly want to reference what I say, as there is > so much conjecture out there and I don't want to add to it, if possible. > :-). In 1991 SRI lost the NIC contract in a competitive bid. Network > Strategies, Inc (NSI) took over the naming portion of the contract. It is > my understanding that NSI later became Verisign. (Note: I have been told > this last sentence. I haven't verified it.) > > Regards, > > Jake Feinler > On Mar 22, 2010, 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: early ccTLD registrations (Craig Partridge) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:40:57 -0400 > > From: Craig Partridge > > Subject: Re: [ih] early ccTLD registrations > > To: el at lisse.na > > Cc: 'Bernard Turcotte' , craig at aland.bbn.com, > > internet-history at postel.org > > Message-ID: <20100322154057.9009428E137 at aland.bbn.com> > > > > > > You might also talk with some of the CSNET folks -- as I recall, in > > the mid-1980s, we helped several countries get their TLD (as CSNET > > was providing the primary Internet connectivity to the country). > > I'd suggest Dick Edmiston or Laura Breeden. > > > > I don't have emails from the time but my recollection is that > > there ended up being some negotiation with the NIC about how we > > decided who in a country should be allowed to be responsible for that > > country's TLD. (This was not a simple question and often pitted > > Internet pioneers in some countries against their own governments). > > > > Thanks! > > > > Craig > > > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I registered .NA in 1991, but have unfortunately lost the > >> emails from that time. I would love to reconstruct this, > >> not only for my own personal use, but also, because during > >> "work" in the ICANN ccNSO Delegation-, Re-delegation and > >> Deletion Working Group where we are looking at current > >> "policy" and "procedures" we found that we not only have no > >> definitions what TLDs or even "domains" actually are, but we > >> also do not really know how this all came about. > >> > >> I am looking for two people working at the DDN.MIL > >> Hostmaster around 1990/1991, namely Sue Kirkpatrick, nee > >> Romano and Douglas MacGowan, both of whom handled .ZA a few > >> months before .NA and thus may be able to help (direct) my > >> search. > >> > >> Thanks to Randy Bush kindly sending me some stuff he had > >> already in 2003 I remember that James Revell who as > >> postsmater at uunet.uu.net forwarded the application to DDN.MIL > >> and set up the name servers. I was fortunate to be able to > >> make contact with him again and we were wondering if there > >> was someone around who would know whether and how one can > >> find records from UUNET's side. > >> > >> Anyone else having information about how this was handled > >> before let's say 1994 (when RFC 1591 became prevalent), for > >> any ccTLD is also more than welcome to contact me directly. > >> > >> Two names I have come up with are > >> > >> Sue Kirkpatrick nee Romano > >> Douglas MacGowan > >> > >> who both were hostmasters at DDN.MIL then, and I really > >> would like to get in touch with either or both of them. > >> > >> Then there was a Mary Stahl mentioned in the monthly Internet > >> Reports reporting for DDN.MIL. > >> > >> Anyone who registered ccTLDs during that time and is willing > >> to share their email correspondence would be also greatly > >> appreciated. > >> > >> greetings, el > >> -- > >> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist > >> el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) > >> PO Box 8421 \ / Please do NOT email to this address > >> Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ if it is DNS related in ANY way > > ******************** > > Craig Partridge > > Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies > > E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com > > Phone: +1 517 324 3425 > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > internet-history mailing list > > internet-history at postel.org > > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > > > End of internet-history Digest, Vol 41, Issue 16 > > ************************************************ > > > -- Eric Gade -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vint at google.com Tue Mar 23 11:39:15 2010 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:39:15 -0400 Subject: [ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 41, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: References: <9DA7EFE5-2131-4B0B-B7DF-CA0817EA3542@earthlink.net> Message-ID: that sounds right to me. v On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Eric Gade wrote: > *It is my understanding that NSI later became Verisign. (Note: I have > been told this last sentence. I haven't verified it.) > * > > > The naming of these companies has a confusing history. VeriSign acquired > Network Solutions Inc in 2000 (I believe) and took over the registry duties > under the name VeriSign. A few years later, VeriSign spun off the registrar > portion and named it...Network Solutions Inc. So both companies exist, but > now there is a much more explicit division of duties between them. This is > my understanding of the situation. > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Elizabeth Feinler wrote: > >> FYI the Network Information Center (NIC) at SRI International, Menlo Park, >> CA developed the TLDs of .mil, .org, .gov, .edu, and .com. These are >> defined in RFC 1032 which also gives details of the registration procedures >> used then, and discusses country codes. I am trying to write a small blurb >> outlining the history of this, and will submit a copy to this group when I >> have it finished. I particularly want to reference what I say, as there is >> so much conjecture out there and I don't want to add to it, if possible. >> :-). In 1991 SRI lost the NIC contract in a competitive bid. Network >> Strategies, Inc (NSI) took over the naming portion of the contract. It is >> my understanding that NSI later became Verisign. (Note: I have been told >> this last sentence. I haven't verified it.) >> >> Regards, >> >> Jake Feinler >> On Mar 22, 2010, 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: early ccTLD registrations (Craig Partridge) >> > >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > Message: 1 >> > Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:40:57 -0400 >> > From: Craig Partridge >> > Subject: Re: [ih] early ccTLD registrations >> > To: el at lisse.na >> > Cc: 'Bernard Turcotte' , craig at aland.bbn.com, >> > internet-history at postel.org >> > Message-ID: <20100322154057.9009428E137 at aland.bbn.com> >> > >> > >> > You might also talk with some of the CSNET folks -- as I recall, in >> > the mid-1980s, we helped several countries get their TLD (as CSNET >> > was providing the primary Internet connectivity to the country). >> > I'd suggest Dick Edmiston or Laura Breeden. >> > >> > I don't have emails from the time but my recollection is that >> > there ended up being some negotiation with the NIC about how we >> > decided who in a country should be allowed to be responsible for that >> > country's TLD. (This was not a simple question and often pitted >> > Internet pioneers in some countries against their own governments). >> > >> > Thanks! >> > >> > Craig >> > >> > >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I registered .NA in 1991, but have unfortunately lost the >> >> emails from that time. I would love to reconstruct this, >> >> not only for my own personal use, but also, because during >> >> "work" in the ICANN ccNSO Delegation-, Re-delegation and >> >> Deletion Working Group where we are looking at current >> >> "policy" and "procedures" we found that we not only have no >> >> definitions what TLDs or even "domains" actually are, but we >> >> also do not really know how this all came about. >> >> >> >> I am looking for two people working at the DDN.MIL >> >> Hostmaster around 1990/1991, namely Sue Kirkpatrick, nee >> >> Romano and Douglas MacGowan, both of whom handled .ZA a few >> >> months before .NA and thus may be able to help (direct) my >> >> search. >> >> >> >> Thanks to Randy Bush kindly sending me some stuff he had >> >> already in 2003 I remember that James Revell who as >> >> postsmater at uunet.uu.net forwarded the application to DDN.MIL >> >> and set up the name servers. I was fortunate to be able to >> >> make contact with him again and we were wondering if there >> >> was someone around who would know whether and how one can >> >> find records from UUNET's side. >> >> >> >> Anyone else having information about how this was handled >> >> before let's say 1994 (when RFC 1591 became prevalent), for >> >> any ccTLD is also more than welcome to contact me directly. >> >> >> >> Two names I have come up with are >> >> >> >> Sue Kirkpatrick nee Romano >> >> Douglas MacGowan >> >> >> >> who both were hostmasters at DDN.MIL then, and I really >> >> would like to get in touch with either or both of them. >> >> >> >> Then there was a Mary Stahl mentioned in the monthly Internet >> >> Reports reporting for DDN.MIL. >> >> >> >> Anyone who registered ccTLDs during that time and is willing >> >> to share their email correspondence would be also greatly >> >> appreciated. >> >> >> >> greetings, el >> >> -- >> >> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist >> >> el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) >> >> PO Box 8421 \ / Please do NOT email to this address >> >> Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ if it is DNS related in ANY way >> > ******************** >> > Craig Partridge >> > Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies >> > E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com >> > Phone: +1 517 324 3425 >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------ >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > internet-history mailing list >> > internet-history at postel.org >> > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > >> > >> > End of internet-history Digest, Vol 41, Issue 16 >> > ************************************************ >> >> >> > > > -- > Eric Gade > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dot at dotat.at Tue Mar 23 11:51:50 2010 From: dot at dotat.at (Tony Finch) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:51:50 +0000 Subject: [ih] IEN Notes and INWG In-Reply-To: References: <4BA6A7B2.90402@cs.tu-berlin.de> <4BA74D6E.1060302@cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, John Day wrote: > > TS was simpler than TCP, but still not the answer. That honor goes to > delta-t, which is not only simpler but also has better security properties > than both. (Watson's proof that bounding 3 timers is necessary and sufficient > is one of the most important results (as well as surprising and astounding) in > all of networking and little understood or recognized. An incredible > intellectual achievement.) As far as I can tell from the literature, delta-t had no hardening against denial of service attacks. The server must be prepared to buffer data from the client before it can prove that the client is listening. So I'm not sure in what sence it is more secure. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch http://dotat.at/ GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD. From jeanjour at comcast.net Tue Mar 23 12:29:27 2010 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:29:27 -0400 Subject: [ih] IEN Notes and INWG In-Reply-To: References: <4BA6A7B2.90402@cs.tu-berlin.de> <4BA74D6E.1060302@cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: We have a paper in the works in which we have looked at a number of attacks on protocols of this type and delta-t is not susceptible to them. Basically it comes down to delta-t decouples port allocation from synchronization. TCP combines the two and then overloads port allocation with application naming. I was quite surprised, because like you, I assumed that since delta-t had not been subjected to that kind of hardening, it would have the same vulnerabilities. Turns out not to be the case at least when used in the context we are looking at it. We haven't looked at all of them yet, but so far the results are quite surprising. We are looking at it in an architecture does not do listens on well-known ports. A short term hack that should have been gotten rid of decades ago. Take care, John At 18:51 +0000 2010/03/23, Tony Finch wrote: >On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, John Day wrote: >> >> TS was simpler than TCP, but still not the answer. That honor goes to >> delta-t, which is not only simpler but also has better security properties >> than both. (Watson's proof that bounding 3 timers is necessary >>and sufficient >> is one of the most important results (as well as surprising and >>astounding) in >> all of networking and little understood or recognized. An incredible >> intellectual achievement.) > >As far as I can tell from the literature, delta-t had no hardening against >denial of service attacks. The server must be prepared to buffer data from >the client before it can prove that the client is listening. So I'm not >sure in what sence it is more secure. > >Tony. >-- >f.anthony.n.finch http://dotat.at/ >GERMAN BIGHT HUMBER: SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE OR ROUGH. SQUALLY SHOWERS. >MODERATE OR GOOD. From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Tue Mar 23 13:42:19 2010 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:42:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] IEN Notes and INWG Message-ID: <20100323204219.7E0906BE5DE@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_B=E4rwolff?= > Just a quick question: Is it fair to say the IEN Notes came out of > INWG, or were these two different games? (There were INWG Notes, too.) > Put differently, did the "group" that produced the IENs have a name of > its own? Ah, you have, in that last sentence, put your finger on the problem! The group of people working under the DARPA banner didn't, AFAIK, have a formal name. However, the group that worked on IP was occasionally called the "internet working group" (see, for instance, the first sentence of IEN #26). When one remembers that the acronym used for 'Internet' at that point in time was IN, you can see exactly where this is going... The INWG that produced the INWG Notes was a _different_ Internet Working Group (as others have already pointed out). Just to maximize the confusion, at different times it was either one or two groups! Originally there was just one TCP group, then when TCP was split into TCP and IP, there were (for a while) separate TCP and IP groups - or, at least, separate (temporally adjoining, I think) meetings. Anyway, if you see contemporaneous (or later - the matching names have confused more than one incautious historian, I have discovered) references to an "Internet Working Group", you need to dig a little deeper and work out exactly _which_ "Internet Working Group" is being talked about... Noel From jeanjour at comcast.net Tue Mar 23 15:00:26 2010 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:00:26 -0400 Subject: [ih] IEN Notes and INWG In-Reply-To: <20100323204219.7E0906BE5DE@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20100323204219.7E0906BE5DE@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: INWG originally stood for International Network Working Group, as opposed to the NWG which was the ARPANET group. At 16:42 -0400 2010/03/23, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_B=E4rwolff?= > > > Just a quick question: Is it fair to say the IEN Notes came out of > > INWG, or were these two different games? (There were INWG Notes, too.) > > Put differently, did the "group" that produced the IENs have a name of > > its own? > >Ah, you have, in that last sentence, put your finger on the problem! > >The group of people working under the DARPA banner didn't, AFAIK, have a >formal name. However, the group that worked on IP was occasionally called the >"internet working group" (see, for instance, the first sentence of IEN #26). > >When one remembers that the acronym used for 'Internet' at that point in time >was IN, you can see exactly where this is going... The INWG that produced the >INWG Notes was a _different_ Internet Working Group (as others have already >pointed out). > >Just to maximize the confusion, at different times it was either one or two >groups! Originally there was just one TCP group, then when TCP was split into >TCP and IP, there were (for a while) separate TCP and IP groups - or, at >least, separate (temporally adjoining, I think) meetings. > > >Anyway, if you see contemporaneous (or later - the matching names have >confused more than one incautious historian, I have discovered) references to >an "Internet Working Group", you need to dig a little deeper and work out >exactly _which_ "Internet Working Group" is being talked about... > > Noel From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Tue Mar 23 15:46:15 2010 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:46:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] IEN Notes and INWG Message-ID: <20100323224615.18ECA6BE5DE@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: John Day > INWG originally stood for International Network Working Group, Ah, my bad - thanks very much correcting my error! (Another one of those non-intuitive acronyms, like NCP which is not Network Control Protocol :-). Noel From jeanjour at comcast.net Tue Mar 23 16:08:45 2010 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:08:45 -0400 Subject: [ih] IEN Notes and INWG In-Reply-To: <20100323224615.18ECA6BE5DE@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20100323224615.18ECA6BE5DE@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: Actually it was very intuitive at the time, given the composition of the group. It may seem less so for those who came later. Another case of the effect of TS Eliot on Shakespeare. ;-) At 18:46 -0400 2010/03/23, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: John Day > > > INWG originally stood for International Network Working Group, > >Ah, my bad - thanks very much correcting my error! > >(Another one of those non-intuitive acronyms, like NCP which is not Network >Control Protocol :-). > > Noel From richard at bennett.com Tue Mar 23 16:20:10 2010 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:20:10 -0700 Subject: [ih] IEN Notes and INWG In-Reply-To: References: <20100323224615.18ECA6BE5DE@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4BA94CAA.8090501@bennett.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de Wed Mar 24 02:02:12 2010 From: mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_B=E4rwolff?=) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:02:12 +0100 Subject: [ih] IEN Notes and INWG In-Reply-To: References: <20100323204219.7E0906BE5DE@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4BA9D514.5080900@cs.tu-berlin.de> Still, Noel's take on the name of the ARPA sponsored TCP work as documented in the IEN series seems to be right, too. Browsing through some of the IENs, the term "Internet Working Group" appears -- though somewhat casually -- at least two times: in IEN 26 and IEN 60. Obviously this in no relation whatsoever to the "official" INWG (as in Internation Network Working Group, also: IFIP WG 6.1); and, sure enough, "Internet Protocol", or just "Internet" was coming to be abbreviated "IN" in some of the IENs. John Day wrote: > INWG originally stood for International Network Working Group, as > opposed to the NWG which was the ARPANET group. > > > > > > At 16:42 -0400 2010/03/23, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> > From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_B=E4rwolff?= >> >> > Just a quick question: Is it fair to say the IEN Notes came out of >> > INWG, or were these two different games? (There were INWG Notes, >> too.) >> > Put differently, did the "group" that produced the IENs have a >> name of >> > its own? >> >> Ah, you have, in that last sentence, put your finger on the problem! >> >> The group of people working under the DARPA banner didn't, AFAIK, have a >> formal name. However, the group that worked on IP was occasionally >> called the >> "internet working group" (see, for instance, the first sentence of IEN >> #26). >> >> When one remembers that the acronym used for 'Internet' at that point >> in time >> was IN, you can see exactly where this is going... The INWG that >> produced the >> INWG Notes was a _different_ Internet Working Group (as others have >> already >> pointed out). >> >> Just to maximize the confusion, at different times it was either one >> or two >> groups! Originally there was just one TCP group, then when TCP was >> split into >> TCP and IP, there were (for a while) separate TCP and IP groups - or, at >> least, separate (temporally adjoining, I think) meetings. >> >> >> Anyway, if you see contemporaneous (or later - the matching names have >> confused more than one incautious historian, I have discovered) >> references to >> an "Internet Working Group", you need to dig a little deeper and work out >> exactly _which_ "Internet Working Group" is being talked about... >> >> Noel > -- Matthias B?rwolff www.b?rwolff.de From jeanjour at comcast.net Wed Mar 24 04:01:30 2010 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:01:30 -0400 Subject: [ih] IEN Notes and INWG In-Reply-To: <4BA9D514.5080900@cs.tu-berlin.de> References: <20100323204219.7E0906BE5DE@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4BA9D514.5080900@cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: Correct. As someone stated before the IEN series and the INWG series were documents for two different groups. INWG had 3 sub-groups. One working on Transport, one working on a Virtual Terminal Protocol, and one working on Formal Description Techniques. The final output of all three were published as appendices to the conference proceedings of the conference in Liege in Feb 1978. Interestingly, the VTP paper has an ISO TC97/SC16 cover sheet on it. The first meeting of SC16 was still a few weeks away. The other two do not. The INWG FDT work lead directly to the ISO FDT work, so that would imply that all 3 papers were contributions to that first meeting in DC. At 10:02 +0100 2010/03/24, Matthias B?rwolff wrote: >Still, Noel's take on the name of the ARPA sponsored TCP work as >documented in the IEN series seems to be right, too. Browsing through >some of the IENs, the term "Internet Working Group" appears -- though >somewhat casually -- at least two times: in IEN 26 and IEN 60. Obviously >this in no relation whatsoever to the "official" INWG (as in Internation >Network Working Group, also: IFIP WG 6.1); and, sure enough, "Internet >Protocol", or just "Internet" was coming to be abbreviated "IN" in some >of the IENs. > >John Day wrote: >> INWG originally stood for International Network Working Group, as >> opposed to the NWG which was the ARPANET group. >> >> >> >> >> >> At 16:42 -0400 2010/03/23, Noel Chiappa wrote: >>> > From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_B=E4rwolff?= >>> >>> > Just a quick question: Is it fair to say the IEN Notes came out of >>> > INWG, or were these two different games? (There were INWG Notes, >>> too.) >>> > Put differently, did the "group" that produced the IENs have a >>> name of >>> > its own? >>> >>> Ah, you have, in that last sentence, put your finger on the problem! >>> >>> The group of people working under the DARPA banner didn't, AFAIK, have a >>> formal name. However, the group that worked on IP was occasionally >>> called the >>> "internet working group" (see, for instance, the first sentence of IEN >>> #26). >>> >>> When one remembers that the acronym used for 'Internet' at that point >>> in time >>> was IN, you can see exactly where this is going... The INWG that >>> produced the >>> INWG Notes was a _different_ Internet Working Group (as others have >>> already >>> pointed out). >>> >>> Just to maximize the confusion, at different times it was either one >>> or two >>> groups! Originally there was just one TCP group, then when TCP was >>> split into >>> TCP and IP, there were (for a while) separate TCP and IP groups - or, at >>> least, separate (temporally adjoining, I think) meetings. >>> >>> >>> Anyway, if you see contemporaneous (or later - the matching names have >>> confused more than one incautious historian, I have discovered) >>> references to >>> an "Internet Working Group", you need to dig a little deeper and work out >>> exactly _which_ "Internet Working Group" is being talked about... >>> >>> Noel >> > >-- >Matthias B?rwolff >www.b?rwolff.de From jeanjour at comcast.net Wed Mar 24 05:47:01 2010 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 08:47:01 -0400 Subject: [ih] IEN Notes and INWG In-Reply-To: References: <20100323204219.7E0906BE5DE@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4BA9D514.5080900@cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: Just an addendum to that last note: The FDT paper which was a bibliography of the current work in the area may have been the first "network produced" conference paper. Beginning in 1976, I was living in Houston (my wife was post-doc'ing at Baylor) and working at Illinois and commuting over the 'Net. (I used Telenet to get Multics and the Multics to get back to Illinois over the ARPANet.) The database of citations was at Illinois. It was outputed and moved to Multics, the Intro was added, and since I had no means to print on the conference forms (remember those camera ready forms we had to use?), ftp'ed it to Carl Sunshine in Southern California who printed it and snail mailed it to Danthine in Leige! The FDT group was primarily Carl, Gregor Bochman at U of Quebec, Chris Vissers Twente U, and myself. There were undoubtedly others but I have forgotten who. Richard Tenney joined the effort later when it moved to ISO. (I think but could be wrong about when Richard showed up.) The VTP group was at least Peter Higginson, UCL; Peter Linington(?), Don Shepherd, Canada; two people from ETH-Zurich (Ann Duenki (sp?) and Peter Schicker, probably Michel Gien or Hubert Zimmermann and maybe Najah Naffah from INRIA and myself. There were undoubtedly others I can't remember. There were no authors on the paper. Somewhere I have photos taken at a VTP meeting at INRIA in the fall of 77 but not a real group photo. At 7:01 -0400 2010/03/24, John Day wrote: >Correct. As someone stated before the IEN >series and the INWG series were documents for >two different groups. > >INWG had 3 sub-groups. One working on >Transport, one working on a Virtual Terminal >Protocol, and one working on Formal Description >Techniques. The final output of all three were >published as appendices to the conference >proceedings of the conference in Liege in Feb >1978. > >Interestingly, the VTP paper has an ISO >TC97/SC16 cover sheet on it. The first meeting >of SC16 was still a few weeks away. The other >two do not. The INWG FDT work lead directly to >the ISO FDT work, so that would imply that all 3 >papers were contributions to that first meeting >in DC. > >At 10:02 +0100 2010/03/24, Matthias B?rwolff wrote: >>Still, Noel's take on the name of the ARPA sponsored TCP work as >>documented in the IEN series seems to be right, too. Browsing through >>some of the IENs, the term "Internet Working Group" appears -- though >>somewhat casually -- at least two times: in IEN 26 and IEN 60. Obviously >>this in no relation whatsoever to the "official" INWG (as in Internation >>Network Working Group, also: IFIP WG 6.1); and, sure enough, "Internet >>Protocol", or just "Internet" was coming to be abbreviated "IN" in some >>of the IENs. >> >>John Day wrote: >>> INWG originally stood for International Network Working Group, as >>> opposed to the NWG which was the ARPANET group. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> At 16:42 -0400 2010/03/23, Noel Chiappa wrote: >>>> > From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_B=E4rwolff?= >>>> >>>> > Just a quick question: Is it fair to say the IEN Notes came out of >>>> > INWG, or were these two different games? (There were INWG Notes, >>>> too.) >>>> > Put differently, did the "group" that produced the IENs have a >>>> name of >>>> > its own? >>>> >>>> Ah, you have, in that last sentence, put your finger on the problem! >>>> >>>> The group of people working under the DARPA banner didn't, AFAIK, have a >>>> formal name. However, the group that worked on IP was occasionally >>>> called the >>>> "internet working group" (see, for instance, the first sentence of IEN >>>> #26). >>>> >>>> When one remembers that the acronym used for 'Internet' at that point >>>> in time >>>> was IN, you can see exactly where this is going... The INWG that >>>> produced the >>>> INWG Notes was a _different_ Internet Working Group (as others have >>>> already >>>> pointed out). >>>> >>>> Just to maximize the confusion, at different times it was either one >> >> or two >>>> groups! Originally there was just one TCP group, then when TCP was >>>> split into >>>> TCP and IP, there were (for a while) separate TCP and IP groups - or, at >>>> least, separate (temporally adjoining, I think) meetings. >>>> >>>> >>>> Anyway, if you see contemporaneous (or later - the matching names have >>>> confused more than one incautious historian, I have discovered) >>>> references to >>>> an "Internet Working Group", you need to dig a little deeper and work out >>>> exactly _which_ "Internet Working Group" is being talked about... >>>> >>>> Noel >>> >> >>-- >>Matthias B?rwolff >>www.b?rwolff.de From vint at google.com Wed Mar 24 06:31:31 2010 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:31:31 -0400 Subject: [ih] IEN Notes and INWG In-Reply-To: References: <20100323204219.7E0906BE5DE@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4BA9D514.5080900@cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: John, that's a great list of names - thanks for taking time to try to remember so many of them. I think the term "IWG" was used to emulate "NWG" that Steve Crocker led, but IWG was never used much. By 1976 this group was mostly those funded by DARPA to TCP, IP and higher level utility or applications - most of which were initially ported from their NCP base on ARPANET. vint On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 8:47 AM, John Day wrote: > Just an addendum to that last note: > > The FDT paper which was a bibliography of the current work in the area may > have been the first "network produced" conference paper. Beginning in 1976, > I was living in Houston (my wife was post-doc'ing at Baylor) and working at > Illinois and commuting over the 'Net. (I used Telenet to get Multics and > the Multics to get back to Illinois over the ARPANet.) > > The database of citations was at Illinois. It was outputed and moved to > Multics, the Intro was added, and since I had no means to print on the > conference forms (remember those camera ready forms we had to use?), ftp'ed > it to Carl Sunshine in Southern California who printed it and snail mailed > it to Danthine in Leige! > > The FDT group was primarily Carl, Gregor Bochman at U of Quebec, Chris > Vissers Twente U, and myself. There were undoubtedly others but I have > forgotten who. Richard Tenney joined the effort later when it moved to ISO. > (I think but could be wrong about when Richard showed up.) > > The VTP group was at least Peter Higginson, UCL; Peter Linington(?), Don > Shepherd, Canada; two people from ETH-Zurich (Ann Duenki (sp?) and Peter > Schicker, probably Michel Gien or Hubert Zimmermann and maybe Najah Naffah > from INRIA and myself. There were undoubtedly others I can't remember. > There were no authors on the paper. Somewhere I have photos taken at a VTP > meeting at INRIA in the fall of 77 but not a real group photo. > > > At 7:01 -0400 2010/03/24, John Day wrote: > >> Correct. As someone stated before the IEN series and the INWG series were >> documents for two different groups. >> >> INWG had 3 sub-groups. One working on Transport, one working on a Virtual >> Terminal Protocol, and one working on Formal Description Techniques. The >> final output of all three were published as appendices to the conference >> proceedings of the conference in Liege in Feb 1978. >> >> Interestingly, the VTP paper has an ISO TC97/SC16 cover sheet on it. The >> first meeting of SC16 was still a few weeks away. The other two do not. >> The INWG FDT work lead directly to the ISO FDT work, so that would imply >> that all 3 papers were contributions to that first meeting in DC. >> >> At 10:02 +0100 2010/03/24, Matthias B?rwolff wrote: >> >>> Still, Noel's take on the name of the ARPA sponsored TCP work as >>> documented in the IEN series seems to be right, too. Browsing through >>> some of the IENs, the term "Internet Working Group" appears -- though >>> somewhat casually -- at least two times: in IEN 26 and IEN 60. Obviously >>> this in no relation whatsoever to the "official" INWG (as in Internation >>> Network Working Group, also: IFIP WG 6.1); and, sure enough, "Internet >>> Protocol", or just "Internet" was coming to be abbreviated "IN" in some >>> of the IENs. >>> >>> John Day wrote: >>> >>>> INWG originally stood for International Network Working Group, as >>>> opposed to the NWG which was the ARPANET group. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> At 16:42 -0400 2010/03/23, Noel Chiappa wrote: >>>> >>>>> > From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_B=E4rwolff?= < >>>>> mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de> >>>>> >>>>> > Just a quick question: Is it fair to say the IEN Notes came out >>>>> of >>>>> > INWG, or were these two different games? (There were INWG Notes, >>>>> too.) >>>>> > Put differently, did the "group" that produced the IENs have a >>>>> name of >>>>> > its own? >>>>> >>>>> Ah, you have, in that last sentence, put your finger on the problem! >>>>> >>>>> The group of people working under the DARPA banner didn't, AFAIK, have >>>>> a >>>>> formal name. However, the group that worked on IP was occasionally >>>>> called the >>>>> "internet working group" (see, for instance, the first sentence of IEN >>>>> #26). >>>>> >>>>> When one remembers that the acronym used for 'Internet' at that point >>>>> in time >>>>> was IN, you can see exactly where this is going... The INWG that >>>>> produced the >>>>> INWG Notes was a _different_ Internet Working Group (as others have >>>>> already >>>>> pointed out). >>>>> >>>>> Just to maximize the confusion, at different times it was either one >>>>> >>>> >> or two >>> >>>> groups! Originally there was just one TCP group, then when TCP was >>>>> split into >>>>> TCP and IP, there were (for a while) separate TCP and IP groups - or, >>>>> at >>>>> least, separate (temporally adjoining, I think) meetings. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, if you see contemporaneous (or later - the matching names have >>>>> confused more than one incautious historian, I have discovered) >>>>> references to >>>>> an "Internet Working Group", you need to dig a little deeper and work >>>>> out >>>>> exactly _which_ "Internet Working Group" is being talked about... >>>>> >>>>> Noel >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Matthias B?rwolff >>> www.b?rwolff.de >>> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanjour at comcast.net Wed Mar 24 07:05:50 2010 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:05:50 -0400 Subject: [ih] IEN Notes and INWG In-Reply-To: References: <20100323204219.7E0906BE5DE@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4BA9D514.5080900@cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: >John, >that's a great list of names - thanks for taking >time to try to remember so many of them. Took me a while to remember Peter Shicker! I could see his face, but the name wouldn't come. > >I think the term "IWG" was used to emulate "NWG" >that Steve Crocker led, but IWG was never used >much. By 1976 this group was mostly those funded >by DARPA to TCP, IP and higher level utility or >applications - most of which were initially >ported from their NCP base on ARPANET. Agreed. INWG was suppose to be the International version of the NWG. ARPA was funding the UCL crowd, right? But wouldn't have been funding Vissers, ETH, Linington was at Cambridge so probably not, nor Gregor, nor the INRIA guys, Shepherd was working for a Canadian bank. That was also when EIN had gotten started. Is that really the distinction between INWG and IEN notes? IEN was the DARPA funded guys and INWG was them and everyone else? ;-) There is a list of participants in the Liege conference proceedings. It was a big meeting! Lots of old names there. (I didn't go. We could afford to send one person and Grossman was the senior guy. So Gary got to go. But I did get the T-shirt!) ;-) Take care, John Take care, John >vint > > >On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 8:47 AM, John Day ><jeanjour at comcast.net> >wrote: > >Just an addendum to that last note: > >The FDT paper which was a bibliography of the >current work in the area may have been the first >"network produced" conference paper. Beginning >in 1976, I was living in Houston (my wife was >post-doc'ing at Baylor) and working at Illinois >and commuting over the 'Net. (I used Telenet to >get Multics and the Multics to get back to >Illinois over the ARPANet.) > >The database of citations was at Illinois. It >was outputed and moved to Multics, the Intro was >added, and since I had no means to print on the >conference forms (remember those camera ready >forms we had to use?), ftp'ed it to Carl >Sunshine in Southern California who printed it >and snail mailed it to Danthine in Leige! > >The FDT group was primarily Carl, Gregor Bochman >at U of Quebec, Chris Vissers Twente U, and >myself. There were undoubtedly others but I >have forgotten who. Richard Tenney joined the >effort later when it moved to ISO. (I think but >could be wrong about when Richard showed up.) > >The VTP group was at least Peter Higginson, >UCL; Peter Linington(?), Don Shepherd, Canada; >two people from ETH-Zurich (Ann Duenki (sp?) and >Peter Schicker, probably Michel Gien or Hubert >Zimmermann and maybe Najah Naffah from INRIA and >myself. There were undoubtedly others I can't >remember. There were no authors on the paper. >Somewhere I have photos taken at a VTP meeting >at INRIA in the fall of 77 but not a real group >photo. > > >At 7:01 -0400 2010/03/24, John Day wrote: > >Correct. As someone stated before the IEN >series and the INWG series were documents for >two different groups. > >INWG had 3 sub-groups. One working on >Transport, one working on a Virtual Terminal >Protocol, and one working on Formal Description >Techniques. The final output of all three were >published as appendices to the conference >proceedings of the conference in Liege in Feb >1978. > >Interestingly, the VTP paper has an ISO >TC97/SC16 cover sheet on it. The first meeting >of SC16 was still a few weeks away. The other >two do not. The INWG FDT work lead directly to >the ISO FDT work, so that would imply that all 3 >papers were contributions to that first meeting >in DC. > >At 10:02 +0100 2010/03/24, Matthias B?rwolff wrote: > >Still, Noel's take on the name of the ARPA sponsored TCP work as >documented in the IEN series seems to be right, too. Browsing through >some of the IENs, the term "Internet Working Group" appears -- though >somewhat casually -- at least two times: in IEN 26 and IEN 60. Obviously >this in no relation whatsoever to the "official" INWG (as in Internation >Network Working Group, also: IFIP WG 6.1); and, sure enough, "Internet >Protocol", or just "Internet" was coming to be abbreviated "IN" in some >of the IENs. > >John Day wrote: > > INWG originally stood for International Network Working Group, as > opposed to the NWG which was the ARPANET group. > > > > > > At 16:42 -0400 2010/03/23, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > > From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_B=E4rwolff?= ><mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de> > > > Just a quick question: Is it fair to say the IEN Notes came out of > > INWG, or were these two different games? (There were INWG Notes, > too.) > > Put differently, did the "group" that produced the IENs have a > name of > > its own? > > Ah, you have, in that last sentence, put your finger on the problem! > > The group of people working under the DARPA banner didn't, AFAIK, have a > formal name. However, the group that worked on IP was occasionally > called the > "internet working group" (see, for instance, the first sentence of IEN > #26). > > When one remembers that the acronym used for 'Internet' at that point > in time > was IN, you can see exactly where this is going... The INWG that > produced the > INWG Notes was a _different_ Internet Working Group (as others have > already > pointed out). > > Just to maximize the confusion, at different times it was either one > > >> or two > > groups! Originally there was just one TCP group, then when TCP was > split into > TCP and IP, there were (for a while) separate TCP and IP groups - or, at > least, separate (temporally adjoining, I think) meetings. > > > Anyway, if you see contemporaneous (or later - the matching names have > confused more than one incautious historian, I have discovered) > references to > an "Internet Working Group", you need to dig a little deeper and work out > exactly _which_ "Internet Working Group" is being talked about... > > Noel > > > >-- >Matthias B?rwolff >www.b?rwolff.de -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vint at google.com Wed Mar 24 07:28:26 2010 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:28:26 -0400 Subject: [ih] IEN Notes and INWG In-Reply-To: References: <20100323204219.7E0906BE5DE@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4BA9D514.5080900@cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: Yes, IEN was for ARPA-sponsored work; INWG was born in Oct 1972 at the ICCC. Crocker declined to chair it because he was about to join ARPA and I was off to Stanford about that time and accepted the chairmanship. Eventually, INWG was integrated into IFIP as IFIP WG 6.1 with the help of Alex Curran (then the ceo of BNR, Inc - the Palo Alto research subsidiary of Bell-Northern Research). As to funding, DARPA provided some funding to Kirstein at UCL but I think a lot of his funds came from the EU and from the UK Science Research Council. EIN had leadership from the UK National Physical Laboratory staff - Donald Davies and Derek Barber. I am a little less clear on the dates of EIN start - around 1975? earlier? vint On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:05 AM, John Day wrote: > John, > > that's a great list of names - thanks for taking time to try to remember so > many of them. > > > Took me a while to remember Peter Shicker! I could see his face, but the > name wouldn't come. > > > I think the term "IWG" was used to emulate "NWG" that Steve Crocker led, > but IWG was never used much. By 1976 this group was mostly those funded by > DARPA to TCP, IP and higher level utility or applications - most of which > were initially ported from their NCP base on ARPANET. > > > Agreed. INWG was suppose to be the International version of the NWG. > > ARPA was funding the UCL crowd, right? But wouldn't have been funding > Vissers, ETH, Linington was at Cambridge so probably not, nor Gregor, nor > the INRIA guys, Shepherd was working for a Canadian bank. That was also > when EIN had gotten started. > > Is that really the distinction between INWG and IEN notes? IEN was the > DARPA funded guys and INWG was them and everyone else? ;-) > > There is a list of participants in the Liege conference proceedings. It > was a big meeting! Lots of old names there. (I didn't go. We could afford > to send one person and Grossman was the senior guy. So Gary got to go. But > I did get the T-shirt!) ;-) > > Take care, > John > > Take care, > John > > vint > > > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 8:47 AM, John Day wrote: > > Just an addendum to that last note: > > The FDT paper which was a bibliography of the current work in the area may > have been the first "network produced" conference paper. Beginning in 1976, > I was living in Houston (my wife was post-doc'ing at Baylor) and working at > Illinois and commuting over the 'Net. (I used Telenet to get Multics and > the Multics to get back to Illinois over the ARPANet.) > > The database of citations was at Illinois. It was outputed and moved to > Multics, the Intro was added, and since I had no means to print on the > conference forms (remember those camera ready forms we had to use?), ftp'ed > it to Carl Sunshine in Southern California who printed it and snail mailed > it to Danthine in Leige! > > The FDT group was primarily Carl, Gregor Bochman at U of Quebec, Chris > Vissers Twente U, and myself. There were undoubtedly others but I have > forgotten who. Richard Tenney joined the effort later when it moved to ISO. > (I think but could be wrong about when Richard showed up.) > > The VTP group was at least Peter Higginson, UCL; Peter Linington(?), Don > Shepherd, Canada; two people from ETH-Zurich (Ann Duenki (sp?) and Peter > Schicker, probably Michel Gien or Hubert Zimmermann and maybe Najah Naffah > from INRIA and myself. There were undoubtedly others I can't remember. > There were no authors on the paper. Somewhere I have photos taken at a VTP > meeting at INRIA in the fall of 77 but not a real group photo. > > > > At 7:01 -0400 2010/03/24, John Day wrote: > > Correct. As someone stated before the IEN series and the INWG series were > documents for two different groups. > > INWG had 3 sub-groups. One working on Transport, one working on a Virtual > Terminal Protocol, and one working on Formal Description Techniques. The > final output of all three were published as appendices to the conference > proceedings of the conference in Liege in Feb 1978. > > Interestingly, the VTP paper has an ISO TC97/SC16 cover sheet on it. The > first meeting of SC16 was still a few weeks away. The other two do not. > The INWG FDT work lead directly to the ISO FDT work, so that would imply > that all 3 papers were contributions to that first meeting in DC. > > At 10:02 +0100 2010/03/24, Matthias B?rwolff wrote: > > Still, Noel's take on the name of the ARPA sponsored TCP work as > documented in the IEN series seems to be right, too. Browsing through > some of the IENs, the term "Internet Working Group" appears -- though > somewhat casually -- at least two times: in IEN 26 and IEN 60. Obviously > this in no relation whatsoever to the "official" INWG (as in Internation > Network Working Group, also: IFIP WG 6.1); and, sure enough, "Internet > > Protocol", or just "Internet" was coming to be abbreviated "IN" in some > of the IENs. > > John Day wrote: > > INWG originally stood for International Network Working Group, as > opposed to the NWG which was the ARPANET group. > > > > > > At 16:42 -0400 2010/03/23, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > > From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Matthias_B=E4rwolff?= > > > Just a quick question: Is it fair to say the IEN Notes came out of > > INWG, or were these two different games? (There were INWG Notes, > too.) > > Put differently, did the "group" that produced the IENs have a > name of > > its own? > > Ah, you have, in that last sentence, put your finger on the problem! > > The group of people working under the DARPA banner didn't, AFAIK, have a > formal name. However, the group that worked on IP was occasionally > called the > "internet working group" (see, for instance, the first sentence of IEN > #26). > > When one remembers that the acronym used for 'Internet' at that point > in time > was IN, you can see exactly where this is going... The INWG that > produced the > INWG Notes was a _different_ Internet Working Group (as others have > already > pointed out). > > Just to maximize the confusion, at different times it was either one > > >> or two > > groups! Originally there was just one TCP group, then when TCP was > split into > TCP and IP, there were (for a while) separate TCP and IP groups - or, at > least, separate (temporally adjoining, I think) meetings. > > > Anyway, if you see contemporaneous (or later - the matching names have > confused more than one incautious historian, I have discovered) > references to > an "Internet Working Group", you need to dig a little deeper and work out > exactly _which_ "Internet Working Group" is being talked about... > > Noel > > > > -- > Matthias B?rwolff > www.b?rwolff.de > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanjour at comcast.net Wed Mar 24 11:47:51 2010 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:47:51 -0400 Subject: [ih] IEN Notes and INWG In-Reply-To: References: <20100323204219.7E0906BE5DE@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4BA9D514.5080900@cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: At 10:28 -0400 2010/03/24, Vint Cerf wrote: >Yes, IEN was for ARPA-sponsored work; INWG was born in Oct 1972 at >the ICCC. Crocker declined to chair it because he was about to join >ARPA and I was off to Stanford about that time and accepted the >chairmanship. > >Eventually, INWG was integrated into IFIP as IFIP WG 6.1 with the >help of Alex Curran (then the ceo of BNR, Inc - the Palo Alto >research subsidiary of Bell-Northern Research). Right. I remember when that happened. > >As to funding, DARPA provided some funding to Kirstein at UCL but I >think a lot of his funds came from the EU and from the UK Science >Research Council. > >EIN had leadership from the UK National Physical Laboratory staff - >Donald Davies and Derek Barber. I am a little less clear on the >dates of EIN start - around 1975? earlier? It was something like that. Don't think it would have been earlier than 75, at least not much. I can ask Derek. We are in contact, although I don't know how often he checks his email. But yea, it was operated out of NPL. That is how the Swiss were involved. I don't know how reliable it is but the good old Wikipedia says it became operational in 1976. (You can tell your age, when you sit here trying to remember when that was, or where you have something that would tell you when it was. Then you think, "dummy, look in the Wikipedia!") ;-) lol. For the younger crowd, that would have been the first thing they did! I think I have told this before, but my favorite scene from this period was at the Ontario Science Center. We were all there for ICCC 76 (I think) and I remember turning a corner and finding you, Donald Davies and Alex McKenzie prompting some random 10 year old on how to set the levers for a mechanical "logic circuit" of AND, OR, and NOT gates to get balls to drop out the bottom. ;-) I remember standing there enjoying the scene and thinking, "kid, if you only knew!" ;-) lol I wished I had had a camera! Take care, John From vint at google.com Thu Mar 25 09:42:07 2010 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:42:07 -0400 Subject: [ih] IEN Notes and INWG In-Reply-To: References: <20100323204219.7E0906BE5DE@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4BA9D514.5080900@cs.tu-berlin.de> Message-ID: i had forgotten that incident - amazing!! On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:47 PM, John Day wrote: > At 10:28 -0400 2010/03/24, Vint Cerf wrote: > >> Yes, IEN was for ARPA-sponsored work; INWG was born in Oct 1972 at the >> ICCC. Crocker declined to chair it because he was about to join ARPA and I >> was off to Stanford about that time and accepted the chairmanship. >> >> Eventually, INWG was integrated into IFIP as IFIP WG 6.1 with the help of >> Alex Curran (then the ceo of BNR, Inc - the Palo Alto research subsidiary of >> Bell-Northern Research). >> > > Right. I remember when that happened. > > > >> As to funding, DARPA provided some funding to Kirstein at UCL but I think >> a lot of his funds came from the EU and from the UK Science Research >> Council. >> >> EIN had leadership from the UK National Physical Laboratory staff - Donald >> Davies and Derek Barber. I am a little less clear on the dates of EIN start >> - around 1975? earlier? >> > > It was something like that. Don't think it would have been earlier than > 75, at least not much. I can ask Derek. We are in contact, although I > don't know how often he checks his email. But yea, it was operated out of > NPL. That is how the Swiss were involved. > > I don't know how reliable it is but the good old Wikipedia says it became > operational in 1976. > > (You can tell your age, when you sit here trying to remember when that was, > or where you have something that would tell you when it was. Then you > think, "dummy, look in the Wikipedia!") ;-) lol. For the younger crowd, > that would have been the first thing they did! > > I think I have told this before, but my favorite scene from this period was > at the Ontario Science Center. We were all there for ICCC 76 (I think) and > I remember turning a corner and finding you, Donald Davies and Alex McKenzie > prompting some random 10 year old on how to set the levers for a mechanical > "logic circuit" of AND, OR, and NOT gates to get balls to drop out the > bottom. ;-) > > I remember standing there enjoying the scene and thinking, "kid, if you > only knew!" ;-) lol I wished I had had a camera! > > Take care, > John > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmamodio at gmail.com Fri Mar 26 13:51:06 2010 From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:51:06 -0500 Subject: [ih] Early days in Argentina ... Message-ID: <202705b1003261351i52ce88c3r2aee42fa2279c3e7@mail.gmail.com> Hi, just joining the list. If anybody wants to know more how we got into the Internet craze in South America, particularly in Argentina, feel free to count with me. Still trying to find enough time and neurons to put more in writing and make it available on-line. BTW, at what time is BINGO ? Cheers Jorge From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Sat Mar 27 08:22:40 2010 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 11:22:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] Some old host tables Message-ID: <20100327152240.379426BE56C@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> In the process of getting ready to try and correct something on Snopes.Com, I've been trying to sort out some early Internet history ((ca. '79-'80), I ran across a site with a number of host tables from the mid-80's: http://saildart.org/prog/NET/HST_NET/.browser.html I seem to recall that every so often there's a call for these.... Noel From craig at aland.bbn.com Sat Mar 27 12:42:38 2010 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 15:42:38 -0400 Subject: [ih] Some old host tables Message-ID: <20100327194238.5242628E137@aland.bbn.com> Hi Noel: This is great stuff -- I'd forgotten how detailed the old host tables were (in particular, the NET and GATEWAY entries for network numbers and router connections between networks). You can pretty much build a complete network map from them -- they'd be a great complement to the Brescia maps in the IETF proceedings. Reading the 1984 host tables and remembering how small the world was, was also a blast. (The 1983 tables appear to be MIT and Stanford specific). I also was reminded that my first host (LOKI.ARPA, BBN-LOKI -- one of the first SUN workstations) was initially on the CRONUS network, not 128.89. Thanks! Craig > In the process of getting ready to try and correct something on Snopes.Com, > I've been trying to sort out some early Internet history ((ca. '79-'80), I ra > n > across a site with a number of host tables from the mid-80's: > > http://saildart.org/prog/NET/HST_NET/.browser.html > > I seem to recall that every so often there's a call for these.... > > Noel ******************** Craig Partridge Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com Phone: +1 517 324 3425 From feinler at earthlink.net Tue Mar 30 10:12:29 2010 From: feinler at earthlink.net (Elizabeth Feinler) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:12:29 -0700 Subject: [ih] Naming and addressing 1971-1989 Message-ID: <79638F43-21A2-4060-A4DB-CFBA39BD11A2@earthlink.net> Dear All, I've been getting requests for this information, so I've written and referenced a blurb about naming and addressing which is attached. It is my recollection of what happened while I was the PI for the NIC project at SRI. Regards, Jake Feinler -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: History of the TLDs.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 25000 bytes Desc: not available URL: From feinler at earthlink.net Tue Mar 30 10:58:09 2010 From: feinler at earthlink.net (Elizabeth Feinler) Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:58:09 -0700 Subject: [ih] Jim White's address, fyi Message-ID: <6435AE78-53C2-41DC-B13E-446B9B933A7F@earthlink.net> Thanks to Dave Crocker who contacted Rich Miller, we located Jim (James E.) White who now lives in Hawaii and works for Nuance. His email address is: Jim White From craig at aland.bbn.com Wed Mar 31 05:39:43 2010 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:39:43 -0400 Subject: [ih] Naming and addressing 1971-1989 Message-ID: <20100331123943.6219328E137@aland.bbn.com> Hi Jake: A valuable memoir and thanks for writing it! Two minor points where I remember differently: * As I recall, Mike Karels never worked on BIND. Someone did a very rough implementation for the BSD team and then left and Kevin Dunlap inherited the code. Kevin probably still has scars from the experience. * .NET was adopted at a meeting 27-28 January 1986 at SRI (I know the exact dates only because the Challenger blew up the 2nd day and Ole Jacobson arranged a video feed into an adjacent conference room so we could watch the news during breaks in the meeting). One thing your note clarified is that there were two vigorous meetings about the DNS naming system -- the one you discuss that was held in DC in 1985 and the one at SRI in January 1986 -- many people have run the two meetings together. (Simple summary -- 1986 was mostly about email/network provider issues -- could we use one namespace across UUCP, BITNET, CSNET, Internet; when would BIND be stable enough, etc.; 1985 was about the core naming issues; naming issues came up in 1986 only regarding creating .NET and how to use .US and were related to issues of perceived provider requirements) Also a quick question folks have been asking me -- when did we have country code TLDs and when did we decide to use the ISO list? I think we had ccTLDs by late 1985 as .UK was active and Jon P. had assigned .US to himself (at least, that's what I remember). But I think choosing a list of ccTLDs blessed by ISO was done a bit later. Yes? Thanks! Craig > > --Apple-Mail-5--395826686 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset=us-ascii > > Dear All, > > I've been getting requests for this information, so I've written and = > referenced a blurb about naming and addressing which is attached. It is = > my recollection of what happened while I was the PI for the NIC project = > at SRI.=20 > > Regards, > > Jake Feinler > > > --Apple-Mail-5--395826686 > Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="History of the TLDs.docx" > Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml. > document; > x-unix-mode=0644; x-mac-type=5758424E; x-mac-hide-extension=yes; > x-mac-creator=4D535744; name="History of the TLDs.docx" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > > UEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQCVYItGlQEAACgHAAATAAgCW0NvbnRlbnRfVHlwZXNdLnhtbCCiBAIooAAC > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC0 > VctuwjAQvFfqP0S+VomBQ1VVBA59HFuk0g8wzgaiOrZlL6+/7+YBailKoJBLpMjZmfHs7GY43uQq > WIHzmdEx60c9FoCWJsn0PGaf09fwgQUehU6EMhpitgXPxqPbm+F0a8EHVK19zBaI9pFzLxeQCx8Z > C5pOUuNygfTq5twK+SXmwAe93j2XRiNoDLHAYKPhOwlwWQLBRDh8Eznx8LVxCU+MXOb0ZURoLHiq > ygrmmAlrVSYFkm6+0skBZ2jSNJOwry/QrDMSvKeb5Sran+Qi03cFPG/QkRqD4PrXl1EBN/GT0Ikz > 1pNpDs4XUPseFdUhOWDBYQb+JEay+HzCA+NhQ51OIDmRu+x6ZcrgYu4/Tf/t9jOkYqkweCkkVvlv > jlmdkiN1DpQ/L5+7vlBlmWG/yGxjV0pn1jD7AESKsL++Oz/Am+JRCkEadODl8/KpKGFaKSlGmqaw > g4vvkFsleNyqLgRUuO30nbXe18itElJawVMxU//YRAeL4chw1tAniDDYURSKDVFC70Tw8j83+gYA > AP//AwBQSwMEFAAGAAgAAAAhAMJgmvP0AAAATgIAAAsACAJfcmVscy8ucmVscyCiBAIooAACAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACMksFK > AzEQhu+C7xDm3p1tBRFpthcRehOpDzAk092lu0lIRm3f3kFUXFhrj0lmvvnmJ+vNcRzMG+fSx2Bh > WdVgOLjo+9BaeNk9Lu7AFKHgaYiBLZy4wKa5vlo/80CiTaXrUzFKCcVCJ5LuEYvreKRSxcRBX/Yx > jyR6zC0mcgdqGVd1fYv5NwOaCdNsvYW89Uswu1PSyf+z437fO36I7nXkIDMjcFqhZMoti4X3mD36 > r8ZKlQHnbVaX2/y9KY4s5EkIXcy8SFlzytJrsj9C6vKk1+Wz4pzQzeVC0+Xn4uGjcPDszytRSt9G > OPkFzQcAAAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQDoewF9kQEAAMwGAAAcAAgBd29yZC9fcmVscy9kb2N1 > bWVudC54bWwucmVscyCiBAEooAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALyVzU6DQBDH > 7ya+A9k7LNRaP1Lai5r0YEy0PsAWBtgUdsnuKOXtHdqiVCsmBuVAMkOY+c1/Zmen802RO69grNQq > ZIHnMwdUpGOp0pA9L+/cS+ZYFCoWuVYQshosm89OT6aPkAukn2wmS+tQFGVDliGW15zbKINCWE+X > oOhLok0hkEyT8lJEa5ECH/n+hJtuDDY7iOks4pCZRXzGnGVdUuafY+skkRHc6OilAIVHUvAKVk+A > SMVZCitMChiyjtMjWsaPg4yHBEm0RqWRxHzHeHf1QZwPCQEq/sTQevoQJkMiZNRak0u1/tBh3+eq > qjyTRC7EErXZzk5jShXDxsuQ+rRX7l7HNB23GwSjxLfdu/gf6kLIvBDKK7VFyHcTL6nExs+lahgB > 3UxaqqluJjRwHyLUKzDcp2cy/kVpdEKHOyHNFIJptQ3Zzg76BuLq7/OP+vIHtLOGFEDhUqxy6Gqw > d/VSBENSIC3QDsHW5Nt3bysGZbBY590FtbP7NBgNKYH9sqhbT4vAD+6g2RsAAAD//wMAUEsDBBQA > BgAIAAAAIQBItIzbyS8AAECgAAARAAAAd29yZC9kb2N1bWVudC54bWzcnd9SHEmS7u+P2XmHHF0h > swLxR2ohzTZjCFCr1AJhgm6tnbukKoEcVVXWZGaB6Kt5h706ZueY7bPso8yTnN/nHpGVVfwRanEA > 27VZNVJlRUZ4uH/u/rlH8G9/+zocJGdZWeXF6OcnK0vLT5Js1Cv6+ejk5ye/Hb5dXH+SVHU66qeD > YpT9/OQiq578beN//o9/O3/dL3qTYTaqE4YYVa+Hxc9PTut6/PrZs6p3mg3TammY98qiKo7rpV4x > fFYcH+e97Nkw7cUfV5eX1/l7PnoSxjjjDXNjFONsxAuOi3KY1tVSUZ7wjfLLZLzImOO0zo/yQV5f > PGOsn+Iww7Ofn0zK0eswj8VmHvrOaybw+mw4iA8z7euf9Tm/9v/Eb5S3maR/ZTvIyKb3rMwGTLgY > Vaf5uIqjDf/saMjjNA5y44Jbiz0f3+Zt/TI9RwGGA5/2eVH2x2XRy6qKf932D+Obz1eWbyFADdF8 > 4zZTmH1nnElbV86ljnPK0mx0W+E01HQhbPwGyntU9C/033Fy/hrl73/6+cny8tuVl+sraFH4p+3s > OJ0M6suf7OufflpeXX/zxgYb75ca6+89vnmWDn5+UuYnp/WTZ/rH0j874i/Pwt/4b/iGfe2KJ85f > 1xur68luWvZOk9XllWV9t/YR7M/x98/dvjE/0R72m5XfnKlm/N/gjbcT/LuPB4fJ4eabDzsHneTw > 437yYef3nQ/J9sfdze5esre5u3Pw/387bjfVzb3txzKVw3c7ycdP3V8Q0ce3COsw2fq4e7eTy0d9 > DGyQHWOSi6+WXWunRjfV5Si826jtPmjeGPP1lv8j1oPZx4Fn3qYxW8Z//rr6IwLIyrpWx/zD5/XG > ziD/Iz3K6tNk4X36JXuavM3y0SAr71bEN0mTybRmfNNcP2V1Xmb9ZJs/e3VRJsVxUp9mycGnbrKX > 1QDyl6Q7cpeOO0wOLqo6G1bJlqHRI1yRwpPX1Tjt4XLGZVZl5Vn2ZGMTfXyEk93Y70aB73W3Ejz3 > 39mFZOXVy+eLK6/WX93BlIM6mx9ce762jTF+w0C+xyQv+13zpN/nqk1V9Ue98bYshklaJcdpmRyl > vS/6GWmsmE5uluN0lNVX6qXrY7KAGJ8maZ0cEAijtf3kEypgvrk7quq8ntRZsjAqzk3Bu/KoI4vz > 0kGC8qP1TzvJoOilNTaRj5LdbDQokn2i2E6ylQ5yhhzlaSdRdFPz/zwla4kze1dUdXKYHg2yJfzR > aV4lZkDnrKKXlmXO48WkTiajflYmvWJUlynbXRc2CLLMRhWD9c/SUY9Hm6nvu15UyeYJEf9FsrC9 > +Wl/8+lSknxgoqV9u0qHWcJo+RkhdjL/xqMLe0hKxhJmXrdVDIeTUc6SFe5OX7G1iSAxG60vTm07 > rdNG/Avb23tIC8A4P80JftqCyM7Ah0k6GFwkR1lPUyMlSarsRFnI0h2o9Q+p2dUY8SZDNFkjJ8sK > clvC3G5Pd7mTvCkGdfImK1FMlBVx7WXnw3QEZvaWkoU3b/aettVpKx0elXn/JOsQMFZV2judVFld > V53EduyyXthGS0GAhrO8zw7zCsZPT3yiUfFMk48BPTSWcfkUnVEWUJRVstDd3a/YKdvN6VDt/YpQ > /3HMUlwRGov6uCVNYyko82TQxySr/GSUpMkoO09OpfFa7+5+Mi7KOhlNhkdZ6S8jncx4sPpiQq1y > bC+ta1ZNbmL/ZN9WcohZopVuBwzVQaUw4pEUh2miz/bmQf6FvxeoFOY0GGR95rXDf0fJ56ziuXzI > KHxPcx1PjgZ5dYoZpUk/q3plPsY2soR/rMO3k+O8rOqOzWRGJS9FAS3grDcOtA7wpZ7Mf6nlc/O5 > mKC66lnLxy87K5/jwkrYMhJRCVTbNT/IbKwyM8u4o6asNts/MYVVplBrJyQ1RGm7IunWp8WEvMm0 > 1reUT9mZjM2VLrAx3ZEj9352cnKR/JqWY23Nbl5jY1tFibKYomFCWV9I3TKJYBPV5OSEfbUtdGID > POdRsmlDsdS1rza8TRbWOs+lqAa76Iamw9bnVW+CwhK6OEod5yOzaUIDEkYeA+UlWkHjEXHaibQF > /TYPoA8iDvjLTCXL7AR5lBcNlkYzXHjRSX7SJDaZoZTLhp7ihclrVNSYsIwgS8os7Wv6ycLLgLYZ > vsHmjpLz2VhTBL1NsGZBWlc1yeskr6tmnPpinFW8dz+TIW1nkxpCRfLWCv49K4uvODE82eaAbzd+ > JZq4PbC4v/kJ38nYUeq28xqgtQBmFbci/4OpOR4BTJdXtI4gDoNkga9eloWV9TM2QVCGUxjwk9yp > iWOxEUd8RyPh1hTkls2jK0xKFl49fXB/sjEFR9TzPEVNu8Ox42HeCp6RvcSJqpmeutI5tCkYsFiA > z22bGSgpeLpEQV3npcMjF6I+nN0YENMgEn4wP5azD3tv+to7LSpAUkGBlC8dSM4X0nzcT/AL+gJK > NSS+IsaysOVkgsfRBqFZKLReaFFGDc4m5/zP3lhm/5hgpfaxvY2AIE3qrHeqoGKAilsYzvIMf8O8 > tEahfBGdSo95Vclh87UPeZpXxagtKD5PBxVWPQF+SlM/LKNxkb0CFMG65WXMS3qIZhMz1Gdil8bH > O64sP03Ca8JLTVJabtwVyTsdXcgLY6ykP+c52Z2eaMAPEeNK9GKJWR+NCyag8Kg9SpSthRTZSIFe > J5mMT8oU2Okk+VBONOV77V1Pj49JC4RNeguPmSfnFXKIPnVAVe/FoC4s1IorwZ/blzrJEYFnmvB3 > pMqU5MktOZLY49Na59CDILPOzL774PZ1dbyGgznIwEfFG5YyJe8Ldv+UmS/w09NkH2Flg+Tv7IMg > FXltTiwANcdzGQaJ/hcNA9FR5b8Cmnb8v2miVlAfdlgPBQyVwbEvbgYyEJSbpzxsi+FOO/wOLoMh > yS5MTZjzv/75v6ug0FIayw6amD7Myl6OC1Biq71LsVkTAZqmNUbH/5nUXS/+pSwmYxKjz7+4d5xm > KxqJnGgw0ErlTUiUUB+wF7crxc3OisFE0SCz3JX+T626n/VyeVUlNqDBsfI2e/vnX9wIMjRyUnkK > kFfVRL4Cu2jsGyDiJR7GsRWGIeR9KKASErIEZlAmn95uAT6NG4mCb3wy4FIAJUXLF+srZtRuJkg1 > OU3xoRlxpgfNk1Hz/ayvL2utTH64FIKWVWmSLeN3TJgft7LyWGgFiB4ByvF5QJBVhk3/bUR4WTIZ > DPC4lSzq8w8FidXoJBuw5IXftj5sEldFoYy0SCo5JKeKWuZDvBtiys8ZW/frqDjHEIreF5B7z4Lv > 7wr0ENUKXj/ZJFYvbd3BXoIFyMl2EvRKCpmPtI8htJZyTcZ98JZ9lWfDMgxn2Wf3U9Fe7F9bKaH0 > 6oyBJFzTmvlF3xDXblr2wZf/xFptHgsrqx5qTRfELIhrWlme8NWXZsEX2hCUcBqGIJPinDURmUsr > W1/GJ6FoGsL8NxbqqOBuf0cRsk0EoOprx9NqDLqbweE/kSrvehfHNnULEJAjaBtLf7gPRv3q1Mx8 > PFD2hyEr0dbenZjde0qpf3M/GWGlk+BIbcuYvXDHnIO7twfH+w2g/f0EKEL5XiSUFT1VIJjw1Ffw > EGywoV4MGqgOItCCXXGNnDIXN7AcFobAu5QFcTghkI1UhFfNvl31yxSsAUranElw6oKdNYGsi9qh > taUYaZ/dVeLgkZBtRQHvZNOVdwr8llTnWBuHhaAXZCrOYOFMiBOGAsSuT/PvEwKvUQHFALiUenIM > JOdKKGKI2E8vFutikf9MlzInO8bblIpGtRKOS4PkrjQX/V0R7t7HLUMBuSWcoLCvAbHISpi9bG9t > JixSwau5Y5PHo9AqFOqlgZxKE7ZIbF+AZ4uchfADqDqWAPo3xJ/55xk6vJfDyGGXLXbxt4Otxe5B > 96nFD2lJREpKOcDHXcAhKoZ4o/gcsDQbNgOXhOeBLWBpkP8UeMybYdygvvLUnEo98eLggoHltaS9 > QXkAIpO8eS5Cfg9L2dUWadd1dZdn0yTGTLeXj7G0fHRGVJ+fpPKPC/viReeGtrVER6n1iBhS4kYg > 9L64AI1Y8qgY9AlYZ7C2zV/Nobkv2lRRb8O3CfGCRLWOHNXWRE03fQd9OFfTqZiCODxhCIaHxvpj > hL9EV7LjPoHa0qRK+oUMtZOcDIojVt/dJ/nuY0+samB8MLGOBxRlQQr1hxC1BUbR2rKvgBXQTLYz > sDFJ2QzTk+pChROo272Dp381swrEqFbD14d8YSYaibHPbpaOpuueLrDlVmxnzKnKJzdelVcBCU5V > IA4jRnrogSiFFPwfZsbnpOURpIxgrRqDb1Jbn7P5CP5GJeIl0PYct9lCMHQtRJzzmvunpWiQwlRG > 1XFW2l41CXMDPCwkgpUnWFEbWuIMIhd2hV2UXIIoPPgPOSTBWty6gL7PYLUlQgw/q6PUGhY/6lr8 > ktTQiR6M7VBM5wdSa3APhuJCJOHpwLXGSDwROQcT7AJlA7V/zcsv47Qu894XvYi18h3w6EuWjYm9 > s/ICmLANRXtGvdNOopykN5jIM5jhoZ0SjJgs5YxsSZRG9PMar2ceRhbKa3kDVChfRDjDjOrf6CSk > s0A+02heIcV3nIpjEcyDZJQ9BsSDJYYjkcMgyGlO9WqAeaAYfOl4YrybcIc0X6k+P0Z/qIVJ/Xjl > rjhkE3FYQHsr9J3UILpOsmPkbqPbQigyU+3oMy1fDg1H6YjSq/HXLvYY4SS9jLSaKqyWzw4wwSuV > 5OGd1CFw0DJyw1wQ2BZ8QRxgWw6+lDglEXD/+uf/OUa5/vXP/5tsHmx1u6RYX0U+Gk6CnadiDICi > cwpZaCaRRZOqdTtBd8/yNHl7COsupXBN1T9FXdpThnegfBNPsPKik6z8xP+/JNJpwlQ92pq1NMZz > BXZevoqSF4mmjagJRbPEcXoKdaSyGM9mX0UT2nMRf62WayhcC7h4iJcNhVJ6KYVeJT6nZnVV3HRF > xQqCCJ+yAfUpU0HCpLSkMiLbrYBbtNhkw4iw2VLjkAUz1TKrcaibdBuF3FaBWIXAQ+nPmRupEUCK > Kg/4oNfalZYsWsknTXhwFQJekzS0hPrsiCACc9TP+0bQeW6v5VkiZamB/oZ3YYccEgJAzWROt2mi > uOOK7dXUzKHwwb3SV0pAlQovLSbexEb1SHlljueB/BVTmI6JcJUesSNXWqd2qImXLM+Xwkoy3Z29 > wBOwj9M3YSzKkArGo/+RhMigqKcCjma4ZNugRxpY5Q1mahrd4g2mU2Xw8yuis+HPq6JDEYM6FBWN > bMBLeT1cAdrLNGYDyGncqM8pEn6BACAI7IPtA7Ian/pve91/XzxKK/76pru3LQoQihGdcEeFrDQy > vpzXvxPpyjD9pDeA0gXNjIiMQdg+PXC2JH0D12Rwfi6CZyAbySmtI6+QlRoga5sUtxW93MKCwGsy > 3dlpUAYS2aBxr96ZyjmYgC15aUSj8lq2nmk8tJpuhBAyQRIu9uBLUDWSOagqWhbE6YaqZk7KGdXS > Q8O4bmtUZUmHiGLuk1aEh6SQoXAH15xTsNJepf1iDIR5ID1VAoIC27hdOJx0nOGeTfPEjNtWo5Js > sKUentMzclwOP2pPlEkgZRummhwNc4NK8o4yJc0Rv4QagWXMR+iXSp0CkiZC935ZjMUM2yuFL/ai > VpogDTMU5WUNz16ULga5dPn7HmysXqQZ6QXhG1Iml0UKFdeWrMfEDtrhEWwXAcBVs02MKtiFYSLK > oRI2QVmlwBZCRO6cJZ1LNflveH42SJUNqOOCkB+7Al9ZLlKQogYPI95dwzonfsQ7xsTBUpMCKIF6 > LzHGWBQJsdL034GsuuiRxqsmZzU4XmdZB5+oZM86hvqRH1hEaj3QYnK0EaxEBZJBeoHQmamTcMMJ > oDMFMWxPumZbKbFqH6bVbRa9x+CBBF9fkyAo3+DZqXNaDpEsJuvrq7bEdT5fWHnVoVFVaIYOA5cG > pOaGg+8vs7NccMTQHvqvriytrj6CMlsTbrBGISQ5GdNMj1i/C6nldrWjFmpow50tL2+M9T0SaTYN > q5TYLVueHWsmj9BmRIVDUYz+CN/7qwYorakEttctAFUwMgt/6HyLv2KKtvZSNVbMYYva9GXibJnl > vlKEWYg2vegrL2Xqv+KT3qXkUGp6kn9CGtsp6kjuQc4rf6Rw/8FhuTtKaGlCJO5bqIFBaXRUNgFH > +F9AlQARo7ymISf6zzYLaHaBsC9TH1q5ZQEB8LVhwgGEFED0ryL2RY+4DtXFmAfw0HELFg4/bD+d > yx4lzss7oHdFZSjdfcvKpQ/tlCZml65xLbIG2kxDtFvFpmrY2nyLD3kVls7Qnn8ySfgWS/bpnWvP > xNTSk7ks4TEU1r3GEY+PRo48jWmhFp0omU7kjyD0OsnewVuXEKUk/6G7cxj+6XJd1Z/YNlolmX68 > 5XVuZO0bgzZf638sAw1OUNlwE/TUxQndtWQjMj50ZDAAAyRwmVWWUokqKB5hMsa1ytTwWtDtJ5ll > wk0GBDfVuHV33nxRD8sA2d8Ht49ro2uyWFgSzAG/3Czn6lSwhYlhdTM+WGpMgPwlaQoIsf6ndC8E > FodTDZ55s7W4oEY4dncWa0mysLrWWaVktPpCLuYDoY9aGMyTLK6vm3hFscQ+nCFJqbn51orCPDW1 > hVVyzdWXS5SotieQk9431n6WqYmFibwCpi33Z9BvSWBFivwf9lptd9Q6dphqX+2eOpZ6tPVSx5js > 6mHch96qIERBulTLCzeJhsO6pSuhByJo9TkhgSvdDL5e6iprHUsJvePzXWPBfDantJv6+Zomvfnh > rYf2ap2pZkPwPzGXX9QN8h1vlCass3dEG2vL/P/KIwggdqzAjTYaIkxqg4OptgFKgWnCx3h927yq > 6ShIbGy6qZAqHHyPCNKGmjprApGllDoO8OdQQj+XHJnReSTwhLdSp2lkEibTslIDNULJOjogjQT6 > GUUSwGnGhIOTpN90xvQaSK/0cvwmeBEJF7UBjek7yHsTSBFyk1OCXiIeKTcgaksQuuqZENKT0zWz > RlDme/Q9TERxcqnG9ZhJCpamqSTtBHQtL1HYp72ZQr+qFcGThAqTFYyyXgaAWyEJqMdhAe7yhrSH > DsgwOFEY82+lGjGiSkcjyHy1Syug+q//ZGcJA7w1SbH8XMox3SltQ0xAzPCZi0VzgYXwGGGcFaQN > AJhKGw4/7j3z8r/+s004Cgp8oUkFnQQ26O3qBWMguLRivDgTVVhYyndwyA/uZjYkfw+MIFCFsYUm > DqZaaVnSEWSnmqw7bvOmelJxhT6LfU1aVkivXIlQKQ6XDhLpFmdi5A362ThHWTQsn8xUVMW6QUF7 > KkbsJOqF0GygiNA7r3Iot55ayxE4fifSvR5LhUY3lNPinKQLm6O6J2VXo5ahwH1o03IoGMsfUDar > ZRBq0NolzXa6mt2xAskJxmKzdwmYGnoDrK2hHdqZAk1XFaQi0hDiXeYDl6es1qdrnaBRAgAB3UsT > 8eojvVlqjIgumv5x9K4Rl5myJtI3OtAkzBR5HjP1PXATsIUeZRkpAFzEaFyMZfDBsIyh1yZWweKd > q8zodhDRZauTEw4+0KkPzzMsUJfRFdof8tVA4HrLoluZIIJJ20pOBLUjhezeidZeeifJlk6WFF8+ > vCUcTlM2SqPmyFEOjkijwvRZFbQZ0z7CqheETZLX8aRE7Gh102nsHMFTcjWiX5oCDovhU8vGROzw > LDFqbI4cwFvHcFxGuO8lfnVbASaW4Xy0s9iUYHc/UoBzs1FYRnXOO3XbqOR6D/JYVpX3UO06O6FZ > EqPEC3kLtGlLg5BkjL4ltlmBHKxEQUgtsv4Ej8bu8ScG59avI7sGb33ADS1EaMYumWrYMKi7MtFz > qlKGElPXEaDZ9BIxYrEQmSaVOGVM1xWHUTEEevj5q7ebH8krGtGC5tnHUwhgQlTL/N9lAWFeTFWt > GhT6vBXGlFWvcAEwCpyySH6QhvmQMUyAF2xP1JPGoSqqzhp91nRdG93CZuZLOuijmbSeVMpnIh7q > aLE71FQH9y9adNKMA5++FOF5cNIaz1gL3wjpHHbp7UjsgVJ8Fd5PmH0/elz9Q2TS9QX7i7Vbqdj2 > WUX+QExp4taKhGoYYLJI45Lx5LE4KJVTMwjwpMqQ4vhVjGDtqasCQ0BCC6uM84pWwGxCYLOHCJ1e > xCxCS2JgFw2FbANm6CzRla9Wl3mJKs5qbYnUbCSmBET9CW45ZtcCqV4I5xbWSDxm4tRHUxbxZgsT > lMVs1q1kAiB/pQBGUZi/wZ0XtEWofhW8npvDcXpGay772Rg3SiLripR0iE/NB0G8O7CnlwL/GzoK > ScU4RFQXM+ILh0mvO6yijo8+0UJFaYam8rgl3VBC/yumH/rkAgcm6CdaLOhdsRMEqCuEywnJrHjy > 5nhBGK+FeEu0OWKPKCtSmsbSTTPnzEyMYs04nGV4xBdob2jiMn0ffKKkR0Ti+Hl9YSMsL+BJRKko > dIdUaL4BAbAcIkOf0fWjWlPEHkNft+vI/XDKUKxyKFBid372hGY+8MjSElkbhyCdhry0NBOCkLP1 > DjyCr9CWDKhpLk0iY0lM46zUPqSP1d7vLL7KA1MAxxkLfHe2f+NseDtoivwWJu+LFTKFTAWO6A2G > aNGvAfzlh/EkzcN6fxPR4PmcRz9o9OmgzmimQY1/sVbGhf2Dg1+e3jy8Ik0PPjrJ5t5BjCSvmQyy > a55uQeuM9j8AeGw0LT9gLOEfIRSuWBlaZtE5JkGsgD7+ppMh9URHHkjhCDOiQ+jbSVMrTk/w0eRA > dA6ALzp898W3exO4JHZM6BgAZezYsd5CKNyjnNK49ZDS6CPX0DILcbcKWRKahbYhTTJHgFQNe/js > hM46IruGtdYwpLJmcXYQ0ar9IVMkaJG7JdkjWHWPNhnHRLK1OL1UqgMNydBNluvgOqLXIJiS+BkM > SyYV8lMlAXZCwigzZKhQu24NRthl3dsaXrxOe1l68hjAHeTEz82Uq/oCnMYa+1oqQ/Gnxfg+hB2k > YZYHAi4wXw0F0XDktNr9YpgvdWreYg6bTjyhoeBU2Um7BzZmDCG7YPiPvA1iKIZJercDjZHQ5Eof > MQW22SxMflj56Rh3Slir2dkhgBD6Kaa1vlIj2Y69EQtFMZlVrMPY8oTaN3Gj9uJIhfCL5IsEZvmS > 0QSBe9MDHstY/wjvZv28MrjCSrVsNkkv1Lml89MLi0CkKN9qbWKUmLdCcCiK0w6kfS9eMWhvoI5E > Ow3lB1m8K+QvD27fsV7vfJIZzdQqhqC/tt0y8EbPpCwKn5qoy0hPN8tocOqN4AzBKLN+MpcwDVoK > Qsm8z5UESjPQA4LRI1VSOJXnp5Y5SqmE3zhgwwcCOpuXeqzi0XBzKxK5B7byLAQM8l0XYyQd7cjm > aZqB1xLqiEWCJ6Ci4jUYNi7Z9I6fpg12lxPkKU8sqLfiqQ6IcjEPit/q6rucNTkKesiKnnXN2Ylv > 4XBaOCnH7Bz8A7EXWt4MGAjINXlzMbE+ovAHmGAxocbAZA+tdc575RyKM8wHk/icVrJ3nRDhb0TG > L5jDEUfm0EfTcdDUWutLUjmr0MbXOPdGoy20lmdfXcVE/jH4joZAGlyoe6kzX8zDyxZIaus0Bygg > Gq0bJQpMIALUzB66C4QMPdyuPsHSXfGU8BpFPkwviBk8El1ZlvdfWQ0I+ODx9MahTVOpDc5hSGOh > TB1N74tqj7Sjdt4P5iHCsNPsw1wxdEo96r4zzIwB1OuBfkFOxDNL1vzLgL00HmLCesgR2fGSzFC4 > Vk6seqaoywr/pieGXOhDc5AvzMMlr6k4tn0hIMXcLojxYshstWZ8gJIt0Y2CRhEo2Ky3ItvRvCMt > nsZkOwwfv1r0mCd6y2rfaY6E3DrBQvBQGIUnDg2M5kSmPAMm+Xfvm9MyfOy4COlhUNYIU211s4Wb > ijVKRBjLm7ABgYsdEKXN6cz6xm03tGa9x9WZGWpcCSGKmAnJwkzy/GQTPqLL2qU8sKY5zReyAGhj > YbYHDIRShDOyJ5MLdy3tQascb42zPqHDOaiBXqtpNuck4xwmYx8PP5aL1TClcVvA3/EV2G/xGZXH > NAIOouXM6Tf5aFWexbI/ClOJyh/QikAiWIaHk4QrfrkKu4IG1aesvYmjQpYW63MhEjNFFDxF3oje > RZ60oEBMT8xrDPxlnJbj277HmoqFNTe19zEL2In4wkKHk92nNBTC5Q4lKRZ7gQs8wirscXcyxndZ > gKBH3NMySZEnbD8O0BfjZyQDIeG5nHWIOfnpDiwknN2Q0SY7I+rmITWxnu+3FJtpEVQ5XDXPhcYJ > zGKzatB22RLtiodvI5fXqsIvrP30VANwVvDinAM7YSu0aUiUIzx8tiMiybk1Dmx+PaUB23ZXPFZ4 > XqvjyY9ukRpI7b+ye6l+NE7FviYMjirIqCbWoStjjVtfpTkxPlVlHTSk+RxXNuSABPFhM7FoAZKx > ha6NGagh2bYTnelxYsheMb4X6/Cbu9beLq8tc0cm9IUuDbzc9zpzM5I/LGok3Pd3niM0KlY1x8J4 > 0u4KDPeYcXagOBApuL1z7Sd785/0FeJ+EiPYRVazA4bqL40MIEn8aFn/175aLN7LdDMfI0yMHIVo > zsbq0GKxkrNs7pRWNE7XrFxKooq6HeyNfZEUYqiNYD4WTSkSRWXUNMOR6yM8i3rw3MXhPqjWWTee > GXDheqt5eWbu+YCmQwLj3tAQl8H1aiMkjfwgMLK2WNxFm1xv2mMalZ5yjPMAgRnMRPuX6t5BS1qc > 2Dd2gVuqrq6wb5O5xQWx8L7ocwt9xfOElctdR3IoZG+LurpjtpYlZt/p9/CMta/JdavFXImezE3Z > JNidp36aKD5KOh4qB9ymITGqSWHKkhNtxsHbNwy0B25yTdiA8D4d/pkX5W2Ikf/mlngbETxe3Gnh > CaBjIDmzX99lExtdCM1wpNJzoVcoDEY/b34a9RoLEurQHK0I/r2ozV8Iy/N08QME1+Jmj5wKxSdq > DDcVtg8VhqiuCUICMT495OXObeXVqxVeEA87YkFwHFSiFdYRQdB7LbPFtmLd3iBJlSELdmVy9gXq > 0ixuU8wR4bmKcRQvu8nCXrg45SBcm1D9TaVCeqvkkQ3cwsT0Mnw4wBBiC4BBd1chgHvxkJeV0jb7 > hr3Zg1cDncmViNQF03D14qfD/M174G4QSxdWG2LdiCKkE5M1lIJDNdwxrUMBMxTDGQkV9XylJxbI > IQi2fRDaVa7Sn2u6peDIQMqrvnCdwoWkpV3Bb3RIO8s6bXfDKr2HMOzmtDxOR/W63ddobWroPH0H > yAZENs1SXHTBz2x6WJpZBkKK532c2g0RGB37rANVVQVMh6ziYW8YMsVSUxKRQpAUy6rqsQHDfbBo > zOnrZh0AMZ/Fb9rLdDC001iM65vrNdLWsFHlpfDsrCxF6+lRuCZUCZkR38VcZ9yMctDQBIPOY1Y+ > siQafKHLlHaF+ApL6QldOBCFl8JT+hfdtodQIQIAH4ZDV5lIJXJ/H43ZvSe+UoBCrQALjs1S7VAo > GJ9XbsAB1m+Bh04XWJXcq1cxwdYUrhOipKE0OtJJTaLbarqme3bacd25dCI0sjtMI0Q3SGmJlycL > ChPiLCiBshyzL/v36YxMNdi3fMQVrVDTZ1YdtCGYXpPP+cYa1+MoJqbPWI9AVhuIZX7dwEjhPq9W > 9N4yAMa7RKL4meSmB127p90VUWn9yXO8RmQVhB6MzJNuTWHNbJytsT9t8myGNhKbYHB62lTRKNIy > CiQVuSmT6Z0WxEhMdZPj+OzM3PkA9to0rJHs3P42OiAdF8skO2wY9ev0CuXVsRfemnzmhOuUBPc8 > WcT09B5MMXOovRb6l788EA39zYszQwzgV8XGwOCywwiffMe9ssQYN16wHt81M4FWEHI0d6XiPpd/ > H2x96u4fzkD+nwvKvimWyxL4lsv8GJ2+H9vteuoUerGUPjm9hBUqsaIlzktpcjiGtoG4ViMW+u4c > mpIja1rDXqzw1k6MzLACa9+DQDdHO9d1GWbBGSsmwCCcuOBqTHhfg5l++B0ITpHahSjB9cXQpn35 > xRa6jd2FO3dBKfWJuOuLdSe8fkBdC6v8SgWZoRFH3MaxrEngPxUt7uNU8CP9UAXjMD324kLCoRla > BfAgqfXWveAr7etamljGhPadJjWkOEUaJFZcLyL4SEMJxfJYrBcD1QFcog8AlHoGRRDri4Wbt84A > XQoBHCvuEzEp/xqmMi3IskpBX1gpyTHlAUhaErauDhzOhsVJ8npR0K0OO53ot4lwbsdSNZFSUeKh > NxZHy+SaiGLMEUEywFjZhquxfdT7t+JFqu/QEl2JtUseOrGj0ru68CJlnr/nOnZLDUdN8dOr3tZe > LCeUj76a5m16OEC8dkyQwDL0OpvmPybQ7bS98c8IQowrj7qDvukch7XP4dONalfN0Q5nmwpo3tD5 > TLPVKBIjJr8eEll1CSPxtrqODJVD5/iaTYHFy40TysTeotC6ygGRprFDB0SwBVV/ie48brNDhdbQ > L8XULPiIMQmyzJHxJ0Es9ZuRlcIlkrAvKivbkbnZ1fhc5TRn0Oj89Sn5fUmbxZekfJ33+YUT3b79 > 3grMXpvEb3KxC7lF/LRysM3lly9ehk8cNcsDKzUHeuhdHLXNEOkG7fBrNs7Pz5fK496iXyliv4tF > f0Vbsq9Lp/VwMDNLMLOZ5hTWNiT54+SimPjua+VsDeqAQQQ95CfdNUCnuF+wYNJzEbviwv4YFSsR > RyUWvCAoDezhixcUQaGmbCLLmOi0vj2kPkGof88NdfknzKLdMtweNdmaEBEyoRC4XDYHbqGbDBVI > EGCFkU91OQGjoF4QpY80+XKoEOkaY2raI1glvdChQ0GR0OsrjhHP38PTOrl+RV3x2ngVkXOzCdXl > guvOdINJ6+oSXfZzZbIOzJRpfsKsStyNX3qtg/MHREvvi9MRgDBXuuT9oJiK0rpW7XcsMtmym/e2 > uSKFamtdqSz6Lsv7uf2Z8bfNQfY12e0Rnv6Rh4YEKYV3pUQkt9sEvW1s76ZigvOQ1kSN93TYIN8y > 9wHOqE88kuNfRq444dLEYM0CiasdXkg1ownItGo/If0PHRwG3RyzhTJNe7CmgANErQGvv2ASrgDW > QQgwFyg8JkKQql6MaWZgvhxLFdeB6bBij2bN0coPnmcQ0SoIBAxnNvN48M1fIuNhGmnqq5XNW7Ls > 4WEhTGDZr/olFt8XJ7bGvCK8FCJ+2nm782lnb+tOfhfMn4gT7+crU9i+mp5OVthktdaurr3gpwPp > HOWteoJ27yyBp/ECdS7kVp/AG4gBWdsuTVK6ZnUJ5Xm58t1acjls/hPi+ObaVuPaXuinGKtaH9Lt > 1ki1TKyUlvhIfUCyFte4+pP2L3RJhvMvwh1b7nDEIQXK/Ozq/lKyu2QXrwtoazweTSLj6X3rd7CX > 39wY0mLud3IVetQa9DxK9/lLftovaSomGiSMh7hDtmiRNTlPzzFcK+ClB5LwY1dgoY7hz0tp8q4i > MHzilYL9BB7xv+DvySpR4JmLmDvf764uA9GtlFdSXeEY62MAvw0Z/qapIDEGjXzFIOe3wYgt1O+D > kVS5dMvic7X+znCTrWAqkXiDbN/fBdrdSpCf1WBlrib8Nixl0lxjx7kvdaAoaL9yo7kHFuB4YTuw > dhez/SH/syF0MC02yuGz0hgCw1Nqpqp6EB82pxHiwRqDZe0XiIHor1Ts+4JiQnHoD/U9b2e9pWSV > atijcHkb60GsPy1Lx9+pKGEiAyIW/VdEfFiSQwu/2aJz1e+04ICxEVJ4Pk4N3ZdI9Rs1WiJFnGt3 > 8OofU1KRaVLSn1alrvPXAoZQIagkIcI2UcKkD5agG4SCmGRjolOTvINF3QonpipK0mkhw/M7ePWP > yXNlecnk+Uo+bBvexm6oEp+ELDmG8Axhq65B6Ym0SumnVbKbTPZAMuZWFS5+79zBYm4lR1013GEj > jx5H2LWxQv4hnVxbXUWI6iijWGKXGPvV9f57o6ql5PdnlvSbHvpvcAiS8xVFrVh9eF+wwkq0pJdr > MrjNeJVxWAm8CJAFkol+bm4wZvrzF0Krn/vMdunlI1jTGlkDKQTXy/ShjhVbzCj8C8seQ8FcLEs8 > pmynRexCmg53TPW+eEPY+6Xdu1jT7TTeDvR8tp588SU4uaUtbKC5Sf4uZvJDQHJ1Zr5C7iE1Wlle > W022/cKkeHDOCE16jnX3SsfSOQ5B+q3CU2gWw2ZuncXeG7wEnV1/DDoLLEuA68JpJLjtXL76Lyz4 > 8rtg1Xhil6VLN3huztP9ym22qhX5hWmd5H8h6Mn9ofXvxOQeIV+9rwH21h8D7ClEc3mLU1Kw5rGa > l/3hledEOV3bnMynS703tW3bSiPTO3j7D+HCxkpMK9blUxQ96HdXP/v87mP34GZ5PmywZr+8KEJP > I87HirMxyaABm5rBHWz67dxS8mdLct+k4G/iNDbuYhemC9xYiUkFd4miosFPmeG/TtRkoDYY70zm > DJ2OqFobFzkb5j9ztW2Mhe5vA24KutYfnlS4OixYlTMzmGWKlwTenb0lesa5ifqdF/r9CTturxre > rg11H4HUN7jV1gVM4PV8VsDWHRFau67S6XnpxjXfn5RvFO4jiMksywtRrWXNHtd6oKDek9nuPuMC > v6XE9yfduJ836/BjELOgwUFC2txG5XCRAhxrvC7nVhnp/QnZCIqYRjw8Cm+sxhrQ+iuFYzOyDL+9 > Jx+2r+a/Ua73J8croeA9p1Hhdtef30UY8EPB7TXezUBhey/ZPamXkjcTOrTovEoMNmYk3+YVWgm+ > Dt2T4G/dY8YrMICm4T7aRyHXDdWBdfUiEmyL8LnCs3aPDX/dP1VjJVe9wFeKntztftjbOYyd+ALl > e1PXWdxnBapGOGkT9tRIG8OFVRP1+oOr8IZ49ODMBLNBfJJblGFbTT8vbS9x8fEfNMB1WpX3pftj > E66RJ3r78g42+ofgYGOVNEyyfGW9GmJrYk/UtWzN5RSYqkWgwaAUYrXiDpY2TXiuhi3rZ7i6UBnq > 7+svHoG6kqu5iBUeRIImHMu4pTAvLfLepCtAeETCXIt52KsXChD28p7s/jpu5krFfDhZWq23EeYd > bOGP2f4a6BlwtJXTzpHdrfPHU967aT6dawa5gyXdzuallTFYfQSB/xpefsdupaWd89AvmhV/TROC > 9dXv8NvhUg5GnUZ0RHUhtI900ZvxNfF3bHO23lKz6v6809bHLr0Q6v4QRd+Uy6ZscEPSBiDwkGv1 > Dvb6m+rrXa3hZv7Ykn8NzxY/nvmOtKneWFv7fwIAAAD//9RW227aQBD9lZGfjbGBcLECUoGgkKot > gkZ93tgDrGLvursLlDz1H/qH/ZLO2oaQhiQiSirVD5a915kzc86MBxcejJCLBJUHnxANFwvYcLOE > KylgIrXBxIUMlZaCJSCkQe3CbDp2abVIJEyYunVh8MGFIUYeBJ12zTuvbkLTs2+Vv7Pe+SbMgH41 > j6ddx/dHQasdNJ3d0ETZwaZfa/f7+8EhztkqMQfLq290jj1GHb3bzpheveHBdDSATs33AIYyZVyA > wu8rrjBFYQiBK68EB5iI7d8Ut0ImMU1dzwaV8cwCxBQXDGJM7Kz7Xqi84A38SJNQZyzCrpMp1KjW > 6PQgf75EJg9Z471s+0cRO+5j/WwXxuA+jIKlCHpLeZ0CT7MkDygznLJdR0uMVwnC75+/KNxrrjE+ > iLQL74XS6yO4z7V9JE8n3yt49nhL7kLJnqYH44uvI2AaGEyIL2xB6JolSYsHl0zoyjdUAhX0FVsJ > QKJXQnjrTAqNYCQMFOMLqywmVnyBpzPnOfuO50rBh7Ew1jIDl1wbqbYwpOu1cSGHt+67UPP94F3T > IMfwORsf3L4Jl1sS54SLW1Ahj7uOGsctK6HLwoOuEzhH0mvUqrf65cyERJr0cGa2lPqbcM2SrnO5 > O9UhBlsdLxaZ3tKYLKxWbchSJrwsLxCeVItqxskQO17lJYqV0oaqBa1CEMobVFWfnmbDW5o0eeAK > 3bL35f+sGq1CboKgUyO9Gcg0RRVxlvC7Ql/knEiAsEsyF/QqTRllmcJMKsqyvgcfGdHEJZaoNVPx > 3wC9VSE9khFl8X0x/a4FX1M3wM3Whc9ybctHxz9ddN6q4j/B9GeK++m2Pr7jxbL2xBaNkZnsO4+D > zqa0d0bzdnTYbraCdk7cuaSWS01xjgpFZAlqiJtdB9conHvOty1RN+FTq+OilzrY0Ck2ZIvZHZ25 > IZ2o1Rp+rhz0fdam78LLBbUx9laZ0XijWEKqvCRDg7af77iRxsj0fjrB+cHsYmXIA3Kr1JIChJzi > NzLe5h+xjFa2s+r9AQAA//8DAFBLAwQUAAYACAAAACEAyG8go5ABAABQBAAAEgAAAHdvcmQvZm9v > dG5vdGVzLnhtbKyTTW7DIBCF95V6B4t9jJ2obWTFySbKuurPASjGMaphEOC4uX3HdnDTNI2iqhts > BubNN/BYrD5UHe2EdRJ0TtI4IZHQHAqptzl5fdlM5iRynumC1aBFTvbCkdXy9mbRZiWA1+CFi1BD > u0xBTirvTUap45VQzMVKcgsOSh9zUBTKUnJBFePhd5okc5xLTQ4aOyxxogFGaCxQglXMuxjsFjPs > e2MmqGmYl2+yln5PUes+yKhdThqrswPHZOTocjIEyHaqDpsR+/e9A3M2fEKGvQZySFkDb5TQvsej > VtQIDNpV0rigpv6qhudRBZGLDR8125prqhWWtegAVQ/YLdjCWODCOYyuh8VQuU2TKw6wkxgzrkH4 > XjOQHHul7fx4Ypbxoo8N10l9NYIXvzxyb9Rmfm9QyQnDLPNgCYZkkZNJ2m80OMXnUTzlJEk26cM8 > RZsdQmtRsqb2P1ceu9B09pDczXoR25UcK9DlgqJCP5p+DG/pLBkH7aVueuc8n1Im/wx5ttglYOwk > 0LvlJwAAAP//AwBQSwMEFAAGAAgAAAAhALiBfmyQAQAASgQAABEAAAB3b3JkL2VuZG5vdGVzLnht > bKyUy27CMBBF95X6D5H3eYFaUERgg1hXfXyA6zhgNfZYtpOUv+8kwUApRVHVTRKPPfeescdZrD5l > FTTcWAEqJ2mUkIArBoVQ25y8vW7COQmso6qgFSiekz23ZLW8v1u0GVeFAsdtgBLKZhJysnNOZ3Fs > 2Y5LaiMpmAELpYsYyBjKUjAeS8r85yRJ5jgWihw0GnS40ADNFRqUYCR1NgKzxQzzUesQNTV14l1U > wu1j1Hr0MrLJSW1UduAIjxxdToYAWSMrvxixf187MGfDy2eYMZBDyhpYLblyPV5seIXAoOxOaOvV > 5F/VcD92XuRmwWfFtnqMW2Foiw0gqwG7BVNoA4xbi9H1MOmd2zQZsYGdxDFjDMJ3T09y3itt144X > zXI86POG66ROheDBL0/NG7SZ22sUslxTQx0YgiFR5CRM+3Uah3g5iuecJMkmnc1T7LJDaM1LWlfu > 58xTF5pMZ8nDtBcxnePRIV4uYlTon7p/Hm7SNS4GyglV923zcsmY/DPiVbMbuFiG/wksvwAAAP// > AwBQSwMEFAAGAAgAAAAhANnDygIFAgAAdQUAABAAAAB3b3JkL2Zvb3RlcjEueG1spFTbjtowEH2v > 1H+I/A4JXalF0YYVKqVvFWrpBxhnklj1TWMnIX/fMSGU3WpX0L6QMJ4558zMcR6fjlolHaCX1hRs > Mc9YAkbYUpq6YD/329mSJT5wU3JlDRRsAM+eVu/fPfZ5FTChauNzbQvWhODyNPWiAc39XEuB1tsq > zIXVqa0qKSDVXEyvH7JsSf+lYWeMjsBfYFgHhggqi5oHP7dYUwX+at2MMB0P8iCVDENKWB8nGN0V > rEWTn3XMLjpiTU4C8k6rKZlkv547as7Hx1SBt4gcSzZWtBpMOMlLERQJtsY30vkJTf8rGs2jmUDe > bPiq2d7dwlYi72n3Wo2ye4ulQyvAe4puxsOJuV9kNwwwQlwqbpHwnHNScu2VPjrxhVkui742XIT6 > 0wgtfkW+dUmfk9/L7wXLsu3i03JB7jmHNlDxVoW/T3Yx9LDNHrJsBNnhCetHGBRQdcdVwbbWBkCW > xpMKuYYd0lGPnEbP0baGBkGpayMaS04KcAwx0EwBcncdb0SfH9dK1nQhBRmIECky0O0ckXGkxmfU > O17Dt1YfRvqU2olZ9HTn7KjpjkpqQJWfG45EfX7bD47GfoAokVqMHCfQu5Gl8QH31Hy8+rl3XBCu > Q/CAHbDVbv31S5JE/Evi/7C90gfQMi5dxDnFNu6zxqnibR9MCxgJ6Jc+mqvfAAAA//8DAFBLAwQU > AAYACAAAACEAXLYLZiQCAAAiBgAAEAAAAHdvcmQvZm9vdGVyMi54bWy0VNuOmzAQfa/Uf0B+T4Cu > 1EZoySpqmr5VqE0/wIEhoPqmsYHk7zuOIZtstVWyVZ9sxjPnnBkf8/h0kCLqAW2rVc7SecIiUKWu > WrXP2c/tZrZgkXVcVVxoBTk7gmVPy/fvHoesdhhRtbKZ1DlrnDNZHNuyAcntXLYlaqtrNy+1jHVd > tyXEkpfT9kOSLOi7VWzE6An8BYY2oIig1ii5s3ONe6rAX52ZEabhrt21onXHmLA+TjCyz1mHKht1 > zM46fE1GArJeiimZZL+eGzRnYZkq8BaRoWSty06Ccid5MYIgwVrZpjV2QpNvRaN5NBPIXxu+aHYw > t7BVyAe6eymC7EFjZVCXYC1F1+FwYh7S5IYBeohzxS0SrjknJZdeGbwTX5jlfNGXhvNQz43QxS/J > tyYaMvJ79T1nSbJJPy1Scs8YWkPNO+H+PCl86GGTPCRJACnwhPXDHQVQdc9FzjZaO0AW+5MauYQC > 6WhATqPnqDtFg6DUlSobTU5ycHA+0EwBcvfev4ghO6xEu6cHWZKBCJEiR3qdARkDNV5RF3wP3zq5 > C/QxteOzaDVjttd0RyU1IKrPDUeiHnfbo6Gx78BLpBY9xwn0buRWWYdbat4//cwaXhKuQbCAPbBl > sfr6JYo8/jnxX9he6cOC4cgdvKWVIVO6QK3rcQxhxG6ZetHuP4gFcs555P5S/czv8/GpIgg1V855 > Nq0HnlxzaoL+8MvfAAAA//8DAFBLAwQUAAYACAAAACEAnVyLvhAHAACHHQAAFQAAAHdvcmQvdGhl > bWUvdGhlbWUxLnhtbOxZT28bRRS/I/EdRntvEydOmkR1qtixCbRpo9gt6nG8O/ZOM7uzmhkn8Q21 > RyQkREEcqMSNAwIqtRKX8mkCRVCkfgXezOyud+Jx45QAFTSH1jv7e2/e+70/82evXjtOGDokQlKe > NoLa5cUAkTTkEU2HjeB2r3NpLUBS4TTCjKekEYyJDK5tvvvOVbyhYpIQBPKp3MCNIFYq21hYkCEM > Y3mZZySFdwMuEqzgUQwXIoGPQG/CFpYWF1cXEkzTAKU4AbW3BgMaEtTTKoPNQnmbwWOqpB4Imehq > 1cSRMNjooKYRcixbTKBDzBoBzBPxox45VgFiWCp40QgWzV+wsHl1AW/kQkzNkK3IdcxfLpcLRAdL > Zk4x7JeT1jr19SvbpX4DYGoa1263W+1aqc8AcBiCp9aWqs56Z63WLHRWQPbntO7W4spi3cVX9C9P > 2bzebDZX1nNbrFIDsj/rU/i1xdX61pKDNyCLX5nC15tbrdaqgzcgi1+dwneurK/WXbwBxYymB1No > HdBOJ9deQgac7XjhawBfW8zhExRkQ5ldeooBT9WsXEvwPS46ANBAhhVNkRpnZIBDyOIWZrQvqJ4A > bxBceWOHQjk1pOdCMhQ0U43ggwxDRUz0vXz23ctnT9DJ/acn9388efDg5P4PVpEjtYPTYVXqxTef > /vHoI/T7k69fPPzcj5dV/C/ff/zzT5/5gVA+E3Oef/H416ePn3/5yW/fPvTAtwTuV+E9mhCJbpIj > tM8TcMyw4lpO+uJ8Er0Y06rEVjqUOMV6Fo/+tood9M0xZtiDaxKXwTsC2ocP+N7onmNwNxYjlcfb > 8ex6nDjAXc5ZkwsvC9f1XBWae6N06J9cjKq4fYwPfXO3cOrEtz3KoG9Sn8pWTBwz9xhOFR6SlCik > 3/EDQjx83aXU4XWXhoJLPlDoLkVNTL2U9GjfyaaJ0A5NIC5jn4EQb4eb3TuoyZnP621y6CKhKjDz > GN8jzKHxPTxSOPGp7OGEVQm/gVXsM7I7FmEV15YKIj0kjKN2RKT0ydwS4G8l6NehdfjDvsvGiYsU > ih74dN7AnFeR2/ygFeMk82G7NI2r2PflAaQoRntc+eC73K0Q/QxxwOnMcN+hxAn32d3gNh06Jk0S > RL8ZCR1LaNVOB05o+qp2nEA3zt25uHYMDfD5V488mfWmNuItIMFXCTun2u8s3Omm2+Iiom9+z93G > o3SPQJpPLzxvW+7blhv851vurHqet9FOeiu0Xb29sZtis0VOZu6QB5SxrhozckOaTbKEdSLqwKCW > M6dDUp6Yshh+5n3dwQ0FNjJIcPUhVXE3xhlssGuBVjKUueqhRBmXcLAzw17dGg+bdGWPhSv6wGD7 > gcRql0d2eFkPF+eCUo1ZbYbm8FlMtKwVzDvZ8pVcKbj9OpPVtFFzz1YzpplW58xWugwxnHYNBks2 > YQOCYNsCLK/C+VxPDQcTzEikebdrbxEWE4W/J0S519aRGEfEhsgZrrBZM7ErUshcEEBKeUJ3PjZL > 1oC0s40waTE7f+YkuVAwIVmX3alqYmm1tliKjhrB+srSSoBCnDWCARxJ4WeSQdCk3rJhNoR7nVAJ > m7Vn1qIp0onH6/6sqsEtw4yCcco4E1JtYxnbGJpXeahYqmey9i+t1HWyXYwDNlFfw4rlNUiRf80K > CLUbWjIYkFBVg10Z0dzZx7wT8pEiohtHR6jPRmIfQ/iBU+1PRCXcLJiC1g9wDabZNq/c3pp3murl > k8HZccyyGOfdUl+jFBVn4abeShvMU8U88M1ru3Hu/K7oir8oV6pp/D9zRS8HcNBfjnQEQriFFRjp > em0EXKiYQxfKYhp2BKz7pndAtsBVKrwG8uEu2PwvyKH+39ac1WHKGs5rap8OkaCwnKhYELIHbclk > 3xnKavnSY1WyXJHJqIq5MrNm98khYT3dA1d1Dw5QDKluukneBgzudP65z3kF9Yd6j1KtN6eHlEun > rYF/euNiixmcOrWX0Plb8F+a6Fn9rLwRL9bIqiP6xWSXVC+qwln81tfzqV7ThHkW4MpaazvWlMdL > K4VxEMVpj2Gw3M9kcF2D9D+w/lERMvthQS+oPb4PvRXBdwLLH4KsvqS7GmSQbpD2Vx/2PXbQJpNW > ZanNdz6atWKxvuCNajnvKbK1ZfPE+5xkl5sodzqnFi+S7Jxhh2s7NpNqiOzpEoWhQXEOMYExX6Sq > H414/x4Eehuu50fMfkaSGTyZOsj2hMmuPo/G+U8m7YJrs06fYTSSpftkgGh0XJw/SiZsCdlPGcUW > 2aC1mE60UnDZd2hwBXO8FrWrZSm8dLZwKWFmhpZdCpsbMp8C+JCVN259tAO8bbLWa11cBVMs/SuU > zWG8nzLvyWdeyuxB8ZWBeg3K1PGrKcuZAvKmEw8+RQoMR5Ou6b+w6NhMNym7+ScAAAD//wMAUEsD > BBQABgAIAAAAIQBKfkBtFQQAAHsJAAARAAAAd29yZC9zZXR0aW5ncy54bWycVluP2jgUfl9p/wPK > 8zIEAgRQmYqLUEedmUUD0+6rkxyIhS+R7cDQX7/HTtwwbbaq9on4fD7fuR/z4eMbZ50zKE2lmAf9 > uzDogEhlRsVxHrzuN91J0NGGiIwwKWAeXEEHH+///OPDZabBGLymO0gh9EzOg1KJmU5z4ER3OU2V > 1PJguqnkM3k40BTqn6DWUPMgN6aY9Xq10p0sQCDbQSpOjL6T6tirNNcyLTkI0xuE4bingBGDDuuc > Ftqz8f/LhqZyT3L+VRBnzvy9Sz/81c063ItU2XeN33HPKhRKpqA1ZpazKlxOqPA0mv0OT5XPR5oo > oq43JPdYtm9S8s5lVoBKMaFY8zAMehbI5LM0e0XS05M8g65kcCAlM3uS7IwsUO1M0IF4cKvy6Vrk > IIiBFSkqrTQnSGNA7QqSYiArKYySzKs7QyvJC4VxVrY1OcNWwZnCZUtTUypoXPpCGM2QfnHEPGiz > cw3WwGtsN5Ui/iDQOZr9g2mz4RykNEIapL09oQ80mwfdfmXXX6rFLqzej7ogsoaoPvzA817qad4p > 4hgUxFhfSg3PtsPZzlwZbKR6pNo0Ab1qDCXD2iz0c8kTUJjBugDuEqovmPmMuZCn8pEKWCogp5eS > 1TUjjMmLzTz8fdgRDs7Kg0AKdpPVXVm4/Fem3Dg1LixKIw/UYN20UZh1yJx2VV1SgXu5oUqbDX2D > 7CvNTL4CVmW+RO8VQy1UehAYQxMf1QUj109EHEvWaDrDiFCzPbpgFiLbYgs9EXVqnPoCyiwYPQpr > 6Cs1+a5oQKd24y9mNa29bi59Z8BsvCVvDrDZFJp+BiUwz1uCMTl5SrDPspVkS8KISG3msDGaIuLG > zLStpv14wV7z3R2G68k47k+qBrNog4TT8TJctCGDcLhYRa1IFIejViQaRutpPYnv7USbMPJj/R4Z > h4PJctlmZxwP1qN6LN7rxKvhejps05lOw2m/NZ5FGI/iVrbVYDAex21s/523TT+e9MdtOpsoXIxW > rUgcxUvnAdbNBoTV4jO77O1GqL42uJg6vFpqe8pBd57h0nmRnAhLyWeJOi2p8FcSwJcJbpFdmXiw > 260AjYPNNrj/PICPQYVk2P1rOPwkZ9jnx8aKqyifqVbpRZHihR5zuy/4jArzSLkn1GWCU13ZErj4 > W6FekwPcRNSuYWKm8V7iyxq5zjf4gONWQmocU9+7ILqvO0uNM8CU28HwRIoCZwavJMf+PMDRzE0/ > wKPBU4az6w7JcVBjA4fhyWLuQFL7BuHt+sNeqD7xVv3RyCIvixrZ0MuGjWzkZaNGNvaysZXlV3z+ > cEOd8DH1n1Z+kHZ3QoZPmsd/ElVJyCCldoNfedI8bHcVxnCd76DABWakQlb3Zv5lMexE/6/p/l8A > AAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQCpyvDKBwgAAM0/AAAPAAAAd29yZC9zdHlsZXMueG1szFttb9pI > EP5+0v0Hy997IZBCEpVWeSnXSG2alkT32dhLsGK8nG2apL/+ZmftxdgsnsGOdPkC2LvzzOszhux8 > +PSyjJxfIklDGY/d4796riNiXwZh/Dh2H+4n705dJ828OPAiGYux+ypS99PHP//48HyeZq+RSB0Q > EKfnydhdZNnq/Ogo9Rdi6aV/yZWI4d5cJksvg4/J45Gcz0NfXEt/vRRxdtTv9YZHiYi8DMDTRbhK > 3VzaM0Xas0yCVSJ9kaag7TLS8pZeGLsfQb1A+tdi7q2jLFUfk7sk/5h/wpeJjLPUeT73Uj8Mx+59 > uASLbsWz81MuvdiFO8JLs4s09HbeXFzE6e5tflrfcKQgIy9+BLG/vGjsivjdw3QbxFyahQFI9pJ3 > 0wsXNh6hBcVryZKVsUuvqpgNzgVXT3WowCli/lX6TyKYZnBj7EK48eLDzV0SyiTMXsfu2Vl+cSqW > 4ZcwCITKjGJhvAgD8c9CxA+pCDbXf0wwzrlEX67jbOz2R0MMRZQGn198sVJxBrzYWwL0rdoQKbFp > CQcVWocbbfSFCipe/LeAPFYOAs/uQlkIT+Wyg/rvBUKr162B+sqisgEol6XroL2Ik/Yi3rcXMWwv > YtReBDBY24jo3ChlJT2omfR18pVzYnC2J2XVjloWNe6oJU3jjlqONO6opUTjjloGNO6oBbxxRy2+ > jTtq4dy7Yy5lJhJMoho72InH95Duqrk3QB+S6GDlPQonXi9nfPD7MIuEgt7LeMctuTXvQs6dl3iP > ibdaOKqdch01Xc8ymrrI4Ycz9JfXlUiiMH7iajiRUSSfRXCwgGmWyPixMR59XfW1JIM4khLm83K1 > 8NIQnqIaAt9vGfh7bxYJ5+8kDBqh3utaq9lkL5y7yPPFQkaBSJx78cLOp1vpTFeeD00f41wi7Zb5 > 8zV8XGTOdIEPFI2GDy0+thuu5X8NUzR5b+UOLaY0CSeFbGhJQ7vwbyII18vCNYRnraHuVoysqECg > ivtddILh50OoAFBM0M3wQPkE/XXr5MtXMaborxvtgfIJ+uu2fKB8zI/98WUTy7WXPDmk8hqxa/dK > RjKZr6OiBhrpYcSuYANBM4FdxEY+iSRG7Areok/nwvfheyklT9mx2PAoA4UdDo2CxUa3hR2UCu0d > MyxiB6iC1WdgteNaBhCbdH+KX6H6bYvbDLALmAfbxnIeWDxAfXT7sYbvGI0ofQvnUVFuYvgxKBUO > DW1gqTwqWp5P6ElOMrVrfIxkatcBGUDtWiEDyJIf9ic30xPpIO2bIwOLTcumi2HakZl5xGZmA8Rr > AR31TcLzl6V67blQ75sEFHaA6n2TgMKOTqWXmb5JwOqsbxKwLF3DHqMyp3KMYvfNMpAhb4JF3ZA3 > Aagb8iYAdUPeBKD25N0M0h15E7DY3GA4tUzeBCBcUv9h0F5GBqhM3gQgNjdotst/Myr6HkrZ/+W2 > A/ImoLADVCdvAgo7OjbyJmDhEk4mVLAM1RGwuiFvAlA35E0A6oa8CUDdkDcBqBvyJgC1J+9mkO7I > m4DF5gbDqWXyJgCx6cEAlcmbAIRLONywk7yx6t+cvAko7ADVyZuAwo5OhVDNQyoBix2gCpYhbwIW > LuEkQ46Fyc0xqhvyJljUDXkTgLohbwJQN+RNAGpP3s0g3ZE3AYvNDYZTy+RNAGLTgwEqkzcBiM0N > O8kbi/HNyZuAwg5QnbwJKOzoVAjV8BwBix2gCpYhbwIW5ktr8iYA4ZJDgTgWdUPeBIu6IW8CUDfk > TQBqT97NIN2RNwGLzQ2GU8vkTQBi04MBKpM3AYjNDTvJG2vkzcmbgMIOUJ28CSjs6FQI1ZA3AYsd > oAqWoToCVjfkTQDCxGxN3gQgXHIAEFYRJ0zdkDfBom7ImwDUnrybQbojbwIWmxsMp5bJmwDEpgcD > VCZvAhCbG9SBXjgeSj6NemxJAuo5g+JUAxmwbwkSFTA38KeYiwSGpUTjuY1BS8DCQgaiJT2oJl5K > +eTQTpEPLAlChgpnUSjx/PgrntIpndgdjPbMSdx/v3K+6PGe2j5Mqe1D0zBBVR6GUhNDOMEGemZw > Mnzsropj7EoaDEqp0bF8wAkX3sC4Uz60pDarKSZYiINc+WX8h1OOiu9hrC4o1vR6o6uT67MTbRGM > o6EGv4vb/fxG+vtKDaShWH2tNPqFetQ19xegup8PKVg0zw/rmyNNeFS/aoflRD/asplfKdSDQTG8 > s3kmg4+grUXLTJ0a3+NbPFW+18EOLtkBCvM9WwdNUa1yILJZpB0Ob25iFRMYMcR/sunYBy+eFgv3 > r0QUffMwPJlc2ZdGYp7pu8c9bJgVUTOZZXJp35/geXLUZJcAcGRZGf1RGWH3sB4WyU++W/LgVqpG > g2N52xmsj8bWA7rDt3YNtmrIVM1ET9BUsy0frEHImQfjhN/VdGCtoNTIRnFdS7qCfNfhIiYlDE9u > VeJg0hv0eloEDFAqxSA7cU4UXgswdUJVz96sJIxzngxgbgKVLa3BIKqkxiWnwxNcooKF8uANyrd7 > bKt2/XUKKTNV05pV5ilZXvWjvuVsvFJx5s7SR0Pqrm3l1t7Z8LKH46r5tCq8FBO21oHYtEKB4Cok > R6LLTJLdwbjUrZ6WqjqoPEm1K9vsDrLnlz2hcmpvsvxQOzdTSFUzN3fexshhr396eakzhGjk87mv > TsYXFdWDv8kkz7HioprehsYAOh/qkvqAVtU19RX/VxedgotOc55ZU1xU1En68T8AAAD//wMAUEsD > BBQABgAIAAAAIQBW46fxCAEAAI0BAAAUAAAAd29yZC93ZWJTZXR0aW5ncy54bWyMkNFKAzEQRd8F > /2HJu82qtcrSbRFloSCtGPsBMTvdDSQzSybutv1606otvvk4c+4cLjOdb73LeghsCUtxPcpFBmio > ttiUYv1eXT2IjKPGWjtCKMUOWMxnlxfToRjgQ0GMKclZsiAXoRRtjF0hJZsWvOYRdYCJbSh4HdMY > GkmbjTXwTObTA0Z5k+cTGcDpmBpwazsWP7bhP7aBQt0FMsCcinj37fPaopiljjUtKb6B263wSSl5 > WindwyOrdOKgsg7OZBUajXYPC6zI1RDOZM3wQtgc4kvtgY+ks1tw/AphgabNhqLXrhS5OLKoQwNR > mQCAav8L78bj7e395BCRf544+wIAAP//AwBQSwMEFAAGAAgAAAAhACeOmYWAAQAA0QIAABAACAFk > b2NQcm9wcy9hcHAueG1sIKIEASigAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnFLBTuMw > EL2vxD9EuVOnFHYBTY1QEeIACKkpnEf2JLFwbMs2iP79Tghtg7jh08yb8Zvn54Grj94W7xST8W5Z > zmdVWZBTXhvXLstNfXt8XhYpo9NovaNluaVUXsmjP/AUfaCYDaWCKVxall3O4VKIpDrqMc247LjS > +Nhj5jS2wjeNUXTj1VtPLouTqvor6COT06SPw56wHBkv3/NvSbVXg770XG8DC5ZQUx8sZpKPgxw7 > 0z73IPYo1D6jrU1PcvFvzoV9Ck/YUpIXIMYAXnzUSS5OFxWIMYZVhxFVZhPl/OLsbAFigsB1CNYo > zGywfDAq+uSbXDygMi771BUDCYhpF7BDa1Jv0eSt5DHTFO6NYz2MjgHri9hGDN0nOMlgrdDSim2Q > DdpEIA4ArHwf0G0lS91FzPeaNqH2N4NPX1e+g5OXvpjcrQOqUcvhvRMc1uwLaVa/YzsAcMcfE+0w > ku+6lvSu52dhcPB53FA5P5lVfD792mH8NfvVkf8BAAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQD4QR6ikAEA > APgCAAARAAgBZG9jUHJvcHMvY29yZS54bWwgogQBKKAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAACMkl9PwjAUxd9N/A5N30c7UWMWmFGBgAExMv++1faCla1b2urk29tuMAF98PH03PvL6Wk7 > 519Zij5BG5mrLg5bFCNQPBdSLbr4PhkEZxgZy5Rgaa6gi1dg8Hl8eNDhRcRzDbc6L0BbCQY5kjIR > L7r4zdoiIsTwN8iYabkJ5cx5rjNmndQLUjC+ZAsgR5SekgwsE8wy4oFB0RDxGil4gyw+dFoBBCeQ > QgbKGhK2QvIza0Fn5s+FytmazKRdFe5O67jbbMFrs5n+MrIZLMuyVbarGC5/SJ4m41l11UAq3xUH > HHcEj6y0KcTJsI+Go1kyvXtG0wHyMpneonH/oT9GvenkYnSDbi4m/VmHNDt+23y8vgO3cXXcCGdw > DczmOr5mS0ADkCoFXQ1tDP82S1iVuRbGre8oJ1Jm7MS98FyCuFztYX77nqbhU/ofEoe04jXaBa1a > rUOBQK6nqG514zy2r3rJAMdHNKQBbQdtmoSn0fFJROmLj72z73urD7J1wn8TT/aIG0DdwO5fjb8B > AAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQBcwyQucgEAABwFAAASAAAAd29yZC9mb250VGFibGUueG1s3FPL > bsIwELxX6j9Evpc4gaIKEVAF4thDRT9gCRtiyY/Ia0j5+25wqGhLpV6Lo7xmd8ej8e50/m50ckBP > ytlCZAMpErSl2yq7K8TbevXwJBIKYLegncVCHJHEfHZ/N20nlbOBEq63NPGFqENoJmlKZY0GaOAa > tByrnDcQ+NfvUldVqsSlK/cGbUhzKcepRw2B96ZaNSR6tvYvbK3z28a7EolYrNGRz4CyYtarS9qJ > BcOq18ogJS/YJq/OQExowDrCjHMOoAshc77Gcigf5YjvnL9GIu2Yyho8YfhMlBGuwCh9PKOwDy7i > jQplfYYP4BVsNMYQqR0H9rSRvN9QnpaISMZIv3ok/4EMvyJl5IlVWVfFyCUPq0/jMf0w5Jll6ZNP > 3204q7h4X7VhtLxmA7WKKAasC2u/x/WxwZON/8KXBWi18eqqM7lcnRqja5QRHx8/rzojb6FBFmDY > B/jFiG5C4qR0E3NbRvQjQ7MPAAAA//8DAFBLAQItABQABgAIAAAAIQCVYItGlQEAACgHAAATAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABbQ29udGVudF9UeXBlc10ueG1sUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAhAMJgmvP0AAAA > TgIAAAsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAzgMAAF9yZWxzLy5yZWxzUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAhAOh7AX2RAQAA > zAYAABwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8wYAAHdvcmQvX3JlbHMvZG9jdW1lbnQueG1sLnJlbHNQSwECLQAU > AAYACAAAACEASLSM28kvAABAoAAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADGCQAAd29yZC9kb2N1bWVudC54bWxQ > SwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEAyG8go5ABAABQBAAAEgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC+OQAAd29yZC9mb290bm90 > ZXMueG1sUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAhALiBfmyQAQAASgQAABEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAfjsAAHdvcmQv > ZW5kbm90ZXMueG1sUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAhANnDygIFAgAAdQUAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPT0A > AHdvcmQvZm9vdGVyMS54bWxQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEAXLYLZiQCAAAiBgAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AABwPwAAd29yZC9mb290ZXIyLnhtbFBLAQItABQABgAIAAAAIQCdXIu+EAcAAIcdAAAVAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAMJBAAB3b3JkL3RoZW1lL3RoZW1lMS54bWxQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEASn5AbRUEAAB7 > CQAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFSQAAd29yZC9zZXR0aW5ncy54bWxQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEAqcrw > ygcIAADNPwAADwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABJTQAAd29yZC9zdHlsZXMueG1sUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAh > AFbjp/EIAQAAjQEAABQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAfVUAAHdvcmQvd2ViU2V0dGluZ3MueG1sUEsBAi0A > FAAGAAgAAAAhACeOmYWAAQAA0QIAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAt1YAAGRvY1Byb3BzL2FwcC54bWxQ > SwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEA+EEeopABAAD4AgAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABtWQAAZG9jUHJvcHMvY29y > ZS54bWxQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEAXMMkLnIBAAAcBQAAEgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0XAAAd29yZC9m > b250VGFibGUueG1sUEsFBgAAAAAPAA8AvAMAANZdAAAAAA== > > --Apple-Mail-5--395826686-- ******************** Craig Partridge Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com Phone: +1 517 324 3425 From feinler at earthlink.net Wed Mar 31 08:16:22 2010 From: feinler at earthlink.net (Elizabeth Feinler) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:16:22 -0700 Subject: [ih] Naming and addressing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 31, 2010, at 5:41 AM, 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: Naming and addressing 1971-1989 (Craig Partridge) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Craig, Thanks for the added info. I have added a few comments to your comments below: Jake > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:39:43 -0400 > From: Craig Partridge > Subject: Re: [ih] Naming and addressing 1971-1989 > To: Elizabeth Feinler > Cc: internet-history at postel.org > Message-ID: <20100331123943.6219328E137 at aland.bbn.com> > > > Hi Jake: > > A valuable memoir and thanks for writing it! > > Two minor points where I remember differently: > > * As I recall, Mike Karels never worked on BIND. Someone did a very > rough implementation for the BSD team and then left and Kevin Dunlap > inherited the code. Kevin probably still has scars from the experience. Here are two emails from the Namedroppers w.g. that indicate that Mike did work on BIND. I am uncertain about who all was involved which is why I punted that to Mike K. or whoever is around to verify what happened. I do know from Namedroppers that Paul Mockapetris, Jon and Mike worked together to test the system using Jeeves and BIND. I also remember Kevin Dunlap's name as well. Date: 3 Jun 1986 16:57-PDT Sender: WESTINE at USC-ISIB.ARPA Subject: What name servers are there out there? From: Ann Westine To: solomon at GJETOST.WISC.EDU Cc: namedroppers at SRI-NIC.ARPA Cc: Westine at USC-ISIB.ARPA Message-ID: <[USC-ISIB.ARPA] 3-Jun-86 16:57:46.WESTINE> Marvin, Paul Mockapetris developed a nameserver program for TOPS20 (DEC20). Copies run on ISIC, SRI-NIC, and MIT-XX. Paul's net address is Mockapetris at USC-ISIB.ARPA. The folks at Berkeley developed the BIND nameserver program that runs on UNIX. Most Berkeley and BRL machines use BIND. The contact person is Mike Karels, Karels at BERKELEY.EDU. Ann and 17-Jun-87 14:07:10-PDT,6597;000000000000 Received: from gateway.mitre.org by SRI-NIC.ARPA with TCP; Wed 17 Jun 87 13:53:00-PDT Received: by gateway.mitre.org (5.54/SMI-2.2) id AA07822; Wed, 17 Jun 87 16:56:14 EDT Full-Name: Walt Lazear Return-Path: Received: by saturn.mitre.org (5.54/SMI-2.2) id AA01854; Wed, 17 Jun 87 16:56:07 EDT Date: Wed, 17 Jun 87 16:56:07 EDT From: lazear at gateway.mitre.org Message-Id: <8706172056.AA01854 at saturn.mitre.org> To: bind at ucbarpa.berkeley.edu, ietf-nd at gateway.mitre.org, namedroppers at sri-nic.arpa Subject: Domain system implementations (summary) Cc: lazear Thanks to all who responded with Domain system implementation info. The summary has been normalized and appears below. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Several implementations of the domain system exist. The first two paragraphs (BIND and JEEVES) discuss the prominent (and most mature) two implementations and their authors/maintainers. These implementations are available online. The last paragraphs list implementations under development. Points of contact can supply more information. The intent of listing these implementations is to give vendors the opportunity to inspect working code. These implementations embody ex- perience with the domain system and offer interpretations of the proto- cols found acceptable in operational environments. 4BSD Unix Resolver and Server (BIND) The vast majority of hosts running lower level domain servers on the Arpanet are hosted on 4BSD systems and run the code called BIND. This code is maintained for periodic releases by Mike Karels (UCB). His mail addresses are: ARPANET: karels at okeeffe.berkeley.edu US MAIL: Computer Systems Research Group Computer Science Division Department of EE & CS University of California Berkeley, CA 94720 Development of BIND is coordinated by Doug Kingston (BRL), who offers pre-release versions to test sites. His mail addresses are: ARPANET: dpk at brl.arpa US MAIL: Advanced Computer Systems Team Systems Engineering and Concepts Analysis Division U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory Attn: SLCBR-SECAD (Kingston) APG, MD 21005-5066 A commercial version of BIND has been shipped with Sun Microsystems' operating system version 3.2. Celeste Stokely is the point of contact. Her mail addresses are: ARPANET: celeste at sun.com US MAIL: Sun Microsystems Software Support 2550 Garcia Avenue Mountain View, CA 94043 > > * .NET was adopted at a meeting 27-28 January 1986 at SRI (I know the > exact dates only because the Challenger blew up the 2nd day and Ole > Jacobson arranged a video feed into an adjacent conference room so we > could watch the news during breaks in the meeting). > > One thing your note clarified is that there were two vigorous meetings > about the DNS naming system -- the one you discuss that was held in > DC in 1985 and the one at SRI in January 1986 -- many people have run > the two meetings together. (Simple summary -- 1986 was mostly about > email/network provider issues -- could we use one namespace across UUCP, > BITNET, CSNET, Internet; when would BIND be stable enough, etc.; 1985 > was about the core naming issues; naming issues came up in 1986 only > regarding creating .NET and how to use .US and were related to issues > of perceived provider requirements) Thanks for sorting this out. I did talk to Mary Stahl and her recollection was that .net was a result of a discussion in Namedroppers. Mary has turned her interest to being a well-known Bay area plein air artist, so has largely blotted out her Host Master (Mistress) days. > > Also a quick question folks have been asking me -- when did we have country > code TLDs and when did we decide to use the ISO list? I think we had ccTLDs > by late 1985 as .UK was active and Jon P. had assigned .US to himself (at > least, that's what I remember). But I think choosing a list of ccTLDs blessed > by ISO was done a bit later. Yes? I will punt this one to Paul M. or Joyce Reynolds. ISO decreed that international standards had jurisdiction down to the country-level TLD, and from there the naming scheme was up to the country itself. It was at that time that Jon applied for the .us domain, as I remember it. This was a parallel effort with us at the time, and I do not recall the exact time frame. > > Thanks! > > Craig > >> >> --Apple-Mail-5--395826686 >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >> Content-Type: text/plain; >> charset=us-ascii >> >> Dear All, >> >> I've been getting requests for this information, so I've written and = >> referenced a blurb about naming and addressing which is attached. It is = >> my recollection of what happened while I was the PI for the NIC project = >> at SRI.=20 >> >> Regards, >> >> Jake Feinler >> >> >> --Apple-Mail-5--395826686 >> Content-Disposition: attachment; >> filename="History of the TLDs.docx" >> Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml. >> document; >> x-unix-mode=0644; x-mac-type=5758424E; x-mac-hide-extension=yes; >> x-mac-creator=4D535744; name="History of the TLDs.docx" >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 >> >> - > ******************** > Craig Partridge > Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies > E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com > Phone: +1 517 324 3425 > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > End of internet-history Digest, Vol 41, Issue 27 > ************************************************ From kevin at Dunlap.Org Wed Mar 31 08:40:57 2010 From: kevin at Dunlap.Org (Kevin Dunlap) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:40:57 -0700 Subject: [ih] Naming and addressing 1971-1989 In-Reply-To: <20100331123943.6219328E137@aland.bbn.com> References: <20100331123943.6219328E137@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: <1A26379E-486E-41AE-9769-33C3029E66FC@dunlap.org> I am fine with Mike Karels taking some of the pioneer arrows in his back. :) Mike wasn't coding BIND but he was involved at the DARPA level and I was working for Mike. It was defiantly Mike's phone that started ringing the day after I registered mixed case "Berkeley.EDU" and took the majority of the hosts off the internet. If I remember right the script that translated the Host.TXT into Unix style Hosts file format did not handle mixed case. These scripts ran as cron jobs in the middle of the night and hosts were ending up with truncated Hosts files. System admins came to work in the morning to find that their systems could not talk to most of the internet because of the truncated hosts file. I think we are approaching the 25th anniversary of this event. I registered the domain "Berkeley.EDU" in mixed case because of the requirement that DNS had to be case preserving with case insensitive lookups. -Kevin On Mar 31, 2010, at 5:39 AM, Craig Partridge wrote: > > Hi Jake: > > A valuable memoir and thanks for writing it! > > Two minor points where I remember differently: > > * As I recall, Mike Karels never worked on BIND. Someone did a very > rough implementation for the BSD team and then left and Kevin Dunlap > inherited the code. Kevin probably still has scars from the experience. > > * .NET was adopted at a meeting 27-28 January 1986 at SRI (I know the > exact dates only because the Challenger blew up the 2nd day and Ole > Jacobson arranged a video feed into an adjacent conference room so we > could watch the news during breaks in the meeting). > > One thing your note clarified is that there were two vigorous meetings > about the DNS naming system -- the one you discuss that was held in > DC in 1985 and the one at SRI in January 1986 -- many people have run > the two meetings together. (Simple summary -- 1986 was mostly about > email/network provider issues -- could we use one namespace across UUCP, > BITNET, CSNET, Internet; when would BIND be stable enough, etc.; 1985 > was about the core naming issues; naming issues came up in 1986 only > regarding creating .NET and how to use .US and were related to issues > of perceived provider requirements) > > Also a quick question folks have been asking me -- when did we have country > code TLDs and when did we decide to use the ISO list? I think we had ccTLDs > by late 1985 as .UK was active and Jon P. had assigned .US to himself (at > least, that's what I remember). But I think choosing a list of ccTLDs blessed > by ISO was done a bit later. Yes? > > Thanks! > > Craig > >> >> --Apple-Mail-5--395826686 >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >> Content-Type: text/plain; >> charset=us-ascii >> >> Dear All, >> >> I've been getting requests for this information, so I've written and = >> referenced a blurb about naming and addressing which is attached. It is = >> my recollection of what happened while I was the PI for the NIC project = >> at SRI.=20 >> >> Regards, >> >> Jake Feinler >> >> >> --Apple-Mail-5--395826686 >> Content-Disposition: attachment; >> filename="History of the TLDs.docx" >> Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml. >> document; >> x-unix-mode=0644; x-mac-type=5758424E; x-mac-hide-extension=yes; >> x-mac-creator=4D535744; name="History of the TLDs.docx" >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 >> >> UEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQCVYItGlQEAACgHAAATAAgCW0NvbnRlbnRfVHlwZXNdLnhtbCCiBAIooAAC >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC0 >> VctuwjAQvFfqP0S+VomBQ1VVBA59HFuk0g8wzgaiOrZlL6+/7+YBailKoJBLpMjZmfHs7GY43uQq >> WIHzmdEx60c9FoCWJsn0PGaf09fwgQUehU6EMhpitgXPxqPbm+F0a8EHVK19zBaI9pFzLxeQCx8Z >> C5pOUuNygfTq5twK+SXmwAe93j2XRiNoDLHAYKPhOwlwWQLBRDh8Eznx8LVxCU+MXOb0ZURoLHiq >> ygrmmAlrVSYFkm6+0skBZ2jSNJOwry/QrDMSvKeb5Sran+Qi03cFPG/QkRqD4PrXl1EBN/GT0Ikz >> 1pNpDs4XUPseFdUhOWDBYQb+JEay+HzCA+NhQ51OIDmRu+x6ZcrgYu4/Tf/t9jOkYqkweCkkVvlv >> jlmdkiN1DpQ/L5+7vlBlmWG/yGxjV0pn1jD7AESKsL++Oz/Am+JRCkEadODl8/KpKGFaKSlGmqaw >> g4vvkFsleNyqLgRUuO30nbXe18itElJawVMxU//YRAeL4chw1tAniDDYURSKDVFC70Tw8j83+gYA >> AP//AwBQSwMEFAAGAAgAAAAhAMJgmvP0AAAATgIAAAsACAJfcmVscy8ucmVscyCiBAIooAACAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACMksFK >> AzEQhu+C7xDm3p1tBRFpthcRehOpDzAk092lu0lIRm3f3kFUXFhrj0lmvvnmJ+vNcRzMG+fSx2Bh >> WdVgOLjo+9BaeNk9Lu7AFKHgaYiBLZy4wKa5vlo/80CiTaXrUzFKCcVCJ5LuEYvreKRSxcRBX/Yx >> jyR6zC0mcgdqGVd1fYv5NwOaCdNsvYW89Uswu1PSyf+z437fO36I7nXkIDMjcFqhZMoti4X3mD36 >> r8ZKlQHnbVaX2/y9KY4s5EkIXcy8SFlzytJrsj9C6vKk1+Wz4pzQzeVC0+Xn4uGjcPDszytRSt9G >> OPkFzQcAAAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQDoewF9kQEAAMwGAAAcAAgBd29yZC9fcmVscy9kb2N1 >> bWVudC54bWwucmVscyCiBAEooAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALyVzU6DQBDH >> 7ya+A9k7LNRaP1Lai5r0YEy0PsAWBtgUdsnuKOXtHdqiVCsmBuVAMkOY+c1/Zmen802RO69grNQq >> ZIHnMwdUpGOp0pA9L+/cS+ZYFCoWuVYQshosm89OT6aPkAukn2wmS+tQFGVDliGW15zbKINCWE+X >> oOhLok0hkEyT8lJEa5ECH/n+hJtuDDY7iOks4pCZRXzGnGVdUuafY+skkRHc6OilAIVHUvAKVk+A >> SMVZCitMChiyjtMjWsaPg4yHBEm0RqWRxHzHeHf1QZwPCQEq/sTQevoQJkMiZNRak0u1/tBh3+eq >> qjyTRC7EErXZzk5jShXDxsuQ+rRX7l7HNB23GwSjxLfdu/gf6kLIvBDKK7VFyHcTL6nExs+lahgB >> 3UxaqqluJjRwHyLUKzDcp2cy/kVpdEKHOyHNFIJptQ3Zzg76BuLq7/OP+vIHtLOGFEDhUqxy6Gqw >> d/VSBENSIC3QDsHW5Nt3bysGZbBY590FtbP7NBgNKYH9sqhbT4vAD+6g2RsAAAD//wMAUEsDBBQA >> BgAIAAAAIQBItIzbyS8AAECgAAARAAAAd29yZC9kb2N1bWVudC54bWzcnd9SHEmS7u+P2XmHHF0h >> swLxR2ohzTZjCFCr1AJhgm6tnbukKoEcVVXWZGaB6Kt5h706ZueY7bPso8yTnN/nHpGVVfwRanEA >> 27VZNVJlRUZ4uH/u/rlH8G9/+zocJGdZWeXF6OcnK0vLT5Js1Cv6+ejk5ye/Hb5dXH+SVHU66qeD >> YpT9/OQiq578beN//o9/O3/dL3qTYTaqE4YYVa+Hxc9PTut6/PrZs6p3mg3TammY98qiKo7rpV4x >> fFYcH+e97Nkw7cUfV5eX1/l7PnoSxjjjDXNjFONsxAuOi3KY1tVSUZ7wjfLLZLzImOO0zo/yQV5f >> PGOsn+Iww7Ofn0zK0eswj8VmHvrOaybw+mw4iA8z7euf9Tm/9v/Eb5S3maR/ZTvIyKb3rMwGTLgY >> Vaf5uIqjDf/saMjjNA5y44Jbiz0f3+Zt/TI9RwGGA5/2eVH2x2XRy6qKf932D+Obz1eWbyFADdF8 >> 4zZTmH1nnElbV86ljnPK0mx0W+E01HQhbPwGyntU9C/033Fy/hrl73/6+cny8tuVl+sraFH4p+3s >> OJ0M6suf7OufflpeXX/zxgYb75ca6+89vnmWDn5+UuYnp/WTZ/rH0j874i/Pwt/4b/iGfe2KJ85f >> 1xur68luWvZOk9XllWV9t/YR7M/x98/dvjE/0R72m5XfnKlm/N/gjbcT/LuPB4fJ4eabDzsHneTw >> 437yYef3nQ/J9sfdze5esre5u3Pw/387bjfVzb3txzKVw3c7ycdP3V8Q0ce3COsw2fq4e7eTy0d9 >> DGyQHWOSi6+WXWunRjfV5Si826jtPmjeGPP1lv8j1oPZx4Fn3qYxW8Z//rr6IwLIyrpWx/zD5/XG >> ziD/Iz3K6tNk4X36JXuavM3y0SAr71bEN0mTybRmfNNcP2V1Xmb9ZJs/e3VRJsVxUp9mycGnbrKX >> 1QDyl6Q7cpeOO0wOLqo6G1bJlqHRI1yRwpPX1Tjt4XLGZVZl5Vn2ZGMTfXyEk93Y70aB73W3Ejz3 >> 39mFZOXVy+eLK6/WX93BlIM6mx9ce762jTF+w0C+xyQv+13zpN/nqk1V9Ue98bYshklaJcdpmRyl >> vS/6GWmsmE5uluN0lNVX6qXrY7KAGJ8maZ0cEAijtf3kEypgvrk7quq8ntRZsjAqzk3Bu/KoI4vz >> 0kGC8qP1TzvJoOilNTaRj5LdbDQokn2i2E6ylQ5yhhzlaSdRdFPz/zwla4kze1dUdXKYHg2yJfzR >> aV4lZkDnrKKXlmXO48WkTiajflYmvWJUlynbXRc2CLLMRhWD9c/SUY9Hm6nvu15UyeYJEf9FsrC9 >> +Wl/8+lSknxgoqV9u0qHWcJo+RkhdjL/xqMLe0hKxhJmXrdVDIeTUc6SFe5OX7G1iSAxG60vTm07 >> rdNG/Avb23tIC8A4P80JftqCyM7Ah0k6GFwkR1lPUyMlSarsRFnI0h2o9Q+p2dUY8SZDNFkjJ8sK >> clvC3G5Pd7mTvCkGdfImK1FMlBVx7WXnw3QEZvaWkoU3b/aettVpKx0elXn/JOsQMFZV2judVFld >> V53EduyyXthGS0GAhrO8zw7zCsZPT3yiUfFMk48BPTSWcfkUnVEWUJRVstDd3a/YKdvN6VDt/YpQ >> /3HMUlwRGov6uCVNYyko82TQxySr/GSUpMkoO09OpfFa7+5+Mi7KOhlNhkdZ6S8jncx4sPpiQq1y >> bC+ta1ZNbmL/ZN9WcohZopVuBwzVQaUw4pEUh2miz/bmQf6FvxeoFOY0GGR95rXDf0fJ56ziuXzI >> KHxPcx1PjgZ5dYoZpUk/q3plPsY2soR/rMO3k+O8rOqOzWRGJS9FAS3grDcOtA7wpZ7Mf6nlc/O5 >> mKC66lnLxy87K5/jwkrYMhJRCVTbNT/IbKwyM8u4o6asNts/MYVVplBrJyQ1RGm7IunWp8WEvMm0 >> 1reUT9mZjM2VLrAx3ZEj9352cnKR/JqWY23Nbl5jY1tFibKYomFCWV9I3TKJYBPV5OSEfbUtdGID >> POdRsmlDsdS1rza8TRbWOs+lqAa76Iamw9bnVW+CwhK6OEod5yOzaUIDEkYeA+UlWkHjEXHaibQF >> /TYPoA8iDvjLTCXL7AR5lBcNlkYzXHjRSX7SJDaZoZTLhp7ihclrVNSYsIwgS8os7Wv6ycLLgLYZ >> vsHmjpLz2VhTBL1NsGZBWlc1yeskr6tmnPpinFW8dz+TIW1nkxpCRfLWCv49K4uvODE82eaAbzd+ >> JZq4PbC4v/kJ38nYUeq28xqgtQBmFbci/4OpOR4BTJdXtI4gDoNkga9eloWV9TM2QVCGUxjwk9yp >> iWOxEUd8RyPh1hTkls2jK0xKFl49fXB/sjEFR9TzPEVNu8Ox42HeCp6RvcSJqpmeutI5tCkYsFiA >> z22bGSgpeLpEQV3npcMjF6I+nN0YENMgEn4wP5azD3tv+to7LSpAUkGBlC8dSM4X0nzcT/AL+gJK >> NSS+IsaysOVkgsfRBqFZKLReaFFGDc4m5/zP3lhm/5hgpfaxvY2AIE3qrHeqoGKAilsYzvIMf8O8 >> tEahfBGdSo95Vclh87UPeZpXxagtKD5PBxVWPQF+SlM/LKNxkb0CFMG65WXMS3qIZhMz1Gdil8bH >> O64sP03Ca8JLTVJabtwVyTsdXcgLY6ykP+c52Z2eaMAPEeNK9GKJWR+NCyag8Kg9SpSthRTZSIFe >> J5mMT8oU2Okk+VBONOV77V1Pj49JC4RNeguPmSfnFXKIPnVAVe/FoC4s1IorwZ/blzrJEYFnmvB3 >> pMqU5MktOZLY49Na59CDILPOzL774PZ1dbyGgznIwEfFG5YyJe8Ldv+UmS/w09NkH2Flg+Tv7IMg >> FXltTiwANcdzGQaJ/hcNA9FR5b8Cmnb8v2miVlAfdlgPBQyVwbEvbgYyEJSbpzxsi+FOO/wOLoMh >> yS5MTZjzv/75v6ug0FIayw6amD7Myl6OC1Biq71LsVkTAZqmNUbH/5nUXS/+pSwmYxKjz7+4d5xm >> KxqJnGgw0ErlTUiUUB+wF7crxc3OisFE0SCz3JX+T626n/VyeVUlNqDBsfI2e/vnX9wIMjRyUnkK >> kFfVRL4Cu2jsGyDiJR7GsRWGIeR9KKASErIEZlAmn95uAT6NG4mCb3wy4FIAJUXLF+srZtRuJkg1 >> OU3xoRlxpgfNk1Hz/ayvL2utTH64FIKWVWmSLeN3TJgft7LyWGgFiB4ByvF5QJBVhk3/bUR4WTIZ >> DPC4lSzq8w8FidXoJBuw5IXftj5sEldFoYy0SCo5JKeKWuZDvBtiys8ZW/frqDjHEIreF5B7z4Lv >> 7wr0ENUKXj/ZJFYvbd3BXoIFyMl2EvRKCpmPtI8htJZyTcZ98JZ9lWfDMgxn2Wf3U9Fe7F9bKaH0 >> 6oyBJFzTmvlF3xDXblr2wZf/xFptHgsrqx5qTRfELIhrWlme8NWXZsEX2hCUcBqGIJPinDURmUsr >> W1/GJ6FoGsL8NxbqqOBuf0cRsk0EoOprx9NqDLqbweE/kSrvehfHNnULEJAjaBtLf7gPRv3q1Mx8 >> PFD2hyEr0dbenZjde0qpf3M/GWGlk+BIbcuYvXDHnIO7twfH+w2g/f0EKEL5XiSUFT1VIJjw1Ffw >> EGywoV4MGqgOItCCXXGNnDIXN7AcFobAu5QFcTghkI1UhFfNvl31yxSsAUranElw6oKdNYGsi9qh >> taUYaZ/dVeLgkZBtRQHvZNOVdwr8llTnWBuHhaAXZCrOYOFMiBOGAsSuT/PvEwKvUQHFALiUenIM >> JOdKKGKI2E8vFutikf9MlzInO8bblIpGtRKOS4PkrjQX/V0R7t7HLUMBuSWcoLCvAbHISpi9bG9t >> JixSwau5Y5PHo9AqFOqlgZxKE7ZIbF+AZ4uchfADqDqWAPo3xJ/55xk6vJfDyGGXLXbxt4Otxe5B >> 96nFD2lJREpKOcDHXcAhKoZ4o/gcsDQbNgOXhOeBLWBpkP8UeMybYdygvvLUnEo98eLggoHltaS9 >> QXkAIpO8eS5Cfg9L2dUWadd1dZdn0yTGTLeXj7G0fHRGVJ+fpPKPC/viReeGtrVER6n1iBhS4kYg >> 9L64AI1Y8qgY9AlYZ7C2zV/Nobkv2lRRb8O3CfGCRLWOHNXWRE03fQd9OFfTqZiCODxhCIaHxvpj >> hL9EV7LjPoHa0qRK+oUMtZOcDIojVt/dJ/nuY0+samB8MLGOBxRlQQr1hxC1BUbR2rKvgBXQTLYz >> sDFJ2QzTk+pChROo272Dp381swrEqFbD14d8YSYaibHPbpaOpuueLrDlVmxnzKnKJzdelVcBCU5V >> IA4jRnrogSiFFPwfZsbnpOURpIxgrRqDb1Jbn7P5CP5GJeIl0PYct9lCMHQtRJzzmvunpWiQwlRG >> 1XFW2l41CXMDPCwkgpUnWFEbWuIMIhd2hV2UXIIoPPgPOSTBWty6gL7PYLUlQgw/q6PUGhY/6lr8 >> ktTQiR6M7VBM5wdSa3APhuJCJOHpwLXGSDwROQcT7AJlA7V/zcsv47Qu894XvYi18h3w6EuWjYm9 >> s/ICmLANRXtGvdNOopykN5jIM5jhoZ0SjJgs5YxsSZRG9PMar2ceRhbKa3kDVChfRDjDjOrf6CSk >> s0A+02heIcV3nIpjEcyDZJQ9BsSDJYYjkcMgyGlO9WqAeaAYfOl4YrybcIc0X6k+P0Z/qIVJ/Xjl >> rjhkE3FYQHsr9J3UILpOsmPkbqPbQigyU+3oMy1fDg1H6YjSq/HXLvYY4SS9jLSaKqyWzw4wwSuV >> 5OGd1CFw0DJyw1wQ2BZ8QRxgWw6+lDglEXD/+uf/OUa5/vXP/5tsHmx1u6RYX0U+Gk6CnadiDICi >> cwpZaCaRRZOqdTtBd8/yNHl7COsupXBN1T9FXdpThnegfBNPsPKik6z8xP+/JNJpwlQ92pq1NMZz >> BXZevoqSF4mmjagJRbPEcXoKdaSyGM9mX0UT2nMRf62WayhcC7h4iJcNhVJ6KYVeJT6nZnVV3HRF >> xQqCCJ+yAfUpU0HCpLSkMiLbrYBbtNhkw4iw2VLjkAUz1TKrcaibdBuF3FaBWIXAQ+nPmRupEUCK >> Kg/4oNfalZYsWsknTXhwFQJekzS0hPrsiCACc9TP+0bQeW6v5VkiZamB/oZ3YYccEgJAzWROt2mi >> uOOK7dXUzKHwwb3SV0pAlQovLSbexEb1SHlljueB/BVTmI6JcJUesSNXWqd2qImXLM+Xwkoy3Z29 >> wBOwj9M3YSzKkArGo/+RhMigqKcCjma4ZNugRxpY5Q1mahrd4g2mU2Xw8yuis+HPq6JDEYM6FBWN >> bMBLeT1cAdrLNGYDyGncqM8pEn6BACAI7IPtA7Ian/pve91/XzxKK/76pru3LQoQihGdcEeFrDQy >> vpzXvxPpyjD9pDeA0gXNjIiMQdg+PXC2JH0D12Rwfi6CZyAbySmtI6+QlRoga5sUtxW93MKCwGsy >> 3dlpUAYS2aBxr96ZyjmYgC15aUSj8lq2nmk8tJpuhBAyQRIu9uBLUDWSOagqWhbE6YaqZk7KGdXS >> Q8O4bmtUZUmHiGLuk1aEh6SQoXAH15xTsNJepf1iDIR5ID1VAoIC27hdOJx0nOGeTfPEjNtWo5Js >> sKUentMzclwOP2pPlEkgZRummhwNc4NK8o4yJc0Rv4QagWXMR+iXSp0CkiZC935ZjMUM2yuFL/ai >> VpogDTMU5WUNz16ULga5dPn7HmysXqQZ6QXhG1Iml0UKFdeWrMfEDtrhEWwXAcBVs02MKtiFYSLK >> oRI2QVmlwBZCRO6cJZ1LNflveH42SJUNqOOCkB+7Al9ZLlKQogYPI95dwzonfsQ7xsTBUpMCKIF6 >> LzHGWBQJsdL034GsuuiRxqsmZzU4XmdZB5+oZM86hvqRH1hEaj3QYnK0EaxEBZJBeoHQmamTcMMJ >> oDMFMWxPumZbKbFqH6bVbRa9x+CBBF9fkyAo3+DZqXNaDpEsJuvrq7bEdT5fWHnVoVFVaIYOA5cG >> pOaGg+8vs7NccMTQHvqvriytrj6CMlsTbrBGISQ5GdNMj1i/C6nldrWjFmpow50tL2+M9T0SaTYN >> q5TYLVueHWsmj9BmRIVDUYz+CN/7qwYorakEttctAFUwMgt/6HyLv2KKtvZSNVbMYYva9GXibJnl >> vlKEWYg2vegrL2Xqv+KT3qXkUGp6kn9CGtsp6kjuQc4rf6Rw/8FhuTtKaGlCJO5bqIFBaXRUNgFH >> +F9AlQARo7ymISf6zzYLaHaBsC9TH1q5ZQEB8LVhwgGEFED0ryL2RY+4DtXFmAfw0HELFg4/bD+d >> yx4lzss7oHdFZSjdfcvKpQ/tlCZml65xLbIG2kxDtFvFpmrY2nyLD3kVls7Qnn8ySfgWS/bpnWvP >> xNTSk7ks4TEU1r3GEY+PRo48jWmhFp0omU7kjyD0OsnewVuXEKUk/6G7cxj+6XJd1Z/YNlolmX68 >> 5XVuZO0bgzZf638sAw1OUNlwE/TUxQndtWQjMj50ZDAAAyRwmVWWUokqKB5hMsa1ytTwWtDtJ5ll >> wk0GBDfVuHV33nxRD8sA2d8Ht49ro2uyWFgSzAG/3Czn6lSwhYlhdTM+WGpMgPwlaQoIsf6ndC8E >> FodTDZ55s7W4oEY4dncWa0mysLrWWaVktPpCLuYDoY9aGMyTLK6vm3hFscQ+nCFJqbn51orCPDW1 >> hVVyzdWXS5SotieQk9431n6WqYmFibwCpi33Z9BvSWBFivwf9lptd9Q6dphqX+2eOpZ6tPVSx5js >> 6mHch96qIERBulTLCzeJhsO6pSuhByJo9TkhgSvdDL5e6iprHUsJvePzXWPBfDantJv6+Zomvfnh >> rYf2ap2pZkPwPzGXX9QN8h1vlCass3dEG2vL/P/KIwggdqzAjTYaIkxqg4OptgFKgWnCx3h927yq >> 6ShIbGy6qZAqHHyPCNKGmjprApGllDoO8OdQQj+XHJnReSTwhLdSp2lkEibTslIDNULJOjogjQT6 >> GUUSwGnGhIOTpN90xvQaSK/0cvwmeBEJF7UBjek7yHsTSBFyk1OCXiIeKTcgaksQuuqZENKT0zWz >> RlDme/Q9TERxcqnG9ZhJCpamqSTtBHQtL1HYp72ZQr+qFcGThAqTFYyyXgaAWyEJqMdhAe7yhrSH >> DsgwOFEY82+lGjGiSkcjyHy1Syug+q//ZGcJA7w1SbH8XMox3SltQ0xAzPCZi0VzgYXwGGGcFaQN >> AJhKGw4/7j3z8r/+s004Cgp8oUkFnQQ26O3qBWMguLRivDgTVVhYyndwyA/uZjYkfw+MIFCFsYUm >> DqZaaVnSEWSnmqw7bvOmelJxhT6LfU1aVkivXIlQKQ6XDhLpFmdi5A362ThHWTQsn8xUVMW6QUF7 >> KkbsJOqF0GygiNA7r3Iot55ayxE4fifSvR5LhUY3lNPinKQLm6O6J2VXo5ahwH1o03IoGMsfUDar >> ZRBq0NolzXa6mt2xAskJxmKzdwmYGnoDrK2hHdqZAk1XFaQi0hDiXeYDl6es1qdrnaBRAgAB3UsT >> 8eojvVlqjIgumv5x9K4Rl5myJtI3OtAkzBR5HjP1PXATsIUeZRkpAFzEaFyMZfDBsIyh1yZWweKd >> q8zodhDRZauTEw4+0KkPzzMsUJfRFdof8tVA4HrLoluZIIJJ20pOBLUjhezeidZeeifJlk6WFF8+ >> vCUcTlM2SqPmyFEOjkijwvRZFbQZ0z7CqheETZLX8aRE7Gh102nsHMFTcjWiX5oCDovhU8vGROzw >> LDFqbI4cwFvHcFxGuO8lfnVbASaW4Xy0s9iUYHc/UoBzs1FYRnXOO3XbqOR6D/JYVpX3UO06O6FZ >> EqPEC3kLtGlLg5BkjL4ltlmBHKxEQUgtsv4Ej8bu8ScG59avI7sGb33ADS1EaMYumWrYMKi7MtFz >> qlKGElPXEaDZ9BIxYrEQmSaVOGVM1xWHUTEEevj5q7ebH8krGtGC5tnHUwhgQlTL/N9lAWFeTFWt >> GhT6vBXGlFWvcAEwCpyySH6QhvmQMUyAF2xP1JPGoSqqzhp91nRdG93CZuZLOuijmbSeVMpnIh7q >> aLE71FQH9y9adNKMA5++FOF5cNIaz1gL3wjpHHbp7UjsgVJ8Fd5PmH0/elz9Q2TS9QX7i7Vbqdj2 >> WUX+QExp4taKhGoYYLJI45Lx5LE4KJVTMwjwpMqQ4vhVjGDtqasCQ0BCC6uM84pWwGxCYLOHCJ1e >> xCxCS2JgFw2FbANm6CzRla9Wl3mJKs5qbYnUbCSmBET9CW45ZtcCqV4I5xbWSDxm4tRHUxbxZgsT >> lMVs1q1kAiB/pQBGUZi/wZ0XtEWofhW8npvDcXpGay772Rg3SiLripR0iE/NB0G8O7CnlwL/GzoK >> ScU4RFQXM+ILh0mvO6yijo8+0UJFaYam8rgl3VBC/yumH/rkAgcm6CdaLOhdsRMEqCuEywnJrHjy >> 5nhBGK+FeEu0OWKPKCtSmsbSTTPnzEyMYs04nGV4xBdob2jiMn0ffKKkR0Ti+Hl9YSMsL+BJRKko >> dIdUaL4BAbAcIkOf0fWjWlPEHkNft+vI/XDKUKxyKFBid372hGY+8MjSElkbhyCdhry0NBOCkLP1 >> DjyCr9CWDKhpLk0iY0lM46zUPqSP1d7vLL7KA1MAxxkLfHe2f+NseDtoivwWJu+LFTKFTAWO6A2G >> aNGvAfzlh/EkzcN6fxPR4PmcRz9o9OmgzmimQY1/sVbGhf2Dg1+e3jy8Ik0PPjrJ5t5BjCSvmQyy >> a55uQeuM9j8AeGw0LT9gLOEfIRSuWBlaZtE5JkGsgD7+ppMh9URHHkjhCDOiQ+jbSVMrTk/w0eRA >> dA6ALzp898W3exO4JHZM6BgAZezYsd5CKNyjnNK49ZDS6CPX0DILcbcKWRKahbYhTTJHgFQNe/js >> hM46IruGtdYwpLJmcXYQ0ar9IVMkaJG7JdkjWHWPNhnHRLK1OL1UqgMNydBNluvgOqLXIJiS+BkM >> SyYV8lMlAXZCwigzZKhQu24NRthl3dsaXrxOe1l68hjAHeTEz82Uq/oCnMYa+1oqQ/Gnxfg+hB2k >> YZYHAi4wXw0F0XDktNr9YpgvdWreYg6bTjyhoeBU2Um7BzZmDCG7YPiPvA1iKIZJercDjZHQ5Eof >> MQW22SxMflj56Rh3Slir2dkhgBD6Kaa1vlIj2Y69EQtFMZlVrMPY8oTaN3Gj9uJIhfCL5IsEZvmS >> 0QSBe9MDHstY/wjvZv28MrjCSrVsNkkv1Lml89MLi0CkKN9qbWKUmLdCcCiK0w6kfS9eMWhvoI5E >> Ow3lB1m8K+QvD27fsV7vfJIZzdQqhqC/tt0y8EbPpCwKn5qoy0hPN8tocOqN4AzBKLN+MpcwDVoK >> Qsm8z5UESjPQA4LRI1VSOJXnp5Y5SqmE3zhgwwcCOpuXeqzi0XBzKxK5B7byLAQM8l0XYyQd7cjm >> aZqB1xLqiEWCJ6Ci4jUYNi7Z9I6fpg12lxPkKU8sqLfiqQ6IcjEPit/q6rucNTkKesiKnnXN2Ylv >> 4XBaOCnH7Bz8A7EXWt4MGAjINXlzMbE+ovAHmGAxocbAZA+tdc575RyKM8wHk/icVrJ3nRDhb0TG >> L5jDEUfm0EfTcdDUWutLUjmr0MbXOPdGoy20lmdfXcVE/jH4joZAGlyoe6kzX8zDyxZIaus0Bygg >> Gq0bJQpMIALUzB66C4QMPdyuPsHSXfGU8BpFPkwviBk8El1ZlvdfWQ0I+ODx9MahTVOpDc5hSGOh >> TB1N74tqj7Sjdt4P5iHCsNPsw1wxdEo96r4zzIwB1OuBfkFOxDNL1vzLgL00HmLCesgR2fGSzFC4 >> Vk6seqaoywr/pieGXOhDc5AvzMMlr6k4tn0hIMXcLojxYshstWZ8gJIt0Y2CRhEo2Ky3ItvRvCMt >> nsZkOwwfv1r0mCd6y2rfaY6E3DrBQvBQGIUnDg2M5kSmPAMm+Xfvm9MyfOy4COlhUNYIU211s4Wb >> ijVKRBjLm7ABgYsdEKXN6cz6xm03tGa9x9WZGWpcCSGKmAnJwkzy/GQTPqLL2qU8sKY5zReyAGhj >> YbYHDIRShDOyJ5MLdy3tQascb42zPqHDOaiBXqtpNuck4xwmYx8PP5aL1TClcVvA3/EV2G/xGZXH >> NAIOouXM6Tf5aFWexbI/ClOJyh/QikAiWIaHk4QrfrkKu4IG1aesvYmjQpYW63MhEjNFFDxF3oje >> RZ60oEBMT8xrDPxlnJbj277HmoqFNTe19zEL2In4wkKHk92nNBTC5Q4lKRZ7gQs8wirscXcyxndZ >> gKBH3NMySZEnbD8O0BfjZyQDIeG5nHWIOfnpDiwknN2Q0SY7I+rmITWxnu+3FJtpEVQ5XDXPhcYJ >> zGKzatB22RLtiodvI5fXqsIvrP30VANwVvDinAM7YSu0aUiUIzx8tiMiybk1Dmx+PaUB23ZXPFZ4 >> XqvjyY9ukRpI7b+ye6l+NE7FviYMjirIqCbWoStjjVtfpTkxPlVlHTSk+RxXNuSABPFhM7FoAZKx >> ha6NGagh2bYTnelxYsheMb4X6/Cbu9beLq8tc0cm9IUuDbzc9zpzM5I/LGok3Pd3niM0KlY1x8J4 >> 0u4KDPeYcXagOBApuL1z7Sd785/0FeJ+EiPYRVazA4bqL40MIEn8aFn/175aLN7LdDMfI0yMHIVo >> zsbq0GKxkrNs7pRWNE7XrFxKooq6HeyNfZEUYqiNYD4WTSkSRWXUNMOR6yM8i3rw3MXhPqjWWTee >> GXDheqt5eWbu+YCmQwLj3tAQl8H1aiMkjfwgMLK2WNxFm1xv2mMalZ5yjPMAgRnMRPuX6t5BS1qc >> 2Dd2gVuqrq6wb5O5xQWx8L7ocwt9xfOElctdR3IoZG+LurpjtpYlZt/p9/CMta/JdavFXImezE3Z >> JNidp36aKD5KOh4qB9ymITGqSWHKkhNtxsHbNwy0B25yTdiA8D4d/pkX5W2Ikf/mlngbETxe3Gnh >> CaBjIDmzX99lExtdCM1wpNJzoVcoDEY/b34a9RoLEurQHK0I/r2ozV8Iy/N08QME1+Jmj5wKxSdq >> DDcVtg8VhqiuCUICMT495OXObeXVqxVeEA87YkFwHFSiFdYRQdB7LbPFtmLd3iBJlSELdmVy9gXq >> 0ixuU8wR4bmKcRQvu8nCXrg45SBcm1D9TaVCeqvkkQ3cwsT0Mnw4wBBiC4BBd1chgHvxkJeV0jb7 >> hr3Zg1cDncmViNQF03D14qfD/M174G4QSxdWG2LdiCKkE5M1lIJDNdwxrUMBMxTDGQkV9XylJxbI >> IQi2fRDaVa7Sn2u6peDIQMqrvnCdwoWkpV3Bb3RIO8s6bXfDKr2HMOzmtDxOR/W63ddobWroPH0H >> yAZENs1SXHTBz2x6WJpZBkKK532c2g0RGB37rANVVQVMh6ziYW8YMsVSUxKRQpAUy6rqsQHDfbBo >> zOnrZh0AMZ/Fb9rLdDC001iM65vrNdLWsFHlpfDsrCxF6+lRuCZUCZkR38VcZ9yMctDQBIPOY1Y+ >> siQafKHLlHaF+ApL6QldOBCFl8JT+hfdtodQIQIAH4ZDV5lIJXJ/H43ZvSe+UoBCrQALjs1S7VAo >> GJ9XbsAB1m+Bh04XWJXcq1cxwdYUrhOipKE0OtJJTaLbarqme3bacd25dCI0sjtMI0Q3SGmJlycL >> ChPiLCiBshyzL/v36YxMNdi3fMQVrVDTZ1YdtCGYXpPP+cYa1+MoJqbPWI9AVhuIZX7dwEjhPq9W >> 9N4yAMa7RKL4meSmB127p90VUWn9yXO8RmQVhB6MzJNuTWHNbJytsT9t8myGNhKbYHB62lTRKNIy >> CiQVuSmT6Z0WxEhMdZPj+OzM3PkA9to0rJHs3P42OiAdF8skO2wY9ev0CuXVsRfemnzmhOuUBPc8 >> WcT09B5MMXOovRb6l788EA39zYszQwzgV8XGwOCywwiffMe9ssQYN16wHt81M4FWEHI0d6XiPpd/ >> H2x96u4fzkD+nwvKvimWyxL4lsv8GJ2+H9vteuoUerGUPjm9hBUqsaIlzktpcjiGtoG4ViMW+u4c >> mpIja1rDXqzw1k6MzLACa9+DQDdHO9d1GWbBGSsmwCCcuOBqTHhfg5l++B0ITpHahSjB9cXQpn35 >> xRa6jd2FO3dBKfWJuOuLdSe8fkBdC6v8SgWZoRFH3MaxrEngPxUt7uNU8CP9UAXjMD324kLCoRla >> BfAgqfXWveAr7etamljGhPadJjWkOEUaJFZcLyL4SEMJxfJYrBcD1QFcog8AlHoGRRDri4Wbt84A >> XQoBHCvuEzEp/xqmMi3IskpBX1gpyTHlAUhaErauDhzOhsVJ8npR0K0OO53ot4lwbsdSNZFSUeKh >> NxZHy+SaiGLMEUEywFjZhquxfdT7t+JFqu/QEl2JtUseOrGj0ru68CJlnr/nOnZLDUdN8dOr3tZe >> LCeUj76a5m16OEC8dkyQwDL0OpvmPybQ7bS98c8IQowrj7qDvukch7XP4dONalfN0Q5nmwpo3tD5 >> TLPVKBIjJr8eEll1CSPxtrqODJVD5/iaTYHFy40TysTeotC6ygGRprFDB0SwBVV/ie48brNDhdbQ >> L8XULPiIMQmyzJHxJ0Es9ZuRlcIlkrAvKivbkbnZ1fhc5TRn0Oj89Sn5fUmbxZekfJ33+YUT3b79 >> 3grMXpvEb3KxC7lF/LRysM3lly9ehk8cNcsDKzUHeuhdHLXNEOkG7fBrNs7Pz5fK496iXyliv4tF >> f0Vbsq9Lp/VwMDNLMLOZ5hTWNiT54+SimPjua+VsDeqAQQQ95CfdNUCnuF+wYNJzEbviwv4YFSsR >> RyUWvCAoDezhixcUQaGmbCLLmOi0vj2kPkGof88NdfknzKLdMtweNdmaEBEyoRC4XDYHbqGbDBVI >> EGCFkU91OQGjoF4QpY80+XKoEOkaY2raI1glvdChQ0GR0OsrjhHP38PTOrl+RV3x2ngVkXOzCdXl >> guvOdINJ6+oSXfZzZbIOzJRpfsKsStyNX3qtg/MHREvvi9MRgDBXuuT9oJiK0rpW7XcsMtmym/e2 >> uSKFamtdqSz6Lsv7uf2Z8bfNQfY12e0Rnv6Rh4YEKYV3pUQkt9sEvW1s76ZigvOQ1kSN93TYIN8y >> 9wHOqE88kuNfRq444dLEYM0CiasdXkg1ownItGo/If0PHRwG3RyzhTJNe7CmgANErQGvv2ASrgDW >> QQgwFyg8JkKQql6MaWZgvhxLFdeB6bBij2bN0coPnmcQ0SoIBAxnNvN48M1fIuNhGmnqq5XNW7Ls >> 4WEhTGDZr/olFt8XJ7bGvCK8FCJ+2nm782lnb+tOfhfMn4gT7+crU9i+mp5OVthktdaurr3gpwPp >> HOWteoJ27yyBp/ECdS7kVp/AG4gBWdsuTVK6ZnUJ5Xm58t1acjls/hPi+ObaVuPaXuinGKtaH9Lt >> 1ki1TKyUlvhIfUCyFte4+pP2L3RJhvMvwh1b7nDEIQXK/Ozq/lKyu2QXrwtoazweTSLj6X3rd7CX >> 39wY0mLud3IVetQa9DxK9/lLftovaSomGiSMh7hDtmiRNTlPzzFcK+ClB5LwY1dgoY7hz0tp8q4i >> MHzilYL9BB7xv+DvySpR4JmLmDvf764uA9GtlFdSXeEY62MAvw0Z/qapIDEGjXzFIOe3wYgt1O+D >> kVS5dMvic7X+znCTrWAqkXiDbN/fBdrdSpCf1WBlrib8Nixl0lxjx7kvdaAoaL9yo7kHFuB4YTuw >> dhez/SH/syF0MC02yuGz0hgCw1Nqpqp6EB82pxHiwRqDZe0XiIHor1Ts+4JiQnHoD/U9b2e9pWSV >> atijcHkb60GsPy1Lx9+pKGEiAyIW/VdEfFiSQwu/2aJz1e+04ICxEVJ4Pk4N3ZdI9Rs1WiJFnGt3 >> 8OofU1KRaVLSn1alrvPXAoZQIagkIcI2UcKkD5agG4SCmGRjolOTvINF3QonpipK0mkhw/M7ePWP >> yXNlecnk+Uo+bBvexm6oEp+ELDmG8Axhq65B6Ym0SumnVbKbTPZAMuZWFS5+79zBYm4lR1013GEj >> jx5H2LWxQv4hnVxbXUWI6iijWGKXGPvV9f57o6ql5PdnlvSbHvpvcAiS8xVFrVh9eF+wwkq0pJdr >> MrjNeJVxWAm8CJAFkol+bm4wZvrzF0Krn/vMdunlI1jTGlkDKQTXy/ShjhVbzCj8C8seQ8FcLEs8 >> pmynRexCmg53TPW+eEPY+6Xdu1jT7TTeDvR8tp588SU4uaUtbKC5Sf4uZvJDQHJ1Zr5C7iE1Wlle >> W022/cKkeHDOCE16jnX3SsfSOQ5B+q3CU2gWw2ZuncXeG7wEnV1/DDoLLEuA68JpJLjtXL76Lyz4 >> 8rtg1Xhil6VLN3huztP9ym22qhX5hWmd5H8h6Mn9ofXvxOQeIV+9rwH21h8D7ClEc3mLU1Kw5rGa >> l/3hledEOV3bnMynS703tW3bSiPTO3j7D+HCxkpMK9blUxQ96HdXP/v87mP34GZ5PmywZr+8KEJP >> I87HirMxyaABm5rBHWz67dxS8mdLct+k4G/iNDbuYhemC9xYiUkFd4miosFPmeG/TtRkoDYY70zm >> DJ2OqFobFzkb5j9ztW2Mhe5vA24KutYfnlS4OixYlTMzmGWKlwTenb0lesa5ifqdF/r9CTturxre >> rg11H4HUN7jV1gVM4PV8VsDWHRFau67S6XnpxjXfn5RvFO4jiMksywtRrWXNHtd6oKDek9nuPuMC >> v6XE9yfduJ836/BjELOgwUFC2txG5XCRAhxrvC7nVhnp/QnZCIqYRjw8Cm+sxhrQ+iuFYzOyDL+9 >> Jx+2r+a/Ua73J8croeA9p1Hhdtef30UY8EPB7TXezUBhey/ZPamXkjcTOrTovEoMNmYk3+YVWgm+ >> Dt2T4G/dY8YrMICm4T7aRyHXDdWBdfUiEmyL8LnCs3aPDX/dP1VjJVe9wFeKntztftjbOYyd+ALl >> e1PXWdxnBapGOGkT9tRIG8OFVRP1+oOr8IZ49ODMBLNBfJJblGFbTT8vbS9x8fEfNMB1WpX3pftj >> E66RJ3r78g42+ofgYGOVNEyyfGW9GmJrYk/UtWzN5RSYqkWgwaAUYrXiDpY2TXiuhi3rZ7i6UBnq >> 7+svHoG6kqu5iBUeRIImHMu4pTAvLfLepCtAeETCXIt52KsXChD28p7s/jpu5krFfDhZWq23EeYd >> bOGP2f4a6BlwtJXTzpHdrfPHU967aT6dawa5gyXdzuallTFYfQSB/xpefsdupaWd89AvmhV/TROC >> 9dXv8NvhUg5GnUZ0RHUhtI900ZvxNfF3bHO23lKz6v6809bHLr0Q6v4QRd+Uy6ZscEPSBiDwkGv1 >> Dvb6m+rrXa3hZv7Ykn8NzxY/nvmOtKneWFv7fwIAAAD//9RW227aQBD9lZGfjbGBcLECUoGgkKot >> gkZ93tgDrGLvursLlDz1H/qH/ZLO2oaQhiQiSirVD5a915kzc86MBxcejJCLBJUHnxANFwvYcLOE >> KylgIrXBxIUMlZaCJSCkQe3CbDp2abVIJEyYunVh8MGFIUYeBJ12zTuvbkLTs2+Vv7Pe+SbMgH41 >> j6ddx/dHQasdNJ3d0ETZwaZfa/f7+8EhztkqMQfLq290jj1GHb3bzpheveHBdDSATs33AIYyZVyA >> wu8rrjBFYQiBK68EB5iI7d8Ut0ImMU1dzwaV8cwCxBQXDGJM7Kz7Xqi84A38SJNQZyzCrpMp1KjW >> 6PQgf75EJg9Z471s+0cRO+5j/WwXxuA+jIKlCHpLeZ0CT7MkDygznLJdR0uMVwnC75+/KNxrrjE+ >> iLQL74XS6yO4z7V9JE8n3yt49nhL7kLJnqYH44uvI2AaGEyIL2xB6JolSYsHl0zoyjdUAhX0FVsJ >> QKJXQnjrTAqNYCQMFOMLqywmVnyBpzPnOfuO50rBh7Ew1jIDl1wbqbYwpOu1cSGHt+67UPP94F3T >> IMfwORsf3L4Jl1sS54SLW1Ahj7uOGsctK6HLwoOuEzhH0mvUqrf65cyERJr0cGa2lPqbcM2SrnO5 >> O9UhBlsdLxaZ3tKYLKxWbchSJrwsLxCeVItqxskQO17lJYqV0oaqBa1CEMobVFWfnmbDW5o0eeAK >> 3bL35f+sGq1CboKgUyO9Gcg0RRVxlvC7Ql/knEiAsEsyF/QqTRllmcJMKsqyvgcfGdHEJZaoNVPx >> 3wC9VSE9khFl8X0x/a4FX1M3wM3Whc9ybctHxz9ddN6q4j/B9GeK++m2Pr7jxbL2xBaNkZnsO4+D >> zqa0d0bzdnTYbraCdk7cuaSWS01xjgpFZAlqiJtdB9conHvOty1RN+FTq+OilzrY0Ck2ZIvZHZ25 >> IZ2o1Rp+rhz0fdam78LLBbUx9laZ0XijWEKqvCRDg7af77iRxsj0fjrB+cHsYmXIA3Kr1JIChJzi >> NzLe5h+xjFa2s+r9AQAA//8DAFBLAwQUAAYACAAAACEAyG8go5ABAABQBAAAEgAAAHdvcmQvZm9v >> dG5vdGVzLnhtbKyTTW7DIBCF95V6B4t9jJ2obWTFySbKuurPASjGMaphEOC4uX3HdnDTNI2iqhts >> BubNN/BYrD5UHe2EdRJ0TtI4IZHQHAqptzl5fdlM5iRynumC1aBFTvbCkdXy9mbRZiWA1+CFi1BD >> u0xBTirvTUap45VQzMVKcgsOSh9zUBTKUnJBFePhd5okc5xLTQ4aOyxxogFGaCxQglXMuxjsFjPs >> e2MmqGmYl2+yln5PUes+yKhdThqrswPHZOTocjIEyHaqDpsR+/e9A3M2fEKGvQZySFkDb5TQvsej >> VtQIDNpV0rigpv6qhudRBZGLDR8125prqhWWtegAVQ/YLdjCWODCOYyuh8VQuU2TKw6wkxgzrkH4 >> XjOQHHul7fx4Ypbxoo8N10l9NYIXvzxyb9Rmfm9QyQnDLPNgCYZkkZNJ2m80OMXnUTzlJEk26cM8 >> RZsdQmtRsqb2P1ceu9B09pDczXoR25UcK9DlgqJCP5p+DG/pLBkH7aVueuc8n1Im/wx5ttglYOwk >> 0LvlJwAAAP//AwBQSwMEFAAGAAgAAAAhALiBfmyQAQAASgQAABEAAAB3b3JkL2VuZG5vdGVzLnht >> bKyUy27CMBBF95X6D5H3eYFaUERgg1hXfXyA6zhgNfZYtpOUv+8kwUApRVHVTRKPPfeescdZrD5l >> FTTcWAEqJ2mUkIArBoVQ25y8vW7COQmso6qgFSiekz23ZLW8v1u0GVeFAsdtgBLKZhJysnNOZ3Fs >> 2Y5LaiMpmAELpYsYyBjKUjAeS8r85yRJ5jgWihw0GnS40ADNFRqUYCR1NgKzxQzzUesQNTV14l1U >> wu1j1Hr0MrLJSW1UduAIjxxdToYAWSMrvxixf187MGfDy2eYMZBDyhpYLblyPV5seIXAoOxOaOvV >> 5F/VcD92XuRmwWfFtnqMW2Foiw0gqwG7BVNoA4xbi9H1MOmd2zQZsYGdxDFjDMJ3T09y3itt144X >> zXI86POG66ROheDBL0/NG7SZ22sUslxTQx0YgiFR5CRM+3Uah3g5iuecJMkmnc1T7LJDaM1LWlfu >> 58xTF5pMZ8nDtBcxnePRIV4uYlTon7p/Hm7SNS4GyglV923zcsmY/DPiVbMbuFiG/wksvwAAAP// >> AwBQSwMEFAAGAAgAAAAhANnDygIFAgAAdQUAABAAAAB3b3JkL2Zvb3RlcjEueG1spFTbjtowEH2v >> 1H+I/A4JXalF0YYVKqVvFWrpBxhnklj1TWMnIX/fMSGU3WpX0L6QMJ4558zMcR6fjlolHaCX1hRs >> Mc9YAkbYUpq6YD/329mSJT5wU3JlDRRsAM+eVu/fPfZ5FTChauNzbQvWhODyNPWiAc39XEuB1tsq >> zIXVqa0qKSDVXEyvH7JsSf+lYWeMjsBfYFgHhggqi5oHP7dYUwX+at2MMB0P8iCVDENKWB8nGN0V >> rEWTn3XMLjpiTU4C8k6rKZlkv547as7Hx1SBt4gcSzZWtBpMOMlLERQJtsY30vkJTf8rGs2jmUDe >> bPiq2d7dwlYi72n3Wo2ye4ulQyvAe4puxsOJuV9kNwwwQlwqbpHwnHNScu2VPjrxhVkui742XIT6 >> 0wgtfkW+dUmfk9/L7wXLsu3i03JB7jmHNlDxVoW/T3Yx9LDNHrJsBNnhCetHGBRQdcdVwbbWBkCW >> xpMKuYYd0lGPnEbP0baGBkGpayMaS04KcAwx0EwBcncdb0SfH9dK1nQhBRmIECky0O0ckXGkxmfU >> O17Dt1YfRvqU2olZ9HTn7KjpjkpqQJWfG45EfX7bD47GfoAokVqMHCfQu5Gl8QH31Hy8+rl3XBCu >> Q/CAHbDVbv31S5JE/Evi/7C90gfQMi5dxDnFNu6zxqnibR9MCxgJ6Jc+mqvfAAAA//8DAFBLAwQU >> AAYACAAAACEAXLYLZiQCAAAiBgAAEAAAAHdvcmQvZm9vdGVyMi54bWy0VNuOmzAQfa/Uf0B+T4Cu >> 1EZoySpqmr5VqE0/wIEhoPqmsYHk7zuOIZtstVWyVZ9sxjPnnBkf8/h0kCLqAW2rVc7SecIiUKWu >> WrXP2c/tZrZgkXVcVVxoBTk7gmVPy/fvHoesdhhRtbKZ1DlrnDNZHNuyAcntXLYlaqtrNy+1jHVd >> tyXEkpfT9kOSLOi7VWzE6An8BYY2oIig1ii5s3ONe6rAX52ZEabhrt21onXHmLA+TjCyz1mHKht1 >> zM46fE1GArJeiimZZL+eGzRnYZkq8BaRoWSty06Ccid5MYIgwVrZpjV2QpNvRaN5NBPIXxu+aHYw >> t7BVyAe6eymC7EFjZVCXYC1F1+FwYh7S5IYBeohzxS0SrjknJZdeGbwTX5jlfNGXhvNQz43QxS/J >> tyYaMvJ79T1nSbJJPy1Scs8YWkPNO+H+PCl86GGTPCRJACnwhPXDHQVQdc9FzjZaO0AW+5MauYQC >> 6WhATqPnqDtFg6DUlSobTU5ycHA+0EwBcvfev4ghO6xEu6cHWZKBCJEiR3qdARkDNV5RF3wP3zq5 >> C/QxteOzaDVjttd0RyU1IKrPDUeiHnfbo6Gx78BLpBY9xwn0buRWWYdbat4//cwaXhKuQbCAPbBl >> sfr6JYo8/jnxX9he6cOC4cgdvKWVIVO6QK3rcQxhxG6ZetHuP4gFcs555P5S/czv8/GpIgg1V855 >> Nq0HnlxzaoL+8MvfAAAA//8DAFBLAwQUAAYACAAAACEAnVyLvhAHAACHHQAAFQAAAHdvcmQvdGhl >> bWUvdGhlbWUxLnhtbOxZT28bRRS/I/EdRntvEydOmkR1qtixCbRpo9gt6nG8O/ZOM7uzmhkn8Q21 >> RyQkREEcqMSNAwIqtRKX8mkCRVCkfgXezOyud+Jx45QAFTSH1jv7e2/e+70/82evXjtOGDokQlKe >> NoLa5cUAkTTkEU2HjeB2r3NpLUBS4TTCjKekEYyJDK5tvvvOVbyhYpIQBPKp3MCNIFYq21hYkCEM >> Y3mZZySFdwMuEqzgUQwXIoGPQG/CFpYWF1cXEkzTAKU4AbW3BgMaEtTTKoPNQnmbwWOqpB4Imehq >> 1cSRMNjooKYRcixbTKBDzBoBzBPxox45VgFiWCp40QgWzV+wsHl1AW/kQkzNkK3IdcxfLpcLRAdL >> Zk4x7JeT1jr19SvbpX4DYGoa1263W+1aqc8AcBiCp9aWqs56Z63WLHRWQPbntO7W4spi3cVX9C9P >> 2bzebDZX1nNbrFIDsj/rU/i1xdX61pKDNyCLX5nC15tbrdaqgzcgi1+dwneurK/WXbwBxYymB1No >> HdBOJ9deQgac7XjhawBfW8zhExRkQ5ldeooBT9WsXEvwPS46ANBAhhVNkRpnZIBDyOIWZrQvqJ4A >> bxBceWOHQjk1pOdCMhQ0U43ggwxDRUz0vXz23ctnT9DJ/acn9388efDg5P4PVpEjtYPTYVXqxTef >> /vHoI/T7k69fPPzcj5dV/C/ff/zzT5/5gVA+E3Oef/H416ePn3/5yW/fPvTAtwTuV+E9mhCJbpIj >> tM8TcMyw4lpO+uJ8Er0Y06rEVjqUOMV6Fo/+tood9M0xZtiDaxKXwTsC2ocP+N7onmNwNxYjlcfb >> 8ex6nDjAXc5ZkwsvC9f1XBWae6N06J9cjKq4fYwPfXO3cOrEtz3KoG9Sn8pWTBwz9xhOFR6SlCik >> 3/EDQjx83aXU4XWXhoJLPlDoLkVNTL2U9GjfyaaJ0A5NIC5jn4EQb4eb3TuoyZnP621y6CKhKjDz >> GN8jzKHxPTxSOPGp7OGEVQm/gVXsM7I7FmEV15YKIj0kjKN2RKT0ydwS4G8l6NehdfjDvsvGiYsU >> ih74dN7AnFeR2/ygFeMk82G7NI2r2PflAaQoRntc+eC73K0Q/QxxwOnMcN+hxAn32d3gNh06Jk0S >> RL8ZCR1LaNVOB05o+qp2nEA3zt25uHYMDfD5V488mfWmNuItIMFXCTun2u8s3Omm2+Iiom9+z93G >> o3SPQJpPLzxvW+7blhv851vurHqet9FOeiu0Xb29sZtis0VOZu6QB5SxrhozckOaTbKEdSLqwKCW >> M6dDUp6Yshh+5n3dwQ0FNjJIcPUhVXE3xhlssGuBVjKUueqhRBmXcLAzw17dGg+bdGWPhSv6wGD7 >> gcRql0d2eFkPF+eCUo1ZbYbm8FlMtKwVzDvZ8pVcKbj9OpPVtFFzz1YzpplW58xWugwxnHYNBks2 >> YQOCYNsCLK/C+VxPDQcTzEikebdrbxEWE4W/J0S519aRGEfEhsgZrrBZM7ErUshcEEBKeUJ3PjZL >> 1oC0s40waTE7f+YkuVAwIVmX3alqYmm1tliKjhrB+srSSoBCnDWCARxJ4WeSQdCk3rJhNoR7nVAJ >> m7Vn1qIp0onH6/6sqsEtw4yCcco4E1JtYxnbGJpXeahYqmey9i+t1HWyXYwDNlFfw4rlNUiRf80K >> CLUbWjIYkFBVg10Z0dzZx7wT8pEiohtHR6jPRmIfQ/iBU+1PRCXcLJiC1g9wDabZNq/c3pp3murl >> k8HZccyyGOfdUl+jFBVn4abeShvMU8U88M1ru3Hu/K7oir8oV6pp/D9zRS8HcNBfjnQEQriFFRjp >> em0EXKiYQxfKYhp2BKz7pndAtsBVKrwG8uEu2PwvyKH+39ac1WHKGs5rap8OkaCwnKhYELIHbclk >> 3xnKavnSY1WyXJHJqIq5MrNm98khYT3dA1d1Dw5QDKluukneBgzudP65z3kF9Yd6j1KtN6eHlEun >> rYF/euNiixmcOrWX0Plb8F+a6Fn9rLwRL9bIqiP6xWSXVC+qwln81tfzqV7ThHkW4MpaazvWlMdL >> K4VxEMVpj2Gw3M9kcF2D9D+w/lERMvthQS+oPb4PvRXBdwLLH4KsvqS7GmSQbpD2Vx/2PXbQJpNW >> ZanNdz6atWKxvuCNajnvKbK1ZfPE+5xkl5sodzqnFi+S7Jxhh2s7NpNqiOzpEoWhQXEOMYExX6Sq >> H414/x4Eehuu50fMfkaSGTyZOsj2hMmuPo/G+U8m7YJrs06fYTSSpftkgGh0XJw/SiZsCdlPGcUW >> 2aC1mE60UnDZd2hwBXO8FrWrZSm8dLZwKWFmhpZdCpsbMp8C+JCVN259tAO8bbLWa11cBVMs/SuU >> zWG8nzLvyWdeyuxB8ZWBeg3K1PGrKcuZAvKmEw8+RQoMR5Ou6b+w6NhMNym7+ScAAAD//wMAUEsD >> BBQABgAIAAAAIQBKfkBtFQQAAHsJAAARAAAAd29yZC9zZXR0aW5ncy54bWycVluP2jgUfl9p/wPK >> 8zIEAgRQmYqLUEedmUUD0+6rkxyIhS+R7cDQX7/HTtwwbbaq9on4fD7fuR/z4eMbZ50zKE2lmAf9 >> uzDogEhlRsVxHrzuN91J0NGGiIwwKWAeXEEHH+///OPDZabBGLymO0gh9EzOg1KJmU5z4ER3OU2V >> 1PJguqnkM3k40BTqn6DWUPMgN6aY9Xq10p0sQCDbQSpOjL6T6tirNNcyLTkI0xuE4bingBGDDuuc >> Ftqz8f/LhqZyT3L+VRBnzvy9Sz/81c063ItU2XeN33HPKhRKpqA1ZpazKlxOqPA0mv0OT5XPR5oo >> oq43JPdYtm9S8s5lVoBKMaFY8zAMehbI5LM0e0XS05M8g65kcCAlM3uS7IwsUO1M0IF4cKvy6Vrk >> IIiBFSkqrTQnSGNA7QqSYiArKYySzKs7QyvJC4VxVrY1OcNWwZnCZUtTUypoXPpCGM2QfnHEPGiz >> cw3WwGtsN5Ui/iDQOZr9g2mz4RykNEIapL09oQ80mwfdfmXXX6rFLqzej7ogsoaoPvzA817qad4p >> 4hgUxFhfSg3PtsPZzlwZbKR6pNo0Ab1qDCXD2iz0c8kTUJjBugDuEqovmPmMuZCn8pEKWCogp5eS >> 1TUjjMmLzTz8fdgRDs7Kg0AKdpPVXVm4/Fem3Dg1LixKIw/UYN20UZh1yJx2VV1SgXu5oUqbDX2D >> 7CvNTL4CVmW+RO8VQy1UehAYQxMf1QUj109EHEvWaDrDiFCzPbpgFiLbYgs9EXVqnPoCyiwYPQpr >> 6Cs1+a5oQKd24y9mNa29bi59Z8BsvCVvDrDZFJp+BiUwz1uCMTl5SrDPspVkS8KISG3msDGaIuLG >> zLStpv14wV7z3R2G68k47k+qBrNog4TT8TJctCGDcLhYRa1IFIejViQaRutpPYnv7USbMPJj/R4Z >> h4PJctlmZxwP1qN6LN7rxKvhejps05lOw2m/NZ5FGI/iVrbVYDAex21s/523TT+e9MdtOpsoXIxW >> rUgcxUvnAdbNBoTV4jO77O1GqL42uJg6vFpqe8pBd57h0nmRnAhLyWeJOi2p8FcSwJcJbpFdmXiw >> 260AjYPNNrj/PICPQYVk2P1rOPwkZ9jnx8aKqyifqVbpRZHihR5zuy/4jArzSLkn1GWCU13ZErj4 >> W6FekwPcRNSuYWKm8V7iyxq5zjf4gONWQmocU9+7ILqvO0uNM8CU28HwRIoCZwavJMf+PMDRzE0/ >> wKPBU4az6w7JcVBjA4fhyWLuQFL7BuHt+sNeqD7xVv3RyCIvixrZ0MuGjWzkZaNGNvaysZXlV3z+ >> cEOd8DH1n1Z+kHZ3QoZPmsd/ElVJyCCldoNfedI8bHcVxnCd76DABWakQlb3Zv5lMexE/6/p/l8A >> AAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQCpyvDKBwgAAM0/AAAPAAAAd29yZC9zdHlsZXMueG1szFttb9pI >> EP5+0v0Hy997IZBCEpVWeSnXSG2alkT32dhLsGK8nG2apL/+ZmftxdgsnsGOdPkC2LvzzOszhux8 >> +PSyjJxfIklDGY/d4796riNiXwZh/Dh2H+4n705dJ828OPAiGYux+ypS99PHP//48HyeZq+RSB0Q >> EKfnydhdZNnq/Ogo9Rdi6aV/yZWI4d5cJksvg4/J45Gcz0NfXEt/vRRxdtTv9YZHiYi8DMDTRbhK >> 3VzaM0Xas0yCVSJ9kaag7TLS8pZeGLsfQb1A+tdi7q2jLFUfk7sk/5h/wpeJjLPUeT73Uj8Mx+59 >> uASLbsWz81MuvdiFO8JLs4s09HbeXFzE6e5tflrfcKQgIy9+BLG/vGjsivjdw3QbxFyahQFI9pJ3 >> 0wsXNh6hBcVryZKVsUuvqpgNzgVXT3WowCli/lX6TyKYZnBj7EK48eLDzV0SyiTMXsfu2Vl+cSqW >> 4ZcwCITKjGJhvAgD8c9CxA+pCDbXf0wwzrlEX67jbOz2R0MMRZQGn198sVJxBrzYWwL0rdoQKbFp >> CQcVWocbbfSFCipe/LeAPFYOAs/uQlkIT+Wyg/rvBUKr162B+sqisgEol6XroL2Ik/Yi3rcXMWwv >> YtReBDBY24jo3ChlJT2omfR18pVzYnC2J2XVjloWNe6oJU3jjlqONO6opUTjjloGNO6oBbxxRy2+ >> jTtq4dy7Yy5lJhJMoho72InH95Duqrk3QB+S6GDlPQonXi9nfPD7MIuEgt7LeMctuTXvQs6dl3iP >> ibdaOKqdch01Xc8ymrrI4Ycz9JfXlUiiMH7iajiRUSSfRXCwgGmWyPixMR59XfW1JIM4khLm83K1 >> 8NIQnqIaAt9vGfh7bxYJ5+8kDBqh3utaq9lkL5y7yPPFQkaBSJx78cLOp1vpTFeeD00f41wi7Zb5 >> 8zV8XGTOdIEPFI2GDy0+thuu5X8NUzR5b+UOLaY0CSeFbGhJQ7vwbyII18vCNYRnraHuVoysqECg >> ivtddILh50OoAFBM0M3wQPkE/XXr5MtXMaborxvtgfIJ+uu2fKB8zI/98WUTy7WXPDmk8hqxa/dK >> RjKZr6OiBhrpYcSuYANBM4FdxEY+iSRG7Areok/nwvfheyklT9mx2PAoA4UdDo2CxUa3hR2UCu0d >> MyxiB6iC1WdgteNaBhCbdH+KX6H6bYvbDLALmAfbxnIeWDxAfXT7sYbvGI0ofQvnUVFuYvgxKBUO >> DW1gqTwqWp5P6ElOMrVrfIxkatcBGUDtWiEDyJIf9ic30xPpIO2bIwOLTcumi2HakZl5xGZmA8Rr >> AR31TcLzl6V67blQ75sEFHaA6n2TgMKOTqWXmb5JwOqsbxKwLF3DHqMyp3KMYvfNMpAhb4JF3ZA3 >> Aagb8iYAdUPeBKD25N0M0h15E7DY3GA4tUzeBCBcUv9h0F5GBqhM3gQgNjdotst/Myr6HkrZ/+W2 >> A/ImoLADVCdvAgo7OjbyJmDhEk4mVLAM1RGwuiFvAlA35E0A6oa8CUDdkDcBqBvyJgC1J+9mkO7I >> m4DF5gbDqWXyJgCx6cEAlcmbAIRLONywk7yx6t+cvAko7ADVyZuAwo5OhVDNQyoBix2gCpYhbwIW >> LuEkQ46Fyc0xqhvyJljUDXkTgLohbwJQN+RNAGpP3s0g3ZE3AYvNDYZTy+RNAGLTgwEqkzcBiM0N >> O8kbi/HNyZuAwg5QnbwJKOzoVAjV8BwBix2gCpYhbwIW5ktr8iYA4ZJDgTgWdUPeBIu6IW8CUDfk >> TQBqT97NIN2RNwGLzQ2GU8vkTQBi04MBKpM3AYjNDTvJG2vkzcmbgMIOUJ28CSjs6FQI1ZA3AYsd >> oAqWoToCVjfkTQDCxGxN3gQgXHIAEFYRJ0zdkDfBom7ImwDUnrybQbojbwIWmxsMp5bJmwDEpgcD >> VCZvAhCbG9SBXjgeSj6NemxJAuo5g+JUAxmwbwkSFTA38KeYiwSGpUTjuY1BS8DCQgaiJT2oJl5K >> +eTQTpEPLAlChgpnUSjx/PgrntIpndgdjPbMSdx/v3K+6PGe2j5Mqe1D0zBBVR6GUhNDOMEGemZw >> Mnzsropj7EoaDEqp0bF8wAkX3sC4Uz60pDarKSZYiINc+WX8h1OOiu9hrC4o1vR6o6uT67MTbRGM >> o6EGv4vb/fxG+vtKDaShWH2tNPqFetQ19xegup8PKVg0zw/rmyNNeFS/aoflRD/asplfKdSDQTG8 >> s3kmg4+grUXLTJ0a3+NbPFW+18EOLtkBCvM9WwdNUa1yILJZpB0Ob25iFRMYMcR/sunYBy+eFgv3 >> r0QUffMwPJlc2ZdGYp7pu8c9bJgVUTOZZXJp35/geXLUZJcAcGRZGf1RGWH3sB4WyU++W/LgVqpG >> g2N52xmsj8bWA7rDt3YNtmrIVM1ET9BUsy0frEHImQfjhN/VdGCtoNTIRnFdS7qCfNfhIiYlDE9u >> VeJg0hv0eloEDFAqxSA7cU4UXgswdUJVz96sJIxzngxgbgKVLa3BIKqkxiWnwxNcooKF8uANyrd7 >> bKt2/XUKKTNV05pV5ilZXvWjvuVsvFJx5s7SR0Pqrm3l1t7Z8LKH46r5tCq8FBO21oHYtEKB4Cok >> R6LLTJLdwbjUrZ6WqjqoPEm1K9vsDrLnlz2hcmpvsvxQOzdTSFUzN3fexshhr396eakzhGjk87mv >> TsYXFdWDv8kkz7HioprehsYAOh/qkvqAVtU19RX/VxedgotOc55ZU1xU1En68T8AAAD//wMAUEsD >> BBQABgAIAAAAIQBW46fxCAEAAI0BAAAUAAAAd29yZC93ZWJTZXR0aW5ncy54bWyMkNFKAzEQRd8F >> /2HJu82qtcrSbRFloSCtGPsBMTvdDSQzSybutv1606otvvk4c+4cLjOdb73LeghsCUtxPcpFBmio >> ttiUYv1eXT2IjKPGWjtCKMUOWMxnlxfToRjgQ0GMKclZsiAXoRRtjF0hJZsWvOYRdYCJbSh4HdMY >> GkmbjTXwTObTA0Z5k+cTGcDpmBpwazsWP7bhP7aBQt0FMsCcinj37fPaopiljjUtKb6B263wSSl5 >> WindwyOrdOKgsg7OZBUajXYPC6zI1RDOZM3wQtgc4kvtgY+ks1tw/AphgabNhqLXrhS5OLKoQwNR >> mQCAav8L78bj7e395BCRf544+wIAAP//AwBQSwMEFAAGAAgAAAAhACeOmYWAAQAA0QIAABAACAFk >> b2NQcm9wcy9hcHAueG1sIKIEASigAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnFLBTuMw >> EL2vxD9EuVOnFHYBTY1QEeIACKkpnEf2JLFwbMs2iP79Tghtg7jh08yb8Zvn54Grj94W7xST8W5Z >> zmdVWZBTXhvXLstNfXt8XhYpo9NovaNluaVUXsmjP/AUfaCYDaWCKVxall3O4VKIpDrqMc247LjS >> +Nhj5jS2wjeNUXTj1VtPLouTqvor6COT06SPw56wHBkv3/NvSbVXg770XG8DC5ZQUx8sZpKPgxw7 >> 0z73IPYo1D6jrU1PcvFvzoV9Ck/YUpIXIMYAXnzUSS5OFxWIMYZVhxFVZhPl/OLsbAFigsB1CNYo >> zGywfDAq+uSbXDygMi771BUDCYhpF7BDa1Jv0eSt5DHTFO6NYz2MjgHri9hGDN0nOMlgrdDSim2Q >> DdpEIA4ArHwf0G0lS91FzPeaNqH2N4NPX1e+g5OXvpjcrQOqUcvhvRMc1uwLaVa/YzsAcMcfE+0w >> ku+6lvSu52dhcPB53FA5P5lVfD792mH8NfvVkf8BAAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQD4QR6ikAEA >> APgCAAARAAgBZG9jUHJvcHMvY29yZS54bWwgogQBKKAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAACMkl9PwjAUxd9N/A5N30c7UWMWmFGBgAExMv++1faCla1b2urk29tuMAF98PH03PvL6Wk7 >> 519Zij5BG5mrLg5bFCNQPBdSLbr4PhkEZxgZy5Rgaa6gi1dg8Hl8eNDhRcRzDbc6L0BbCQY5kjIR >> L7r4zdoiIsTwN8iYabkJ5cx5rjNmndQLUjC+ZAsgR5SekgwsE8wy4oFB0RDxGil4gyw+dFoBBCeQ >> QgbKGhK2QvIza0Fn5s+FytmazKRdFe5O67jbbMFrs5n+MrIZLMuyVbarGC5/SJ4m41l11UAq3xUH >> HHcEj6y0KcTJsI+Go1kyvXtG0wHyMpneonH/oT9GvenkYnSDbi4m/VmHNDt+23y8vgO3cXXcCGdw >> DczmOr5mS0ADkCoFXQ1tDP82S1iVuRbGre8oJ1Jm7MS98FyCuFztYX77nqbhU/ofEoe04jXaBa1a >> rUOBQK6nqG514zy2r3rJAMdHNKQBbQdtmoSn0fFJROmLj72z73urD7J1wn8TT/aIG0DdwO5fjb8B >> AAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQBcwyQucgEAABwFAAASAAAAd29yZC9mb250VGFibGUueG1s3FPL >> bsIwELxX6j9Evpc4gaIKEVAF4thDRT9gCRtiyY/Ia0j5+25wqGhLpV6Lo7xmd8ej8e50/m50ckBP >> ytlCZAMpErSl2yq7K8TbevXwJBIKYLegncVCHJHEfHZ/N20nlbOBEq63NPGFqENoJmlKZY0GaOAa >> tByrnDcQ+NfvUldVqsSlK/cGbUhzKcepRw2B96ZaNSR6tvYvbK3z28a7EolYrNGRz4CyYtarS9qJ >> BcOq18ogJS/YJq/OQExowDrCjHMOoAshc77Gcigf5YjvnL9GIu2Yyho8YfhMlBGuwCh9PKOwDy7i >> jQplfYYP4BVsNMYQqR0H9rSRvN9QnpaISMZIv3ok/4EMvyJl5IlVWVfFyCUPq0/jMf0w5Jll6ZNP >> 3204q7h4X7VhtLxmA7WKKAasC2u/x/WxwZON/8KXBWi18eqqM7lcnRqja5QRHx8/rzojb6FBFmDY >> B/jFiG5C4qR0E3NbRvQjQ7MPAAAA//8DAFBLAQItABQABgAIAAAAIQCVYItGlQEAACgHAAATAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABbQ29udGVudF9UeXBlc10ueG1sUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAhAMJgmvP0AAAA >> TgIAAAsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAzgMAAF9yZWxzLy5yZWxzUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAhAOh7AX2RAQAA >> zAYAABwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8wYAAHdvcmQvX3JlbHMvZG9jdW1lbnQueG1sLnJlbHNQSwECLQAU >> AAYACAAAACEASLSM28kvAABAoAAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADGCQAAd29yZC9kb2N1bWVudC54bWxQ >> SwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEAyG8go5ABAABQBAAAEgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC+OQAAd29yZC9mb290bm90 >> ZXMueG1sUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAhALiBfmyQAQAASgQAABEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAfjsAAHdvcmQv >> ZW5kbm90ZXMueG1sUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAhANnDygIFAgAAdQUAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPT0A >> AHdvcmQvZm9vdGVyMS54bWxQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEAXLYLZiQCAAAiBgAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >> AABwPwAAd29yZC9mb290ZXIyLnhtbFBLAQItABQABgAIAAAAIQCdXIu+EAcAAIcdAAAVAAAAAAAA >> AAAAAAAAAMJBAAB3b3JkL3RoZW1lL3RoZW1lMS54bWxQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEASn5AbRUEAAB7 >> CQAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFSQAAd29yZC9zZXR0aW5ncy54bWxQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEAqcrw >> ygcIAADNPwAADwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABJTQAAd29yZC9zdHlsZXMueG1sUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAh >> AFbjp/EIAQAAjQEAABQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAfVUAAHdvcmQvd2ViU2V0dGluZ3MueG1sUEsBAi0A >> FAAGAAgAAAAhACeOmYWAAQAA0QIAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAt1YAAGRvY1Byb3BzL2FwcC54bWxQ >> SwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEA+EEeopABAAD4AgAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABtWQAAZG9jUHJvcHMvY29y >> ZS54bWxQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEAXMMkLnIBAAAcBQAAEgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0XAAAd29yZC9m >> b250VGFibGUueG1sUEsFBgAAAAAPAA8AvAMAANZdAAAAAA== >> >> --Apple-Mail-5--395826686-- > ******************** > Craig Partridge > Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies > E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com > Phone: +1 517 324 3425 Kevin Dunlap 425-296-9255 Kevin at Dunlap.org LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kjdunlap -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dcrocker at gmail.com Wed Mar 31 09:20:03 2010 From: dcrocker at gmail.com (Dave Crocker) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:20:03 -0700 Subject: [ih] Naming and addressing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BB37633.8030708@gmail.com> On 3/31/2010 8:16 AM, Elizabeth Feinler wrote: >> Also a quick question folks have been asking me -- when did we have country >> code TLDs and when did we decide to use the ISO list? I think we had ccTLDs >> by late 1985 as .UK was active and Jon P. had assigned .US to himself (at >> least, that's what I remember). But I think choosing a list of ccTLDs blessed >> by ISO was done a bit later. Yes? > > I will punt this one to Paul M. or Joyce Reynolds. ISO decreed that international standards had jurisdiction down to the country-level TLD, and from there the naming scheme was up to the country itself. It was at that time that Jon applied for the .us domain, as I remember it. This was a parallel effort with us at the time, and I do not recall the exact time frame. I don't recall discussing this with Jon or other DNS folk directly, but the story I heard was: Jon watched the political challenges in 'country' naming and decided to invoke a model that already had some popularity in Arpanet/Internet design: specify a framework, and defer the fine-grained details to a group that focusses on them. In this case, that mean specifying use of the ISO table and thereby deferring definition of the table's contents to ISO. (Other examples of this model include MIME, with Content-type, and email addresses do this, by deferring the details of mailboxes to the host/organization that owns them. For email addresses, this is in contrast with the way X.400 specified addresses. So the model of framework-and-defer really is noteworthy.) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jeanjour at comcast.net Wed Mar 31 13:34:54 2010 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:34:54 -0400 Subject: [ih] Naming and addressing In-Reply-To: <4BB37633.8030708@gmail.com> References: <4BB37633.8030708@gmail.com> Message-ID: So did the allocation plan for CLNP addresses in the US. Turned out that some other part of ANSI had defined a unique company code for all US companies I forget what was called. Had nothing to do with networking. Anyone who wanted a set of CLNP addresses was suppose to get one of these codes, it was then the next level of the hierarchy after country code. The rest of the address was theirs to deal with as they liked. I remember reading an article in Network World probably in the late 80s about addressing and the author after describing the process for getting IP addresses, said he was unable to figure out who one applied to to get CLNP addresses. Of course, the answer was no one! Take care, John At 9:20 -0700 2010/03/31, Dave Crocker wrote: >On 3/31/2010 8:16 AM, Elizabeth Feinler wrote: >>>Also a quick question folks have been asking me -- when did we have country >>>code TLDs and when did we decide to use the ISO list? I think we >>>had ccTLDs >>>by late 1985 as .UK was active and Jon P. had assigned .US to himself (at >>>least, that's what I remember). But I think choosing a list of >>>ccTLDs blessed >>>by ISO was done a bit later. Yes? >> >>I will punt this one to Paul M. or Joyce Reynolds. ISO decreed >>that international standards had jurisdiction down to the >>country-level TLD, and from there the naming scheme was up to the >>country itself. It was at that time that Jon applied for the .us >>domain, as I remember it. This was a parallel effort with us at >>the time, and I do not recall the exact time frame. > > >I don't recall discussing this with Jon or other DNS folk directly, >but the story I heard was: > >Jon watched the political challenges in 'country' naming and decided >to invoke a model that already had some popularity in >Arpanet/Internet design: specify a framework, and defer the >fine-grained details to a group that focusses on them. > >In this case, that mean specifying use of the ISO table and thereby >deferring definition of the table's contents to ISO. > >(Other examples of this model include MIME, with Content-type, and >email addresses do this, by deferring the details of mailboxes to >the host/organization that owns them. For email addresses, this is >in contrast with the way X.400 specified addresses. So the model of >framework-and-defer really is noteworthy.) > >d/ >-- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From braden at ISI.EDU Wed Mar 31 14:46:31 2010 From: braden at ISI.EDU (Bob Braden) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:46:31 -0700 Subject: [ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 41, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BB3C2B7.70603@isi.edu> > I don't recall discussing this with Jon or other DNS folk directly, but the > story I heard was: > > Jon watched the political challenges in 'country' naming and decided to invoke a > model that already had some popularity in Arpanet/Internet design: specify a > framework, and defer the fine-grained details to a group that focusses on them. > > In this case, that mean specifying use of the ISO table and thereby deferring > definition of the table's contents to ISO. I believe that Dave is right. I recall Jon talking about this choice and rather bragging that he had made the best choice and avoided endless thickets by adopting ISO codes. And Jon seldom took personal credit when someone else had preceded him. Bob Braden