[ih] IEN Notes and INWG

[Vint Cerf]

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 <jeanjour at comcast.net> 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 <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 Bärwolff 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 Bärwolff
> www.bärwolff.de <http://www.xn--brwolff-5wa.de>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20100324/c28289fc/attachment.htm>