[ih] INWG #96

[Alex McKenzie]

INWG 96 doesn't specifically mention INWG 39 because all the INWG members knew INWG 96 was a compromise/synthesis of INWG 39, INWG 61. and INWG 74.  See http://alexmckenzie.weebly.com/inwg-and-the-conception-of-the-internet-an-eyewitness-account.html for more details.

Regards,
Alex McKenzie

--- On Thu, 4/14/11, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote:

> From: Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com>
> Subject: Re: [ih] INWG #96
> To: internet-history at postel.org
> Date: Thursday, April 14, 2011, 4:50 PM
> Interesting observation: "End-to-end
> protocols (often called
> "Host-Host"   protocols) are installed on top
> of the packet switching service to provide users with an
> interprocess communication facility."
> 
> No mention of INWG 39. They have well-known ports,
> concatenate ports with network addresses, and have user IDs.
> Network address is 32 bits, user ID plus port is another 16
> bits. Sliding window, fragmentation, two modes that look a
> lot like UDP and TCP. Packets were small in those days.
> 
> On 4/14/2011 8:17 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
> > Matthias Bärwolff<matthias at baerwolff.de> 
> wrote:
> >> I take it the following one is in the ACM Portal:
> > Ah yes, thanks. I am lucky enough to be behind the
> ACM's paywall.
> > 
> > Tony.
> 
> -- Richard Bennett
> 
>