From dave.walden.family at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 04:24:37 2012 From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (Dave Walden) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 07:24:37 -0400 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: References: <4FEF73D0.6000700@isi.edu> <4FEF8296.20881.54F695C7@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: <4ff0327e.09d6e00a.2d21.6093@mx.google.com> At 01:22 AM 7/1/2012, Vint Cerf wrote: >steve crocker had a lot to do with NCP and likely with TELNET. I had >thought that Dave W was the originator of Do/Don't etc but glad to >know of Bernie's role in it. I had thought that Steve C might have >been the inventor of NVT but he's probably a bit too busy in Prague to >respond right now. We described Bernie's role (inventing) and my role (supporting) in negotiated options in http://walden-family.com/ieee/telnet-neg-options-2003.pdf I hope Bernie can say how much he was thinking about this before our airplane flight during which he described his idea on cocktail napkins. The early RFCs (e.g., starting with 1) mention various people involved with inventing NCP, including S. Crocker. It seems to me that more or less from the beginning they were talking about terminals in addition to other things. It would be interesting to hear Steve Crocker's first-hand take on this. RFC 15 by Steve Carr includes the first mention, I think, of the word "Telnet"; at least that's the first mention we found when making the list RFCs about Telnet at the end of http://walden-family.com/public/telnet-overview.pdf In that document, we tried to summarize the history (in one sense) of the evolution of Telnet (see section 2) from the early "old" version to the later "new" version, and this was where negotiated options crept in. The "NVT" word had already been around since at least RFC 137. While there was explicit discussion about Telnet and Telnet like stuff from the originators of NCP, apparently a committee was working on it by RFC 137 whose members had mostly not been part of the original NCP work:: Will Crowther BBN Bob Long SDC John Melvin SRI-ARC Bob Metcalf Harvard Ed Meyer MAC Tom O'Sullivan (Chairman) Raytheon Joel Winett MIT-LL (Crowther was undoubtedly there because of the TIP software effort at that time.) So there are a lot of people who might be probed for their memories of how the NVT came about and became explicit. -- home address: 12 Linden Rd., E. Sandwich, MA 02537 home ph=508-888-7655; cell ph = 503-757-3137 email address: dave at walden-family.com; website: http://www.walden-family.com/bbn/ From jeanjour at comcast.net Sun Jul 1 05:00:37 2012 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 08:00:37 -0400 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: <4ff0327e.09d6e00a.2d21.6093@mx.google.com> References: <4FEF73D0.6000700@isi.edu> <4FEF8296.20881.54F695C7@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> <4ff0327e.09d6e00a.2d21.6093@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Our impression at the time, (I was mostly an observer of this stuff) was that the working model was to create the elements of an operating system over the Net. Is that a fair appraisal? At 7:24 -0400 2012/07/01, Dave Walden wrote: >At 01:22 AM 7/1/2012, Vint Cerf wrote: >>steve crocker had a lot to do with NCP and likely with TELNET. I had >>thought that Dave W was the originator of Do/Don't etc but glad to >>know of Bernie's role in it. I had thought that Steve C might have >>been the inventor of NVT but he's probably a bit too busy in Prague to >>respond right now. >We described Bernie's role (inventing) and my role (supporting) in >negotiated options in > >http://walden-family.com/ieee/telnet-neg-options-2003.pdf >I hope Bernie can say how much he was thinking about this before our >airplane flight during which he described his idea on cocktail >napkins. > >The early RFCs (e.g., starting with 1) mention various people >involved with inventing NCP, including S. Crocker. It seems to me >that more or less from the beginning they were talking about >terminals in addition to other things. It would be interesting to >hear Steve Crocker's first-hand take on this. RFC 15 by Steve Carr >includes the first mention, I think, of the word "Telnet"; at least >that's the first mention we found when making the list RFCs about >Telnet at the end of > >http://walden-family.com/public/telnet-overview.pdf >In that document, we tried to summarize the history (in one sense) >of the evolution of Telnet (see section 2) from the early "old" >version to the later "new" version, and this was where negotiated >options crept in. The "NVT" word had already been around since at >least RFC 137. While there was explicit discussion about Telnet and >Telnet like stuff from the originators of NCP, apparently a >committee was working on it by RFC 137 whose members had mostly not >been part of the original NCP work:: > > Will Crowther BBN > Bob Long SDC > John Melvin SRI-ARC > Bob Metcalf Harvard > Ed Meyer MAC > Tom O'Sullivan (Chairman) Raytheon > Joel Winett MIT-LL > >(Crowther was undoubtedly there because of the TIP software effort >at that time.) So there are a lot of people who might be probed for >their memories of how the NVT came about and became explicit. > > > > > > > >-- >home address: 12 Linden Rd., E. Sandwich, MA 02537 >home ph=508-888-7655; cell ph = 503-757-3137 >email address: dave at walden-family.com; website: >http://www.walden-family.com/bbn/ From dave.walden.family at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 05:16:37 2012 From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (Dave Walden) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 08:16:37 -0400 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: References: <4FEF73D0.6000700@isi.edu> <4FEF8296.20881.54F695C7@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> <4ff0327e.09d6e00a.2d21.6093@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <4ff03e81.45cfe00a.416a.67c0@mx.google.com> That wasn't my view. I thought the NCP effort was to have different operating systems (and remote terminals) communicate with each other via a common protocol. The Network Software Works which Crocker sponsored from ARPA seems to me to be more like cross-network OS. But this may all be in the eye of the beholder (or once again I may not be answering the question John is asking :). At 08:00 AM 7/1/2012, John Day wrote: >Our impression at the time, (I was mostly an observer of this stuff) >was that the working model was to create the elements of an >operating system over the Net. > >Is that a fair appraisal? > >At 7:24 -0400 2012/07/01, Dave Walden wrote: >>At 01:22 AM 7/1/2012, Vint Cerf wrote: >>>steve crocker had a lot to do with NCP and likely with TELNET. I had >>>thought that Dave W was the originator of Do/Don't etc but glad to >>>know of Bernie's role in it. I had thought that Steve C might have >>>been the inventor of NVT but he's probably a bit too busy in Prague to >>>respond right now. >>We described Bernie's role (inventing) and my role (supporting) in >>negotiated options in >>http://walden-family.com/ieee/telnet-neg-options-2003.pdf >>I hope Bernie can say how much he was thinking about this before >>our airplane flight during which he described his idea on cocktail napkins. >> >>The early RFCs (e.g., starting with 1) mention various people >>involved with inventing NCP, including S. Crocker. It seems to me >>that more or less from the beginning they were talking about >>terminals in addition to other things. It would be interesting to >>hear Steve Crocker's first-hand take on this. RFC 15 by Steve Carr >>includes the first mention, I think, of the word "Telnet"; at least >>that's the first mention we found when making the list RFCs about >>Telnet at the end of >>http://walden-family.com/public/telnet-overview.pdf >>In that document, we tried to summarize the history (in one sense) >>of the evolution of Telnet (see section 2) from the early "old" >>version to the later "new" version, and this was where negotiated >>options crept in. The "NVT" word had already been around since at >>least RFC 137. While there was explicit discussion about Telnet >>and Telnet like stuff from the originators of NCP, apparently a >>committee was working on it by RFC 137 whose members had mostly not >>been part of the original NCP work:: >> >> Will Crowther BBN >> Bob Long SDC >> John Melvin SRI-ARC >> Bob Metcalf Harvard >> Ed Meyer MAC >> Tom O'Sullivan (Chairman) Raytheon >> Joel Winett MIT-LL >> >>(Crowther was undoubtedly there because of the TIP software effort >>at that time.) So there are a lot of people who might be probed >>for their memories of how the NVT came about and became explicit. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>-- >>home address: 12 Linden Rd., E. Sandwich, MA 02537 >>home ph=508-888-7655; cell ph = 503-757-3137 >>email address: dave at walden-family.com; website: >>http://www.walden-family.com/bbn/ -- home address: 12 Linden Rd., E. Sandwich, MA 02537 home ph=508-888-7655; cell ph = 503-757-3137 email address: dave at walden-family.com; website: http://www.walden-family.com/bbn/ From jeanjour at comcast.net Sun Jul 1 06:14:15 2012 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 09:14:15 -0400 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: <4ff03e81.45cfe00a.416a.67c0@mx.google.com> References: <4FEF73D0.6000700@isi.edu> <4FEF8296.20881.54F695C7@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> <4ff0327e.09d6e00a.2d21.6093@mx.google.com> <4ff03e81.45cfe00a.416a.67c0@mx.google.com> Message-ID: O, absolutely right. I remember that we really believed in the "heterogeneous" part of the "heterogeneous resource sharing network"! ;-) The more different kind of machines and OSs we could get on the ARPANet tested our models for the Network Virtual X! Yea, NSW was trying to do that in a somewhat more tightly coupled way (that is too strong). I didn't mean it as strongly as what NSW did, but just as a general guide of what we needed. When it came to what applications to do, we turned to OSs for examples. The fact that Telnet was a "device driver" protocol, instead of the remote login as textbooks say. FTP was the file system. RJE was job handling. There was the graphics protocol that was proposed. Talk of a Data Transfer Protocol. We were looking at distributed databases and the synchrony issues. and then all of the ideas that came out of the USING effort. and who can forget NETED!! ;-) (I always remember how that came about!) lol We were creating a very loosely cooperating network OS environment. That is what I was referring to. At 8:16 -0400 2012/07/01, Dave Walden wrote: >That wasn't my view. I thought the NCP effort was to have different >operating systems (and remote terminals) communicate with each other >via a common protocol. The Network Software Works which Crocker >sponsored from ARPA seems to me to be more like cross-network OS. >But this may all be in the eye of the beholder (or once again I may >not be answering the question John is asking :). > >At 08:00 AM 7/1/2012, John Day wrote: >>Our impression at the time, (I was mostly an observer of this >>stuff) was that the working model was to create the elements of an >>operating system over the Net. >> >>Is that a fair appraisal? >> >>At 7:24 -0400 2012/07/01, Dave Walden wrote: >>>At 01:22 AM 7/1/2012, Vint Cerf wrote: >>>>steve crocker had a lot to do with NCP and likely with TELNET. I had >>>>thought that Dave W was the originator of Do/Don't etc but glad to >>>>know of Bernie's role in it. I had thought that Steve C might have >>>>been the inventor of NVT but he's probably a bit too busy in Prague to >>>>respond right now. >>>We described Bernie's role (inventing) and my role (supporting) in >>>negotiated options in >>>http://walden-family.com/ieee/telnet-neg-options-2003.pdf >>>I hope Bernie can say how much he was thinking about this before >>>our airplane flight during which he described his idea on cocktail >>>napkins. >>> >>>The early RFCs (e.g., starting with 1) mention various people >>>involved with inventing NCP, including S. Crocker. It seems to me >>>that more or less from the beginning they were talking about >>>terminals in addition to other things. It would be interesting to >>>hear Steve Crocker's first-hand take on this. RFC 15 by Steve >>>Carr includes the first mention, I think, of the word "Telnet"; at >>>least that's the first mention we found when making the list RFCs >>>about Telnet at the end of >>>http://walden-family.com/public/telnet-overview.pdf >>>In that document, we tried to summarize the history (in one sense) >>>of the evolution of Telnet (see section 2) from the early "old" >>>version to the later "new" version, and this was where negotiated >>>options crept in. The "NVT" word had already been around since at >>>least RFC 137. While there was explicit discussion about Telnet >>>and Telnet like stuff from the originators of NCP, apparently a >>>committee was working on it by RFC 137 whose members had mostly >>>not been part of the original NCP work:: >>> >>> Will Crowther BBN >>> Bob Long SDC >>> John Melvin SRI-ARC >>> Bob Metcalf Harvard >>> Ed Meyer MAC >>> Tom O'Sullivan (Chairman) Raytheon >>> Joel Winett MIT-LL >>> >>>(Crowther was undoubtedly there because of the TIP software effort >>>at that time.) So there are a lot of people who might be probed >>>for their memories of how the NVT came about and became explicit. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>home address: 12 Linden Rd., E. Sandwich, MA 02537 >>>home ph=508-888-7655; cell ph = 503-757-3137 >>>email address: dave at walden-family.com; website: >>>http://www.walden-family.com/bbn/ > > >-- >home address: 12 Linden Rd., E. Sandwich, MA 02537 >home ph=508-888-7655; cell ph = 503-757-3137 >email address: dave at walden-family.com; website: >http://www.walden-family.com/bbn/ From bernie at fantasyfarm.com Sun Jul 1 07:04:49 2012 From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 10:04:49 -0400 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: <4ff0327e.09d6e00a.2d21.6093@mx.google.com> References: <4FEF73D0.6000700@isi.edu>, , <4ff0327e.09d6e00a.2d21.6093@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <4FF05901.3336.583C2847@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> On 1 Jul 2012 at 7:24, Dave Walden wrote: > I hope Bernie can say how much he was thinking about this before our > airplane flight during which he described his idea on cocktail > napkins. I can remember a bit, but as with most of that stuff back then it seemed more fun and interesting than significant so I didn't pay a lot of attention [sigh!]. From my work on the TIP I was already thinking a bit about making telnet symmetric. What I was mostly grapping with was if the protocol were symmetric it could "loop" -- if commands passed each other over the net, then the responses passed each other, and those kicked off other responses, etc. [one that came to mind (that I recall thinking about back then) was with one end saying "I'll send echoes" and the other saying "I'll echo locally". They cross, and each then responds "OK you echo". Each now has gotten a change of state [since each said they weren't going to echo and now has been told to] and so each sends another "OK I'll send echoes" and "I'll echo locally" and around they go.... My actual goal in the sketching on the napkin on the plane flight [and I remember mentioning it to Dave, sitting next to me, and waving my hands a lot] was "Look: if the commands are will/wont/do/dont and the rules follow state diagram, then it can't loop and will always end up in a reasonable state [just not-looping wasn't enough, of course, lest the connection end up with BOTH ends thinking that the other is echoing, or vice versa]. Another important idea that it handled was that it was extensible: it provided for the notion that one side could ask about something unknown and that'd be OK [and the negotiation would do the right thing], so there could be fancy-hosts and not-so-fancy ones and they could negotiate to make as clever a connection as they could while still gracefully handling hosts that could only deal with not-so-clever ones. As I mentioned in a previous thread about this, I really don't recall hardly any discussion about this at the meeting [which, I admit, I only vaguely recall at all]. I gather that the proposal was just accepted [or, perhaps, that Dave did a lot of lobbying/arguing on my behalf that I've forgotten..:o)] and my recollection was that attention almost immediate turned to designing options. [one of the first I recall [did it ever get implemented?] was RCTE: remote controlled transmission and echoing, that was proposed by someone from Hawaii] > Will Crowther BBN > > (Crowther was undoubtedly there because of the TIP software effort at that > time.) right: At a design review that I still get shudders over, I proposed the idea of hacking the IMP, when it moved to the 316 [which had an extra 16K of memory], to run "split" -- the upper 16K running as a wholly separate system [a proper host system, actually] with the imp part simulating its I/O hardware. The "upper host" could be written as if it were a standalone program on a 516 with the IMP [below it] simulating interrupts and I/O commands and such. My recollection is that Frank was very dubious that that would work, but I got the go ahead anyway. Will worked on the original TIP code. A bit after that, Ralph Alter started work on the IBM 2741 [that the right number?] code. When it all kind of worked, they both went to other projects (was that when Will started on the Pluribus?) and I inherited it. The NVT stuff was clearly a necessity: in a world of fullduplex, character at a time, ascii terminals, we were writing code to make a half-duplex, line-at-a-time EBCDIC terminal work. [and I think that after I hacked on the code enough eventually it did: you could actually log into a TENEX system from the 2741]. Dave probably remembers: why did we have the mandate to support the 2741? /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie at fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From amckenzie3 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 1 09:14:46 2012 From: amckenzie3 at yahoo.com (Alex McKenzie) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 09:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: References: <4FEF73D0.6000700@isi.edu> Message-ID: <1341159286.87697.YahooMailNeo@web160202.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> I think it may have been Walden and Cosell who proposed the symetrical Telnet design. ________________________________ From: John Day To: braden at ISI.EDU; internet-history at postel.org Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 6:10 PM Subject: Re: [ih] FTP Design That would figure. Who came up with the symmetrical Telnet design?? I remember Alex wrote it up after the meeting (or at least Grossman told me Alex was writing it up), but when I "blamed" him for it ;-), he wouldn't take the credit. When you can bring symmetry to a problem that everyone else thought was asymmetrical, it is truly inspired. Too bad we haven't seen more of those over the last couple of decades. John At 14:46 -0700 2012/06/30, Bob Braden wrote: >John Day wrote: > >>? Actually, I believe that Telnet and FTP got an uncommon number of >>? things right.? I think the idea of having replies that were both >>? machine and human readable was brilliant.? I forget who came up with >>? it but I think it was Postel and a couple of others. > >I believe the reply convention was pure Postel. > >Bob Braden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amckenzie3 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 1 09:27:33 2012 From: amckenzie3 at yahoo.com (Alex McKenzie) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 09:27:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: <4FF05901.3336.583C2847@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> References: <4FEF73D0.6000700@isi.edu>, , <4ff0327e.09d6e00a.2d21.6093@mx.google.com> <4FF05901.3336.583C2847@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: <1341160053.2684.YahooMailNeo@web160205.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> We (BBN TIP developers) had a mandate (from ARPA) to support the 2741 because: ?a - it was _the_ standard Multics terminal ?b - it was _a_ standard IBM terminal Cheers, Alex ________________________________ From: Bernie Cosell To: internet-history at postel.org Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2012 10:04 AM Subject: Re: [ih] FTP Design On 1 Jul 2012 at 7:24, Dave Walden wrote: > I hope Bernie can say how much he was thinking about this before our > airplane flight during which he described his idea on cocktail > napkins. I can remember a bit, but as with most of that stuff back then it seemed more fun and interesting than significant so I didn't pay a lot of attention [sigh!].? From my work on the TIP I was already thinking a bit about making telnet symmetric.? What I was mostly grapping with was if the protocol were symmetric it could "loop" -- if commands passed each other over the net, then the responses passed each other, and those kicked off other responses, etc.? [one that came to mind (that I recall thinking about back then) was with one end saying "I'll send echoes" and the other saying "I'll echo locally".? They cross, and each then responds "OK you echo".? Each now has gotten a change of state [since each said they weren't going to echo and now has been told to] and so each sends another "OK I'll send echoes" and "I'll echo locally" and around they go.... My actual goal in the sketching on the napkin on the plane flight [and I remember mentioning it to Dave, sitting next to me, and waving my hands a lot] was "Look: if the commands are will/wont/do/dont and the rules follow state diagram, then it can't loop and will always end up in a reasonable state [just not-looping wasn't enough, of course, lest the connection end up with BOTH ends thinking that the other is echoing, or vice versa].? Another important idea that it handled was that it was extensible: it provided for the notion that one side could ask about something unknown and that'd be OK [and the negotiation would do the right thing], so there could be fancy-hosts and not-so-fancy ones and they could negotiate to make as clever a connection as they could while still gracefully handling hosts that could only deal with not-so-clever ones. As I mentioned in a previous thread about this, I really don't recall hardly any discussion about this at the meeting [which, I admit, I only vaguely recall at all].? I gather that the proposal was just accepted [or, perhaps, that Dave did a lot of lobbying/arguing on my behalf that I've forgotten..:o)] and my recollection was that attention almost immediate turned to designing options.? [one of the first I recall [did it ever get implemented?] was RCTE: remote controlled transmission and echoing, that was proposed by someone from Hawaii] >? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Will Crowther? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? BBN > > (Crowther was undoubtedly there because of the TIP software effort at that > time.) right: At a design review that I still get shudders over, I proposed the idea of hacking the IMP, when it moved to the 316 [which had an extra 16K of memory], to run "split" -- the upper 16K running as a wholly separate system [a proper host system, actually] with the imp part simulating its I/O hardware.? The "upper host" could be written as if it were a standalone program on a 516 with the IMP [below it] simulating interrupts and I/O commands and such.? My recollection is that Frank was very dubious that that would work, but I got the go ahead anyway. Will worked on the original TIP code.? A bit after that, Ralph Alter started work on the IBM 2741 [that the right number?] code.? When it all kind of worked, they both went to other projects (was that when Will started on the Pluribus?) and I inherited it.? The NVT stuff was clearly a necessity: in a world of fullduplex, character at a time, ascii terminals, we were writing code to make a half-duplex, line-at-a-time EBCDIC terminal work.? [and I think that after I hacked on the code enough eventually it did: you could actually log into a TENEX system from the 2741].? Dave probably remembers: why did we have the mandate to support the 2741? ? /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie at fantasyfarm.com? ? Pearisburg, VA ? ? -->? Too many people, too few sheep? <--? ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Sun Jul 1 09:56:05 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2012 09:56:05 -0700 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: <4FF05901.3336.583C2847@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> References: <4FEF73D0.6000700@isi.edu>, , <4ff0327e.09d6e00a.2d21.6093@mx.google.com> <4FF05901.3336.583C2847@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: <4FF08125.2070003@dcrocker.net> On 7/1/2012 7:04 AM, Bernie Cosell wrote: > What I was mostly grapping with was if > the protocol were symmetric it could "loop" -- if commands passed each > other over the net, then the responses passed each other, and those > kicked off other responses, etc. ... > if the commands are will/wont/do/dont and the rules > follow state diagram, then it can't loop and will always end up in > a reasonable state [just not-looping wasn't enough, of course, lest the > connection end up with BOTH ends thinking that the other is echoing, or > vice versa]. Another important idea that it handled was that it was > extensible: it provided for the notion that one side could ask about > something unknown and that'd be OK Timing-insensitivity and tolerance for feature non-support have always struck me as core contributions to protocol design. The first simply designs away variable network performance concerns and the latter is fundamental to large-scale adoption of new features. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From dave.walden.family at gmail.com Sun Jul 1 13:57:09 2012 From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (dave.walden.family at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 16:57:09 -0400 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: <4FF05901.3336.583C2847@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> References: <4FEF73D0.6000700@isi.edu> <4ff0327e.09d6e00a.2d21.6093@mx.google.com> <4FF05901.3336.583C2847@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: <05EA5FFD-5B80-4689-B17C-D004ADE67CE8@gmail.com> On Jul 1, 2012, at 10:04 AM, "Bernie Cosell" wrote: I really don't recall > hardly any discussion about this at the meeting [which, I admit, I only > vaguely recall at all]. I gather that the proposal was just accepted > [or, perhaps, that Dave did a lot of lobbying/arguing on my behalf that > I've forgotten..:o)] > >> I don't remember any need to lobby or argue. Bernie presented his idea, it obviously addressed important issues and appeared to work, and we were sent home to document the method and circulate the document. Back at BBN, Bernie described it Burchfiel and Tomlinson of the TENEX team (between the TIP hosts and TENEXs, a lot of the host systems would be covered), and then we wrote it up. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paul at redbarn.org Mon Jul 2 22:49:27 2012 From: paul at redbarn.org (Paul Vixie) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 05:49:27 +0000 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: References: <4FEF73D0.6000700@isi.edu> <4FEF8296.20881.54F695C7@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: <4FF287E7.6040307@redbarn.org> On 2012-07-01 4:05 AM, John Day wrote: > Re: [ih] FTP Design > Dave you are being too much the engineer and not enough the > historian. ;-) I want the intellectual history of arriving at the > concepts in Telnet. > > How did the ideas come about? > > If Bernie is right (and I assume he is), and his name is not on that > paper (and it isn't), then it can not possibly answer the question I > am asking. ;-) so, i am not dave, and i was only a kid when this was going on, but i have a rimshot. the idea of symmetrical negotiation, do/don't, will/won't, is so obviously right that it feels like a gear meshing with other gears. it was the right thing to do, requiring only that some brilliant person unpolluted by complicated or proprietary ways of thinking, start from first principles, and hammer out the details. in that it reminds me of IP, TCP, and SMTP. (not not IP6 or DNS or FTP or HTTP.) "how did the ideas come about?" in this example made me think of a hegelian trichotomy. "because it was the right context to beget this." litmus test: "will the historians all say that the right person was finally in the right place at the right time to cause one era to end and the next to begin." it's not a great dictum for daily living but it does seem to fit a lot of the early "internet" work to a "t". paul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From craig at aland.bbn.com Tue Jul 3 08:15:00 2012 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 11:15:00 -0400 Subject: [ih] FTP Design Message-ID: <20120703151500.0B3B828E137@aland.bbn.com> I'm going to agree and disagree, based on my experience as an IEEE Annals editor and author. As an author I got pushed by editors to explain *why* someone came up with an idea or why a particular idea was adopted -- when, as Paul points out, the idea was so obviously right that, once found, voila! But, having been pushed to dig deeper, every so often I found a gem -- a challenge or flawed original idea or meme floating around the community that inspired the original thinking. And capturing that information is worth a lot. Thanks! Craig > > On 2012-07-01 4:05 AM, John Day wrote: > > Re: [ih] FTP Design > > Dave you are being too much the engineer and not enough the > > historian. ;-) I want the intellectual history of arriving at the > > concepts in Telnet. > > > > How did the ideas come about? > > > > If Bernie is right (and I assume he is), and his name is not on that > > paper (and it isn't), then it can not possibly answer the question I > > am asking. ;-) > > so, i am not dave, and i was only a kid when this was going on, but i > have a rimshot. > > the idea of symmetrical negotiation, do/don't, will/won't, is so > obviously right that it feels like a gear meshing with other gears. it > was the right thing to do, requiring only that some brilliant person > unpolluted by complicated or proprietary ways of thinking, start from > first principles, and hammer out the details. > > in that it reminds me of IP, TCP, and SMTP. (not not IP6 or DNS or FTP > or HTTP.) > > "how did the ideas come about?" in this example made me think of a > hegelian trichotomy. "because it was the right context to beget this." > litmus test: "will the historians all say that the right person was > finally in the right place at the right time to cause one era to end and > the next to begin." > > it's not a great dictum for daily living but it does seem to fit a lot > of the early "internet" work to a "t". > > paul From jeanjour at comcast.net Tue Jul 3 08:27:24 2012 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 11:27:24 -0400 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: <20120703151500.0B3B828E137@aland.bbn.com> References: <20120703151500.0B3B828E137@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: At 11:15 -0400 2012/07/03, Craig Partridge wrote: >I'm going to agree and disagree, based on my experience as an IEEE Annals >editor and author. As an author I got pushed by editors to explain *why* >someone came up with an idea or why a particular idea was adopted -- when, >as Paul points out, the idea was so obviously right that, once found, voila! I completely agree. When we saw a solution like this, everyone just knew it was right. There isn't much to convince people. Or if there is, it is going through it carefully and then the light goes in your audience and everyone has the same a-ha! you did. (essentially leading them through your process or your realizations after you had done it. I have often found myself doing something for one reason and then realizing that its implications were much broader and more fundamental than I had first realized.) And in that early ARPANET group, elegance was worth a lot. ;-) > >But, having been pushed to dig deeper, every so often I found a gem -- a >challenge or flawed original idea or meme floating around the community >that inspired the original thinking. And capturing that information is >worth a lot. This too. Sometimes they come to you in a flash. Sometimes, there were ideas floating around. Sometimes you find upon reflection that the a-ha was prepared because another concept had become so natural you didn't notice you applied it. We were schooled to look at problems "from the point of view of the organism, not the observer." Upon reflection I have found that at the core of many insights. It is also interesting how you can look at the same problem many times and not see it and then one day it hits you what it was you were missing. Now if we just knew how to teach this. Take care, John > >Thanks! > >Craig > >> >> On 2012-07-01 4:05 AM, John Day wrote: >> > Re: [ih] FTP Design >> > Dave you are being too much the engineer and not enough the >> > historian. ;-) I want the intellectual history of arriving at the >> > concepts in Telnet. >> > >> > How did the ideas come about? >> > >> > If Bernie is right (and I assume he is), and his name is not on that >> > paper (and it isn't), then it can not possibly answer the question I >> > am asking. ;-) >> >> so, i am not dave, and i was only a kid when this was going on, but i >> have a rimshot. >> >> the idea of symmetrical negotiation, do/don't, will/won't, is so >> obviously right that it feels like a gear meshing with other gears. it >> was the right thing to do, requiring only that some brilliant person >> unpolluted by complicated or proprietary ways of thinking, start from >> first principles, and hammer out the details. >> >> in that it reminds me of IP, TCP, and SMTP. (not not IP6 or DNS or FTP >> or HTTP.) >> >> "how did the ideas come about?" in this example made me think of a >> hegelian trichotomy. "because it was the right context to beget this." >> litmus test: "will the historians all say that the right person was >> finally in the right place at the right time to cause one era to end and >> the next to begin." >> >> it's not a great dictum for daily living but it does seem to fit a lot >> of the early "internet" work to a "t". >> >> paul From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Tue Jul 3 09:07:12 2012 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:07:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] FTP Design Message-ID: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Craig Partridge > to explain *why* someone came up with an idea or why a particular idea > was adopted -- when, as Paul points out, the idea was so obviously > right that, once found, voila! Not really your point (if I understand it correctly), but an observation: many brilliant ideas are obvious in retrospect - so if they were so obviously right, why did it take so long to come up with them? Good examples: Newton's Laws of Motion, or the WWW. (I look back on all the work on Archie, Gopher, WAIS, etc, etc and think 'Goodness gracious, how was it not obvious to us that we needed the WWW (with explicit links in documentation)?' There were a lot of smart people working on the Internet at that stage, but nobody saw it.) There's another Internet-related example I've thought about before, but I can't remember it right now. Noel From dave.walden.family at gmail.com Tue Jul 3 09:23:21 2012 From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (Dave Walden) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:23:21 -0400 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: <20120703151500.0B3B828E137@aland.bbn.com> References: <20120703151500.0B3B828E137@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: <4ff31b26.49b9e00a.0240.ffffda21@mx.google.com> >Regarding "voila!" or not: What Bernie presented was clearly a good >idea and I remember immediate acceptance that the idea should be >pushed ahead. However, there was still lots to do, lots of prior >cases to be checked and looked at to make sure they would still be >handled, lots of people to have their say, etc. Because of this >thread over the past few days, I have now modified (and Bernie' has >reviewed) the place on my website where I already had three relevant >papers posted to make it more of a pointer into this area of history. See http://walden-family.com/dave/#ref-telnet I have skimmed through the various documents in the last couple of days, and it is interesting to review some of the details, all the people involved (e.g., at least five of us who have contributed to this discussion in the past few days are mentioned in RFC 495), what issues were considered, and that there was some anticipation of a similar approach with other protocols. Bernie had his idea in the context of lots of people already struggling with the prior ad hoc version of Telnet and context of his need to do something practical in the TIP; perhaps this is one of those cases (which we hear about in technology history) where the intersection of constraints resulted in the "simple" idea. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanjour at comcast.net Tue Jul 3 09:51:38 2012 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:51:38 -0400 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: > > >Not really your point (if I understand it correctly), but an observation: >many brilliant ideas are obvious in retrospect - so if they were so obviously >right, why did it take so long to come up with them? > >Good examples: Newton's Laws of Motion, or the WWW. (I look back on all the >work on Archie, Gopher, WAIS, etc, etc and think 'Goodness gracious, how was >it not obvious to us that we needed the WWW (with explicit links in >documentation)?' There were a lot of smart people working on the Internet at >that stage, but nobody saw it.) There's another Internet-related example I've >thought about before, but I can't remember it right now. Well, partially agree. www and Englebart had done a full hypertext system 20 years before and it was very neat. Newton. Parts of Newton are very counter-intuitive. Aristotle said that when you quit pushing on something it stopped. Galileo said, no it will continue on forever unless acted on. (Newton's first law). To people at the time it sounded ludicrous. It was obvious that when you stopped pushing something it stopped. Of course, it is a change of perspective of what is pushing. That we find it obvious is just our brain-washing. ;-) A study reported in Scientific American many years ago found that most people were still working with Aristotelean physics. Intuition dies hard. In fact, I would contend that the reason we have science is that human intuition is not that good! ;-) We are wrong more often than not! ;-) From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Tue Jul 3 10:00:40 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 10:00:40 -0700 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: <4ff31b26.49b9e00a.0240.ffffda21@mx.google.com> References: <20120703151500.0B3B828E137@aland.bbn.com> <4ff31b26.49b9e00a.0240.ffffda21@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <4FF32538.1000508@dcrocker.net> On 7/3/2012 9:23 AM, Dave Walden wrote: > perhaps this is one of those cases (which we hear about in technology > history) where the intersection of constraints resulted in the > "simple" idea. glad you phrased it that way... I did a chapter for the Lynch/Rose Internet System Handbook on the IETF standards process, and then a version of it for ACM Standards View: Making Standards the IETF Way 1993 http://bbiw.net/ietf/ietf-stds.html Its ending is relevant to Dave's point: /"*The Ironic Contrast* Over the last five years, work from the Internet community has shown vastly greater market acceptance and use than the work of the OSI community. It's puzzling to try to determine the engineering rule of thumb that explains this. One possibility is the OSI community's desire for functional completeness and accommodation of all interests leads to the philosophy of including as much as possible in a design. In contrast, successful IETF working groups are driven by near-term needs and consequently try to produce designs that remove as much as possible. At first blush, this should produce highly limited designs. The trick in the process appears to be the group consensus requirement. As one would expect, each participant contributes their list of desired features, but the short time-fuse on the work requires that the group reach consensus quickly. This can only be done by removing features, since only a small core of features will be clearly acceptable to most participants. (The alternative approach of including all of everyone's preferences requires too much group debate and results in a design that is too-obviously unacceptable.) However, the process of removing features also requires some assurance that some of those features can be added later. Hence, the design usually permits extensibility which is itself, designed with an approximate sense of the sorts of extensions that are likely to be made."/ Quite a bit of current IETF work appears slanted more towards an initial completeness that attempts to satisfy the /union/ of participants' desires, rather than the earlier IETF mode of seeking an initial version that satisfied only the /intersection/, deferring the remainder for later enhancement efforts. d/; -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Tue Jul 3 10:20:50 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 10:20:50 -0700 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4FF329F2.3010509@dcrocker.net> On 7/3/2012 9:07 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > I look back on all the > work on Archie, Gopher, WAIS, etc, etc and think 'Goodness gracious, how was > it not obvious to us that we needed the WWW (with explicit links in > documentation)?' Some work invents components. Some invents systems that integrate components. Unix and the WWW are prime examples of the latter. I believe the only component innovation the original Unix guys claimed was setuid. In both categories, a major success often comes after some history of previous efforts -- usually by others -- and often in reaction to it. For example, I had always thought that Ray Tomlinson's email host interconnection effort was a relatively random hack. A clever idea that he had spontaneously. But one of the major bits of insight added as a result of the recent email history brouhaha was having him confirm that he was reacting to an Arpanet group effort that was going in a different -- and more complex and less integrated -- direction. Similarly, Unix was a reaction to the more complex Multics effort. At this point, I think that any focus on a breakthrough needs to be conducted in the context of the historical arc that includes it. NLS, anonymous ftp, gopher were the essential operational arc that eventually produced the Web, I believe. Berners-Lee got the balance of expressive power and ease-of-use exactly right, and he deserves every credit for doing that. But there was a flurry of activity in that space at the time and if he hadn't figured out the balance, someone else would have. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From dot at dotat.at Tue Jul 3 10:29:29 2012 From: dot at dotat.at (Tony Finch) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 18:29:29 +0100 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: Noel Chiappa wrote: > > I look back on all the work on Archie, Gopher, WAIS, etc, etc and think > 'Goodness gracious, how was it not obvious to us that we needed the WWW > (with explicit links in documentation)?' There were a lot of smart > people working on the Internet at that stage, but nobody saw it. I read somewhere (but I have forgotten where, sorry) that some of the key features of hypertext as seen in the 1980s were come-from links, and some kind of "which pages link here" feature. Neither are easy to implement in a very loosely coupled distributed system. TBL's great insight was that a much simpler hypertext system would still be useful enough provided it could link to any existing stuff out there on the net. There is a bit more to it than that, though, because gopher made the same simplification of one-way links, but it lacked hypertext and multimedia and multiprotocol URLs, and its design was unable to grow beyond the constraints of 1980s computing. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch http://dotat.at/ Hebrides, Bailey: East backing northeast 5 or 6, decreasing 4 later in Hebrides. Rough in Bailey at first, otherwise moderate. Rain at times, fog patches. Moderate, occasionally very poor. From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Tue Jul 3 11:29:48 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 11:29:48 -0700 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> On 7/3/2012 10:29 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > Noel Chiappa wrote: >> >> I look back on all the work on Archie, Gopher, WAIS, etc, etc and think >> 'Goodness gracious, how was it not obvious to us that we needed the WWW >> (with explicit links in documentation)?' There were a lot of smart >> people working on the Internet at that stage, but nobody saw it. > > I read somewhere (but I have forgotten where, sorry) that some of the key > features of hypertext as seen in the 1980s were come-from links, and some Hmmm. Since this is a history list, I'll free associate to: When I first read the following article in 1973, I was just starting to learn computer science constructs. Structured programming, and the like, were extremely hot topics, including the goal of deprecating undisciplined use of GoTo. So I read the article with diligentce. It was not until I got to the last sentence it that I realized it was a put-on: http://www.fortran.com/come_from.html > kind of "which pages link here" feature. Neither are easy to implement in > a very loosely coupled distributed system. TBL's great insight was that > a much simpler hypertext system would still be useful enough provided it > could link to any existing stuff out there on the net. Mumble. The linking mechanism in Engelbart's system was similarly simple. It was not inter-machine, but it was textual and evaluated at run-time. I'm going to claim that the innovations in the URL construct were: 1. extensible declaration of service mechanism (http, ftp, ...) 2. rigid requirement for domain name, to specify the place for evaluating the rest of the string 3. essentially no constrains on the rest of the string. That is, a simple, common global portion for evaluation, with an non-standardized local remainder. I claim that this model is a core construct in good Internet architecture design. The local/public distinction happens to also be a particular win in the way email addressing was done. (It was in marked contrast with the way X.400 did things...) > There is a bit more to it than that, though, because gopher made the same > simplification of one-way links, but it lacked hypertext and multimedia > and multiprotocol URLs, and its design was unable to grow beyond the > constraints of 1980s computing. However it was easier to set up a gopher site than a web site, because the web required specialized documents while gopher ran on text. There was serious competition between the two. Another major design difference was that gopher provided no useful information until you reached the leaf, whereas the web could produce an 'interesting' document with every click. That is, the Web permitted a far sexier experience, of course. In terms of human factors, that means the user can get a 'reward' with every click for the web. And, yes, the implied comparison with rats pressing levers is both intentional and, IMO, valid. Operant conditioning is our friend. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From sm at resistor.net Tue Jul 3 11:29:22 2012 From: sm at resistor.net (SM) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 11:29:22 -0700 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: <4FF32538.1000508@dcrocker.net> References: <20120703151500.0B3B828E137@aland.bbn.com> <4ff31b26.49b9e00a.0240.ffffda21@mx.google.com> <4FF32538.1000508@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20120703111245.093ca5f0@resistor.net> Hi Dave, At 10:00 03-07-2012, Dave Crocker wrote: >Quite a bit of current IETF work appears slanted more towards an >initial completeness that attempts to satisfy the /union/ of >participants' desires, rather than the earlier IETF mode of seeking >an initial version that satisfied only the /intersection/, deferring >the remainder for later enhancement efforts. The "process" is fashioned in such a way that it is easier to satisfy the desires of participants than to argue. That would not be much of a problem if these "enhancements" were pruned by natural selection at the next stage. The rarely happens. It's a bit more complicated than that. There is a larger group of people, more external pressure and formalism. I wonder whether the following would be palatable nowadays: "The objectives of FTP are 1) to promote sharing of files" Regards, -sm From johnl at iecc.com Tue Jul 3 11:39:28 2012 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 3 Jul 2012 18:39:28 -0000 Subject: [ih] hypertext, was FTP Design In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20120703183928.47848.qmail@joyce.lan> >I read somewhere (but I have forgotten where, sorry) that some of the key >features of hypertext as seen in the 1980s were come-from links, and some >kind of "which pages link here" feature. Neither are easy to implement in >a very loosely coupled distributed system. TBL's great insight was that >a much simpler hypertext system would still be useful enough provided it >could link to any existing stuff out there on the net. Ted Nelson has been trying to implement his Xanadu model of hypertext since about 1969 when he did some work on a 7090 with punch cards. It was always essentially a closed system so all links are bidirectional, and it can do things like track how many bytes each user fetches from each publisher to allocate royalty payments. It also had some cool ideas I've never seen implemented like stretch text, a (conceptual) handle on the side of the screen that would let you push it one way and have all the text on a page expand, or the other way and shrink it down to an abstract. Tim's key idea was to figure out what was the smallest, crummiest subset of Xanadu that would still be useful, and that's the web. Back in the early 1990s I figured the next big thing would be WAIS, because I didn't see that you could, and we would, embed everything into the web. R's, John From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Tue Jul 3 11:47:17 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 11:47:17 -0700 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20120703111245.093ca5f0@resistor.net> References: <20120703151500.0B3B828E137@aland.bbn.com> <4ff31b26.49b9e00a.0240.ffffda21@mx.google.com> <4FF32538.1000508@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20120703111245.093ca5f0@resistor.net> Message-ID: <4FF33E35.9060300@dcrocker.net> well... On 7/3/2012 11:29 AM, SM wrote: > Hi Dave, > At 10:00 03-07-2012, Dave Crocker wrote: >> Quite a bit of current IETF work appears slanted more towards an >> initial completeness that attempts to satisfy the /union/ of >> participants' desires, rather than the earlier IETF mode of seeking an >> initial version that satisfied only the /intersection/, deferring the >> remainder for later enhancement efforts. > > The "process" is fashioned in such a way that it is easier to satisfy > the desires of participants than to argue. That would not be much of a > problem if these "enhancements" were pruned by natural selection at the > next stage. The rarely happens. In earlier days, participants had a sense of urgency, wanting to get something that worked shipped as soon as possible. This provided pressure for deferring issues that created delay in the design. As other have noted in this thread, there was also greater appreciation for what we all simplistically call elegance. It takes more diligence to create tight designs. > It's a bit more complicated than that. There is a larger group of > people, more external pressure and formalism. I wonder whether the > following would be palatable nowadays: > > "The objectives of FTP are 1) to promote sharing of files" I don't think formalism has anything to do with it; we been formal for a very long time. As for 'external pressure' I think the loss of urgency actually represents a reduction in pragmatic pressures.(*) As for the number of people involved, I actually believe the size of many ietf group's active core has gone down, not up. It's pretty typical to see only 3-5 people being active, now. d/ (*) A few years ago, I heard an argument that the extended duty cycle for IETF work -- multiple years to produce a standard, in a world with 6-12month product cycles -- can get someone fired because their work is of little relevance to products. At the least, this means that the folk who attend the IETF often are not the senior engineering talent that we used to attract, but rather professional standards folk. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From dot at dotat.at Tue Jul 3 11:48:28 2012 From: dot at dotat.at (Tony Finch) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 19:48:28 +0100 Subject: [ih] hypertext, was FTP Design In-Reply-To: <20120703183928.47848.qmail@joyce.lan> References: <20120703183928.47848.qmail@joyce.lan> Message-ID: John Levine wrote: > > Ted Nelson has been trying to implement his Xanadu model of hypertext > since about 1969 when he did some work on a 7090 with punch cards. Another key person is Doug Engelbart. This paper from 1995 compares the web against his 1990 "essential elements of an open hyperdocument system": http://www.w3.org/Architecture/NOTE-ioh-arch Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch http://dotat.at/ Rockall: Cyclonic, becoming northerly later, 4 or 5, occasionally 6 in far north. Moderate or rough. Rain or showers. Moderate or good, occasionally poor. From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Tue Jul 3 12:18:28 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:18:28 -0700 Subject: [ih] hypertext, was FTP Design In-Reply-To: References: <20120703183928.47848.qmail@joyce.lan> Message-ID: <4FF34584.9060003@dcrocker.net> On 7/3/2012 11:48 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > John Levine wrote: >> >> Ted Nelson has been trying to implement his Xanadu model of hypertext >> since about 1969 when he did some work on a 7090 with punch cards. > > Another key person is Doug Engelbart. This paper from 1995 compares the > web against his 1990 "essential elements of an open hyperdocument system": > http://www.w3.org/Architecture/NOTE-ioh-arch Right. Engelbart's 1968 demo of the Augmentation Research Center's NLS capability was pretty astonishing. It wasn't an idea; it was a demo: http://sloan.stanford.edu/mousesite/1968Demo.html For our current thread, especially note Clip 7, which demonstrates NLS' text-based linking mechanism. Clips 8 and 10 are pretty good about linking, too. Then remember that this was 1968... As you watch it, keep in mind how often we hear people today say "no one had any idea how all this would develop." d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From dot at dotat.at Tue Jul 3 12:25:49 2012 From: dot at dotat.at (Tony Finch) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 20:25:49 +0100 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: Dave Crocker wrote: > > I'm going to claim that the innovations in the URL construct were: > > 1. extensible declaration of service mechanism (http, ftp, ...) > > 2. rigid requirement for domain name, to specify the place for evaluating > the rest of the string > > 3. essentially no constrains on the rest of the string. But, gopher's links had all of those except the first. What multiprotocol user agents were there before the www? A couple of points I want to agree with and expand on: > However it was easier to set up a gopher site than a web site, because the web > required specialized documents while gopher ran on text. There was serious > competition between the two. It took a few years before the web became a hypermedia system (embedded images and so forth) which was when it became really distinct from its predecessors. It also helped that web browsers were good gopher clients. And there were the botched commercialization attempts by the web's competitors. > Another major design difference was that gopher provided no useful information > until you reached the leaf, whereas the web could produce an 'interesting' > document with every click. That is, the Web permitted a far sexier > experience, of course. The difference between hypertext/hypermedia and a catalogue. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch http://dotat.at/ Viking, North Utsire, South Utsire: Southeasterly 4 or 5, increasing 6 at times. Moderate. Occasional rain, fog patches. Moderate, occasionally very poor. From jeanjour at comcast.net Tue Jul 3 12:43:38 2012 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 15:43:38 -0400 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: > > > When I first read the following article in 1973, I was just >starting to learn computer science constructs. Structured >programming, and the like, were extremely hot topics, including the >goal of deprecating undisciplined use of GoTo. So I read the >article with diligentce. It was not until I got to the last >sentence it that I realized it was a put-on: > > http://www.fortran.com/come_from.html I remember the Come-From!! ;-) > > >>kind of "which pages link here" feature. Neither are easy to implement in >>a very loosely coupled distributed system. TBL's great insight was that >>a much simpler hypertext system would still be useful enough provided it >>could link to any existing stuff out there on the net. > >Mumble. The linking mechanism in Engelbart's system was similarly >simple. It was not inter-machine, but it was textual and evaluated >at run-time. No, but Englebart was pushing the limits of what could be done with the current hardware. If you talked to him at the time, they definitely believed it would be over multiple machines. That was the intent. But it took 20 years for the hardware to catch up. Remember NLS screens were TV camera shots of 4 or 6 inch higher resolution screens in the machine room. > >I'm going to claim that the innovations in the URL construct were: > > 1. extensible declaration of service mechanism (http, ftp, ...) > > 2. rigid requirement for domain name, to specify the place for >evaluating the rest of the string > > 3. essentially no constrains on the rest of the string. > >That is, a simple, common global portion for evaluation, with an >non-standardized local remainder. I claim that this model is a core >construct in good Internet architecture design. > >The local/public distinction happens to also be a particular win in >the way email addressing was done. (It was in marked contrast with >the way X.400 did things...) > >>There is a bit more to it than that, though, because gopher made the same >>simplification of one-way links, but it lacked hypertext and multimedia >>and multiprotocol URLs, and its design was unable to grow beyond the >>constraints of 1980s computing. > >However it was easier to set up a gopher site than a web site, >because the web required specialized documents while gopher ran on >text. There was serious competition between the two. > >Another major design difference was that gopher provided no useful >information until you reached the leaf, whereas the web could >produce an 'interesting' document with every click. That is, the >Web permitted a far sexier experience, of course. Careful again. Don't confuse the web with the development of the browser. They were distinct developments. John >In terms of human factors, that means the user can get a 'reward' >with every click for the web. And, yes, the implied comparison with >rats pressing levers is both intentional and, IMO, valid. Operant >conditioning is our friend. > >d/ > >-- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From lpress at csudh.edu Tue Jul 3 13:19:32 2012 From: lpress at csudh.edu (Larry Press) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 13:19:32 -0700 Subject: [ih] hypertext, was FTP Design In-Reply-To: <20120703183928.47848.qmail@joyce.lan> References: <20120703183928.47848.qmail@joyce.lan> Message-ID: <4FF353D4.3030509@csudh.edu> On 7/3/2012 11:39 AM, John Levine wrote: > Ted Nelson has been trying to implement his Xanadu model of hypertext > since about 1969 when he did some work on a 7090 with punch cards. Do you mean 1960? The 7090/4 was pretty well finished by the System 360 in 1964. By 1969, a hypertext experiment would have been interactive. I was on a panel with Ted Nelson at the 1970(?) NCC, and all he had "running" was a cardboard mockup of a portable computer that he envisioned being carried around as a back pack. I also saw him in the mid-late 70s at an Asilomar workshop at which time he had a small group of people trying to implement Xanadu, but as far as I know, it was never in general use. He was an imaginative, counter-culture kind of a guy, but his contribution can't be compared to Doug Engelbart's. Also, Doug acknowledges the influence of Vannevar Bush's 1945 article "As we may think" in which he speculates on the idea of networked workstations on which one could publish and link to documents: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/3881/?single_page=true Larry From jeanjour at comcast.net Tue Jul 3 13:20:34 2012 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:20:34 -0400 Subject: [ih] hypertext, was FTP Design In-Reply-To: <4FF34584.9060003@dcrocker.net> References: <20120703183928.47848.qmail@joyce.lan> <4FF34584.9060003@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: ;-) yea a few years ago, in the course of a discussion some professor said to me, "But weren't you really impressed the first time you saw the web?" To which I replied, "no, I thought, 'O, gee it is nice to see them getting back to doing what Englebart was doing 20 years ago.'" Similarly, back in the 80s, I saw Larry Smarr give a talk here in Boston about what NCSA was doing and was struck (positively) how they were working on the same supercomputing problems that we had been with IlliacIV in the early 70s, but where we were trying to generate graphics, they were doing animations, etc. It was kind of neat. At 12:18 -0700 2012/07/03, Dave Crocker wrote: >On 7/3/2012 11:48 AM, Tony Finch wrote: >>John Levine wrote: >>> >>>Ted Nelson has been trying to implement his Xanadu model of hypertext >>>since about 1969 when he did some work on a 7090 with punch cards. >> >>Another key person is Doug Engelbart. This paper from 1995 compares the >>web against his 1990 "essential elements of an open hyperdocument system": >>http://www.w3.org/Architecture/NOTE-ioh-arch > > >Right. > >Engelbart's 1968 demo of the Augmentation Research Center's NLS >capability was pretty astonishing. It wasn't an idea; it was a demo: > > http://sloan.stanford.edu/mousesite/1968Demo.html > >For our current thread, especially note Clip 7, which demonstrates >NLS' text-based linking mechanism. Clips 8 and 10 are pretty good >about linking, too. > >Then remember that this was 1968... > >As you watch it, keep in mind how often we hear people today say "no >one had any idea how all this would develop." > >d/ >-- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From jeanjour at comcast.net Tue Jul 3 13:14:26 2012 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:14:26 -0400 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: <4FF33E35.9060300@dcrocker.net> References: <20120703151500.0B3B828E137@aland.bbn.com> <4ff31b26.49b9e00a.0240.ffffda21@mx.google.com> <4FF32538.1000508@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20120703111245.093ca5f0@resistor.net> <4FF33E35.9060300@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: Guys, you forget. Much of the discussions in FTP (and others of those meetings) was getting the terminology sorted out. Things were far from as homogeneous as they are now. None of these machines had been intended to talk to others. They all had their own terminology for what they did. And remember, the people involved had probably only seen their machine, which they knew inside out, at least when we started this. I remember "intense debates" over mundane things like "open a file," "what does a write do" etc. Not realizing that it meant very different things on different machines. Sometimes it turned out that one operation on one machine, combinations of operations on another, impossible on a third, parts of operations, etc. etc. But it took a lot of time to figure out that we were often talking about the same thing. Then of course there were the limitations that each imposed and how to finesse them. Doing FTP in those days entailed figuring out a lot more than you might have thought. ;-) At 11:47 -0700 2012/07/03, Dave Crocker wrote: >well... > >On 7/3/2012 11:29 AM, SM wrote: >>Hi Dave, >>At 10:00 03-07-2012, Dave Crocker wrote: >>>Quite a bit of current IETF work appears slanted more towards an >>>initial completeness that attempts to satisfy the /union/ of >>>participants' desires, rather than the earlier IETF mode of seeking an >>>initial version that satisfied only the /intersection/, deferring the >>>remainder for later enhancement efforts. >> >>The "process" is fashioned in such a way that it is easier to satisfy >>the desires of participants than to argue. That would not be much of a >>problem if these "enhancements" were pruned by natural selection at the >>next stage. The rarely happens. > >In earlier days, participants had a sense of urgency, wanting to get >something that worked shipped as soon as possible. This provided >pressure for deferring issues that created delay in the design. > >As other have noted in this thread, there was also greater >appreciation for what we all simplistically call elegance. > >It takes more diligence to create tight designs. > >>It's a bit more complicated than that. There is a larger group of >>people, more external pressure and formalism. I wonder whether the >>following would be palatable nowadays: >> >> "The objectives of FTP are 1) to promote sharing of files" > >I don't think formalism has anything to do with it; we been formal >for a very long time. > >As for 'external pressure' I think the loss of urgency actually >represents a reduction in pragmatic pressures.(*) > >As for the number of people involved, I actually believe the size of >many ietf group's active core has gone down, not up. It's pretty >typical to see only 3-5 people being active, now. > >d/ > >(*) A few years ago, I heard an argument that the extended duty >cycle for IETF work -- multiple years to produce a standard, in a >world with 6-12month product cycles -- can get someone fired because >their work is of little relevance to products. At the least, this >means that the folk who attend the IETF often are not the senior >engineering talent that we used to attract, but rather professional >standards folk. > >-- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From jeanjour at comcast.net Tue Jul 3 13:52:58 2012 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 16:52:58 -0400 Subject: [ih] hypertext, was FTP Design In-Reply-To: <4FF353D4.3030509@csudh.edu> References: <20120703183928.47848.qmail@joyce.lan> <4FF353D4.3030509@csudh.edu> Message-ID: At 13:19 -0700 2012/07/03, Larry Press wrote: >On 7/3/2012 11:39 AM, John Levine wrote: > >>Ted Nelson has been trying to implement his Xanadu model of hypertext >>since about 1969 when he did some work on a 7090 with punch cards. > >Do you mean 1960? The 7090/4 was pretty well finished by the System >360 in 1964. By 1969, a hypertext experiment would have been >interactive. Not really. Illinois didn't get its two 360s until 67 and then there was a big ruckus because instead of being 5 times faster for student jobs, it was 3 times slower. (The reason turned out to be we weren't running the IBM OS on the 7094.) ;-) > >I was on a panel with Ted Nelson at the 1970(?) NCC, and all he had >"running" was a cardboard mockup of a portable computer that he >envisioned being carried around as a back pack. > >I also saw him in the mid-late 70s at an Asilomar workshop at which >time he had a small group of people trying to implement Xanadu, but >as far as I know, it was never in general use. > >He was an imaginative, counter-culture kind of a guy, but his >contribution can't be compared to Doug Engelbart's. > >Also, Doug acknowledges the influence of Vannevar Bush's 1945 >article "As we may think" in which he speculates on the idea of >networked workstations on which one could publish and link to >documents: > >http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/3881/?single_page=true Yea, we use to be able think way beyond what the hardware can do. Now we have the hardware to do rather than think. From johnl at iecc.com Tue Jul 3 14:08:38 2012 From: johnl at iecc.com (John R. Levine) Date: 3 Jul 2012 17:08:38 -0400 Subject: [ih] hypertext, was FTP Design In-Reply-To: <4FF353D4.3030509@csudh.edu> References: <20120703183928.47848.qmail@joyce.lan> <4FF353D4.3030509@csudh.edu> Message-ID: >> Ted Nelson has been trying to implement his Xanadu model of hypertext >> since about 1969 when he did some work on a 7090 with punch cards. > > Do you mean 1960? The 7090/4 was pretty well finished by the System 360 in > 1964. By 1969, a hypertext experiment would have been interactive. Yes, it would have been 1960. I wasn't there, being only six years old at the time, but he told me about it. > He was an imaginative, counter-culture kind of a guy, but his contribution > can't be compared to Doug Engelbart's. Still is. He spends about half his time on his grandparents' farm in New Jersey, the rest on a houseboat in Sausalito. Ted was also quite aware of the Bush article and knows Englebart reasonably well. I'd say Englebart certainly built more stuff that worked, starting with the famous FJCC demo, but Ted has some amazing if often impractical ideas. R's, John From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Tue Jul 3 16:40:00 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 16:40:00 -0700 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <4FF382D0.7050601@dcrocker.net> On 7/3/2012 12:25 PM, Tony Finch wrote: > Dave Crocker wrote: >> >> I'm going to claim that the innovations in the URL construct were: >> >> 1. extensible declaration of service mechanism (http, ftp, ...) >> >> 2. rigid requirement for domain name, to specify the place for evaluating >> the rest of the string >> >> 3. essentially no constrains on the rest of the string. > > But, gopher's links had all of those except the first. My immediate reaction is "yes, but..." but the reality is that I don't want us to get caught up with this particular tar baby. For example, as my reference to the email address model demonstrates, #2 and #3 had occurred previously. (But as I said, let's not pursue this issue. Mostly because... > What multiprotocol user agents were there before the www? This strikes me as a deeper and more troubling point: the failure to distinguish between an integrated service architecture, versus user-level integration of otherwise-independent services. What makes this a more interesting topic is that the design of the URL meta-construct has essentially permitted the Web to coopt all other independent work. While that's useful, it also misleading in terms of protocol and format innovation and development. That is, the ability of a URL to encompass independent services is really the benefit I meant to point to, with the the list of 3 points (above.) But the result has also been confusion about architectural boundaries. That's why I usually distinguish the Web as object, protocol and reference: html, http, url. But the web isn't gopher or email or ftp, even though URLs can refer to them. And yes, I realize that that is a more constrained view than most people have. > A couple of points I want to agree with and expand on: > >> However it was easier to set up a gopher site than a web site, because the web >> required specialized documents while gopher ran on text. There was serious >> competition between the two. > > It took a few years before the web became a hypermedia system (embedded > images and so forth) which was when it became really distinct from its As I recall, images could be included from the earliest that I started learning html. That wasn't 1990, but I'm pretty sure it was before 1994. Also as I recall, the only initial document that was supported was .html. That is, raw .txt files, for example, were /not/ supported. And it was a pain. > predecessors. It also helped that web browsers were good gopher clients. cf, above, about architectural confusion. The fact that a user agent can encompass multiple services does not mean that the services have been integrated. So the UA is useful, but being useful isn't the same as being integrated. > And there were the botched commercialization attempts by the web's > competitors. ack. >> Another major design difference was that gopher provided no useful information >> until you reached the leaf, whereas the web could produce an 'interesting' >> document with every click. That is, the Web permitted a far sexier >> experience, of course. > > The difference between hypertext/hypermedia and a catalogue. mumble. maybe. in any event, certainly an important difference. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Tue Jul 3 16:47:09 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 16:47:09 -0700 Subject: [ih] ARC's NLS (was: Re: FTP Design) In-Reply-To: References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <4FF3847D.80007@dcrocker.net> (changed subject to reflect changed focus.) On 7/3/2012 12:43 PM, John Day wrote: >> TBL's great insight was that >>> a much simpler hypertext system would still be useful enough provided it >>> could link to any existing stuff out there on the net. >> >> Mumble. The linking mechanism in Engelbart's system was similarly >> simple. It was not inter-machine, but it was textual and evaluated at >> run-time. > > No, but Englebart was pushing the limits of what could be done with the > current hardware. If you talked to him at the time, they definitely > believed it would be over multiple machines. That was the intent. But > it took 20 years for the hardware to catch up. I was describing the behavior, not the intent. I've no doubt they would have enhanced the syntax over time. I don't think that hardware limits had anything to do with it. At base, ARC was not a networking (distributed processing) project, in spite of the fact that the SRI guys were heavily involved in the networking work. Still from my recollections of their work, I believe the incremental processing for going cross-net to access documents wouldn't have been all that onerous. Rather, the project wound down about the time I'd have expected that enhancement to be pursued. > Remember NLS screens were TV camera shots of 4 or 6 inch higher > resolution screens in the machine room. Initially, yes. But they eventually supported remote IMLAC graphics stations across the net. Somewhere around '73 or '74 I was a beta tester for it, down in L.A. It's when I first learning how challenging a mouse-tracking algorithm can be in a noisy environment... (It's also the only time I needed to write a machine-boot program.) >> Another major design difference was that gopher provided no useful >> information until you reached the leaf, whereas the web could produce >> an 'interesting' document with every click. That is, the Web >> permitted a far sexier experience, of course. > > Careful again. Don't confuse the web with the development of the > browser. They were distinct developments. I didn't. cf, my note to Tony. d. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From LarrySheldon at cox.net Tue Jul 3 17:05:33 2012 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 19:05:33 -0500 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: <4FF382D0.7050601@dcrocker.net> References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> <4FF382D0.7050601@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <4FF388CD.4020605@cox.net> This topic has drifted of far enough to warrant a subject change, but I leave that to somebody else to change.... But in the context of webby stuff and "hypertext" I keep remembering the folks in the adjacent cube (with there computers that made a puking sound when they ejected a disc) talking a lot about "hypercards". Does that fit in here anywhere? (I've just told you all I know about it.) -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. ICBM Data: http://g.co/maps/e5gmy (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From craig at aland.bbn.com Tue Jul 3 19:34:39 2012 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 22:34:39 -0400 Subject: [ih] FTP Design Message-ID: <20120704023439.A9A2E28E137@aland.bbn.com> > It's a bit more complicated than that. There is a larger group of > people, more external pressure and formalism. I wonder whether the > following would be palatable nowadays: > > "The objectives of FTP are 1) to promote sharing of files" If you read the early FTP RFCs, they wrapped themselves around several axles trying to build a distributed file system and then concluded that wasn't necessary. Knowing when to back off matters. Thanks! Craig From jeanjour at comcast.net Tue Jul 3 19:44:09 2012 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 22:44:09 -0400 Subject: [ih] ARC's NLS (was: Re: FTP Design) In-Reply-To: <4FF3847D.80007@dcrocker.net> References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> <4FF3847D.80007@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: Snip >>No, but Englebart was pushing the limits of what could be done with the >>current hardware. If you talked to him at the time, they definitely >>believed it would be over multiple machines. That was the intent. But >>it took 20 years for the hardware to catch up. > >I was describing the behavior, not the intent. I've no doubt they >would have enhanced the syntax over time. I don't think that >hardware limits had anything to do with it. At base, ARC was not a >networking (distributed processing) project, in spite of the fact >that the SRI guys were heavily involved in the networking work. >Still from my recollections of their work, I believe the incremental >processing for going cross-net to access documents wouldn't have >been all that onerous. Rather, the project wound down about the >time I'd have expected that enhancement to be pursued. I wouldn't be too sure about this. The conversations I remember it was part and parcel of their thinking. No cross-net access to document wouldn't have been hard, but I don't remember anyone wanting to run the core NLS system but them. > >>Remember NLS screens were TV camera shots of 4 or 6 inch higher >>resolution screens in the machine room. > >Initially, yes. But they eventually supported remote IMLAC graphics >stations across the net. Somewhere around '73 or '74 I was a beta >tester for it, down in L.A. It's when I first learning how >challenging a mouse-tracking algorithm can be in a noisy >environment... (It's also the only time I needed to write a >machine-boot program.) Yes, we had one of the IMLACs as well. In fact, a friend of mine still has it and the mouse that went with it. But that was for using NLS over the Net and as far as I know the IMLACs were never used as the primary access at SRI. Take care, John From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Wed Jul 4 07:26:24 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 07:26:24 -0700 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: <4FF388CD.4020605@cox.net> References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> <4FF382D0.7050601@dcrocker.net> <4FF388CD.4020605@cox.net> Message-ID: <4FF45290.8090003@dcrocker.net> On 7/3/2012 5:05 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: > But in the context of webby stuff and "hypertext" I keep remembering the > folks in the adjacent cube (with there computers that made a puking > sound when they ejected a disc) talking a lot about "hypercards". > > Does that fit in here anywhere? (I've just told you all I know about it.) No relationship to any 'networking' activity, but it was a pre-web attempt at hypermedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperCard d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Jul 4 08:40:27 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 11:40:27 -0400 Subject: [ih] URl construct In-Reply-To: <4FF382D0.7050601@dcrocker.net> References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> <4FF382D0.7050601@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: On Jul 3, 2012, at 7:40 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > What makes this a more interesting topic is that the design of the URL meta-construct has essentially permitted the Web to coopt all other independent work. That's very much an IETF creation... it started at the March 1992 IETF San Diego living documents BoF & X.500/WAIS/WWW BoF. We had the archie, gopher, prospero, and www folks all agree that a single uniform reference for digital objects was needed, and that led to formation of the URI working group and Uniform Resource Locator (RFC 1738). Of course, any attempt to have only digital objects in URLs (and keep things like logical names and embedded queries up in Uniform Resource Names) then failed due to lack of self-control combined with insufficient running code. There were solid efforts to create a viable system of namespaces and meta- namespaces, but concerns about latency from another layer of redirection and arguments over authority caused delays in actual implementation and then abandonment. The end result is that http servers became more agile and including providing sufficient logical name mapping functionality locally to any service/application you wished to configured, not just hypertext retrieval. > While that's useful, it also misleading in terms of protocol and format innovation and development. > > That is, the ability of a URL to encompass independent services is really the benefit I meant to point to, with the the list of 3 points (above.) But the result has also been confusion about architectural boundaries. It was never the intent. Useful tools are applied to many problems, even those for which they are ill-suited. FYI, /John From joly at punkcast.com Wed Jul 4 09:01:29 2012 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 12:01:29 -0400 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: <4FF382D0.7050601@dcrocker.net> References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> <4FF382D0.7050601@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > It took a few years before the web became a hypermedia system (embedded >> images and so forth) which was when it became really distinct from its >> > > As I recall, images could be included from the earliest that I started > learning html. That wasn't 1990, but I'm pretty sure it was before 1994. > > But was there a client to view them pre-Mosaic, i.e. 1993? > > Also as I recall, the only initial document that was supported was .html. > That is, raw .txt files, for example, were /not/ supported. And it was a > pain. Never knew that. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lpress at csudh.edu Wed Jul 4 10:27:35 2012 From: lpress at csudh.edu (Larry Press) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:27:35 -0700 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> <4FF382D0.7050601@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <4FF47D07.3070703@csudh.edu> On 7/4/2012 9:01 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > As I recall, images could be included from the earliest that I > started learning html. That wasn't 1990, but I'm pretty sure it was > before 1994. > > But was there a client to view them pre-Mosaic, i.e. 1993? I believe the original client/server program for the Next workstation could display images. Wikipedia says a picture of the CERN rock group the Cernettes was the first image published on the Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Horribles_Cernettes From lpress at csudh.edu Wed Jul 4 10:31:30 2012 From: lpress at csudh.edu (Larry Press) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 10:31:30 -0700 Subject: [ih] FTP Design -- PS In-Reply-To: References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> <4FF382D0.7050601@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <4FF47DF2.3090803@csudh.edu> On 7/4/2012 9:01 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > As I recall, images could be included from the earliest that I > started learning html. That wasn't 1990, but I'm pretty sure it was > before 1994. > > But was there a client to view them pre-Mosaic, i.e. 1993? PS -- the Cernettes were the first photo, but earlier screen shots show the CERN logo as an image. From dot at dotat.at Thu Jul 5 05:42:24 2012 From: dot at dotat.at (Tony Finch) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 13:42:24 +0100 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: <4FF47D07.3070703@csudh.edu> References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> <4FF382D0.7050601@dcrocker.net> <4FF47D07.3070703@csudh.edu> Message-ID: Larry Press wrote: > > I believe the original client/server program for the Next workstation could > display images. http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/WorldWideWeb.html "The inline images such as the world/book icon and the CERN icon, would have been displayed in separate windows, as it didn't at first do inline images." Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch http://dotat.at/ Biscay: Westerly or southwesterly 4 or 5, occasionally 6 in south. Moderate, occasionally rough in west. Thundery showers. Moderate or good. From lpress at csudh.edu Thu Jul 5 09:17:48 2012 From: lpress at csudh.edu (Larry Press) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 09:17:48 -0700 Subject: [ih] FTP Design In-Reply-To: References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> <4FF382D0.7050601@dcrocker.net> <4FF47D07.3070703@csudh.edu> Message-ID: <4FF5BE2C.5090407@csudh.edu> On 7/5/2012 5:42 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > Larry Press wrote: >> >> I believe the original client/server program for the Next workstation could >> display images. > > http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/WorldWideWeb.html > > "The inline images such as the world/book icon and the CERN icon, would > have been displayed in separate windows, as it didn't at first do > inline images." > > Tony. The 1990 version did not do inline images or color, but the 1993 version did ( http://info.cern.ch/NextBrowser1.html ). I've no idea when the change occured. Cello (from Cornell -- first on Windows I believe) also did inline images around that time. Larry From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Thu Jul 5 09:30:05 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 09:30:05 -0700 Subject: [ih] URl construct In-Reply-To: References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> <4FF382D0.7050601@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <4FF5C10D.3000605@dcrocker.net> On 7/4/2012 8:40 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Jul 3, 2012, at 7:40 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > >> What makes this a more interesting topic is that the design of the URL meta-construct has essentially permitted the Web to coopt all other independent work. > > That's very much an IETF creation I think it wasn't. I think it was in the original construct, based on some limited research I've done, such as: http://infomesh.net/html/history/early/ This is not to say that the milestone you cite is irrelevant or unimportant. But I've been finding a difference between core technical points versus critical adoption (social) points. From what I can tell, the basic construct of "://" was in the original Web design. The milestone you cite appears to have been the essential point of gaining agreement among disparate (and possibly competing) groups to use the same reference mechanism, with difference values. For reference, recent discussions about email history have surfaced what I believe was a similar critical-mass milestone for adoption, when disparate email operations communities agreed on the same addressing scheme. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From lpress at csudh.edu Thu Jul 5 10:14:00 2012 From: lpress at csudh.edu (Larry Press) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 10:14:00 -0700 Subject: [ih] PS -- early browsers with inline images -- summer 1993 In-Reply-To: <4FF5BE2C.5090407@csudh.edu> References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> <4FF382D0.7050601@dcrocker.net> <4FF47D07.3070703@csudh.edu> <4FF5BE2C.5090407@csudh.edu> Message-ID: <4FF5CB58.2000205@csudh.edu> We demonstrated a Web browser (running on a Sun?) that displayed inline images at the August 1993 ISOC developing nations workshop. Using my keen ability to predict the future, I dismissed it as Gopher with pictures. Larry From joly at punkcast.com Thu Jul 5 11:13:05 2012 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 14:13:05 -0400 Subject: [ih] URl construct In-Reply-To: <4FF5C10D.3000605@dcrocker.net> References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> <4FF382D0.7050601@dcrocker.net> <4FF5C10D.3000605@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: I believe I have heard Tim B-L say that, in retrospect, "://" was unnecessarily verbose. On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > "://" was in the original Web design. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cleslie at poly.edu Thu Jul 5 11:37:40 2012 From: cleslie at poly.edu (Christopher Leslie) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 14:37:40 -0400 Subject: [ih] URl construct In-Reply-To: References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> <4FF382D0.7050601@dcrocker.net> <4FF5C10D.3000605@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: Yes, that was a funny moment a few years ago. See the New York Times Bits article, "The Web?s Inventor Regrets One Small Thing." http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/the-webs-inventor-regrets-one-small-thing/ On Jul 5, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > I believe I have heard Tim B-L say that, in retrospect, "://" was unnecessarily verbose. > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > "://" was in the original Web design. > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - Christopher S. Leslie, Ph.D. Instructor of Media and Technology Studies Department of Technology, Culture and Society Polytechnic Institute of New York University 6 MetroTech Center, RH 213i Brooklyn, NY 11201 (718) 260-3130 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dot at dotat.at Thu Jul 5 11:42:59 2012 From: dot at dotat.at (Tony Finch) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 19:42:59 +0100 Subject: [ih] URl construct In-Reply-To: References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> <4FF382D0.7050601@dcrocker.net> <4FF5C10D.3000605@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: Joly MacFie wrote: > I believe I have heard Tim B-L say that, in retrospect,? ?"://"??was > unnecessarily verbose. First question in the interview at http://www.bcs.org/content/ConWebDoc/3337 "Looking back on 15 years or so of development of the Web is there anything you would do differently given the chance?" "I would have skipped on the double slash - there's no need for it. Also I would have put the domain name in the reverse order - in order of size so, for example, the BCS address would read: http:uk/org/bcs/members. This would mean the BCS could have one server for the whole site or have one specific to members and the URL wouldn't have to be different." Shades of uk.ac.cam.phx... Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch http://dotat.at/ Viking, North Utsire, South Utsire: Southeasterly 3 or 4 backing northeasterly 4 or 5. Slight or moderate. Mainly fair, but fog patches in Viking. Moderate or good, occasionally very poor in Viking. From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Jul 5 12:17:36 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:17:36 -0400 Subject: [ih] URl construct In-Reply-To: <4FF5C10D.3000605@dcrocker.net> References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> <4FF382D0.7050601@dcrocker.net> <4FF5C10D.3000605@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: On Jul 5, 2012, at 12:30 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 7/4/2012 8:40 AM, John Curran wrote: >> >> That's very much an IETF creation > > I think it wasn't. I think it was in the original construct, based on some limited research I've done, such as: > > http://infomesh.net/html/history/early/ > > This is not to say that the milestone you cite is irrelevant or unimportant. The notation itself was not an IETF creation; it's the co-opting of all other systems you referred to which was the result of the standardization of it across information retrieval systems. > But I've been finding a difference between core technical points versus critical adoption (social) points. From what I can tell, the basic construct of > > "://" was in the original Web design. Correct. Reference: (1991) However, that was something implemented entirely within the w3 _client_, whereby a w3 client could access objects via multiple protocols. The real power occurred when it was standardized outside of just w3 clients with the "scheme:" becoming universal in interpretation for all info-systems. Until then, it was just shorthand for w3 clients on how to access digital blogs referenced in w3 documents. > The milestone you cite appears to have been the essential point of gaining agreement among disparate (and possibly competing) groups to use the same reference mechanism, with difference values. TimBL knew that he had to allow for other addressing schemes, and so included the capability in w3 clients including code to support accessing documents via gopher and WAIS (see ) Again, the w3 client interpreted these w3-specified links in hypertext documents to find the information. The revolution required that the actual semantic meaning of the URL be understood by any client (not just w3), and hence IETF standardization. The result was that any client (gopher, wais, www) could then include URLs in their documents and safely dereference... I know that some of the gopher clients did such, and I began putting into one of the WAIS clients (but by then it apparent that using HTTP servers and HTML documents was the best fit.) So, let me try again: The ":" notation originated with the w3 work, but was adopted by others through standardization of the semantics in the IETF. One consequence of its adoption was the quick realization that hypertext clients were far more flexible than clients of most other information retrieval systems and thus facilitated the domination of HTTP as the dominant information retrieval protocol. FYI, /John From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Thu Jul 5 12:19:05 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:19:05 -0700 Subject: [ih] URl construct In-Reply-To: References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> <4FF382D0.7050601@dcrocker.net> <4FF5C10D.3000605@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <4FF5E8A9.1050208@dcrocker.net> no doubt he does postal address with the country code at the top. and email addresses with the domain name at the left. oh, wait... d/ On 7/5/2012 11:42 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > Joly MacFie wrote: > >> I believe I have heard Tim B-L say that, in retrospect, "://" was >> unnecessarily verbose. > > First question in the interview at http://www.bcs.org/content/ConWebDoc/3337 > > "Looking back on 15 years or so of development of the Web is there > anything you would do differently given the chance?" > > "I would have skipped on the double slash - there's no need for it. Also > I would have put the domain name in the reverse order - in order of size > so, for example, the BCS address would read: http:uk/org/bcs/members. > This would mean the BCS could have one server for the whole site or have > one specific to members and the URL wouldn't have to be different." > > Shades of uk.ac.cam.phx... > > Tony. > -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From amckenzie3 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 5 12:45:59 2012 From: amckenzie3 at yahoo.com (Alex McKenzie) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 12:45:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ih] URl construct In-Reply-To: <4FF5E8A9.1050208@dcrocker.net> References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> <4FF382D0.7050601@dcrocker.net> <4FF5C10D.3000605@dcrocker.net> <4FF5E8A9.1050208@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <1341517559.96695.YahooMailNeo@web160205.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> No doubt he does telephone numbers with the country code first ... ________________________________ From: Dave Crocker To: Tony Finch Cc: internet-history at postel.org; John Curran Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2012 3:19 PM Subject: Re: [ih] URl construct no doubt he does postal address with the country code at the top.? and email addresses with the domain name at the left.? oh, wait... d/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Thu Jul 5 13:16:09 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:16:09 -0700 Subject: [ih] URl construct In-Reply-To: <1341517559.96695.YahooMailNeo@web160205.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <20120703160712.8A48C18C0C7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <4FF33A1C.9060302@dcrocker.net> <4FF382D0.7050601@dcrocker.net> <4FF5C10D.3000605@dcrocker.net> <4FF5E8A9.1050208@dcrocker.net> <1341517559.96695.YahooMailNeo@web160205.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4FF5F609.8040405@dcrocker.net> On 7/5/2012 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie wrote: > No doubt he does telephone numbers with the country code first ... and IP addresses with the bits reversed. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Thu Jul 5 14:20:06 2012 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 17:20:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] URl construct, etc Message-ID: <20120705212006.31C3518C0F7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: John Curran >> What makes this a more interesting topic is that the design of the URL >> meta-construct has essentially permitted the Web to coopt all other >> independent work. > That's very much an IETF creation... it started at the March 1992 IETF > San Diego living documents BoF & X.500/WAIS/WWW BoF. Several other people have already commented on this point, but if I can add one tiny bit, I'd like to point to TBL's original NetNews post announcing the WWW: Newsgroups: alt.hypertext From: timbl at info .cern.ch (Tim Berners-Lee) Date: 6 Aug 91 16:00:12 GMT Subject: WorldWideWeb: Summary The WWW browsers can access many existing data systems via existing protocols (FTP, NNTP) .. ... Making it public involves running the FTP or HTTP daemon, and making at least one link into your web from another. In fact, any file available by anonymous FTP can be immediately linked into a web. which seems to show that the ftp:// syntax was already fully supported as of that date. > From: Larry Press > I also saw [Ted Nelson] in the mid-late 70s at an Asilomar workshop at > which time he had a small group of people trying to implement Xanadu, > but as far as I know, it was never in general use They kept working at it, and did in fact release some stuff in the 1990s. There was a long story in 'Wired' in 1995 that talked about it: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.06/xanadu.html Noel From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Thu Jul 5 14:31:14 2012 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 17:31:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] PS -- early browsers with inline images -- summer 1993 Message-ID: <20120705213114.5501C18C0FA@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Larry Press > Using my keen ability to predict the future, I dismissed it as Gopher > with pictures. :-) Don't feel bad, you have lots of company - e.g. when bridges (i.e. level-2 switches) first showed up, I dismissed them to everyone at Proteon (with whom I was working at the time), saying that 'they act like wires, but they aren't', and predicted that people would instead have to use routers everywhere! And I see in the papers that no less a person than Prof. Hawking just lost a sizeable bet when the Higgs boson was discovered. Etc, etc, etc! Noel From joly at punkcast.com Thu Jul 5 15:27:15 2012 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 18:27:15 -0400 Subject: [ih] URl construct, etc In-Reply-To: <20120705212006.31C3518C0F7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20120705212006.31C3518C0F7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: All interesting stuff. When/why were the two slashes dropped for "mailto:" ? -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnl at iecc.com Thu Jul 5 17:23:29 2012 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 6 Jul 2012 00:23:29 -0000 Subject: [ih] URl construct, etc In-Reply-To: <20120705212006.31C3518C0F7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <20120706002329.66716.qmail@joyce.lan> >They kept working at it, and did in fact release some stuff in the 1990s. >There was a long story in 'Wired' in 1995 that talked about it: > > http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.06/xanadu.html Oh, that story. It starts with the author and Ted driving to a restaurant in Sausalito where they have an interview. There was a third person in the car and at the restuarant: me. I don't object to being written out of the story, but the whole piece is just gratuitously cruel. Ted is certainly a funky guy, but he was not and is not anywhere near as dysfunctional as Wolf made him out to be. R's, John From joly at punkcast.com Thu Jul 5 21:16:18 2012 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 00:16:18 -0400 Subject: [ih] Web Evoltion Infographic Message-ID: http://www.evolutionoftheweb.com/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dot at dotat.at Fri Jul 6 04:58:54 2012 From: dot at dotat.at (Tony Finch) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 12:58:54 +0100 Subject: [ih] URl construct, etc In-Reply-To: References: <20120705212006.31C3518C0F7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: Joly MacFie wrote: > > When/why were the two slashes dropped for "mailto:" ? As I understand it there was a convention on some distributed unix-alike systems for remote path names of the form //host/path where the // indicated a super-root as opposed to / for the local filesystem root. This was adopted for URL syntax with the addition of a protocol scheme prefix. Since mailto: URLs aren't pathnames, it doesn't make sense to include the //. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch http://dotat.at/ Rockall, Malin, Hebrides, Bailey, Fair Isle, Faeroes: North or northeast 5 to 7, occasionally 4 at first in Malin and Fair Isle. Moderate or rough. Occasional rain or showers, fog patches in Malin, Hebrides and Fair Isle. Moderate or good, occasionally very poor in Malin, Hebrides and Fair Isle. From bill.n1vux at gmail.com Fri Jul 6 06:29:56 2012 From: bill.n1vux at gmail.com (Bill Ricker) Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 09:29:56 -0400 Subject: [ih] URl construct, etc In-Reply-To: References: <20120705212006.31C3518C0F7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Tony Finch wrote: > As I understand it there was a convention on some distributed unix-alike > systems for remote path names of the form //host/path where the // > indicated a super-root as opposed to / for the local filesystem root. This > was adopted for URL syntax with the addition of a protocol scheme prefix. Yes, i remember //host/ being in networked-filesystem security presentations at IEEE Oakland Security & Privacy in the early 198x's . Made more sense than the UUCP host:rel/path convention that SSH still uses, but the $HOME relative path is easier for personal user dir syncing, so yet it lives. (Silly thing is Windows requires file: prefix on //host/path URN on commands where no other access: would work.) -- Bill @n1vux bill.n1vux at gmail.com From feinler at earthlink.net Mon Jul 9 14:40:34 2012 From: feinler at earthlink.net (Elizabeth Feinler) Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 14:40:34 -0700 Subject: [ih] Calling for an Open and International Dialogue for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Negotiations References: <1341856391.834314500@apps.rackspace.com> Message-ID: <18EDDFA7-95AA-4BE5-8B08-D2F900C60138@earthlink.net> This may be of interest to many of you. Jake Feinler Begin forwarded message: > From: cover at isoc.org > Date: July 9, 2012 10:53:11 AM PDT > To: isoc-members-announce at elists.isoc.org > Subject: [ISOC] ANNOUNCEMENT: Calling for an Open and International Dialogue for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Negotiations > > Calling for an Open and International Dialogue for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Negotiations > > The Internet Society welcomes the European Parliament?s rejection of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) as a strong message in favour of open and transparent processes in negotiations dealing with policy issues pertaining to the Internet. The vote followed widespread protests throughout Europe, with Internet campaigners claiming that it posed threats to online freedoms. ACTA was originally meant to address, among other things, the issue of online piracy and the sale or promotion of counterfeit goods via the Internet. > > At the same time, the Internet Society expresses its concern over the negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), which aim to further liberalize the economies of the Asia-Pacific region. The thirteenth (13th) round of negotiations is taking place in San Diego, California, between July 2 -10, 2012. > > As no documents have been officially made public, the Internet Society cannot express, at this point, an opinion on the Agreement?s substantive provisions. However, since preliminary reports indicate that the TPPA also seeks to address issues related to the Internet, the Internet Society calls for an open and inclusive process in line with the principles adopted by the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) recognizing that public issues pertaining to the Internet should be addressed in an open, inclusive and participatory process. Also, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) adopted principles for Internet policy-making, which similarly call for multistakeholder cooperation. > > The Internet Society notes that while some room for (limited) participation has been provided, the various stakeholders have not been allowed to actively participate in the TPPA?s policy discussions as is envisaged by the WSIS and OECD principles. > > The Internet Society believes that the overall level of transparency surrounding the TPPA negotiations should be more robust. Deciding how to appropriately address intellectual property rights (IPR) in an online environment is a relevant issue for many stakeholders, not just governments. We believe that the combined insight and experience of all Internet Governance stakeholders can provide adequate and well-balanced solutions to some of the issues the TPPA seeks to address. The Internet Society would be happy to contribute to the ongoing TPPA policy discussions. > > Link to announcement: > http://www.internetsociety.org/news/calling-open-and-international-dialogue-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement-negotiations > > _______________________________________________ > To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, > please log into the ISOC Member Portal: > https://portal.isoc.org/ > Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Jul 23 11:25:10 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 14:25:10 -0400 Subject: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?" Message-ID: <7F4712CB-6ACD-41E1-8747-478BB9C1B1AB@istaff.org> Internet History Folks - I make note of this, as some of the folks on this list might have differing views. FYI, /John === Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet? Contrary to legend, it wasn't the federal government, and the Internet had nothing to do with maintaining communications during a war. By L. GORDON CROVITZ A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet." ... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: renocol_GordonCrovitz.gif Type: image/gif Size: 6558 bytes Desc: not available URL: From agmalis at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 12:02:44 2012 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:02:44 -0400 Subject: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?" In-Reply-To: <7F4712CB-6ACD-41E1-8747-478BB9C1B1AB@istaff.org> References: <7F4712CB-6ACD-41E1-8747-478BB9C1B1AB@istaff.org> Message-ID: The LA Times fires back at Crovitz and the WSJ. This was written by Michael Hiltzik, who was quoted by Crovitz: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-mo-who-invented-internet-20120723,0,5052169.story Cheers, Andy On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 2:25 PM, John Curran wrote: > Internet History Folks - > > I make note of this, as some of the folks on this list might have > differing views. > > FYI, > /John > > === > < > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577539063008406518.html# > > > > > Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet? Contrary to legend, it > wasn't the federal government, and the Internet had nothing to do with > maintaining communications during a war. > > - By L. GORDON CROVITZ > > [image: Columnist's name] > > - > > A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack > Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else > made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by > referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented > on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies > could make money off the Internet." > ... > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: renocol_GordonCrovitz.gif Type: image/gif Size: 6558 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Jul 23 12:03:47 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:03:47 -0400 Subject: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?" In-Reply-To: <7F4712CB-6ACD-41E1-8747-478BB9C1B1AB@istaff.org> References: <7F4712CB-6ACD-41E1-8747-478BB9C1B1AB@istaff.org> Message-ID: <49BE1247-1D7B-4F8B-9F90-86A78E2A6A3B@istaff.org> To be clear, I was not referring to the political aspects of the article, but the references along the lines of: "So having created the Internet, why didn't Xerox become the biggest company in the world? " FYI, /John On Jul 23, 2012, at 2:25 PM, John Curran wrote: > Internet History Folks - > > I make note of this, as some of the folks on this list might have > differing views. > > FYI, > /John > > === > > > > Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet? > Contrary to legend, it wasn't the federal government, and the Internet had nothing to do with maintaining communications during a war. > By L. GORDON CROVITZ > > A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet." > > ... > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: renocol_GordonCrovitz.gif Type: image/gif Size: 6558 bytes Desc: not available URL: From craig at aland.bbn.com Mon Jul 23 12:42:18 2012 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:42:18 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") Message-ID: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> > To be clear, I was not referring to the political aspects of the = > article,=20 > but the references along the lines of: > > "So having created the Internet, why didn't Xerox become the biggest = > company in the world? " So, on the XEROX issue. (Ignoring the WSJ essay until the last sentence). I was not there for most of this and have heard things piecemeal so parts may be wrong. But the broad sketch is: * XEROX did some amazing stuff with networked Ethernets, including the first voice over data networks experiments, simple bridging, networked workstations, and distributed nameservers, in the 1970s and early 1980s that still resonate today. * They also developed an internetworking protocol stack called PUP (PARC Universal Packet). PUP was similar to TCP/IP and some (lots?) of ideas got swapped. * When Bob Metcalfe cofounded 3COM, he used PUP and Ethernet as the starting point for their networking products and for a time they did pretty well selling an local enterprise network solution. Neither PUP nor 3COM ever offered a system that could deal with a world with multiple independent operators (aka the EGP/BGP problem). So, XEROX's technology was commercialized. It had its day and then faded. Thanks! Craig From patrick at ianai.net Mon Jul 23 12:42:22 2012 From: patrick at ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:42:22 -0400 Subject: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?" In-Reply-To: References: <7F4712CB-6ACD-41E1-8747-478BB9C1B1AB@istaff.org> Message-ID: <22437062-0B80-46AB-BE6B-FA27162CC255@ianai.net> ARS did a good response as well: Sad that the WJS prints this drivel. Sadder that people believe & defend it. :( -- TTFN, patrick On Jul 23, 2012, at 15:02 , Andrew G. Malis wrote: > The LA Times fires back at Crovitz and the WSJ. This was written by Michael Hiltzik, who was quoted by Crovitz: > > http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-mo-who-invented-internet-20120723,0,5052169.story > > Cheers, > Andy > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 2:25 PM, John Curran wrote: > Internet History Folks - > > I make note of this, as some of the folks on this list might have > differing views. > > FYI, > /John > > === > > > > Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet? > Contrary to legend, it wasn't the federal government, and the Internet had nothing to do with maintaining communications during a war. > ? By L. GORDON CROVITZ > > ? > A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet." > > ... > > > From nfonseca at ic.unicamp.br Mon Jul 23 13:29:45 2012 From: nfonseca at ic.unicamp.br (nfonseca at ic.unicamp.br) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:29:45 -0300 (BRT) Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: <79c13e81de2230fd12ce7ef5a073d8af.squirrel@webmail.ic.unicamp.br> A pointer to PUP http://129.69.211.95/pdf/xerox/alto/ethernet/pupArch.pdf nelson >> To be clear, I was not referring to the political aspects of the = >> article,=20 >> but the references along the lines of: >> >> "So having created the Internet, why didn't Xerox become the biggest = >> company in the world? " > > So, on the XEROX issue. (Ignoring the WSJ essay until the last sentence). > > I was not there for most of this and have heard things piecemeal so parts > may be wrong. But the broad sketch is: > > * XEROX did some amazing stuff with networked Ethernets, including > the first voice over data networks experiments, simple bridging, > networked workstations, and distributed nameservers, in the 1970s > and early 1980s that still resonate today. > > * They also developed an internetworking protocol stack called PUP > (PARC Universal Packet). PUP was similar to TCP/IP and some > (lots?) of ideas got swapped. > > * When Bob Metcalfe cofounded 3COM, he used PUP and Ethernet as the > starting point for their networking products and for a time they > did pretty well selling an local enterprise network solution. > > Neither PUP nor 3COM ever offered a system that could deal with a world > with multiple independent operators (aka the EGP/BGP problem). > > So, XEROX's technology was commercialized. It had its day and then faded. > > Thanks! > > Craig > From joly at punkcast.com Mon Jul 23 13:44:34 2012 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 16:44:34 -0400 Subject: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?" In-Reply-To: <22437062-0B80-46AB-BE6B-FA27162CC255@ianai.net> References: <7F4712CB-6ACD-41E1-8747-478BB9C1B1AB@istaff.org> <22437062-0B80-46AB-BE6B-FA27162CC255@ianai.net> Message-ID: My sympathy is with Crovitz. He's a laughing stock on the Interwebs. He's lucky he didn't come up with anything as meme-able as "a series of tubes". As it is "to crovitz" may well become shorthand for Republican partisan mangling revisionism. And more people may make the connection that the WSJ has the same owner as Fox News. j On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > ARS did a good response as well: > > < > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/wsj-mangles-history-to-argue-government-didnt-launch-the-internet/ > > > > Sad that the WJS prints this drivel. Sadder that people believe & defend > it. :( > > -- > TTFN, > patrick > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Mon Jul 23 14:00:24 2012 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:00:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") Message-ID: <20120723210024.CE33018C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > So, on the XEROX issue. I think it's worth noting that some Xerox people have gone on record as saying their role has been under-represented. See, for instance, "Dealers of Lightning" (Michael Hiltzik; Harper Collins, 1999), pg. 293: Xerox's lawyers ... placed the team on a very short leash. ... Nevertheless, they felt a powerful urge to impart their wisdom to their friends at ARPA. Thanks to the leagal beagles' strictures, they were reduced to getting their points across by a wierd pantomime of asking inscrutable but cunningly pointed questions. ... Eventually they managed to communicate enough of Pup's architecture for it to become a crucial part of the ARPANET standard known as TCP/IP ... PARC's contribution is mostly unsung ... Metcalfe, Shoch and the others have gotten used to their contribution being minimized unfairly. "The TCP/IP guys will never tell you they did this because of Xerox, because they don't remember it that way", Shoch said. Without a lot of investigation, I'm not going to take a detailed position on the proper apportionment of credit, but I do have a couple of comments. First, I suspect the International Network Working Group (INWG) of the early 1970s (documented to some degree here: http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn12-2.a03.txt by Hauben; I don't recall offhand any other good looks at it) was a big influence on both PUP and TCP/IP - and it rarely gets mentioned either. Second, I think the PUP guys probably don't get as much credit as they properly deserve (although I'm not sure they deserve as much credit as the excerpt above makes it sound like they do), and I personally have always tried to 'write them in' when talking about the roots of the Internet (see e.g. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Internet#Unbalanced for one instance). As to exactly how much credit the PUP people should get - I will leave that to others! I suspect that without transcripts of the meetings, we'll never know for sure, although I'd be curious to hear the reaction of those who were there (Vint, the MIT Daves, etc) to the Shoch/etc version of things (partiallly quoted above). Noel From patrick at ianai.net Mon Jul 23 14:14:22 2012 From: patrick at ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:14:22 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <20120723210024.CE33018C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20120723210024.CE33018C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: On Jul 23, 2012, at 17:00 , Noel Chiappa wrote: >> So, on the XEROX issue. > > I think it's worth noting that some Xerox people have gone on record as > saying their role has been under-represented. See, for instance, "Dealers of > Lightning" (Michael Hiltzik; Harper Collins, 1999), pg. 293: Michael Hilzik thinks the article is wrong: Of course, he could still think Xerox deserves more credit than it got. :) -- TTFN, patrick > Xerox's lawyers ... placed the team on a very short leash. ... > Nevertheless, they felt a powerful urge to impart their wisdom to their > friends at ARPA. Thanks to the leagal beagles' strictures, they were > reduced to getting their points across by a wierd pantomime of asking > inscrutable but cunningly pointed questions. ... > Eventually they managed to communicate enough of Pup's architecture for it > to become a crucial part of the ARPANET standard known as TCP/IP ... > PARC's contribution is mostly unsung ... Metcalfe, Shoch and the others > have gotten used to their contribution being minimized unfairly. "The > TCP/IP guys will never tell you they did this because of Xerox, because > they don't remember it that way", Shoch said. > > Without a lot of investigation, I'm not going to take a detailed position on > the proper apportionment of credit, but I do have a couple of comments. > > First, I suspect the International Network Working Group (INWG) of the early > 1970s (documented to some degree here: > > http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn12-2.a03.txt > > by Hauben; I don't recall offhand any other good looks at it) was a big > influence on both PUP and TCP/IP - and it rarely gets mentioned either. > > Second, I think the PUP guys probably don't get as much credit as they > properly deserve (although I'm not sure they deserve as much credit as the > excerpt above makes it sound like they do), and I personally have always > tried to 'write them in' when talking about the roots of the Internet (see > e.g. here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Internet#Unbalanced > > for one instance). > > As to exactly how much credit the PUP people should get - I will leave that to > others! I suspect that without transcripts of the meetings, we'll never know > for sure, although I'd be curious to hear the reaction of those who were there > (Vint, the MIT Daves, etc) to the Shoch/etc version of things (partiallly > quoted above). > > Noel > From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Jul 23 14:30:44 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 07:30:44 +1000 Subject: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Here we go again - the search for the single point of origin of the Internet. The writer of the LA Times article might have done well if he had checked with his friend Bob Taylor. He writes. "Bob Taylor is a friend of mine, and I think I can say without fear of contradiction that he fully endorses the idea as a point of personal pride that the government-funded ARPANet was very much the precursor of the Internet as we know it today" Well that's not what Bob Taylor has written elsewhere. To quote Bob, "I believe the first internet was created at Xerox PARC, circa '75, when we connected, via PUP, the Ethernet with the ARPAnet. PUP (PARC Universal Protocol) was instrumental later in defining TCP." So John Schoch and PUP has to become at least part of this history - as has Louis Pouzin and datagrams at Cyclades, and a number of other early projects. Claiming a single point of origin only lessens the richeness of the Internet. Many people were involved, many projects. None can claim sole inventor rights - indeed, the Myth of the Sole Inventor is an unproductive way to view our history. Mark Lumley has covered this well with "The Myth of the Sole Inventor" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1856610 . Ian Peter > From: > Reply-To: > Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 12:03:59 -0700 > To: > Subject: internet-history Digest, Vol 64, Issue 14 > > 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: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the > Internet?" (Andrew G. Malis) > 2. Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the > Internet?" (John Curran) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:02:44 -0400 > From: "Andrew G. Malis" > Subject: Re: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the > Internet?" > To: John Curran > Cc: internet-history at postel.org > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > The LA Times fires back at Crovitz and the WSJ. This was written by Michael > Hiltzik, who was quoted by Crovitz: > > http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-mo-who-invented-internet-20120723,0,5 > 052169.story > > Cheers, > Andy > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 2:25 PM, John Curran wrote: > >> Internet History Folks - >> >> I make note of this, as some of the folks on this list might have >> differing views. >> >> FYI, >> /John >> >> === >> < >> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577539063008406518.htm >> l# >>> >> >> >> Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet? Contrary to legend, it >> wasn't the federal government, and the Internet had nothing to do with >> maintaining communications during a war. >> >> - By L. GORDON CROVITZ >> >> [image: Columnist's name] >> >> - >> >> A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack >> Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else >> made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by >> referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented >> on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies >> could make money off the Internet." >> ... >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20120723/a07f > f837/attachment.html > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: image/gif > Size: 6558 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : > http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20120723/a07f > f837/attachment.gif > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:03:47 -0400 > From: John Curran > Subject: Re: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the > Internet?" > To: internet-history at postel.org > Message-ID: <49BE1247-1D7B-4F8B-9F90-86A78E2A6A3B at istaff.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > To be clear, I was not referring to the political aspects of the article, > but the references along the lines of: > > "So having created the Internet, why didn't Xerox become the biggest company > in the world? " > > FYI, > /John > > On Jul 23, 2012, at 2:25 PM, John Curran wrote: > >> Internet History Folks - >> >> I make note of this, as some of the folks on this list might have >> differing views. >> >> FYI, >> /John >> >> === >> > ml#> >> >> >> Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet? >> Contrary to legend, it wasn't the federal government, and the Internet had >> nothing to do with maintaining communications during a war. >> By L. GORDON CROVITZ >> >> A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama >> said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made >> that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by >> referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented on >> its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could >> make money off the Internet." >> >> ... >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20120723/43e6 > 21af/attachment.html > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: renocol_GordonCrovitz.gif > Type: image/gif > Size: 6558 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : > http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20120723/43e6 > 21af/renocol_GordonCrovitz.gif > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > End of internet-history Digest, Vol 64, Issue 14 > ************************************************ From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Mon Jul 23 14:43:12 2012 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:43:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") Message-ID: <20120723214312.AB24918C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" > Michael Hilzik thinks the article is wrong I could care less what he, or the WSJ guy, thinks. I was responding to Craig's post about _actul history_. (And, BTW, Hilzik is occasionally confused, too - I was amused to read that, according to him, Ethernet is a "a protocol".) Noel From galmes at tamu.edu Mon Jul 23 14:55:08 2012 From: galmes at tamu.edu (Guy Almes) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 16:55:08 -0500 Subject: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?" In-Reply-To: References: <7F4712CB-6ACD-41E1-8747-478BB9C1B1AB@istaff.org> <22437062-0B80-46AB-BE6B-FA27162CC255@ianai.net> Message-ID: <500DC83C.5040001@tamu.edu> Joly, ;-) The trouble, of course, is that we live in a world of "multiple truths". Crovitz can be the laughing stock of the Internet world and still influence many WSJ readers to reinforce their low opinion of both science and of government-funded research. -- Guy On 7/23/12 3:44 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > My sympathy is with Crovitz. He's a laughing stock on the Interwebs. > He's lucky he didn't come up with anything as meme-able as "a series of > tubes". As it is "to crovitz" may well become shorthand for Republican > partisan mangling revisionism. And more people may make the connection > that the WSJ has the same owner as Fox News. > > j > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore > wrote: > > ARS did a good response as well: > > > > > Sad that the WJS prints this drivel. Sadder that people believe & > defend it. :( > > -- > TTFN, > patrick > > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Jul 23 14:57:34 2012 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:57:34 -0400 Subject: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I can't be sure, Dave Walden can probably fill it in, but I think connecting the ARPANet to Norway and the UK networks might have happened earlier. But then, that was probably still the same network. At 7:30 +1000 2012/07/24, Ian Peter wrote: >Here we go again - the search for the single point of origin of the >Internet. > >The writer of the LA Times article might have done well if he had checked >with his friend Bob Taylor. He writes. > >"Bob Taylor is a friend of mine, and I think I can say without fear of >contradiction that he fully endorses the idea as a point of personal pride >that the government-funded ARPANet was very much the precursor of the >Internet as we know it today" > >Well that's not what Bob Taylor has written elsewhere. To quote Bob, > >"I believe the first internet was created at Xerox PARC, circa '75, when we >connected, via PUP, the Ethernet with the ARPAnet. PUP (PARC Universal >Protocol) was instrumental later in defining TCP." > >So John Schoch and PUP has to become at least part of this history - as has >Louis Pouzin and datagrams at Cyclades, and a number of other early >projects. > >Claiming a single point of origin only lessens the richeness of the >Internet. Many people were involved, many projects. None can claim sole >inventor rights - indeed, the Myth of the Sole Inventor is an unproductive >way to view our history. Mark Lumley has covered this well with "The Myth >of the Sole Inventor" >http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1856610 . > >Ian Peter > > >> From: >> Reply-To: >> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 12:03:59 -0700 >> To: >> Subject: internet-history Digest, Vol 64, Issue 14 >> >> 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: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the >> Internet?" (Andrew G. Malis) >> 2. Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the >> Internet?" (John Curran) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:02:44 -0400 >> From: "Andrew G. Malis" >> Subject: Re: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the >> Internet?" >> To: John Curran >> Cc: internet-history at postel.org >> Message-ID: >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> The LA Times fires back at Crovitz and the WSJ. This was written by Michael >> Hiltzik, who was quoted by Crovitz: >> >> >>http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-mo-who-invented-internet-20120723,0,5 >> 052169.story >> >> Cheers, >> Andy >> >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 2:25 PM, John Curran wrote: >> >>> Internet History Folks - >>> >>> I make note of this, as some of the folks on this list might have >>> differing views. >>> >>> FYI, >>> /John >>> >>> === >>> < >>> >>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577539063008406518.htm >>> l# >>>> >>> >>> >>> Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet? Contrary to legend, it >>> wasn't the federal government, and the Internet had nothing to do with >>> maintaining communications during a war. >>> >>> - By L. GORDON CROVITZ >>> >>> [image: Columnist's name] >>> >>> - >>> >>> A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack >>> Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else > >> made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over >entrepreneurs by >>> referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented >>> on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies >>> could make money off the Internet." >>> ... >>> >>> >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> >>http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20120723/a07f >> f837/attachment.html >> -------------- next part -------------- >> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >> Name: not available >> Type: image/gif >> Size: 6558 bytes >> Desc: not available >> Url : >> >>http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20120723/a07f >> f837/attachment.gif >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:03:47 -0400 >> From: John Curran >> Subject: Re: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the >> Internet?" >> To: internet-history at postel.org >> Message-ID: <49BE1247-1D7B-4F8B-9F90-86A78E2A6A3B at istaff.org> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> To be clear, I was not referring to the political aspects of the article, >> but the references along the lines of: >> >> "So having created the Internet, why didn't Xerox become the >>biggest company >> in the world? " >> >> FYI, >> /John >> >> On Jul 23, 2012, at 2:25 PM, John Curran wrote: >> >>> Internet History Folks - >>> >>> I make note of this, as some of the folks on this list might have >>> differing views. >>> >>> FYI, >>> /John >>> >>> === >>> >>>>> ml#> >>> >>> >>> Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet? >>> Contrary to legend, it wasn't the federal government, and the Internet had >>> nothing to do with maintaining communications during a war. >>> By L. GORDON CROVITZ >>> >>> A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama >>> said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made >>> that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by >>> referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get >>>invented on >>> its own. Government research created the Internet so that all >>>companies could >>> make money off the Internet." >>> >>> ... >>> >>> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> >>http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20120723/43e6 >> 21af/attachment.html >> -------------- next part -------------- >> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >> Name: renocol_GordonCrovitz.gif >> Type: image/gif >> Size: 6558 bytes >> Desc: not available >> Url : >> >>http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20120723/43e6 >> 21af/renocol_GordonCrovitz.gif >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> >> End of internet-history Digest, Vol 64, Issue 14 >> ************************************************ From patrick at ianai.net Mon Jul 23 15:06:45 2012 From: patrick at ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 18:06:45 -0400 Subject: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63EAFBCA-1620-47B8-8005-2DC472FCD77F@ianai.net> On Jul 23, 2012, at 17:30 , Ian Peter wrote: > Here we go again - the search for the single point of origin of the > Internet. > > The writer of the LA Times article might have done well if he had checked > with his friend Bob Taylor. He writes. > > "Bob Taylor is a friend of mine, and I think I can say without fear of > contradiction that he fully endorses the idea as a point of personal pride > that the government-funded ARPANet was very much the precursor of the > Internet as we know it today" > > Well that's not what Bob Taylor has written elsewhere. To quote Bob, > > "I believe the first internet was created at Xerox PARC, circa '75, when we > connected, via PUP, the Ethernet with the ARPAnet. PUP (PARC Universal > Protocol) was instrumental later in defining TCP." I believe, as others have mentioned elsewhere about similar quotes, you are conflating "an internet" with "The Internet". By the way, I still agree with your thesis that it is impossible to find a single point of origin - because there wasn't one. > So John Schoch and PUP has to become at least part of this history - as has > Louis Pouzin and datagrams at Cyclades, and a number of other early > projects. > > Claiming a single point of origin only lessens the richeness of the > Internet. Many people were involved, many projects. None can claim sole > inventor rights - indeed, the Myth of the Sole Inventor is an unproductive > way to view our history. Mark Lumley has covered this well with "The Myth > of the Sole Inventor" > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1856610 . Having recently looked up Noel Chiappa's home page for related reasons, I found this: Impressive. That's 30 names or so, and all the ones I recognize (most of them) have good reason IMHO to be on that plaque. However, I think the sentence right above the dedication date says it all. -- TTFN, patrick >> From: >> Reply-To: >> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 12:03:59 -0700 >> To: >> Subject: internet-history Digest, Vol 64, Issue 14 >> >> 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: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the >> Internet?" (Andrew G. Malis) >> 2. Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the >> Internet?" (John Curran) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:02:44 -0400 >> From: "Andrew G. Malis" >> Subject: Re: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the >> Internet?" >> To: John Curran >> Cc: internet-history at postel.org >> Message-ID: >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> The LA Times fires back at Crovitz and the WSJ. This was written by Michael >> Hiltzik, who was quoted by Crovitz: >> >> http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-mo-who-invented-internet-20120723,0,5 >> 052169.story >> >> Cheers, >> Andy >> >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 2:25 PM, John Curran wrote: >> >>> Internet History Folks - >>> >>> I make note of this, as some of the folks on this list might have >>> differing views. >>> >>> FYI, >>> /John >>> >>> === >>> < >>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577539063008406518.htm >>> l# >>>> >>> >>> >>> Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet? Contrary to legend, it >>> wasn't the federal government, and the Internet had nothing to do with >>> maintaining communications during a war. >>> >>> - By L. GORDON CROVITZ >>> >>> [image: Columnist's name] >>> >>> - >>> >>> A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack >>> Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else >>> made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by >>> referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented >>> on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies >>> could make money off the Internet." >>> ... >>> >>> >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20120723/a07f >> f837/attachment.html >> -------------- next part -------------- >> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >> Name: not available >> Type: image/gif >> Size: 6558 bytes >> Desc: not available >> Url : >> http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20120723/a07f >> f837/attachment.gif >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:03:47 -0400 >> From: John Curran >> Subject: Re: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the >> Internet?" >> To: internet-history at postel.org >> Message-ID: <49BE1247-1D7B-4F8B-9F90-86A78E2A6A3B at istaff.org> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> To be clear, I was not referring to the political aspects of the article, >> but the references along the lines of: >> >> "So having created the Internet, why didn't Xerox become the biggest company >> in the world? " >> >> FYI, >> /John >> >> On Jul 23, 2012, at 2:25 PM, John Curran wrote: >> >>> Internet History Folks - >>> >>> I make note of this, as some of the folks on this list might have >>> differing views. >>> >>> FYI, >>> /John >>> >>> === >>> >> ml#> >>> >>> >>> Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet? >>> Contrary to legend, it wasn't the federal government, and the Internet had >>> nothing to do with maintaining communications during a war. >>> By L. GORDON CROVITZ >>> >>> A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama >>> said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made >>> that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by >>> referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented on >>> its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could >>> make money off the Internet." >>> >>> ... >>> >>> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20120723/43e6 >> 21af/attachment.html >> -------------- next part -------------- >> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >> Name: renocol_GordonCrovitz.gif >> Type: image/gif >> Size: 6558 bytes >> Desc: not available >> Url : >> http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20120723/43e6 >> 21af/renocol_GordonCrovitz.gif >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> internet-history mailing list >> internet-history at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> >> End of internet-history Digest, Vol 64, Issue 14 >> ************************************************ > > From galmes at tamu.edu Mon Jul 23 15:18:01 2012 From: galmes at tamu.edu (Guy Almes) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:18:01 -0500 Subject: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?" In-Reply-To: References: <7F4712CB-6ACD-41E1-8747-478BB9C1B1AB@istaff.org> Message-ID: <500DCD99.10204@tamu.edu> Andy, Malis makes several interesting points. As is usual (and appropriate) for this list, most of the comments today have focused on the technical innovations (e.g., of PUP) of various players, very much including Xerox. But one point Malis makes >>But Crovitz confuses AN internet with THE Internet.<< is actually important. If, somehow, the internet ideas had been limited to Xerox PARC, the corporate style of Xerox would have doomed them. But the organic relationship between (even the early) Internet with an increasingly growing part of the university/ lab/ academic world made a big difference, and here is one place where government-funded research can pay big dividends compared with private corporate research/ development. Just consider, for example, the student impact, beginning, curiously, with the cadre of Stanford and other grad students doing their summer gigs at PARC in the late 70s, but also the real Internet shock troops who were exposed to the Internet during the NSFnet era and then (!) graduated and entered both the workplace and the consumer world during the late 1980s and early 1990s. -- Guy On 7/23/12 2:02 PM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > The LA Times fires back at Crovitz and the WSJ. This was written by > Michael Hiltzik, who was quoted by Crovitz: > > http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-mo-who-invented-internet-20120723,0,5052169.story > > Cheers, > Andy > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 2:25 PM, John Curran > wrote: > > Internet History Folks - > I make note of this, as some of the folks on this list might have > differing views. > > FYI, > /John > > === > > > > Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet? > > > Contrary to legend, it wasn't the federal government, and the > Internet had nothing to do with maintaining communications > during a war. > > * > > > By L. GORDON CROVITZ > > Columnist's name > > * > > A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack > Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. > Somebody else made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats > over entrepreneurs by referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The > Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created > the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet." > > ... > > > From cos at aaaaa.org Mon Jul 23 15:41:50 2012 From: cos at aaaaa.org (Ofer Inbar) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 18:41:50 -0400 Subject: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20120723224149.GS335@mip.aaaaa.org> Ian Peter wrote: > The writer of the LA Times article might have done well if he had checked > with his friend Bob Taylor. He writes. > > "Bob Taylor is a friend of mine, and I think I can say without fear of > contradiction that he fully endorses the idea as a point of personal pride > that the government-funded ARPANet was very much the precursor of the > Internet as we know it today" > > Well that's not what Bob Taylor has written elsewhere. To quote Bob, > > "I believe the first internet was created at Xerox PARC, circa '75, when we > connected, via PUP, the Ethernet with the ARPAnet. PUP (PARC Universal > Protocol) was instrumental later in defining TCP." That supports the assertion that the ARPANet was the precursor of the Internet, so I see no contradiction. Note that "the first internet" per se wouldn't necessarily have to be a precursor of "The Internet". Were there any packet switched internets* in those days that did not connect to the ARPANet? While those would not have had a direct lineage to The Internet, it'd still be interesting to know about them. I don't recall hearing of any. * by which I mean: interconnections of administratively separate networks in geographically separate locations with different underlying network types - administratively separate is key -- Cos From LarrySheldon at cox.net Mon Jul 23 16:01:07 2012 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 18:01:07 -0500 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <20120723210024.CE33018C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20120723210024.CE33018C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <500DD7B3.7090706@cox.net> On 7/23/2012 4:00 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > So, on the XEROX issue. > > I think it's worth noting that some Xerox people have gone on record as > saying their role has been under-represented. See, for instance, "Dealers of > Lightning" (Michael Hiltzik; Harper Collins, 1999), pg. 293: Happens a lot. The way life goes. Edison did not invent the light bulb. ENIAC was not the first computer. Nobody has heard of "Colossus". Radia Perlman probably invented the first internet. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. ICBM Data: http://g.co/maps/e5gmy (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From LarrySheldon at cox.net Mon Jul 23 16:02:02 2012 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 18:02:02 -0500 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <20120723214312.AB24918C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20120723214312.AB24918C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <500DD7EA.2060501@cox.net> On 7/23/2012 4:43 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > (And, BTW, Hilzik is occasionally confused, too - I was amused to read that, > according to him, Ethernet is a "a protocol".) It isn't? Really? Damn. After all these years. What is it? http://netcert.tripod.com/ccna/internetworking/layer2.html Is it possible that people here are poseurs? -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. ICBM Data: http://g.co/maps/e5gmy (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From amckenzie3 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 23 16:18:46 2012 From: amckenzie3 at yahoo.com (Alex McKenzie) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 16:18:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ih] Packet nets not connected to the ARPAnet In-Reply-To: <20120723224149.GS335@mip.aaaaa.org> References: <20120723224149.GS335@mip.aaaaa.org> Message-ID: <1343085526.95478.YahooMailNeo@web142405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Yes, There were packet networks not connected to the ARPAnet.? Two in particular were: Cyclades/Cigale in France, and the European Informatics Network with nodes in 6 of the Common Market countries.? There _were_ some interconnections between the public packet networks (Telenet in the USA, Bell Canada, and the networks of the PTTs in western Europe and Japan), but these interconnections were extremely limited experiments for the most part.? CSNET (funded by the NSF) used both ARPAnet and Telenet for transport but only provided user-level (eg mail) interconnection and only for CSNET members. ________________________________ From: Ofer Inbar To: Ian Peter Cc: internet-history at postel.org Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 6:41 PM Subject: Re: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?" Ian Peter wrote: > The writer of the LA Times article might have done well if he had checked > with his friend Bob Taylor. He writes. > > "Bob Taylor is a friend of mine, and I think I can say without fear of > contradiction that he fully endorses the idea as a point of personal pride > that the government-funded ARPANet was very much the precursor of the > Internet as we know it today" > > Well that's not what Bob Taylor has written elsewhere. To quote Bob, > > "I believe the first internet was created at Xerox PARC, circa '75, when we > connected, via PUP, the Ethernet with the ARPAnet. PUP (PARC Universal > Protocol) was instrumental later in defining TCP." That supports the assertion that the ARPANet was the precursor of the Internet, so I see no contradiction. Note that "the first internet" per se wouldn't necessarily have to be a precursor of "The Internet".? Were there any packet switched internets* in those days that did not connect to the ARPANet?? While those would not have had a direct lineage to The Internet, it'd still be interesting to know about them.? I don't recall hearing of any. * by which I mean: interconnections of administratively separate ? networks in geographically separate locations with different ? underlying network types - administratively separate is key ? -- Cos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cos at aaaaa.org Mon Jul 23 16:38:03 2012 From: cos at aaaaa.org (Ofer Inbar) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:38:03 -0400 Subject: [ih] Packet nets not connected to the ARPAnet In-Reply-To: <1343085526.95478.YahooMailNeo@web142405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <20120723224149.GS335@mip.aaaaa.org> <1343085526.95478.YahooMailNeo@web142405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20120723233803.GT335@mip.aaaaa.org> Alex McKenzie wrote: > Yes, There were packet networks not connected to the ARPAnet. That's a different question. Were there any packet switched internets - that is, packet-switched interconnections of multiple administratively separate packet-switched networks - that were not connected to the ARPAnet? I'm not asking about store-and-forward networks, or individual packet switched networks under common administrative authority, since I've heard about a number of those existing during those years. Sorry if my question wasn't clear enough. > There _were_ some interconnections between the public packet > networks (Telenet in the USA, Bell Canada, and the networks of the > PTTs in western Europe and Japan), I actually remember using telenet a few times, but my memory is quite vague about it. My impression is that it didn't really connect the networks it connected in a packet-switched manner; it was more of a common proxy that let you get to several networks, but was a sort of separate network itself. You had to go to telenet explicity, and then from it, go to some other network explicitly. Am I remembering accurately? -- Cos From louie at transsys.com Mon Jul 23 16:55:31 2012 From: louie at transsys.com (Louis Mamakos) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:55:31 -0400 Subject: [ih] Packet nets not connected to the ARPAnet In-Reply-To: <1343085526.95478.YahooMailNeo@web142405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <20120723224149.GS335@mip.aaaaa.org> <1343085526.95478.YahooMailNeo@web142405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In the R&E space, there were certainly a number of non-IP based "internets" running around. I recall NASA's SPAN, DoE ESNET and another small NSF-sponsered, "supercomputer" satellite-based network. These were all based on DECNET, and it was an interesting challenge to plumb them into the network at the University of Maryland at the time, given the relatively small-size numbering space and lack of global uniqueness in how all the different members independently chose their network numbers. I think there was also an MFENET out there at the time, too, also DECNET based. Even with the early R&E IP networks, it was still a challenge to lash all these together in the early days given the non-existent to limited tools available for inter-domain routing that was available at the time. Early attempts at using RIP were? not completely successful when the diameter of the interconnected routers exceeded "infinity" - defined to be 16. EGP wasn't really suited for generalized network topologies, and it wasn't until BGP really came along that we had real solutions to that problem. At U of MD (like other sites at the time), we had interesting plumbing problems with connections to both the MILNET and ARPANET (in different departments on campus, just to make it interesting) as well as being an early NSFNET site, and a NSF regional network (SURANET) site; as well as internal university system networks to multiple campus sites. Many lessons were learned, horrific kludges perpetrated. gated experienced quite a bit of violence and insult, but we felt our way through what was needed/possible to make interdomain routing work, in a way that was consistent with the funding/cost models related to the various attached networks. And yeah, Ethernet is a protocol. I recall reading the Pascal pseudo-code in my DEC-Intel-Xerox Ethernet specification. Louis Mamakos On Jul 23, 2012, at 7:18 PM, Alex McKenzie wrote: > Yes, There were packet networks not connected to the ARPAnet. Two in particular were: Cyclades/Cigale in France, and the European Informatics Network with nodes in 6 of the Common Market countries. There _were_ some interconnections between the public packet networks (Telenet in the USA, Bell Canada, and the networks of the PTTs in western Europe and Japan), but these interconnections were extremely limited experiments for the most part. CSNET (funded by the NSF) used both ARPAnet and Telenet for transport but only provided user-level (eg mail) interconnection and only for CSNET members. > > From: Ofer Inbar > To: Ian Peter > Cc: internet-history at postel.org > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 6:41 PM > Subject: Re: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?" > > Ian Peter wrote: > > The writer of the LA Times article might have done well if he had checked > > with his friend Bob Taylor. He writes. > > > > "Bob Taylor is a friend of mine, and I think I can say without fear of > > contradiction that he fully endorses the idea as a point of personal pride > > that the government-funded ARPANet was very much the precursor of the > > Internet as we know it today" > > > > Well that's not what Bob Taylor has written elsewhere. To quote Bob, > > > > "I believe the first internet was created at Xerox PARC, circa '75, when we > > connected, via PUP, the Ethernet with the ARPAnet. PUP (PARC Universal > > Protocol) was instrumental later in defining TCP." > > That supports the assertion that the ARPANet was the precursor of the > Internet, so I see no contradiction. > > Note that "the first internet" per se wouldn't necessarily have to be > a precursor of "The Internet". Were there any packet switched > internets* in those days that did not connect to the ARPANet? While > those would not have had a direct lineage to The Internet, it'd still > be interesting to know about them. I don't recall hearing of any. > > * by which I mean: interconnections of administratively separate > networks in geographically separate locations with different > underlying network types - administratively separate is key > > -- Cos > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jack at 3kitty.org Mon Jul 23 18:07:23 2012 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 18:07:23 -0700 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <500DD7EA.2060501@cox.net> References: <20120723214312.AB24918C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <500DD7EA.2060501@cox.net> Message-ID: It's articles like this, especially in publications well respected for journalistic quality, that might finally trigger me to write down my own perspective on internet history...people keep telling me I should write a book. My opinion of the WSJ has dropped several notches. No one can really define "The Internet". Or maybe just everyone has their own idea. Whatever it it, I don't claim to have invented it. I'm not sure when it was invented. But there's a good chance I was there at the time, along with quite a few others in the heyday period of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. IMHO, all of these learned publications and arguments miss the point of "the Internet", and especially what was actually "invented". At the time, there were many companies and organizations working on networking computers. IBM had interconnected computers well before the 70s. Xerox did XNS, and I remember John Schoch and/or Larry Stewart being at several of the Internet meetings, one of which was even held at PARC. There was lots of technical exchange, in both directions, with lots of research groups, in government, industry, and academia. DEC had DECNet. Novell had Netware. PTTs had X.25/X.75. Banyan did Vines. Apple did Appletalk. Microsoft joined the fray. ARPANet had its own technology. Networking was the new cool thing. Everybody was doing it, and inventing their own technology to interconnect computers and networks. All of those "internets" shared a common characteristic. Computers, and applications, could interact in powerful ways - as long as they all adopted the same candidate technology. You had to pick one, and hope it would be the right choice. Many companies were "IBM shops". Others were "DEC shops". Smaller companies chose Netware, or Microsoft, or Apple, or some other technology oriented toward LANs and office computing. All of these technologies and products battled for customer attention and "market share". These various internet technologies shared another common characteristic - it was painful, expensive, difficult, and/or impossible to interconnect computers that had adopted different technologies. In every one of these "internet" approaches, it was expected that the customers would eventually see the light and adopt their obviously superior particular internet approach as the corporate standard. The other companies and inferior technologies would eventually wither away. Meanwhile, companies wanted to interconnect with their customers and suppliers. They wanted their Apple-based marketing department to be able to interact with their DEC-based engineering and IBM-based accounting operations. They wanted to interconnect *all* of their relevant computers, even those in other companies. They wanted to avoid being locked-in to a single technology and manufacturer. They wanted it to be cost-effective and reliable. They wanted to survive and thrive as a business, using networked computers as a powerful tool. TCP/IP - the basis for "The Internet" - was yet another internet technology of the 70s/80s. One can argue forever about the merits of the technical differences of all the internets and who invented what. But the TCP/IP world - *all* of the technology embodied in all those RFCs, IENs, etc. - had some unique non-technical characteristics. No company owned it. There were few if any legal entanglements of patents, licenses, royalties, and such. It was backed by a major government as an official Standard, and the required choice for use in government systems. Most importantly, it worked. It had been deployed and was in use in non-research environments by military and other governmental departments. It had been implemented for computers of many types. Schools were producing new employees who knew how to do things with TCP/IP, and weren't familiar with the others. Companies were offering products and services to deploy and operate TCP/IP-based systems, and interconnect them with others as desired. Early adopter pioneers in commercial activities such as manufacturing and finance had successfully deployed TCP/IP-based systems, and were either reporting good results or quietly outperforming their surprised competitors. There was (and is still) a large, vibrant, open community actively improving and extending the technology, not subject to the business decisions of any one corporate management or political entity. Somewhere along that path, over the 30+ years or so of the journey so far, The Internet was invented. It's hard to define...the technology, experience, processes, mechanisms, legal structure, public relations and marketing, the pool of expertise, and other fuzzy "culture" things that made it possible to interconnect most of the people, computers, companies, and human activities on the planet. This could have happened with any of those early internet technologies. Xerox XNS wasn't all that different technically from TCP/IP and friends. You could (maybe) build The Internet on X.25/X.75. or on Netware with SPX/IPX. Or Apple.. Or whatever. But it didn't happen on those. It happened on TCP/IP. DARPA started it. NSF, DCA, and others helped move it along in the early years. Many others joined as The Internet became The Juggernaut that wiped out all those other technologies. Tim Berners-Lee delivered the coup-de-grace with the Web. Who invented The Internet? No clue. I think it was DARPA - the organization with the technical knowledge, political skills, and vision to nurture the project and lead it forward until it became self-supporting and unstoppable. The "invention" was that combination of technologies and business processes that DARPA used, and which made it possible to INTERconnect the plaNET. Whew, thanks for listening. Now I feel better... /Jack Haverty Point Arena, CA July 23, 2012 From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Jul 23 18:35:28 2012 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 21:35:28 -0400 Subject: [ih] Packet nets not connected to the ARPAnet In-Reply-To: <1343085526.95478.YahooMailNeo@web142405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <20120723224149.GS335@mip.aaaaa.org> <1343085526.95478.YahooMailNeo@web142405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Now that you mention it (although admittedly not really internetworking), Multics was connected to both Telenet and the ARPANET. In 1976, I moved to Houston so my wife could post-doc at Bailor College of Medicine and I continued to work at Illinois. (I had a T-shirt made that says University of Illinois at Houston!) ;-) I would dial into Telenet in Houston, connect to Multics and then back to Illinois. Did that for 2 years. At 16:18 -0700 2012/07/23, Alex McKenzie wrote: >Yes, There were packet networks not connected to the ARPAnet. Two >in particular were: Cyclades/Cigale in France, and the European >Informatics Network with nodes in 6 of the Common Market countries. >There _were_ some interconnections between the public packet >networks (Telenet in the USA, Bell Canada, and the networks of the >PTTs in western Europe and Japan), but these interconnections were >extremely limited experiments for the most part. CSNET (funded by >the NSF) used both ARPAnet and Telenet for transport but only >provided user-level (eg mail) interconnection and only for CSNET >members. > > > >From: Ofer Inbar >To: Ian Peter >Cc: internet-history at postel.org >Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 6:41 PM >Subject: Re: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented >the Internet?" > > >Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote: >> The writer of the LA Times article might have done well if he had checked >> with his friend Bob Taylor. He writes. >> >> "Bob Taylor is a friend of mine, and I think I can say without fear of >> contradiction that he fully endorses the idea as a point of personal pride >> that the government-funded ARPANet was very much the precursor of the >> Internet as we know it today" >> >> Well that's not what Bob Taylor has written elsewhere. To quote Bob, >> >> "I believe the first internet was created at Xerox PARC, circa '75, when we >> connected, via PUP, the Ethernet with the ARPAnet. PUP (PARC Universal >> Protocol) was instrumental later in defining TCP." > >That supports the assertion that the ARPANet was the precursor of the >Internet, so I see no contradiction. > >Note that "the first internet" per se wouldn't necessarily have to be >a precursor of "The Internet". Were there any packet switched >internets* in those days that did not connect to the ARPANet? While >those would not have had a direct lineage to The Internet, it'd still >be interesting to know about them. I don't recall hearing of any. > >* by which I mean: interconnections of administratively separate > networks in geographically separate locations with different > underlying network types - administratively separate is key > > -- Cos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From LarrySheldon at cox.net Mon Jul 23 18:56:23 2012 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 20:56:23 -0500 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <20120723214312.AB24918C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20120723214312.AB24918C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <500E00C7.5040407@cox.net> On 7/23/2012 4:43 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > (And, BTW, Hilzik is occasionally confused, too - I was amused to read that, > according to him, Ethernet is a "a protocol".) What is it? http://netcert.tripod.com/ccna/internetworking/layer2.html -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. ICBM Data: http://g.co/maps/e5gmy (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From dave.walden.family at gmail.com Mon Jul 23 19:18:39 2012 From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (dave.walden.family at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:18:39 -0700 Subject: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98D9FE06-31FD-4B06-9232-087D49105B2F@gmail.com> When I get home Thursday I can look up the date to within one QTR of first Internetting experiments I know about. I looked it up for Bob Kahn a few years ago and kept the QTR page images. Sent from my iPad On Jul 23, 2012, at 2:57 PM, John Day wrote: > I can't be sure, Dave Walden can probably fill it in, but I think connecting the ARPANet to Norway and the UK networks might have happened earlier. But then, that was probably still the same network. > > At 7:30 +1000 2012/07/24, Ian Peter wrote: >> Here we go again - the search for the single point of origin of the >> Internet. >> >> The writer of the LA Times article might have done well if he had checked >> with his friend Bob Taylor. He writes. >> >> "Bob Taylor is a friend of mine, and I think I can say without fear of >> contradiction that he fully endorses the idea as a point of personal pride >> that the government-funded ARPANet was very much the precursor of the >> Internet as we know it today" >> >> Well that's not what Bob Taylor has written elsewhere. To quote Bob, >> >> "I believe the first internet was created at Xerox PARC, circa '75, when we >> connected, via PUP, the Ethernet with the ARPAnet. PUP (PARC Universal >> Protocol) was instrumental later in defining TCP." >> >> So John Schoch and PUP has to become at least part of this history - as has >> Louis Pouzin and datagrams at Cyclades, and a number of other early >> projects. >> >> Claiming a single point of origin only lessens the richeness of the >> Internet. Many people were involved, many projects. None can claim sole >> inventor rights - indeed, the Myth of the Sole Inventor is an unproductive >> way to view our history. Mark Lumley has covered this well with "The Myth >> of the Sole Inventor" >> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1856610 . >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >>> From: >>> Reply-To: >>> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 12:03:59 -0700 >>> To: >>> Subject: internet-history Digest, Vol 64, Issue 14 >>> >>> 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: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the >>> Internet?" (Andrew G. Malis) >>> 2. Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the >>> Internet?" (John Curran) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:02:44 -0400 >>> From: "Andrew G. Malis" >>> Subject: Re: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the >>> Internet?" >>> To: John Curran >>> Cc: internet-history at postel.org >>> Message-ID: >>> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >>> >>> The LA Times fires back at Crovitz and the WSJ. This was written by Michael >>> Hiltzik, who was quoted by Crovitz: >>> >>> http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-mo-who-invented-internet-20120723,0,5 >>> 052169.story >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Andy >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 2:25 PM, John Curran wrote: >>> >>>> Internet History Folks - >>>> >>>> I make note of this, as some of the folks on this list might have >>>> differing views. >>>> >>>> FYI, >>>> /John >>>> >>>> === >>>> < >>>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577539063008406518.htm >>>> l# >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet? Contrary to legend, it >>>> wasn't the federal government, and the Internet had nothing to do with >>>> maintaining communications during a war. >>>> >>>> - By L. GORDON CROVITZ >>>> >>>> [image: Columnist's name] >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack >>>> Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else >> >> made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by >>>> referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented >>>> on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies >>>> could make money off the Internet." >>>> ... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: >>> http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20120723/a07f >>> f837/attachment.html >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >>> Name: not available >>> Type: image/gif >>> Size: 6558 bytes >>> Desc: not available >>> Url : >>> http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20120723/a07f >>> f837/attachment.gif >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Message: 2 >>> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:03:47 -0400 >>> From: John Curran >>> Subject: Re: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the >>> Internet?" >>> To: internet-history at postel.org >>> Message-ID: <49BE1247-1D7B-4F8B-9F90-86A78E2A6A3B at istaff.org> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>> >>> To be clear, I was not referring to the political aspects of the article, >>> but the references along the lines of: >>> >>> "So having created the Internet, why didn't Xerox become the biggest company >>> in the world? " >>> >>> FYI, >>> /John >>> >>> On Jul 23, 2012, at 2:25 PM, John Curran wrote: >>> >>>> Internet History Folks - >>>> I make note of this, as some of the folks on this list might have >>>> differing views. >>>> >>>> FYI, >>>> /John >>>> >>>> === >>>> >>> ml#> >>>> >>>> >>>> Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet? >>>> Contrary to legend, it wasn't the federal government, and the Internet had >>>> nothing to do with maintaining communications during a war. >>>> By L. GORDON CROVITZ >>>> >>>> A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama >>>> said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made >>>> that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by >>>> referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented on >>>> its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could >>>> make money off the Internet." >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: >>> http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20120723/43e6 >>> 21af/attachment.html >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >>> Name: renocol_GordonCrovitz.gif >>> Type: image/gif >>> Size: 6558 bytes >>> Desc: not available >>> Url : >>> http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20120723/43e6 >>> 21af/renocol_GordonCrovitz.gif >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> internet-history mailing list >>> internet-history at postel.org >>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >>> >>> End of internet-history Digest, Vol 64, Issue 14 >>> ************************************************ > From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Jul 23 19:23:30 2012 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:23:30 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723214312.AB24918C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <500DD7EA.2060501@cox.net> Message-ID: I have to agree with Jack. The idea of an internet was very much in the air and was undoubtedly invented independently by many and about the same time. It was (like packet switching) obvious. Someone was going to do it. And to a large degree, which one ended up becoming dominant in the market is also not that important except in terms of what kind of legacy we get saddled with. Gee, wasn't DOS or System/360 just the greatest thing every!? (not) We all know the technically superior solution seldom wins. That is not a mark of greatness in my book. What I look for are those insights that turn things in a different direction, that come out of the blue, that one didn't expect, that make one re-think what you thought you knew. To me those are the truly great discoveries. The ones we should be heralding. In networking, I have only seen two: Pouzin's shift to non-determinism with datagrams, building a reliable network from unreliable elements. And Watson's proof that bounding 3 timers are the necessary and sufficient condition for synchronization. All the rest is pretty straightforward stuff that pretty much any of us could have done. At 18:07 -0700 2012/07/23, Jack Haverty wrote: >It's articles like this, especially in publications well respected for >journalistic quality, that might finally trigger me to write down my >own perspective on internet history...people keep telling me I should >write a book. My opinion of the WSJ has dropped several notches. > >No one can really define "The Internet". Or maybe just everyone has >their own idea. Whatever it it, I don't claim to have invented it. >I'm not sure when it was invented. But there's a good chance I was >there at the time, along with quite a few others in the heyday period >of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. > >IMHO, all of these learned publications and arguments miss the point >of "the Internet", and especially what was actually "invented". > >At the time, there were many companies and organizations working on >networking computers. IBM had interconnected computers well before >the 70s. Xerox did XNS, and I remember John Schoch and/or Larry >Stewart being at several of the Internet meetings, one of which was >even held at PARC. There was lots of technical exchange, in both >directions, with lots of research groups, in government, industry, and >academia. > >DEC had DECNet. Novell had Netware. PTTs had X.25/X.75. Banyan did >Vines. Apple did Appletalk. Microsoft joined the fray. ARPANet had >its own technology. Networking was the new cool thing. Everybody was >doing it, and inventing their own technology to interconnect computers >and networks. > >All of those "internets" shared a common characteristic. Computers, >and applications, could interact in powerful ways - as long as they >all adopted the same candidate technology. You had to pick one, and >hope it would be the right choice. Many companies were "IBM shops". >Others were "DEC shops". Smaller companies chose Netware, or >Microsoft, or Apple, or some other technology oriented toward LANs and >office computing. All of these technologies and products battled for >customer attention and "market share". > >These various internet technologies shared another common >characteristic - it was painful, expensive, difficult, and/or >impossible to interconnect computers that had adopted different >technologies. In every one of these "internet" approaches, it was >expected that the customers would eventually see the light and adopt >their obviously superior particular internet approach as the corporate >standard. The other companies and inferior technologies would >eventually wither away. > >Meanwhile, companies wanted to interconnect with their customers and >suppliers. They wanted their Apple-based marketing department to be >able to interact with their DEC-based engineering and IBM-based >accounting operations. They wanted to interconnect *all* of their >relevant computers, even those in other companies. They wanted to >avoid being locked-in to a single technology and manufacturer. They >wanted it to be cost-effective and reliable. They wanted to survive >and thrive as a business, using networked computers as a powerful >tool. > >TCP/IP - the basis for "The Internet" - was yet another internet >technology of the 70s/80s. One can argue forever about the merits of >the technical differences of all the internets and who invented what. >But the TCP/IP world - *all* of the technology embodied in all those >RFCs, IENs, etc. - had some unique non-technical characteristics. No >company owned it. There were few if any legal entanglements of >patents, licenses, royalties, and such. It was backed by a major >government as an official Standard, and the required choice for use in >government systems. Most importantly, it worked. It had been >deployed and was in use in non-research environments by military and >other governmental departments. It had been implemented for computers >of many types. Schools were producing new employees who knew how to >do things with TCP/IP, and weren't familiar with the others. >Companies were offering products and services to deploy and operate >TCP/IP-based systems, and interconnect them with others as desired. >Early adopter pioneers in commercial activities such as manufacturing >and finance had successfully deployed TCP/IP-based systems, and were >either reporting good results or quietly outperforming their surprised >competitors. There was (and is still) a large, vibrant, open >community actively improving and extending the technology, not subject >to the business decisions of any one corporate management or political >entity. > >Somewhere along that path, over the 30+ years or so of the journey so >far, The Internet was invented. It's hard to define...the technology, >experience, processes, mechanisms, legal structure, public relations >and marketing, the pool of expertise, and other fuzzy "culture" things >that made it possible to interconnect most of the people, computers, >companies, and human activities on the planet. > >This could have happened with any of those early internet >technologies. Xerox XNS wasn't all that different technically from >TCP/IP and friends. You could (maybe) build The Internet on >X.25/X.75. or on Netware with SPX/IPX. Or Apple.. Or whatever. > >But it didn't happen on those. It happened on TCP/IP. DARPA started >it. NSF, DCA, and others helped move it along in the early years. >Many others joined as The Internet became The Juggernaut that wiped >out all those other technologies. Tim Berners-Lee delivered the >coup-de-grace with the Web. > >Who invented The Internet? No clue. I think it was DARPA - the >organization with the technical knowledge, political skills, and >vision to nurture the project and lead it forward until it became >self-supporting and unstoppable. The "invention" was that >combination of technologies and business processes that DARPA used, >and which made it possible to INTERconnect the plaNET. > >Whew, thanks for listening. Now I feel better... > >/Jack Haverty >Point Arena, CA >July 23, 2012 From scott.brim at gmail.com Tue Jul 24 13:53:20 2012 From: scott.brim at gmail.com (Scott Brim) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 16:53:20 -0400 Subject: [ih] Les Horribles Cernettes Message-ID: Hi all. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18928858 I know people who are saying "this is the first picture on the web". That's probably okay but some are saying "this is the first picture on the Internet". Please tell me what you can about early sharing of images of any sort, by FTP or whatever, so I can correct them with authority. Thanks ... Scott From joly at punkcast.com Tue Jul 24 22:39:28 2012 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 01:39:28 -0400 Subject: [ih] Les Horribles Cernettes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well. The article says web. One wonders at the accuracy of "uploaded to" if it was a local file transfer. j On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Scott Brim wrote: > Hi all. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18928858 > > I know people who are saying "this is the first picture on the web". > That's probably okay but some are saying "this is the first picture on > the Internet". Please tell me what you can about early sharing of > images of any sort, by FTP or whatever, so I can correct them with > authority. > > Thanks ... Scott > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Tue Jul 24 22:51:09 2012 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 01:51:09 -0400 Subject: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?" In-Reply-To: <98D9FE06-31FD-4B06-9232-087D49105B2F@gmail.com> References: <98D9FE06-31FD-4B06-9232-087D49105B2F@gmail.com> Message-ID: Btw I just checked and a google search on "gordon crovitz" + "internet" finds 8980 pages in the last week.. http://bit.ly/MFO69a Although one of them is an announcement that Marin Software just added him to their board. I had to laugh at the Slate refutation quoted by Lauren Weinstein that proceeded to spell Kahn Khan, but at least they corrected themselves later. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/07/who_invented_the_internet_the_outrageous_conservative_claim_that_every_tech_innovation_came_from_private_enterprise_.2.html I wonder if we'll ever see a similar correction from Crovitz. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Wed Jul 25 07:31:15 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:31:15 -0700 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723214312.AB24918C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <500DD7EA.2060501@cox.net> Message-ID: <50100333.6020506@dcrocker.net> On 7/23/2012 6:07 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > No one can really define "The Internet". Or maybe just everyone has > their own idea. There was a discussion on this list some time ago, that converged on a relatively small set of alternative definitions, each with a legitimate rationale, IMO. People varied in which they preferred. My feeling is that that's fine, as long as the choice is stated, when declaring when and who invented the net. An incomplete list of the alternatives includes a cross-product of: * Proposal vs. initial implementation vs. initial operation * packet-switching vs. heterogeneous comms h/w interconnect vs. heterogeneous administration interconnect The distinction between a category of technology, a particular technology, and a particular service operation also make it worth some notational alternatives such as 'internetworking' vs. "The Internet". > DEC had DECNet. Novell had Netware. PTTs had X.25/X.75. Banyan > did Vines. Apple did Appletalk. Microsoft joined the fray. ARPANet > had its own technology. ... > All of those "internets" shared a common characteristic. Computers, > and applications, could interact in powerful ways - as long as they > all adopted the same candidate technology. Well, several of those connected very different kinds of comms hardware, but yes, they put a layer of service technology on top that homogenized things. I think X.75 was the exception and, in its is way, really did permit Internetworking. Except for X.75, the thing about your list is that each of those had to be run under a homogeneous administration. That's why I prefer to the non-hardware definition of "internetworking" as the inter-connection of networks under independent administration. However I prefer to define "The Internet" as the start of Arpanet operation, since it's been in continuous operation since then, with all of its original, user-level applications still in use. I'm also obviously biased to buttress this view by noting the remarkable similarity between the email messages sent by Tomlinson in 1971 and the core of mail formats we we today. This end-to-end service orientation prompted RFC 1775, To be "On" the Internet. > Somewhere along that path, over the 30+ years or so of the journey > so far, The Internet was invented. It's hard to define...the Per the above, I don't think it is hard to define. There is a relatively small range of credible definitions. What's difficult is getting everyone to agree on just one. I suspect it's not that difficult to get agreement on the plausibility of the small range. So the real requirement when discussion the invention is to first state the definition that provides criteria. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Wed Jul 25 07:38:39 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 07:38:39 -0700 Subject: [ih] Packet nets not connected to the ARPAnet In-Reply-To: <1343085526.95478.YahooMailNeo@web142405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <20120723224149.GS335@mip.aaaaa.org> <1343085526.95478.YahooMailNeo@web142405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <501004EF.9050805@dcrocker.net> On 7/23/2012 4:18 PM, Alex McKenzie wrote: >CSNET (funded by the NSF) used both ARPAnet and > Telenet for transport but only provided user-level (eg mail) > interconnection and only for CSNET members. Initially, CSNet was strictly email transfer, but it evolved to generic packet services. The initial interconnection was between dial-up access to a CSNet relay and the Arpanet. First use of Telenet was actually dial-up across X.29 (telnet equivalent). CSNet saw Telenet as a dial-up link. Its "phonenet" service layer put a packet discipline over the dial-up, which meant that I needed to tailor its packet size to match the one used by Telenet, or traffic charges doubled. Eventually CSNet did provide IP over X.25. Until using IP, strictly speaking CSNet was connecting hosts to the Arpanet, rather than doing what we call internetworking. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From scott.brim at gmail.com Wed Jul 25 07:52:39 2012 From: scott.brim at gmail.com (Scott Brim) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:52:39 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <50100333.6020506@dcrocker.net> References: <20120723214312.AB24918C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <500DD7EA.2060501@cox.net> <50100333.6020506@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: In general I +1 what Dave says but I want to point out something I find rather interesting ... On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > However I prefer to define "The Internet" as the start of Arpanet operation, > since it's been in continuous operation since then, with all of its > original, user-level applications still in use. > > I'm also obviously biased to buttress this view by noting the remarkable > similarity between the email messages sent by Tomlinson in 1971 and the core > of mail formats we we today. This end-to-end service orientation prompted > RFC 1775, To be "On" the Internet. So it turns out that even in this group, engineering-heavy as it is, "the Internet" is less defined by a technology accomplishment (interworking independently administered networks) than by the services end users experience (e.g. email). Scott From galmes at tamu.edu Wed Jul 25 08:33:25 2012 From: galmes at tamu.edu (Guy Almes) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:33:25 -0500 Subject: [ih] Packet nets not connected to the ARPAnet In-Reply-To: <501004EF.9050805@dcrocker.net> References: <20120723224149.GS335@mip.aaaaa.org> <1343085526.95478.YahooMailNeo@web142405.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <501004EF.9050805@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <501011C5.2010304@tamu.edu> Dave, As you say, CSNet did an IP-over-X.25 service. We had one of these at Rice University 1984-87. A VAX with an X.25 card served as our border router. It connected, via the 9.6kb/s GTE Telenet X.25 service, to some equipment at BBN in Cambridge. When the X.25 cloud was lightly loaded, things worked moderately well. But when things got congested, let's just say that performance became very bad and we'd typically end up paying about $4,000 per month in GTE Telenet "packet charges" (totally apart from CSNet dues). Things got better in 1987 when our 56kb/s ARPAnet connection and a second 56kb/s connection to the "fuzzball" proto-NSFnet. And again, much much better when the T1-based NSFnet came in July 1988. So in 1988, when Van Jacobson kindly sent emails describing his TCP work, we had a massive "aha" moment, realizing that most of our $4,000 in packet charges were probably for useless (and counterproductive) retransmissions. Regards, -- Guy On 7/25/12 9:38 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > On 7/23/2012 4:18 PM, Alex McKenzie wrote: >> CSNET (funded by the NSF) used both ARPAnet and >> Telenet for transport but only provided user-level (eg mail) >> interconnection and only for CSNET members. > > > Initially, CSNet was strictly email transfer, but it evolved to generic > packet services. > > The initial interconnection was between dial-up access to a CSNet relay > and the Arpanet. First use of Telenet was actually dial-up across X.29 > (telnet equivalent). CSNet saw Telenet as a dial-up link. > > Its "phonenet" service layer put a packet discipline over the dial-up, > which meant that I needed to tailor its packet size to match the one > used by Telenet, or traffic charges doubled. Eventually CSNet did > provide IP over X.25. > > Until using IP, strictly speaking CSNet was connecting hosts to the > Arpanet, rather than doing what we call internetworking. > > d/ > > From leo at bind.org Wed Jul 25 08:46:14 2012 From: leo at bind.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:46:14 -0700 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723214312.AB24918C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <500DD7EA.2060501@cox.net> <50100333.6020506@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Scott Brim wrote: [...] > So it turns out that even in this group, engineering-heavy as it is, > "the Internet" is less defined by a technology accomplishment > (interworking independently administered networks) than by the > services end users experience (e.g. email). It doesn't seem unreasonable to define a network by what it makes possible instead of how it is constructed. Leo From vint at google.com Wed Jul 25 08:46:16 2012 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:46:16 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <50100333.6020506@dcrocker.net> References: <20120723214312.AB24918C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <500DD7EA.2060501@cox.net> <50100333.6020506@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: ARPANET (the subnet of IMPs) did not change when TCP/IP was put into the hosts and gateways were fielded. The Internet persisted after the demise of ARPANET, NSFNET, PRNETs, Packet Satellite Net, etc. The term "internet" (as opposed to the more general term "internetworking") has always been associated with the TCP/IP protocols and their associated suite of other protocols. ARPANET was not part of an internet until the addition of TCP/IP in the hosts and the addition of gateways interconnecting distinctly managed "autonomous systems". I think it is baloney that "no one can define the Internet" v On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > On 7/23/2012 6:07 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >> >> No one can really define "The Internet". Or maybe just everyone has >> their own idea. > > > There was a discussion on this list some time ago, that converged on a > relatively small set of alternative definitions, each with a legitimate > rationale, IMO. People varied in which they preferred. My feeling is > that that's fine, as long as the choice is stated, when declaring when > and who invented the net. > > An incomplete list of the alternatives includes a cross-product of: > > * Proposal vs. initial implementation vs. initial operation > > * packet-switching vs. heterogeneous comms h/w interconnect vs. > heterogeneous administration interconnect > > The distinction between a category of technology, a particular > technology, and a particular service operation also make it worth some > notational alternatives such as 'internetworking' vs. "The Internet". > > > >> DEC had DECNet. Novell had Netware. PTTs had X.25/X.75. Banyan >> did Vines. Apple did Appletalk. Microsoft joined the fray. ARPANet >> had its own technology. > > ... > >> All of those "internets" shared a common characteristic. Computers, >> and applications, could interact in powerful ways - as long as they >> all adopted the same candidate technology. > > > Well, several of those connected very different kinds of comms hardware, but > yes, they put a layer of service technology on top that homogenized things. > I think X.75 was the exception and, in its is way, really did permit > Internetworking. > > Except for X.75, the thing about your list is that each of those had to be > run under a homogeneous administration. > > That's why I prefer to the non-hardware definition of "internetworking" as > the inter-connection of networks under independent administration. > > However I prefer to define "The Internet" as the start of Arpanet operation, > since it's been in continuous operation since then, with all of its > original, user-level applications still in use. > > I'm also obviously biased to buttress this view by noting the remarkable > similarity between the email messages sent by Tomlinson in 1971 and the core > of mail formats we we today. This end-to-end service orientation prompted > RFC 1775, To be "On" the Internet. > > > >> Somewhere along that path, over the 30+ years or so of the journey >> so far, The Internet was invented. It's hard to define...the > > > Per the above, I don't think it is hard to define. There is a relatively > small range of credible definitions. What's difficult is getting everyone > to agree on just one. I suspect it's not that difficult to get agreement on > the plausibility of the small range. > > So the real requirement when discussion the invention is to first state the > definition that provides criteria. > > > d/ > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From vint at google.com Wed Jul 25 08:57:59 2012 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:57:59 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723214312.AB24918C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <500DD7EA.2060501@cox.net> <50100333.6020506@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: the consequence of that choice is to make equivalent a wide range of networking technology but seems to miss picking up the heterogeneity that the TCP/IP architecture permitted. If you try to define "internet" by applications we may as well then conclude there is no difference between ARPANET, X.25, DECNET, SNA, and the Internet (as defined by use of TCP/IP suite) etc.. and yet I think it is arguable that adaptation to heterogeneity has been an important feature of the TCP/IP protocol suite. v On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Leo Vegoda wrote: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Scott Brim wrote: > > [...] > >> So it turns out that even in this group, engineering-heavy as it is, >> "the Internet" is less defined by a technology accomplishment >> (interworking independently administered networks) than by the >> services end users experience (e.g. email). > > It doesn't seem unreasonable to define a network by what it makes > possible instead of how it is constructed. > > Leo From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Wed Jul 25 09:05:10 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:05:10 -0700 Subject: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?" In-Reply-To: <49BE1247-1D7B-4F8B-9F90-86A78E2A6A3B@istaff.org> References: <7F4712CB-6ACD-41E1-8747-478BB9C1B1AB@istaff.org> <49BE1247-1D7B-4F8B-9F90-86A78E2A6A3B@istaff.org> Message-ID: <50101936.1040500@dcrocker.net> On 7/23/2012 12:03 PM, John Curran wrote: > To be clear, I was not referring to the political aspects of the article, > but the references along the lines of: > > "So having created the Internet, why didn't Xerox become the biggest > company in the world? " An extensive consideration of this is contained in: Fumbling the Future by Smith & Alexander It's a cautionary tale about the role of middle-management in the success or failure or corporate change. When I started a lab at DEC, I was given a copy by Bob Taylor, who is thought to have been the deep throat source for the book and who was then running DEC's SRC lab. He later asked me what I thought of the book and I said that it seemed possible it would apply to DEC. As events unfolded, it did. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From leo at bind.org Wed Jul 25 09:35:35 2012 From: leo at bind.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:35:35 +0100 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723214312.AB24918C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <500DD7EA.2060501@cox.net> <50100333.6020506@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <20120725163535.GG24187@vegoda.org> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:57:59AM -0400, Vint Cerf wrote: > the consequence of that choice is to make equivalent a wide range of > networking technology but seems to miss picking up the heterogeneity > that the TCP/IP architecture permitted. If you try to define > "internet" by applications we may as well then conclude there is no > difference between ARPANET, X.25, DECNET, SNA, and the Internet (as > defined by use of TCP/IP suite) etc.. and yet I think it is arguable > that adaptation to heterogeneity has been an important feature of the > TCP/IP protocol suite. I didn't just mean applications, although they are important. I was really trying to get at the way our current Internet based on IP allows permissionless innovation, mostly. Leo From cos at aaaaa.org Wed Jul 25 11:19:01 2012 From: cos at aaaaa.org (Ofer Inbar) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:19:01 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723214312.AB24918C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <500DD7EA.2060501@cox.net> <50100333.6020506@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <20120725181901.GH335@mip.aaaaa.org> Scott Brim wrote: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > However I prefer to define "The Internet" as the start of Arpanet operation, > > since it's been in continuous operation since then, with all of its > > original, user-level applications still in use. > > > > I'm also obviously biased to buttress this view by noting the remarkable > > similarity between the email messages sent by Tomlinson in 1971 and the core > > of mail formats we we today. This end-to-end service orientation prompted > > RFC 1775, To be "On" the Internet. > > So it turns out that even in this group, engineering-heavy as it is, > "the Internet" is less defined by a technology accomplishment > (interworking independently administered networks) than by the > services end users experience (e.g. email). I think you're conflating a few different things. Part of it is the distinction between "an internet" and "The Internet" that a few people brought up. An interconnection of heterogeneous independently administered networks is an internet, and there were early internets separate from The Internet (and that was the point of my earlier question: were there any such early separate internets that provided packet-switched interconnection between their constituent networks). Leaving aside temporarily what "The Internet" is, I think what your comment focuses on is the idea that each internet has a continuous existence, and an identity. We can speak about this internet and that internet, and obviously the fact that both of them are internets is not enough to identify which is which, and whether one of them is the successor of the other or they're two separate instances. What you point out is that we are using the specific technology legacies on an internet to identify its continuity of existence. I don't think that's specifically end user services, it's also lower level technologies. The fact that this particular internet was using IP while that one was using DECnet, for example. So back to "The Internet": It's not just any internet, it's a specific one, and we're trying to identify its lineage. The history of this particular entity goes back to before it even was an internet - just as the Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies are a key point in the creation of the country now known as the United States, even though it was neither the US nor an independent country at that time. When we're tracing the Internet's history back to its beginnings in the days before it was an internet, what we're trying to do is not define what "an internet" is, but rather to define what marks a particular such entity's identity and continuous existence. We're identifying not *what* it is, but *which one* it is. -- Cos From paul at redbarn.org Wed Jul 25 11:28:31 2012 From: paul at redbarn.org (Paul Vixie) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:28:31 +0000 Subject: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?" In-Reply-To: <50101936.1040500@dcrocker.net> References: <7F4712CB-6ACD-41E1-8747-478BB9C1B1AB@istaff.org> <49BE1247-1D7B-4F8B-9F90-86A78E2A6A3B@istaff.org> <50101936.1040500@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <50103ACF.8090606@redbarn.org> On 2012-07-25 4:05 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > An extensive consideration of this is contained in: > > Fumbling the Future > by Smith & Alexander > > It's a cautionary tale about the role of middle-management in the > success or failure or corporate change. > > When I started a lab at DEC, I was given a copy by Bob Taylor, who is > thought to have been the deep throat source for the book and who was > then running DEC's SRC lab. He later asked me what I thought of the > book and I said that it seemed possible it would apply to DEC. As > events unfolded, it did. +1. From johnl at iecc.com Wed Jul 25 13:26:00 2012 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 25 Jul 2012 20:26:00 -0000 Subject: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20120725202600.99217.qmail@joyce.lan> >I wonder if we'll ever see a similar correction from Crovitz. Of course not. The WSJ's editorial page is never wrong. R's, John From louie at transsys.com Wed Jul 25 14:18:52 2012 From: louie at transsys.com (Louis Mamakos) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:18:52 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <20120725181901.GH335@mip.aaaaa.org> References: <20120723214312.AB24918C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <500DD7EA.2060501@cox.net> <50100333.6020506@dcrocker.net> <20120725181901.GH335@mip.aaaaa.org> Message-ID: <0F43A978-7EC5-444E-8679-F2C8D93AD680@transsys.com> On Jul 25, 2012, at 2:19 PM, Ofer Inbar wrote: [?] > So back to "The Internet": It's not just any internet, it's a specific > one, and we're trying to identify its lineage. The history of this > particular entity goes back to before it even was an internet - just > as the Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies are a key point in the > creation of the country now known as the United States, even though it > was neither the US nor an independent country at that time. > > When we're tracing the Internet's history back to its beginnings in > the days before it was an internet, what we're trying to do is not > define what "an internet" is, but rather to define what marks a > particular such entity's identity and continuous existence. We're > identifying not *what* it is, but *which one* it is. > -- Cos "The Internet" is defined by the notion of ubiquitous access and connectivity. You need a "public" IP address, and the associated routing infrastructure that enables reachability between all the participants. Being "on" the Internet means the ability to exchange traffic with others "on" the Internet. This implies that the disconnected corporate or lab network that happens to us the IP protocol suite are not part of the Internet. One could argue that the longest running distributed algorithm is what we use for Inter Domain routing on the public Internet. Bits and pieces come and go, protocols and algorithms evolve, but there really hasn't been a "flag day" in decades. This ubiquitous connectivity was an important concept around the time that commercialization of the Internet started to happen, and the Big Stupid Fone Companies started to get involved. It didn't matter how wonderful product/network X was if it couldn't talk to all of your competitor's networks and their customers, too. This (should) seem obvious now. Louis Mamakos From jack at 3kitty.org Wed Jul 25 14:40:00 2012 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:40:00 -0700 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723214312.AB24918C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <500DD7EA.2060501@cox.net> <50100333.6020506@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: Hi Vint et al, I mispoke if I implied that "no one can define the Internet". As DaveC pointed out, it's more that we haven't come to a consensus on the definition, even within this small community of techies and historians. It's so easy to define The Internet that everyone has their own definition. To some people, it's the Web. The under-30 crowd often equates it to Facebook, Twitter, and friends. To others, it's everybody accessible by email - many of whom you can't reach by a TCP connection. With 2+ billion people reported to now be "on The Internet", I suspect there's quite a few definitions out there. I share Vint's view that the Arpanet was not the beginning of the Internet. I view The Internet as more of a parasitical beast that attached itself to the Arpanet, was nurtured by it in its childhood, and ultimately killed it, just as it did with a bunch of other networks and technologies. Other people see it differently. It might be possible at least to trace the lineage of the phrase "The Internet". I wonder if that phrase was ever trademarked or whatever you do to legally protect such things. I vaguely recall that ARPA was at some point thinking about that kind of issue, around the time that TCP was becoming an official DoD Standard. There was a meeting, sometime in the late 70s or so, where I personally think the phrase "The Internet" was first adopted as the name for the thing we know today. I recall being at one of the periodic meetings, probably a TCP Working Group or ICCB meeting - fewer than 20 people. Vint had a non-technical agenda item - picking a name to identify the set of projects that were collaborating to build the TCP/IP-based world. At the time, there were lots of specific projects using TCP/IP to interact, e.g., Packet Radio, Satnet, Arpanet, etc. etc., and all of the TCP-related work was being done by people working on one of those projects. But there was no name for the collection of projects and the aggregate system being built. As I recall, this was causing some confusion as you worked up the government bureaucracy, which could affect funding, so it was important to fix. Vint proposed the term "Catenet" be used, reflecting the conCATEnation of NETworks which TCP enabled. While this didn't quite elicit boos, the overall reception was pretty negative. Someone (Postel?) said it would sound like we were doing research involving small furry mammals. After much discussion, no phrasing seemed better than "Internet", so Vint declared that "The Internet" (or perhaps "The ARPA Internet") would be the name. The "Internet Project" maybe wasn't born that day, but that's when I think it got it's name. Does anyone else remember that meeting? It would be interesting to know if the phrase "The Internet" was ever legally protected, and by whom. After the recent discussions about who invented "Email", nothing would surprise me. Perhaps Xerox really did invent "The Internet" according to the legal system. They did have a lot of lawyers.... /Jack Haverty On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Vint Cerf wrote: > ARPANET (the subnet of IMPs) did not change when TCP/IP was put into > the hosts and gateways were fielded. The Internet persisted after the > demise of ARPANET, NSFNET, PRNETs, Packet Satellite Net, etc. > The term "internet" (as opposed to the more general term > "internetworking") has always been associated with the TCP/IP > protocols and their associated suite of other protocols. > > ARPANET was not part of an internet until the addition of TCP/IP in > the hosts and the addition of gateways interconnecting distinctly > managed "autonomous systems". > > I think it is baloney that "no one can define the Internet" > > v > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> >> On 7/23/2012 6:07 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>> >>> No one can really define "The Internet". Or maybe just everyone has >>> their own idea. >> >> >> There was a discussion on this list some time ago, that converged on a >> relatively small set of alternative definitions, each with a legitimate >> rationale, IMO. People varied in which they preferred. My feeling is >> that that's fine, as long as the choice is stated, when declaring when >> and who invented the net. >> >> An incomplete list of the alternatives includes a cross-product of: >> >> * Proposal vs. initial implementation vs. initial operation >> >> * packet-switching vs. heterogeneous comms h/w interconnect vs. >> heterogeneous administration interconnect >> >> The distinction between a category of technology, a particular >> technology, and a particular service operation also make it worth some >> notational alternatives such as 'internetworking' vs. "The Internet". >> >> >> >>> DEC had DECNet. Novell had Netware. PTTs had X.25/X.75. Banyan >>> did Vines. Apple did Appletalk. Microsoft joined the fray. ARPANet >>> had its own technology. >> >> ... >> >>> All of those "internets" shared a common characteristic. Computers, >>> and applications, could interact in powerful ways - as long as they >>> all adopted the same candidate technology. >> >> >> Well, several of those connected very different kinds of comms hardware, but >> yes, they put a layer of service technology on top that homogenized things. >> I think X.75 was the exception and, in its is way, really did permit >> Internetworking. >> >> Except for X.75, the thing about your list is that each of those had to be >> run under a homogeneous administration. >> >> That's why I prefer to the non-hardware definition of "internetworking" as >> the inter-connection of networks under independent administration. >> >> However I prefer to define "The Internet" as the start of Arpanet operation, >> since it's been in continuous operation since then, with all of its >> original, user-level applications still in use. >> >> I'm also obviously biased to buttress this view by noting the remarkable >> similarity between the email messages sent by Tomlinson in 1971 and the core >> of mail formats we we today. This end-to-end service orientation prompted >> RFC 1775, To be "On" the Internet. >> >> >> >>> Somewhere along that path, over the 30+ years or so of the journey >>> so far, The Internet was invented. It's hard to define...the >> >> >> Per the above, I don't think it is hard to define. There is a relatively >> small range of credible definitions. What's difficult is getting everyone >> to agree on just one. I suspect it's not that difficult to get agreement on >> the plausibility of the small range. >> >> So the real requirement when discussion the invention is to first state the >> definition that provides criteria. >> >> >> d/ >> -- >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net From vint at google.com Wed Jul 25 14:50:43 2012 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 17:50:43 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723214312.AB24918C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <500DD7EA.2060501@cox.net> <50100333.6020506@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: the term "Internet" appeared in the title of RFC 675 and I believe this was likely the first time it was used in any formal sense. On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > Hi Vint et al, > > I mispoke if I implied that "no one can define the Internet". As > DaveC pointed out, it's more that we haven't come to a consensus on > the definition, even within this small community of techies and > historians. It's so easy to define The Internet that everyone has > their own definition. To some people, it's the Web. The under-30 > crowd often equates it to Facebook, Twitter, and friends. To others, > it's everybody accessible by email - many of whom you can't reach by a > TCP connection. With 2+ billion people reported to now be "on The > Internet", I suspect there's quite a few definitions out there. > > I share Vint's view that the Arpanet was not the beginning of the > Internet. I view The Internet as more of a parasitical beast that > attached itself to the Arpanet, was nurtured by it in its childhood, > and ultimately killed it, just as it did with a bunch of other > networks and technologies. Other people see it differently. > > It might be possible at least to trace the lineage of the phrase "The > Internet". I wonder if that phrase was ever trademarked or whatever > you do to legally protect such things. I vaguely recall that ARPA was > at some point thinking about that kind of issue, around the time that > TCP was becoming an official DoD Standard. > > There was a meeting, sometime in the late 70s or so, where I > personally think the phrase "The Internet" was first adopted as the > name for the thing we know today. I recall being at one of the > periodic meetings, probably a TCP Working Group or ICCB meeting - > fewer than 20 people. Vint had a non-technical agenda item - picking > a name to identify the set of projects that were collaborating to > build the TCP/IP-based world. At the time, there were lots of > specific projects using TCP/IP to interact, e.g., Packet Radio, > Satnet, Arpanet, etc. etc., and all of the TCP-related work was being > done by people working on one of those projects. But there was no > name for the collection of projects and the aggregate system being > built. As I recall, this was causing some confusion as you worked up > the government bureaucracy, which could affect funding, so it was > important to fix. > > Vint proposed the term "Catenet" be used, reflecting the > conCATEnation of NETworks which TCP enabled. While this didn't quite > elicit boos, the overall reception was pretty negative. Someone > (Postel?) said it would sound like we were doing research involving > small furry mammals. After much discussion, no phrasing seemed better > than "Internet", so Vint declared that "The Internet" (or perhaps "The > ARPA Internet") would be the name. The "Internet Project" maybe > wasn't born that day, but that's when I think it got it's name. Does > anyone else remember that meeting? > > It would be interesting to know if the phrase "The Internet" was ever > legally protected, and by whom. After the recent discussions about > who invented "Email", nothing would surprise me. Perhaps Xerox really > did invent "The Internet" according to the legal system. They did > have a lot of lawyers.... > > /Jack Haverty > > > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Vint Cerf wrote: >> ARPANET (the subnet of IMPs) did not change when TCP/IP was put into >> the hosts and gateways were fielded. The Internet persisted after the >> demise of ARPANET, NSFNET, PRNETs, Packet Satellite Net, etc. >> The term "internet" (as opposed to the more general term >> "internetworking") has always been associated with the TCP/IP >> protocols and their associated suite of other protocols. >> >> ARPANET was not part of an internet until the addition of TCP/IP in >> the hosts and the addition of gateways interconnecting distinctly >> managed "autonomous systems". >> >> I think it is baloney that "no one can define the Internet" >> >> v >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>> >>> On 7/23/2012 6:07 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>>> >>>> No one can really define "The Internet". Or maybe just everyone has >>>> their own idea. >>> >>> >>> There was a discussion on this list some time ago, that converged on a >>> relatively small set of alternative definitions, each with a legitimate >>> rationale, IMO. People varied in which they preferred. My feeling is >>> that that's fine, as long as the choice is stated, when declaring when >>> and who invented the net. >>> >>> An incomplete list of the alternatives includes a cross-product of: >>> >>> * Proposal vs. initial implementation vs. initial operation >>> >>> * packet-switching vs. heterogeneous comms h/w interconnect vs. >>> heterogeneous administration interconnect >>> >>> The distinction between a category of technology, a particular >>> technology, and a particular service operation also make it worth some >>> notational alternatives such as 'internetworking' vs. "The Internet". >>> >>> >>> >>>> DEC had DECNet. Novell had Netware. PTTs had X.25/X.75. Banyan >>>> did Vines. Apple did Appletalk. Microsoft joined the fray. ARPANet >>>> had its own technology. >>> >>> ... >>> >>>> All of those "internets" shared a common characteristic. Computers, >>>> and applications, could interact in powerful ways - as long as they >>>> all adopted the same candidate technology. >>> >>> >>> Well, several of those connected very different kinds of comms hardware, but >>> yes, they put a layer of service technology on top that homogenized things. >>> I think X.75 was the exception and, in its is way, really did permit >>> Internetworking. >>> >>> Except for X.75, the thing about your list is that each of those had to be >>> run under a homogeneous administration. >>> >>> That's why I prefer to the non-hardware definition of "internetworking" as >>> the inter-connection of networks under independent administration. >>> >>> However I prefer to define "The Internet" as the start of Arpanet operation, >>> since it's been in continuous operation since then, with all of its >>> original, user-level applications still in use. >>> >>> I'm also obviously biased to buttress this view by noting the remarkable >>> similarity between the email messages sent by Tomlinson in 1971 and the core >>> of mail formats we we today. This end-to-end service orientation prompted >>> RFC 1775, To be "On" the Internet. >>> >>> >>> >>>> Somewhere along that path, over the 30+ years or so of the journey >>>> so far, The Internet was invented. It's hard to define...the >>> >>> >>> Per the above, I don't think it is hard to define. There is a relatively >>> small range of credible definitions. What's difficult is getting everyone >>> to agree on just one. I suspect it's not that difficult to get agreement on >>> the plausibility of the small range. >>> >>> So the real requirement when discussion the invention is to first state the >>> definition that provides criteria. >>> >>> >>> d/ >>> -- >>> Dave Crocker >>> Brandenburg InternetWorking >>> bbiw.net From paul at redbarn.org Wed Jul 25 14:53:57 2012 From: paul at redbarn.org (paul vixie) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:53:57 +0000 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <0F43A978-7EC5-444E-8679-F2C8D93AD680@transsys.com> References: <20120723214312.AB24918C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <500DD7EA.2060501@cox.net> <50100333.6020506@dcrocker.net> <20120725181901.GH335@mip.aaaaa.org> <0F43A978-7EC5-444E-8679-F2C8D93AD680@transsys.com> Message-ID: <50106AF5.7030603@redbarn.org> since i havn't seen it come up in this thread i wanted to get it into the record: in we see: (*2) Q: But what IS the Internet? A: "It's the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive, symmetric, closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'". Seth Breidbart From richard at bennett.com Wed Jul 25 15:20:10 2012 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:20:10 -0700 Subject: [ih] FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?" In-Reply-To: References: <98D9FE06-31FD-4B06-9232-087D49105B2F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5010711A.2050304@bennett.com> The Wired article by Bruce Sterling did something even more funny, confusing the Timothy B. Lee who writes for Ars Technica with Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the web dude. On 7/24/2012 10:51 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > > Btw I just checked and a google search on "gordon crovitz" + > "internet" finds 8980 pages in the last week.. http://bit.ly/MFO69a > > Although one of them is an announcement that Marin Software just added > him to their board. > > I had to laugh at the Slate refutation quoted by Lauren Weinstein that > proceeded to spell Kahn Khan, but at least they corrected themselves > later. > http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/07/who_invented_the_internet_the_outrageous_conservative_claim_that_every_tech_innovation_came_from_private_enterprise_.2.html > > > I wonder if we'll ever see a similar correction from Crovitz. > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - -- Richard Bennett From jack at 3kitty.org Wed Jul 25 16:21:31 2012 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:21:31 -0700 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723214312.AB24918C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <500DD7EA.2060501@cox.net> <50100333.6020506@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: I can believe that 1974 was the earliest appearance of "internet". It's interesting though that "internet" isn't defined anywhere in RFC675 (based on a quick computer search), and all but a few of the uses of "internet" in the document are "internetwork" rather than "internet". So, a historian might conclude that RFC675 was referring to the little-i internet(s), rather than specifically what we now call The Internet? Also, somewhere between RFC675 and RFC793, "Transmission Control Program" became "Transmission Control Protocol". More confusion. I wonder whether the term "internet" was used in other documents of the era, e.g., XNS from Xerox, or IBM, or CCITT. As I recall, at that 1970s-era meeting I mentioned, the primary objection to "Internet" was that it already had other meanings and might be confusing. But there wasn't any better alternative. I can understand why historians have such a difficult job sorting stuff out from the distant past. We who were there all (think we) know from firsthand experience, but someone looking back a century or two might have real trouble. Even the Wall Street Journal. /Jack On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > the term "Internet" appeared in the title of RFC 675 and I believe > this was likely the first time it was used in any formal sense. > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >> Hi Vint et al, >> >> I mispoke if I implied that "no one can define the Internet". As >> DaveC pointed out, it's more that we haven't come to a consensus on >> the definition, even within this small community of techies and >> historians. It's so easy to define The Internet that everyone has >> their own definition. To some people, it's the Web. The under-30 >> crowd often equates it to Facebook, Twitter, and friends. To others, >> it's everybody accessible by email - many of whom you can't reach by a >> TCP connection. With 2+ billion people reported to now be "on The >> Internet", I suspect there's quite a few definitions out there. >> >> I share Vint's view that the Arpanet was not the beginning of the >> Internet. I view The Internet as more of a parasitical beast that >> attached itself to the Arpanet, was nurtured by it in its childhood, >> and ultimately killed it, just as it did with a bunch of other >> networks and technologies. Other people see it differently. >> >> It might be possible at least to trace the lineage of the phrase "The >> Internet". I wonder if that phrase was ever trademarked or whatever >> you do to legally protect such things. I vaguely recall that ARPA was >> at some point thinking about that kind of issue, around the time that >> TCP was becoming an official DoD Standard. >> >> There was a meeting, sometime in the late 70s or so, where I >> personally think the phrase "The Internet" was first adopted as the >> name for the thing we know today. I recall being at one of the >> periodic meetings, probably a TCP Working Group or ICCB meeting - >> fewer than 20 people. Vint had a non-technical agenda item - picking >> a name to identify the set of projects that were collaborating to >> build the TCP/IP-based world. At the time, there were lots of >> specific projects using TCP/IP to interact, e.g., Packet Radio, >> Satnet, Arpanet, etc. etc., and all of the TCP-related work was being >> done by people working on one of those projects. But there was no >> name for the collection of projects and the aggregate system being >> built. As I recall, this was causing some confusion as you worked up >> the government bureaucracy, which could affect funding, so it was >> important to fix. >> >> Vint proposed the term "Catenet" be used, reflecting the >> conCATEnation of NETworks which TCP enabled. While this didn't quite >> elicit boos, the overall reception was pretty negative. Someone >> (Postel?) said it would sound like we were doing research involving >> small furry mammals. After much discussion, no phrasing seemed better >> than "Internet", so Vint declared that "The Internet" (or perhaps "The >> ARPA Internet") would be the name. The "Internet Project" maybe >> wasn't born that day, but that's when I think it got it's name. Does >> anyone else remember that meeting? >> >> It would be interesting to know if the phrase "The Internet" was ever >> legally protected, and by whom. After the recent discussions about >> who invented "Email", nothing would surprise me. Perhaps Xerox really >> did invent "The Internet" according to the legal system. They did >> have a lot of lawyers.... >> >> /Jack Haverty >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>> ARPANET (the subnet of IMPs) did not change when TCP/IP was put into >>> the hosts and gateways were fielded. The Internet persisted after the >>> demise of ARPANET, NSFNET, PRNETs, Packet Satellite Net, etc. >>> The term "internet" (as opposed to the more general term >>> "internetworking") has always been associated with the TCP/IP >>> protocols and their associated suite of other protocols. >>> >>> ARPANET was not part of an internet until the addition of TCP/IP in >>> the hosts and the addition of gateways interconnecting distinctly >>> managed "autonomous systems". >>> >>> I think it is baloney that "no one can define the Internet" >>> >>> v >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>>> >>>> On 7/23/2012 6:07 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>>>> >>>>> No one can really define "The Internet". Or maybe just everyone has >>>>> their own idea. >>>> >>>> >>>> There was a discussion on this list some time ago, that converged on a >>>> relatively small set of alternative definitions, each with a legitimate >>>> rationale, IMO. People varied in which they preferred. My feeling is >>>> that that's fine, as long as the choice is stated, when declaring when >>>> and who invented the net. >>>> >>>> An incomplete list of the alternatives includes a cross-product of: >>>> >>>> * Proposal vs. initial implementation vs. initial operation >>>> >>>> * packet-switching vs. heterogeneous comms h/w interconnect vs. >>>> heterogeneous administration interconnect >>>> >>>> The distinction between a category of technology, a particular >>>> technology, and a particular service operation also make it worth some >>>> notational alternatives such as 'internetworking' vs. "The Internet". >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> DEC had DECNet. Novell had Netware. PTTs had X.25/X.75. Banyan >>>>> did Vines. Apple did Appletalk. Microsoft joined the fray. ARPANet >>>>> had its own technology. >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>>> All of those "internets" shared a common characteristic. Computers, >>>>> and applications, could interact in powerful ways - as long as they >>>>> all adopted the same candidate technology. >>>> >>>> >>>> Well, several of those connected very different kinds of comms hardware, but >>>> yes, they put a layer of service technology on top that homogenized things. >>>> I think X.75 was the exception and, in its is way, really did permit >>>> Internetworking. >>>> >>>> Except for X.75, the thing about your list is that each of those had to be >>>> run under a homogeneous administration. >>>> >>>> That's why I prefer to the non-hardware definition of "internetworking" as >>>> the inter-connection of networks under independent administration. >>>> >>>> However I prefer to define "The Internet" as the start of Arpanet operation, >>>> since it's been in continuous operation since then, with all of its >>>> original, user-level applications still in use. >>>> >>>> I'm also obviously biased to buttress this view by noting the remarkable >>>> similarity between the email messages sent by Tomlinson in 1971 and the core >>>> of mail formats we we today. This end-to-end service orientation prompted >>>> RFC 1775, To be "On" the Internet. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Somewhere along that path, over the 30+ years or so of the journey >>>>> so far, The Internet was invented. It's hard to define...the >>>> >>>> >>>> Per the above, I don't think it is hard to define. There is a relatively >>>> small range of credible definitions. What's difficult is getting everyone >>>> to agree on just one. I suspect it's not that difficult to get agreement on >>>> the plausibility of the small range. >>>> >>>> So the real requirement when discussion the invention is to first state the >>>> definition that provides criteria. >>>> >>>> >>>> d/ >>>> -- >>>> Dave Crocker >>>> Brandenburg InternetWorking >>>> bbiw.net From vint at google.com Wed Jul 25 16:30:09 2012 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:30:09 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723214312.AB24918C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <500DD7EA.2060501@cox.net> <50100333.6020506@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: subsequent to rfc 675 the term was applied to the collection of networks we intended to interconnect - about 1975 there was a big display put up at ARPA HQ labeled "ARPA Internet" if memory serves. The TC Program vs TC Protocol arose because I was trying to emulate NCP (program) even though I think we later referred to Network Control Protocol. I do not think the term "internet" was used for anything but TCP/IP (or just TCP in early days). v On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > I can believe that 1974 was the earliest appearance of "internet". > It's interesting though that "internet" isn't defined anywhere in > RFC675 (based on a quick computer search), and all but a few of the > uses of "internet" in the document are "internetwork" rather than > "internet". So, a historian might conclude that RFC675 was referring > to the little-i internet(s), rather than specifically what we now call > The Internet? Also, somewhere between RFC675 and RFC793, > "Transmission Control Program" became "Transmission Control Protocol". > More confusion. > > I wonder whether the term "internet" was used in other documents of > the era, e.g., XNS from Xerox, or IBM, or CCITT. As I recall, at that > 1970s-era meeting I mentioned, the primary objection to "Internet" was > that it already had other meanings and might be confusing. But there > wasn't any better alternative. > > I can understand why historians have such a difficult job sorting > stuff out from the distant past. We who were there all (think we) > know from firsthand experience, but someone looking back a century or > two might have real trouble. > > Even the Wall Street Journal. > > /Jack > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: >> the term "Internet" appeared in the title of RFC 675 and I believe >> this was likely the first time it was used in any formal sense. >> >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>> Hi Vint et al, >>> >>> I mispoke if I implied that "no one can define the Internet". As >>> DaveC pointed out, it's more that we haven't come to a consensus on >>> the definition, even within this small community of techies and >>> historians. It's so easy to define The Internet that everyone has >>> their own definition. To some people, it's the Web. The under-30 >>> crowd often equates it to Facebook, Twitter, and friends. To others, >>> it's everybody accessible by email - many of whom you can't reach by a >>> TCP connection. With 2+ billion people reported to now be "on The >>> Internet", I suspect there's quite a few definitions out there. >>> >>> I share Vint's view that the Arpanet was not the beginning of the >>> Internet. I view The Internet as more of a parasitical beast that >>> attached itself to the Arpanet, was nurtured by it in its childhood, >>> and ultimately killed it, just as it did with a bunch of other >>> networks and technologies. Other people see it differently. >>> >>> It might be possible at least to trace the lineage of the phrase "The >>> Internet". I wonder if that phrase was ever trademarked or whatever >>> you do to legally protect such things. I vaguely recall that ARPA was >>> at some point thinking about that kind of issue, around the time that >>> TCP was becoming an official DoD Standard. >>> >>> There was a meeting, sometime in the late 70s or so, where I >>> personally think the phrase "The Internet" was first adopted as the >>> name for the thing we know today. I recall being at one of the >>> periodic meetings, probably a TCP Working Group or ICCB meeting - >>> fewer than 20 people. Vint had a non-technical agenda item - picking >>> a name to identify the set of projects that were collaborating to >>> build the TCP/IP-based world. At the time, there were lots of >>> specific projects using TCP/IP to interact, e.g., Packet Radio, >>> Satnet, Arpanet, etc. etc., and all of the TCP-related work was being >>> done by people working on one of those projects. But there was no >>> name for the collection of projects and the aggregate system being >>> built. As I recall, this was causing some confusion as you worked up >>> the government bureaucracy, which could affect funding, so it was >>> important to fix. >>> >>> Vint proposed the term "Catenet" be used, reflecting the >>> conCATEnation of NETworks which TCP enabled. While this didn't quite >>> elicit boos, the overall reception was pretty negative. Someone >>> (Postel?) said it would sound like we were doing research involving >>> small furry mammals. After much discussion, no phrasing seemed better >>> than "Internet", so Vint declared that "The Internet" (or perhaps "The >>> ARPA Internet") would be the name. The "Internet Project" maybe >>> wasn't born that day, but that's when I think it got it's name. Does >>> anyone else remember that meeting? >>> >>> It would be interesting to know if the phrase "The Internet" was ever >>> legally protected, and by whom. After the recent discussions about >>> who invented "Email", nothing would surprise me. Perhaps Xerox really >>> did invent "The Internet" according to the legal system. They did >>> have a lot of lawyers.... >>> >>> /Jack Haverty >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Vint Cerf wrote: >>>> ARPANET (the subnet of IMPs) did not change when TCP/IP was put into >>>> the hosts and gateways were fielded. The Internet persisted after the >>>> demise of ARPANET, NSFNET, PRNETs, Packet Satellite Net, etc. >>>> The term "internet" (as opposed to the more general term >>>> "internetworking") has always been associated with the TCP/IP >>>> protocols and their associated suite of other protocols. >>>> >>>> ARPANET was not part of an internet until the addition of TCP/IP in >>>> the hosts and the addition of gateways interconnecting distinctly >>>> managed "autonomous systems". >>>> >>>> I think it is baloney that "no one can define the Internet" >>>> >>>> v >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 7/23/2012 6:07 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> No one can really define "The Internet". Or maybe just everyone has >>>>>> their own idea. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There was a discussion on this list some time ago, that converged on a >>>>> relatively small set of alternative definitions, each with a legitimate >>>>> rationale, IMO. People varied in which they preferred. My feeling is >>>>> that that's fine, as long as the choice is stated, when declaring when >>>>> and who invented the net. >>>>> >>>>> An incomplete list of the alternatives includes a cross-product of: >>>>> >>>>> * Proposal vs. initial implementation vs. initial operation >>>>> >>>>> * packet-switching vs. heterogeneous comms h/w interconnect vs. >>>>> heterogeneous administration interconnect >>>>> >>>>> The distinction between a category of technology, a particular >>>>> technology, and a particular service operation also make it worth some >>>>> notational alternatives such as 'internetworking' vs. "The Internet". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> DEC had DECNet. Novell had Netware. PTTs had X.25/X.75. Banyan >>>>>> did Vines. Apple did Appletalk. Microsoft joined the fray. ARPANet >>>>>> had its own technology. >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>>> All of those "internets" shared a common characteristic. Computers, >>>>>> and applications, could interact in powerful ways - as long as they >>>>>> all adopted the same candidate technology. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Well, several of those connected very different kinds of comms hardware, but >>>>> yes, they put a layer of service technology on top that homogenized things. >>>>> I think X.75 was the exception and, in its is way, really did permit >>>>> Internetworking. >>>>> >>>>> Except for X.75, the thing about your list is that each of those had to be >>>>> run under a homogeneous administration. >>>>> >>>>> That's why I prefer to the non-hardware definition of "internetworking" as >>>>> the inter-connection of networks under independent administration. >>>>> >>>>> However I prefer to define "The Internet" as the start of Arpanet operation, >>>>> since it's been in continuous operation since then, with all of its >>>>> original, user-level applications still in use. >>>>> >>>>> I'm also obviously biased to buttress this view by noting the remarkable >>>>> similarity between the email messages sent by Tomlinson in 1971 and the core >>>>> of mail formats we we today. This end-to-end service orientation prompted >>>>> RFC 1775, To be "On" the Internet. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Somewhere along that path, over the 30+ years or so of the journey >>>>>> so far, The Internet was invented. It's hard to define...the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Per the above, I don't think it is hard to define. There is a relatively >>>>> small range of credible definitions. What's difficult is getting everyone >>>>> to agree on just one. I suspect it's not that difficult to get agreement on >>>>> the plausibility of the small range. >>>>> >>>>> So the real requirement when discussion the invention is to first state the >>>>> definition that provides criteria. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> d/ >>>>> -- >>>>> Dave Crocker >>>>> Brandenburg InternetWorking >>>>> bbiw.net From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Wed Jul 25 16:42:55 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:42:55 -0700 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723214312.AB24918C0D1@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <500DD7EA.2060501@cox.net> <50100333.6020506@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <5010847F.3090903@dcrocker.net> On 7/25/2012 4:21 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > I can understand why historians have such a difficult job sorting > stuff out from the distant past. We who were there all (think we) > know from firsthand experience, but someone looking back a century or > two might have real trouble. You are referring to folk who are diligent and concerned with accuracy. The real problem seems to have more to do with folk who lack one or both of these necessary attributes. A couple of months ago, it was the invention of email. Today it's invention of the Internet. What's most significant to me is how easily the inaccuracies are promulgated. I've suggested to John Markoff that this interplay between actual Internet history and media mis-history of the Internet is probably worth a story. I have also wondered about an effort to conduct a series of targeted, online discussions among principals, to divulge and reflect on the history of specific lines of capability. This would create a record of first-person recollections. It might be worth synthesizing these into some live panel discussions, as are often done at the Computer History Museum. A spontaneous version of the online part happened about email recently. It was pretty interesting. For example, I had never realized that Ray Tomlinson's innovation was in direct response to Dick Watson's, very different and less integrated proposal of RFC 196. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Wed Jul 25 17:03:12 2012 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:03:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") Message-ID: <20120726000312.74FE718C127@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Jack Haverty > Also, somewhere between RFC675 and RFC793, "Transmission Control > Program" became "Transmission Control Protocol". I would guess the original name was by analogy with NCP, which was 'Network Control Program'. (I always used to think, back in the day, that it was 'Network Control Protocol', but when I looked, contemporanous documentation basically always has it 'Program'.) Noel From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Wed Jul 25 17:09:11 2012 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:09:11 -0400 Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] Message-ID: <50108AA7.707@meetinghouse.net> It really is disturbing how some folks pretend that government had no role in . Seems to me that there's an ongoing historical pattern: Roads Waterworks Railroads (land grants, Army protection) Telegraph (right-of-way grants, Army protection) Telephone (right-of way grants) Airplanes and Airlines (defense purchases spawned the aircraft industry, Air Mail spawned air freight and passenger service) Radio and Telephone (airwave grants) and so on...... Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Wed Jul 25 18:02:36 2012 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:02:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] Message-ID: <20120726010236.E4CF418C127@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Miles Fidelman > It really is disturbing how some folks pretend that government had no > role in . Please, this list is for discussion of Interent history issues. Can those who wish to purvey political flaming please take it elsewhere? Thanks. Noel From LarrySheldon at cox.net Wed Jul 25 18:04:45 2012 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:04:45 -0500 Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: <50108AA7.707@meetinghouse.net> References: <50108AA7.707@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <501097AD.9000504@cox.net> On 7/25/2012 7:09 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > It really is disturbing how some folks pretend that government had no > role in . > > Seems to me that there's an ongoing historical pattern: > > Roads > Waterworks > Railroads (land grants, Army protection) > Telegraph (right-of-way grants, Army protection) > Telephone (right-of way grants) > Airplanes and Airlines (defense purchases spawned the aircraft industry, > Air Mail spawned air freight and passenger service) > Radio and Telephone (airwave grants) > and so on...... > > Miles Fidelman The question here is "what is 'government'?". Is it some ethereal source of funding and wisdom the alone gets things done? Or is it the product of individuals pooling resources toward some common goal? I think for a long time it tends to the former, and most of what gets done, gets done in spite of it, not because of it. Most of the things in the list were first done by individuals and small groups of individuals, much of it in bitter opposition to the government. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. ICBM Data: http://g.co/maps/e5gmy (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From LarrySheldon at cox.net Wed Jul 25 18:06:11 2012 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:06:11 -0500 Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: <50108AA7.707@meetinghouse.net> References: <50108AA7.707@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <50109803.3010509@cox.net> On 7/25/2012 7:09 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > It really is disturbing how some folks pretend that government had no > role in . > > Seems to me that there's an ongoing historical pattern: > > Roads > Waterworks > Railroads (land grants, Army protection) > Telegraph (right-of-way grants, Army protection) > Telephone (right-of way grants) > Airplanes and Airlines (defense purchases spawned the aircraft industry, > Air Mail spawned air freight and passenger service) > Radio and Telephone (airwave grants) > and so on...... > > Miles Fidelman The question here is "what is 'government'?". Is it some ethereal source of funding and wisdom the alone gets things done? Or is it the product of individuals pooling resources toward some common goal? I think for a long time it tends to the former, and most of what gets done, gets done in spite of it, not because of it. Most of the things in the list were first done by individuals and small groups of individuals, much of it in bitter opposition to the government. Some of the stuff in that list is proof of just how satupid and short-sighted government can be and is. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. ICBM Data: http://g.co/maps/e5gmy (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From LarrySheldon at cox.net Wed Jul 25 18:06:24 2012 From: LarrySheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:06:24 -0500 Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: <5010950A.9010001@meetinghouse.net> References: <50108AA7.707@meetinghouse.net> <50109305.9010708@cox.net> <5010950A.9010001@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <50109810.60307@cox.net> On 7/25/2012 7:53 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Larry Sheldon wrote: >> On 7/25/2012 7:09 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >>> It really is disturbing how some folks pretend that government had no >>> role in . >>> >>> Seems to me that there's an ongoing historical pattern: >>> >>> Roads >>> Waterworks >>> Railroads (land grants, Army protection) >>> Telegraph (right-of-way grants, Army protection) >>> Telephone (right-of way grants) >>> Airplanes and Airlines (defense purchases spawned the aircraft industry, >>> Air Mail spawned air freight and passenger service) >>> Radio and Telephone (airwave grants) >>> and so on...... >>> >>> Miles Fidelman >> >> The question here is "what is 'government'?". >> >> Is it some ethereal source of funding and wisdom the alone gets things >> done? >> >> Or is it the product of individuals pooling resources toward some >> common goal? > umm... yes? > >> >> Most of the things in the list were first done by individuals and >> small groups of individuals, much of it in bitter opposition to the >> government. > > Not a lot of railroads got built without massive land grants and army > protection. I'm too lazy to look and I'm not sure the necessaries survived the great downsizing but my recollection is that lots of railroads were built before, during and after the great land-grab and giveaway to a few favored polls that had nothing to do with it. The cover story was the need for a transcontinental railroad to get at the pockets of people in the expanding West. We wouldn't have a lot of airplanes, if the Army hadn't > been a ready customer in the early days, and we wouldn't have air > carriers without air mail as an anchor customer in the early days. Actually I think it was the Post office that jumped on the existing airlines. And > when it came to ancient waterworks, we had kings/pharoes/etc. with lots > of slaves. Which is is the sort of government we are returning to, unfortunately. A lot of folks have died for nought, it seems. Fortunately, I'll be dead before it gets much worse. Most of the roads with "-pike" in their names were built by individuals, I don't recall that there was much government in the first transcontinental road. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. ICBM Data: http://g.co/maps/e5gmy (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) From jack at 3kitty.org Wed Jul 25 18:16:33 2012 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:16:33 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") Message-ID: Yes, of course; I keep forgetting that diligent and accurate aren't very popular any more. The idea of projects to proactively capture recollections is a good one. You would think that an entity such as The Internet, which has now touched a significant fraction of the population of the planet, has altered governments, industries, and individuals lives, and is on the tongues of everyone including heads of states, would attract the attention of not only technical museums, but also archives and organizations capturing general human history. I think it's bigger than just online panels and discussions. Some of my relatives were interviewed years ago, to capture their recollections of the events surrounding past wars they personally experienced. The US Library of Congress ran (and still runs) a "Veterans History Project" to capture thoughts and experiences of "people who were there" for use of future historians. See http://www.loc.gov/vets/ Perhaps the Library of Congress (and other similar institutions) could be motivated to launch an analogous "Internet History Project"? I'd love to hear that announced in some campaign speech. Wars aren't the only thing worth remembering. /Jack Haverty On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > On 7/25/2012 4:21 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >> >> I can understand why historians have such a difficult job sorting >> stuff out from the distant past. We who were there all (think we) >> know from firsthand experience, but someone looking back a century or >> two might have real trouble. > > > > You are referring to folk who are diligent and concerned with accuracy. > > The real problem seems to have more to do with folk who lack one or both of > these necessary attributes. > > A couple of months ago, it was the invention of email. Today it's invention > of the Internet. > > What's most significant to me is how easily the inaccuracies are > promulgated. > > I've suggested to John Markoff that this interplay between actual Internet > history and media mis-history of the Internet is probably worth a story. > > I have also wondered about an effort to conduct a series of targeted, online > discussions among principals, to divulge and reflect on the history of > specific lines of capability. This would create a record of first-person > recollections. It might be worth synthesizing these into some live panel > discussions, as are often done at the Computer History Museum. > > A spontaneous version of the online part happened about email recently. It > was pretty interesting. > > For example, I had never realized that Ray Tomlinson's innovation was in > direct response to Dick Watson's, very different and less integrated > proposal of RFC 196. > > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From jeanjour at comcast.net Wed Jul 25 18:33:24 2012 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:33:24 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <20120726000312.74FE718C127@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20120726000312.74FE718C127@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: Yes, for some reason that I never understood. The Host-to-Host Protocol was implemented by the Network Control Program (that part isn't so hard to accept) Then somehow NCP became synonymous with the Host-to-Host Protocol. NCP was used often and Host-to-Host Protocol seldom, and I don't think I ever saw HHP. ;-) I always wondered if it was because HHP just didn't roll off the tongue as easily as NCP. (Yes, there was at least one OS called MCP, but too few people knew about that for it to have been an influence.) > > From: Jack Haverty > > > Also, somewhere between RFC675 and RFC793, "Transmission Control > > Program" became "Transmission Control Protocol". > >I would guess the original name was by analogy with NCP, which was 'Network >Control Program'. (I always used to think, back in the day, that it was >'Network Control Protocol', but when I looked, contemporanous documentation >basically always has it 'Program'.) > > Noel From lpress at csudh.edu Wed Jul 25 19:34:27 2012 From: lpress at csudh.edu (Larry Press) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:34:27 -0700 Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: <50109810.60307@cox.net> References: <50108AA7.707@meetinghouse.net> <50109305.9010708@cox.net> <5010950A.9010001@meetinghouse.net> <50109810.60307@cox.net> Message-ID: <5010ACB3.3050001@csudh.edu> > Telegraph (right-of-way grants, Army protection) In 1843, Samuel Morse convinced the US Congress allocate $30,000 to fund a pilot project -- a 37-mile link from Washington to Baltimore: http://som.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/471/hout/nethistory/index.htm Larry From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Wed Jul 25 19:36:15 2012 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:36:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") Message-ID: <20120726023615.7C1B618C124@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Jack Haverty > The idea of projects to proactively capture recollections is a good > one. You would think that an entity such as The Internet .. would > attract the attention of not only technical museums, but also archives > and organizations capturing general human history. > ... > Perhaps the Library of Congress (and other similar institutions) could > be motivated to launch an analogous "Internet History Project"? The Charles Babbage Institute already has an extensive oral history program in information technology: http://www.cbi.umn.edu/oh/ A number of names from networking stuff already appear in that list (Baran, Cerf, SCrocker, Heart, Kahn, Kleinrock, Mills, Walden). I would probably try and get them involved if you wanted to do a more extensive networking oral history project; they know how to do this, to get the maximum historical value. Noel From johnl at iecc.com Wed Jul 25 22:07:29 2012 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 26 Jul 2012 05:07:29 -0000 Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: <50109810.60307@cox.net> Message-ID: <20120726050729.43067.qmail@joyce.lan> >The cover story was the need for a transcontinental railroad to get at >the pockets of people in the expanding West. My, we're cynical. The Internet is one in a long line of technical developments that were done partly by private entities with a big help from the government, with a fairly straightforward public interest motivation. Railroads in the populated east were built entirely with private money, overbuilt in many areas. In the largely empty west, the government gave large subsidies in the form of land to the railroads. While this certainly made many of the promoters rich afterwards (something the students at Stanford University likely still appreciate), I don't think it's a huge leap to see why there'd be a public interest in making it possible to get people, goods, and mail from one side of the country to the other reliably in a week rather than unreliably in several months. For the airline industry, military money for technology and post office money for routes kick started commercial aviation. Civil jet transport started with the 707 and DC-8, both of which were designed both for civilian use and as military tankers, with the 707 borrowing a lot from the B-47 and B-52 bombers. So it really shouldn't be surprising that the government funded the packet switching experiment that turned into the Arpanet. It was a high risk high reward project that private sector (AT&T mainly) weren't going to do. R's, John From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jul 25 23:03:59 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:03:59 +1000 Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The whole thing is this - If it wasn't for the eventual collaboration of government, business, and non governmental interests - and the adoption by all these parties in other countries as well - we would be talking about a failed US military time sharing project called ARPANet. It's nonsense to say the Internet was purely a government project, a private sector project, or even a US project. Without the collaboration described above we probably wouldn't even be talking about it. The Internet is the *result* of collaboration - its almost definitional. So there are no political points to gain, no ownership to proclaim, and no fundamentalist economic and political theories to support here. Just lots of individuals whose collaboration and vision helped bring this about. And yes, some active governmental and private sector support. Ian Peter > From: > Reply-To: > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:08:30 -0700 > To: > Subject: internet-history Digest, Vol 64, Issue 24 > > 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: infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] > (Noel Chiappa) > 2. Re: infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] > (Larry Sheldon) > 3. Re: infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] > (Larry Sheldon) > 4. Re: infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] > (Larry Sheldon) > 5. Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and Commercialization > (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the > Internet?") (Jack Haverty) > 6. Re: XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon > Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") (John Day) > 7. Re: infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] > (Larry Press) > 8. Re: Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and > Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who > Really Invented the Internet?") (Noel Chiappa) > 9. Re: infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] > (John Levine) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:02:36 -0400 (EDT) > From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) > Subject: Re: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the > Internet] > To: internet-history at postel.org, mfidelman at meetinghouse.net > Cc: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu > Message-ID: <20120726010236.E4CF418C127 at mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > >> From: Miles Fidelman > >> It really is disturbing how some folks pretend that government had no >> role in . > > Please, this list is for discussion of Interent history issues. Can those who > wish to purvey political flaming please take it elsewhere? Thanks. > > Noel > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:04:45 -0500 > From: Larry Sheldon > Subject: Re: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the > Internet] > To: "internet-history at postel.org" > Message-ID: <501097AD.9000504 at cox.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 7/25/2012 7:09 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> It really is disturbing how some folks pretend that government had no >> role in . >> >> Seems to me that there's an ongoing historical pattern: >> >> Roads >> Waterworks >> Railroads (land grants, Army protection) >> Telegraph (right-of-way grants, Army protection) >> Telephone (right-of way grants) >> Airplanes and Airlines (defense purchases spawned the aircraft industry, >> Air Mail spawned air freight and passenger service) >> Radio and Telephone (airwave grants) >> and so on...... >> >> Miles Fidelman > > The question here is "what is 'government'?". > > Is it some ethereal source of funding and wisdom the alone gets things done? > > Or is it the product of individuals pooling resources toward some common > goal? > > I think for a long time it tends to the former, and most of what gets > done, gets done in spite of it, not because of it. > > Most of the things in the list were first done by individuals and small > groups of individuals, much of it in bitter opposition to the government. > -- > Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics > of System Administrators: > Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to > learn from their mistakes. > ICBM Data: http://g.co/maps/e5gmy (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:06:11 -0500 > From: Larry Sheldon > Subject: Re: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the > Internet] > To: "internet-history at postel.org" > Message-ID: <50109803.3010509 at cox.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 7/25/2012 7:09 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> It really is disturbing how some folks pretend that government had no >> role in . >> >> Seems to me that there's an ongoing historical pattern: >> >> Roads >> Waterworks >> Railroads (land grants, Army protection) >> Telegraph (right-of-way grants, Army protection) >> Telephone (right-of way grants) >> Airplanes and Airlines (defense purchases spawned the aircraft industry, >> Air Mail spawned air freight and passenger service) >> Radio and Telephone (airwave grants) >> and so on...... >> >> Miles Fidelman > > The question here is "what is 'government'?". > > Is it some ethereal source of funding and wisdom the alone gets things done? > > Or is it the product of individuals pooling resources toward some common > goal? > > I think for a long time it tends to the former, and most of what gets > done, gets done in spite of it, not because of it. > > Most of the things in the list were first done by individuals and small > groups of individuals, much of it in bitter opposition to the government. > > Some of the stuff in that list is proof of just how satupid and > short-sighted government can be and is. > -- > Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics > of System Administrators: > Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to > learn from their mistakes. > ICBM Data: http://g.co/maps/e5gmy (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:06:24 -0500 > From: Larry Sheldon > Subject: Re: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the > Internet] > To: "internet-history at postel.org" > Message-ID: <50109810.60307 at cox.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 7/25/2012 7:53 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> Larry Sheldon wrote: >>> On 7/25/2012 7:09 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >>>> It really is disturbing how some folks pretend that government had no >>>> role in . >>>> >>>> Seems to me that there's an ongoing historical pattern: >>>> >>>> Roads >>>> Waterworks >>>> Railroads (land grants, Army protection) >>>> Telegraph (right-of-way grants, Army protection) >>>> Telephone (right-of way grants) >>>> Airplanes and Airlines (defense purchases spawned the aircraft industry, >>>> Air Mail spawned air freight and passenger service) >>>> Radio and Telephone (airwave grants) >>>> and so on...... >>>> >>>> Miles Fidelman >>> >>> The question here is "what is 'government'?". >>> >>> Is it some ethereal source of funding and wisdom the alone gets things >>> done? >>> >>> Or is it the product of individuals pooling resources toward some >>> common goal? >> umm... yes? >> >>> >>> Most of the things in the list were first done by individuals and >>> small groups of individuals, much of it in bitter opposition to the >>> government. >> >> Not a lot of railroads got built without massive land grants and army >> protection. > > I'm too lazy to look and I'm not sure the necessaries survived the great > downsizing but my recollection is that lots of railroads were built > before, during and after the great land-grab and giveaway to a few > favored polls that had nothing to do with it. > > The cover story was the need for a transcontinental railroad to get at > the pockets of people in the expanding West. > > > We wouldn't have a lot of airplanes, if the Army hadn't >> been a ready customer in the early days, and we wouldn't have air >> carriers without air mail as an anchor customer in the early days. > > Actually I think it was the Post office that jumped on the existing > airlines. > > And >> when it came to ancient waterworks, we had kings/pharoes/etc. with lots >> of slaves. > > Which is is the sort of government we are returning to, unfortunately. > > A lot of folks have died for nought, it seems. Fortunately, I'll be > dead before it gets much worse. > > Most of the roads with "-pike" in their names were built by individuals, > I don't recall that there was much government in the first > transcontinental road. > -- > Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics > of System Administrators: > Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to > learn from their mistakes. > ICBM Data: http://g.co/maps/e5gmy (Adapted from Stephen Pinker) > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:16:33 -0700 > From: Jack Haverty > Subject: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and > Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really > Invented the Internet?") > To: dcrocker at bbiw.net > Cc: "internet-history at postel.org" > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Yes, of course; I keep forgetting that diligent and accurate aren't > very popular any more. > > The idea of projects to proactively capture recollections is a good > one. You would think that an entity such as The Internet, which has > now touched a significant fraction of the population of the planet, > has altered governments, industries, and individuals lives, and is on > the tongues of everyone including heads of states, would attract the > attention of not only technical museums, but also archives and > organizations capturing general human history. I think it's bigger > than just online panels and discussions. > > Some of my relatives were interviewed years ago, to capture their > recollections of the events surrounding past wars they personally > experienced. The US Library of Congress ran (and still runs) a > "Veterans History Project" to capture thoughts and experiences of > "people who were there" for use of future historians. See > http://www.loc.gov/vets/ > > Perhaps the Library of Congress (and other similar institutions) could > be motivated to launch an analogous "Internet History Project"? I'd > love to hear that announced in some campaign speech. Wars aren't the > only thing worth remembering. > > /Jack Haverty > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> >> >> On 7/25/2012 4:21 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>> >>> I can understand why historians have such a difficult job sorting >>> stuff out from the distant past. We who were there all (think we) >>> know from firsthand experience, but someone looking back a century or >>> two might have real trouble. >> >> >> >> You are referring to folk who are diligent and concerned with accuracy. >> >> The real problem seems to have more to do with folk who lack one or both of >> these necessary attributes. >> >> A couple of months ago, it was the invention of email. Today it's invention >> of the Internet. >> >> What's most significant to me is how easily the inaccuracies are >> promulgated. >> >> I've suggested to John Markoff that this interplay between actual Internet >> history and media mis-history of the Internet is probably worth a story. >> >> I have also wondered about an effort to conduct a series of targeted, online >> discussions among principals, to divulge and reflect on the history of >> specific lines of capability. This would create a record of first-person >> recollections. It might be worth synthesizing these into some live panel >> discussions, as are often done at the Computer History Museum. >> >> A spontaneous version of the online part happened about email recently. It >> was pretty interesting. >> >> For example, I had never realized that Ray Tomlinson's innovation was in >> direct response to Dick Watson's, very different and less integrated >> proposal of RFC 196. >> >> >> d/ >> >> -- >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:33:24 -0400 > From: John Day > Subject: Re: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - > Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") > To: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) > Cc: internet-history at postel.org > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > > Yes, for some reason that I never understood. The Host-to-Host > Protocol was implemented by the Network Control Program (that part > isn't so hard to accept) Then somehow NCP became synonymous with the > Host-to-Host Protocol. NCP was used often and Host-to-Host Protocol > seldom, and I don't think I ever saw HHP. ;-) > > I always wondered if it was because HHP just didn't roll off the > tongue as easily as NCP. (Yes, there was at least one OS called MCP, > but too few people knew about that for it to have been an influence.) > > >>> From: Jack Haverty >> >>> Also, somewhere between RFC675 and RFC793, "Transmission Control >>> Program" became "Transmission Control Protocol". >> >> I would guess the original name was by analogy with NCP, which was 'Network >> Control Program'. (I always used to think, back in the day, that it was >> 'Network Control Protocol', but when I looked, contemporanous documentation >> basically always has it 'Program'.) >> >> Noel > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:34:27 -0700 > From: Larry Press > Subject: Re: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the > Internet] > To: Larry Sheldon > Cc: "internet-history at postel.org" > Message-ID: <5010ACB3.3050001 at csudh.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed > >> Telegraph (right-of-way grants, Army protection) > > > In 1843, Samuel Morse convinced the US Congress allocate $30,000 to fund > a pilot project -- a 37-mile link from Washington to Baltimore: > > http://som.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/471/hout/nethistory/index.htm > > Larry > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 22:36:15 -0400 (EDT) > From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) > Subject: Re: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and > Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really > Invented the Internet?") > To: internet-history at postel.org > Cc: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu > Message-ID: <20120726023615.7C1B618C124 at mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > >> From: Jack Haverty > >> The idea of projects to proactively capture recollections is a good >> one. You would think that an entity such as The Internet .. would >> attract the attention of not only technical museums, but also archives >> and organizations capturing general human history. >> ... >> Perhaps the Library of Congress (and other similar institutions) could >> be motivated to launch an analogous "Internet History Project"? > > The Charles Babbage Institute already has an extensive oral history program > in information technology: > > http://www.cbi.umn.edu/oh/ > > A number of names from networking stuff already appear in that list (Baran, > Cerf, SCrocker, Heart, Kahn, Kleinrock, Mills, Walden). I would probably try > and get them involved if you wanted to do a more extensive networking oral > history project; they know how to do this, to get the maximum historical > value. > > Noel > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: 26 Jul 2012 05:07:29 -0000 > From: "John Levine" > Subject: Re: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the > Internet] > To: internet-history at postel.org > Cc: LarrySheldon at cox.net > Message-ID: <20120726050729.43067.qmail at joyce.lan> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > >> The cover story was the need for a transcontinental railroad to get at >> the pockets of people in the expanding West. > > My, we're cynical. The Internet is one in a long line of technical > developments that were done partly by private entities with a big help > from the government, with a fairly straightforward public interest > motivation. > > Railroads in the populated east were built entirely with private > money, overbuilt in many areas. In the largely empty west, the > government gave large subsidies in the form of land to the railroads. > While this certainly made many of the promoters rich afterwards > (something the students at Stanford University likely still > appreciate), I don't think it's a huge leap to see why there'd be a > public interest in making it possible to get people, goods, and mail > from one side of the country to the other reliably in a week rather > than unreliably in several months. > > For the airline industry, military money for technology and post > office money for routes kick started commercial aviation. Civil jet > transport started with the 707 and DC-8, both of which were designed > both for civilian use and as military tankers, with the 707 borrowing > a lot from the B-47 and B-52 bombers. > > So it really shouldn't be surprising that the government funded the > packet switching experiment that turned into the Arpanet. It was a > high risk high reward project that private sector (AT&T mainly) > weren't going to do. > > R's, > John > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > End of internet-history Digest, Vol 64, Issue 24 > ************************************************ From dave.walden.family at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 06:57:23 2012 From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (dave.walden.family at gmail.com) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:57:23 -0400 Subject: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <20120726023615.7C1B618C124@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20120726023615.7C1B618C124@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <736DBA5E-74FE-4504-8463-CA1F60423BCB@gmail.com> Being professional historians, I suspect CBI needs funding to do a series of interviews. I am pretty sure they had funding when Norberg and O'Neil did the interviews (mentioned in the earlier message below) relating to ARPA IPTO. One could ask Tom Misa or Jeff Yost at CBI how such interviews happen. Then there is Andreu Vea's series of interviews; see WiWiW.org Sent from my iPad On Jul 25, 2012, at 10:36 PM, jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) wrote: >> From: Jack Haverty > >> The idea of projects to proactively capture recollections is a good >> one. You would think that an entity such as The Internet .. would >> attract the attention of not only technical museums, but also archives >> and organizations capturing general human history. >> ... >> Perhaps the Library of Congress (and other similar institutions) could >> be motivated to launch an analogous "Internet History Project"? > > The Charles Babbage Institute already has an extensive oral history program > in information technology: > > http://www.cbi.umn.edu/oh/ > > A number of names from networking stuff already appear in that list (Baran, > Cerf, SCrocker, Heart, Kahn, Kleinrock, Mills, Walden). I would probably try > and get them involved if you wanted to do a more extensive networking oral > history project; they know how to do this, to get the maximum historical > value. > > Noel From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Thu Jul 26 07:21:45 2012 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:21:45 -0400 Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50115279.9080104@meetinghouse.net> Ian Peter wrote: > The whole thing is this - > > If it wasn't for the eventual collaboration of government, business, and non > governmental interests - and the adoption by all these parties in other > countries as well - we would be talking about a failed US military time > sharing project called ARPANet. > > It's nonsense to say the Internet was purely a government project, a private > sector project, or even a US project. Without the collaboration described > above we probably wouldn't even be talking about it. > > The Internet is the *result* of collaboration - its almost definitional. So > there are no political points to gain, no ownership to proclaim, and no > fundamentalist economic and political theories to support here. Unfortunately, folks seem to use any excuse to score political points. Sigh. > > Just lots of individuals whose collaboration and vision helped bring this > about. And yes, some active governmental and private sector support. > Politics aside, there are, perhaps, lessons to be learned from how that collaboration came about, and what sustains it - after all, "lots of individuals" also describes a milling crowd, or a day at the beach. And it certainly seems legitimate, and useful, to explore the role of government in creating/supporting/participating in that collaboration. The global telephone network also involves a lot of collaboration, among the same players - but, technology aside, the ownership, governance, operation, ... of the telephone network is a stark contrast to the Internet. Why? What's different? What lessons can be learned? What about comparisons with other forms of infrastructure (in this regard, I commend the "Infrastructure History Series," a series of books by Amy Friedlander, sponsored by CNRI - http://cnri.reston.va.us/series.html). Over the years, its struck me that the Internet remains one of the few, perhaps the only, example of global infrastructure that's emerged from, and is sustained by, very loosely coupled collaboration among, at this point, billions of individuals. And it all stemmed from some vision and key decisions of a relatively small groups of key individuals, spread across government, academia, and business. And it does strike me that some key early decisions were made, and enforced, by individuals in government roles - funding the ARPANET, awarding the contract to BBN (what if DoD had just gone with AUTODIN2)? What if the early funders hadn't encouraged/supported/allowed a bottom-up standards process and gone with a more traditional top-down, specifications driven process? Seems like a lot of history to be examined. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From lpress at csudh.edu Thu Jul 26 08:28:10 2012 From: lpress at csudh.edu (Larry Press) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:28:10 -0700 Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: <50115279.9080104@meetinghouse.net> References: <50115279.9080104@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <5011620A.3010605@csudh.edu> On 7/26/2012 7:21 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > And it does strike me that some key early decisions were made, and > enforced, by individuals in government roles - funding the ARPANET, > awarding the contract to BBN (what if DoD had just gone with AUTODIN2)? > What if the early funders hadn't encouraged/supported/allowed a > bottom-up standards process and gone with a more traditional top-down, > specifications driven process? It seems like they were smart enough to pick a few places with smart people and give them autonomy. The pattern goes back before ARPANET and BBN. Would you all agree that funding of Doug Engelbart's work was an important part of this history? Going back further, I believe Whirlwind at MIT was funded by the Office of Naval Research. Government procurement also played a role -- people learned by building the SAGE system, which trained 3,000 programmers. Government funding bought IBM 701s. How about ENIAC? Morse's telegraph? Chappe's semaphore network? Government is all over the place. Larry From dgale at internethistoryarchive.org Thu Jul 26 08:45:39 2012 From: dgale at internethistoryarchive.org (dgale at internethistoryarchive.org) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:45:39 +0000 Subject: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on"WhoReally Invented theInternet22)?= Message-ID: The idea to collect oral histories about the creation of the Internet is so compelling that I began collecting oral interviews about 10 years ago while traveling on other business. That archive now contains more than a hundred hours of audio and video material. There is very little overlap between these interviews and interviews done by other groups such as the IEEE, the Computer History Museum and Andreu Vea. Upon my recent retirement that hobby project morphed into a 501(c)3 non-profit whose primary objective is to preserve information and original source materials about the creation and evolution of the Internet. All of the materials being collected are being placed in the public domain and will be accessible on the web. We have worked closely with Jeff Yost at the Charles Babbage Institute, which has agreed in principle to be the final repository for the materials collected, as well as several other universities and organizations. We also have a prototype web site, www.internetlegacyinstitute.org that includes a list of the interviews already completed. Our original intent was to have more of the organizational details worked and then send out a call for participation to this list. But with the interest shown in this thread, we are accelerating that request. We will be sending out our first email newsletter shortly. Our short-term goals are more interviews, an interactive wiki for content submission, transcriptions of existing interviews, and moving the web site from prototype to production status. Doug Gale >-----Original Message----- >From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com [mailto:dave.walden.family at gmail.com] >Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 09:57 AM >To: 'Noel Chiappa' >Cc: internet-history at postel.org, jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu >Subject: Re: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") > >Being professional historians, I suspect CBI needs funding to do a series of interviews. I am pretty sure they had funding when Norberg and O'Neil did the interviews (mentioned in the earlier message below) relating to ARPA IPTO. One could ask Tom Misa or Jeff Yost at CBI how such interviews happen. Then there is Andreu Vea's series of interviews; see WiWiW.org > > >Sent from my iPad > >On Jul 25, 2012, at 10:36 PM, jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) wrote: > >>> From: Jack Haverty >> >>> The idea of projects to proactively capture recollections is a good >>> one. You would think that an entity such as The Internet .. would >>> attract the attention of not only technical museums, but also archives >>> and organizations capturing general human history. >>> ... >>> Perhaps the Library of Congress (and other similar institutions) could >>> be motivated to launch an analogous "Internet History Project"? >> >> The Charles Babbage Institute already has an extensive oral history program >> in information technology: >> >> http://www.cbi.umn.edu/oh/ >> >> A number of names from networking stuff already appear in that list (Baran, >> Cerf, SCrocker, Heart, Kahn, Kleinrock, Mills, Walden). I would probably try >> and get them involved if you wanted to do a more extensive networking oral >> history project; they know how to do this, to get the maximum historical >> value. >> >> Noel > > From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Thu Jul 26 09:03:59 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:03:59 -0700 Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: <20120726050729.43067.qmail@joyce.lan> References: <20120726050729.43067.qmail@joyce.lan> Message-ID: <50116A6F.40406@dcrocker.net> On 7/25/2012 10:07 PM, John Levine wrote: > My, we're cynical. The Internet is one in a long line of technical > developments that were done partly by private entities with a big help > from the government, with a fairly straightforward public interest > motivation. I'm going to suggest that the above phrasing sets exactly the wrong perspective. "Big help" significantly understates the role of government funding. Looking at the details of research, development and operations for packet-switching and interworking, represented in today's Internet, I believe there was primarily government funding until the latter '80s, when commercialization started. I believe the three notable exceptions were PARC's ethernet, Digital's routing work, and the interplay between PARC and ARPA reserarch folk. To the extent that folks disagree, I'd be interested in seeing listings of details. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Thu Jul 26 09:43:54 2012 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:43:54 -0400 Subject: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on"WhoReally Invented theInternet22)?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <501173CA.8040307@meetinghouse.net> dgale at internethistoryarchive.org wrote: > The idea to collect oral histories about the creation of the Internet is so compelling that I began collecting oral interviews about 10 years ago while traveling on other business. That archive now contains more than a hundred hours of audio and video material. There is very little overlap between these interviews and interviews done by other groups such as the IEEE, the Computer History Museum and Andreu Vea. > > > www.internetlegacyinstitute.org > Also, perhaps of interest is this: /A Culture of Innovation: Insider Accounts of Computing and Life at BBN/ A collection of retrospectives from folks at BBN, pulled together by Dave Walden. Details are at http://walden-family.com/bbn/ -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From johnl at iecc.com Thu Jul 26 09:44:22 2012 From: johnl at iecc.com (John R. Levine) Date: 26 Jul 2012 12:44:22 -0400 Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: <50116A6F.40406@dcrocker.net> References: <20120726050729.43067.qmail@joyce.lan> <50116A6F.40406@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: > Looking at the details of research, development and operations for > packet-switching and interworking, represented in today's Internet, I believe > there was primarily government funding until the latter '80s, when > commercialization started. I believe the three notable exceptions were > PARC's ethernet, Digital's routing work, and the interplay between PARC and > ARPA reserarch folk. I was more thinking of big help in that it was built largely by non-government organizations out of non-government parts, albeit paid for by government money. The transcontinental railroad was much the same, all government money (in the form of cheap loans and large land grants) from 1862 until it started revenue service in 1869, and even then I expect that the UP and CP moved a lot of mail and military traffic. Regards, John Levine, johnl at iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly From jeanjour at comcast.net Thu Jul 26 09:42:22 2012 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:42:22 -0400 Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: <50116A6F.40406@dcrocker.net> References: <20120726050729.43067.qmail@joyce.lan> <50116A6F.40406@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: I would go slightly further. The primary reason most private corporations were involved was because there was government funding. If there had not been significant government funding none of them except possibly Xerox who had its own technology would have been there. It was too far outside their planning horizons. At 9:03 -0700 2012/07/26, Dave Crocker wrote: >On 7/25/2012 10:07 PM, John Levine wrote: >>My, we're cynical. The Internet is one in a long line of technical >>developments that were done partly by private entities with a big help >>from the government, with a fairly straightforward public interest >>motivation. > > >I'm going to suggest that the above phrasing sets exactly the wrong >perspective. "Big help" significantly understates the role of >government funding. > >Looking at the details of research, development and operations for >packet-switching and interworking, represented in today's Internet, >I believe there was primarily government funding until the latter >'80s, when commercialization started. I believe the three notable >exceptions were PARC's ethernet, Digital's routing work, and the >interplay between PARC and ARPA reserarch folk. > >To the extent that folks disagree, I'd be interested in seeing >listings of details. > >d/ >-- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Thu Jul 26 10:05:46 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:05:46 -0700 Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: References: <20120726050729.43067.qmail@joyce.lan> <50116A6F.40406@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <501178EA.9040409@dcrocker.net> On 7/26/2012 9:44 AM, John R. Levine wrote: >> Looking at the details of research, development and operations for >> packet-switching and interworking, represented in today's Internet, I >> believe there was primarily government funding until the latter '80s, >> when commercialization started. I believe the three notable >> exceptions were PARC's ethernet, Digital's routing work, and the >> interplay between PARC and ARPA reserarch folk. > > I was more thinking of big help in that it was built largely by > non-government organizations out of non-government parts, albeit paid > for by government money. Well, that phrasing gets some objective details correct but, I think, still understates government's role. (Mind you, as a resident of Silicon Valley, I consider private initiative a major religion; but it's not the /only/ religion...) In the case of Arpanet and NSFNet, the criticial infrastructure efforts were government initiatives, not just in terms of funding but in terms of strategic, tactical and many technical formulations. Just to beat this into the ground, while I was at UCLA, I seem to recall hearing that Larry Roberts (head of ARPA's IPTO that directed Arpanet work) was driving the substance of the modeling work every bit as much as Kleinrock, et al. (As I understand it, this was and probably still is a common characteristic of ARPA program management, since it tends to hire technical folk.) The organizational model for NSFNet -- including its forcing a move towards non-government sustain able funding -- were definitely government work, including the "market research" of the model with the predecessor effort, CSNet. I can imagine that the details of TCP/IP and internetworking conform more to the model of "non-government initiative benefiting from government funding" but I don't know enough of the particulars. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From lpress at csudh.edu Thu Jul 26 10:18:25 2012 From: lpress at csudh.edu (Larry Press) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:18:25 -0700 Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: References: <20120726050729.43067.qmail@joyce.lan> <50116A6F.40406@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <50117BE1.7090302@csudh.edu> On 7/26/2012 9:42 AM, John Day wrote: > I would go slightly further. The primary reason most private > corporations were involved was because there was government funding. Was any of the work at PARC funded by government research or procurement? Also, did they have a policy of open publication, collaboration, participation in conferences, etc.? Larry From vint at google.com Thu Jul 26 10:38:57 2012 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:38:57 -0400 Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: <501178EA.9040409@dcrocker.net> References: <20120726050729.43067.qmail@joyce.lan> <50116A6F.40406@dcrocker.net> <501178EA.9040409@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: ARPA and NSF especially are NOT laboratories; they are funding agencies. They have strong technical leadership. The involvement of individuals working for the USG and funding seems to me incontrovertible in the Internet story. This is not to diminish the essential role of the contractors (mostly academia but also private sector - think of BBN, IBM, MCI among others) involved in ARPANET and NSFNET and Internet. Collaboration theme is strong here along with very open processes and institutions. vint On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > On 7/26/2012 9:44 AM, John R. Levine wrote: >>> >>> Looking at the details of research, development and operations for >>> packet-switching and interworking, represented in today's Internet, I >>> believe there was primarily government funding until the latter '80s, >>> when commercialization started. I believe the three notable >>> exceptions were PARC's ethernet, Digital's routing work, and the >>> interplay between PARC and ARPA reserarch folk. >> >> >> I was more thinking of big help in that it was built largely by >> non-government organizations out of non-government parts, albeit paid >> for by government money. > > > > Well, that phrasing gets some objective details correct but, I think, still > understates government's role. (Mind you, as a resident of Silicon Valley, > I consider private initiative a major religion; but it's not the /only/ > religion...) > > In the case of Arpanet and NSFNet, the criticial infrastructure efforts were > government initiatives, not just in terms of funding but in terms of > strategic, tactical and many technical formulations. > > Just to beat this into the ground, while I was at UCLA, I seem to recall > hearing that Larry Roberts (head of ARPA's IPTO that directed Arpanet work) > was driving the substance of the modeling work every bit as much as > Kleinrock, et al. (As I understand it, this was and probably still is a > common characteristic of ARPA program management, since it tends to hire > technical folk.) > > The organizational model for NSFNet -- including its forcing a move towards > non-government sustain able funding -- were definitely government work, > including the "market research" of the model with the predecessor effort, > CSNet. > > I can imagine that the details of TCP/IP and internetworking conform more to > the model of "non-government initiative benefiting from government funding" > but I don't know enough of the particulars. > > > d/ > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Thu Jul 26 10:47:51 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:47:51 -0700 Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: References: <20120726050729.43067.qmail@joyce.lan> <50116A6F.40406@dcrocker.net> <501178EA.9040409@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <501182C7.4060203@dcrocker.net> On 7/26/2012 10:38 AM, Vint Cerf wrote: > ARPA and NSF especially are NOT laboratories; they are funding > agencies. They have strong technical leadership. The involvement of > individuals working for the USG and funding seems to me > incontrovertible in the Internet story. This is not to diminish the > essential role of the contractors (mostly academia but also private > sector - think of BBN, IBM, MCI among others) involved in ARPANET and > NSFNET and Internet. Collaboration theme is strong here along with > very open processes and institutions. Exactly. The distinction I mean to draw is in contrast to a classic model in which an independent researcher or organization has an idea and seeks government funding to pursue it, which casts the governments role as rather passive. Even when the government decides on an area it wants to have work done it, it mostly advertises a general interest and then evaluates returned proposals. The alternative that I believe was present for Arpanet and NSFNet (and maybe original Internet) was of an initiative that is formulated in substantive ways in terms of organizational or technical approach, and then seeks researchers to pursue the work and, yes, tends to continue hands-on involvement in the details. As you say, this does not lessen the importance of the work of the researches, but I consider it a far more active and participative role on the part of government (or, at least, government workers.) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jack at 3kitty.org Thu Jul 26 10:49:57 2012 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:49:57 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <20120726023615.7C1B618C124@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20120726023615.7C1B618C124@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: The CBI and others do a good job but they tend to be focused on the history of the technology. I think that "Internet History" should encompass more than the technical aspects, but should include how the technology came out of the labs and diffused into the larger picture to become an infrastructure of humanity. The Internet has built new companies, and industries, and destroyed others. It has changed how people communicate and interact all over the planet. It has toppled governments. It has disrupted and changed a broad spectrum of human activities and processes. And it's not done yet - I think it's only beginning. That's the "human history" that I suggest is worth capturing. There's lots of stories there. It's a big job. /Jack Haverty On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Jack Haverty > > > The idea of projects to proactively capture recollections is a good > > one. You would think that an entity such as The Internet .. would > > attract the attention of not only technical museums, but also archives > > and organizations capturing general human history. > > ... > > Perhaps the Library of Congress (and other similar institutions) could > > be motivated to launch an analogous "Internet History Project"? > > The Charles Babbage Institute already has an extensive oral history program > in information technology: > > http://www.cbi.umn.edu/oh/ > > A number of names from networking stuff already appear in that list (Baran, > Cerf, SCrocker, Heart, Kahn, Kleinrock, Mills, Walden). I would probably try > and get them involved if you wanted to do a more extensive networking oral > history project; they know how to do this, to get the maximum historical > value. > > Noel From amckenzie3 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 26 11:28:37 2012 From: amckenzie3 at yahoo.com (Alex McKenzie) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:28:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: <501182C7.4060203@dcrocker.net> References: <20120726050729.43067.qmail@joyce.lan> <50116A6F.40406@dcrocker.net> <501178EA.9040409@dcrocker.net> <501182C7.4060203@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <1343327317.7677.YahooMailNeo@web142406.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> To further support Dave's point, the document ARPA issued in 1968 seeking a contractor to build the ARPAnet was a "Request for Quotation", not a request for a research proposal.? While the Request for Quotation left some aspects of the system design up to the contractor, it was very specific about the mode of behaviour and the mandatory performance requirements of the network. Alex McKenzie ________________________________ From: Dave Crocker To: Vint Cerf Cc: internet-history at postel.org Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 1:47 PM Subject: Re: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] On 7/26/2012 10:38 AM, Vint Cerf wrote: > ARPA and NSF especially are NOT laboratories; they are funding > agencies. They have strong technical leadership. The involvement of > individuals working for the USG and funding seems to me > incontrovertible in the Internet story. This is not to diminish the > essential role of the contractors (mostly academia but also private > sector - think of BBN, IBM, MCI among others)? involved in ARPANET and > NSFNET and Internet. Collaboration theme is strong here along with > very open processes and institutions. Exactly. The distinction I mean to draw is in contrast to a classic model in which an independent researcher or organization has an idea and seeks government funding to pursue it, which casts the governments role as rather passive.? Even when the government decides on an area it wants to have work done it, it mostly advertises a general interest and then evaluates returned proposals. The alternative that I believe was present for Arpanet and NSFNet (and maybe original Internet) was of an initiative that is formulated in substantive ways in terms of organizational or technical approach, and then seeks researchers to pursue the work and, yes, tends to continue hands-on involvement in the details. As you say, this does not lessen the importance of the work of the researches, but I consider it a far more active and participative role on the part of government (or, at least, government workers.) d/ --? Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arussell at jhu.edu Thu Jul 26 11:31:50 2012 From: arussell at jhu.edu (Andrew Russell) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:31:50 -0400 Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: References: <20120726050729.43067.qmail@joyce.lan> <50116A6F.40406@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <9DBCE259-68A6-488A-8528-9B05778602AB@jhu.edu> On Jul 26, 2012, at 12:42 PM, John Day wrote: > I would go slightly further. The primary reason most private corporations were involved was because there was government funding. My reaction, as an academic historian and not a participant in the events under discussion, is to go even further, or perhaps to go in a different direction, and point out that we are using a narrow conception of "government." It's important also to remember that "government" is not a monolith with an on/off switch, but is in fact a number of different entities that play multiple roles - often overlapping, often conflicting. So the important factors are not merely direct funding through grants, procurement, etc., but also the protection of intellectual property (a patent is a govt-granted monopoly, after all), subsidies for a skilled workforce (think about different govt support at various levels of the American education system, as well as engineers who learn through experience in the military), tax breaks & R&D credits for corporations (at the local, state, and federal levels), antitrust exemption for trade associations & standard-setting bodies, subsidies and support from previous generations of infrastructure upon which newer systems are built (leased lines from AT&T in the Internet's case), etc. etc. etc. I haven't watched the initial Obama comments that seemed to have touched off this controversy, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is close to the point he was trying to make; certainly Elizabeth Warren made the point with some eloquence earlier this year. The various academic histories of Silicon Valley (as an example) tease out these and other role(s) of government(s) - see for example _Understanding Silicon Valley_, excerpts at http://books.google.com/books?id=CLxzUW4V_2cC; and, more generally, the volume edited by Richard Nelson, _National Innovation Systems_ (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=YFDGjgxc2CYC). But after seeing the Crovitz WSJ piece and the various reactions to it, it's pretty clear to me that most people - and certainly Crovitz - are (perhaps willfully) ignorant of the available literature on these topics. (That anyone would base a short editorial article about Internet history on a strange reading of only one of the books about Xerox, for example, is indicative; I bet it wouldn't take long for google to tell him about Janet Abbate's book if he searched for, say, "Inventing the Internet" ;-) As a result, much of the subsequent discussion about "who invented the Internet" strikes me as analogous to how creationists like to "teach the controversy" about evolution, instead of doing any real research on relevant empirical questions. But I think if we did solid and honest research - as so many scholars have - on what roles the American federal (and other!) governments played in the development of computer networks (including but not limited to the TCP/IP Internet), we probably wouldn't end up with policy lessons that the editors of the WSJ would like to publish. Cheers, Andy Russell Stevens Institute of Technology http://arussell.org From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Thu Jul 26 11:34:33 2012 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:34:33 -0400 Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: References: <20120726050729.43067.qmail@joyce.lan> <50116A6F.40406@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <50118DB9.6020209@meetinghouse.net> John R. Levine wrote: >> Looking at the details of research, development and operations for >> packet-switching and interworking, represented in today's Internet, I >> believe there was primarily government funding until the latter '80s, >> when commercialization started. I believe the three notable >> exceptions were PARC's ethernet, Digital's routing work, and the >> interplay between PARC and ARPA reserarch folk. > > I was more thinking of big help in that it was built largely by > non-government organizations out of non-government parts, albeit paid > for by government money. Though one interesting aspect is that a lot of the early users WERE government organizations and organizations funded by the government - so government's role was not just funding, but stimulating demand. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From lpress at csudh.edu Thu Jul 26 12:18:02 2012 From: lpress at csudh.edu (Larry Press) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:18:02 -0700 Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: <9DBCE259-68A6-488A-8528-9B05778602AB@jhu.edu> References: <20120726050729.43067.qmail@joyce.lan> <50116A6F.40406@dcrocker.net> <9DBCE259-68A6-488A-8528-9B05778602AB@jhu.edu> Message-ID: <501197EA.8020301@csudh.edu> On 7/26/2012 11:31 AM, Andrew Russell wrote: > I haven't watched the initial Obama comments that seemed to have touched off this controversy It was these sentences from a campaign speech in Roanoke Virginia (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia): "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet." > most people - and certainly Crovitz - are (perhaps willfully) ignorant of the available literature on these topics. In a "reasonable" post, I cut Crovitz and the WSJ editors some slack by suggesting that their ignorance was not willful, but may have been a case of sub-conscious confabulation: https://plus.google.com/114528586908817727732/posts/1cDvPWC2MxW Loren Weinstein was not so kind :-): https://plus.google.com/114528586908817727732/posts/1cDvPWC2MxW Larry From joly at punkcast.com Thu Jul 26 12:17:57 2012 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:17:57 -0400 Subject: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120726023615.7C1B618C124@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: When ISOC mooted the Internet Hall of Fame, I suggested there be an annex for the infamous. Possibly also a statue of the "unknown user" outside. j On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > The CBI and others do a good job but they tend to be focused on the > history of the technology. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Thu Jul 26 12:36:11 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:36:11 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120726023615.7C1B618C124@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <50119C2B.3000705@dcrocker.net> On 7/26/2012 10:49 AM, Jack Haverty wrote: > The CBI and others do a good job but they tend to be focused on the > history of the technology. I think that "Internet History" should > encompass more than the technical aspects, but should include how the > technology came out of the labs and diffused into the larger picture > to become an infrastructure of humanity. In terms of methodology, there is an important difference between one-on-one formal interviews of individual principals, versus a discussion amongst multiple principals. I think the latter is likely to do better at getting a view of the processes, such as Jack describes, as well as the tensions about the history. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From joly at punkcast.com Thu Jul 26 14:14:33 2012 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:14:33 -0400 Subject: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <50119C2B.3000705@dcrocker.net> References: <20120726023615.7C1B618C124@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <50119C2B.3000705@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: I think the Internet Society would be a natural host for such discussions, and the HoF a natural repository.. Certainly here in NY we'd be happy to facilitate such. j On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > On 7/26/2012 10:49 AM, Jack Haverty wrote: >> >> The CBI and others do a good job but they tend to be focused on the >> history of the technology. I think that "Internet History" should >> encompass more than the technical aspects, but should include how the >> technology came out of the labs and diffused into the larger picture >> to become an infrastructure of humanity. > > > > In terms of methodology, there is an important difference between one-on-one > formal interviews of individual principals, versus a discussion amongst > multiple principals. > > I think the latter is likely to do better at getting a view of the > processes, such as Jack describes, as well as the tensions about the > history. > > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Thu Jul 26 14:56:05 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:56:05 -0700 Subject: [ih] Essential components of Internet technology and operation Message-ID: <5011BCF5.40705@dcrocker.net> Folks, As evidenced by several efforts, including the latest, I doubt that considering different criteria for defining the start of the Internet is ever going to lead to rough consensus about a single definition. In the face of an impasse about an entirety, it often is useful to break things down into components and consider them separately. So I suggest an exercise a deconstructive exercise. For today's Internet: a. Consider a technical, administrative or operational innovation that is generally viewed as important for making the Internet work. b. Identify when it was innovated and by whom. c. Rinse, repeat, developing a list of essential components and their origins. For example, a couple of components that aren't near the margins of importance: 1. Packet switching While there is some debate about fine-grain of details about innovation, its conceptualization was roughly the mid-60s by one or very few folk, and its demonstration in a network was, perhaps, 1969 in the Arpanet. 2. Hyperlinks Conceptualized by Nelson and Engelbart, apparently separately. (I don't know enough about the internals of Engelbart's project to know exactly how it developed there and who exactly should get credit for it.) Terminology from Nelson. Demonstrated operationally by Engelbart, in a standalone system. Demonstrated in a distributed system by Berners-Lee. To the extent that my statements are inaccurate or incomplete, I suspect the debate and repair effort can be more constrained for most of the items (as long as we keep away from the invention of email...) With a small amount of diligence, this ought to produce an interesting timeline, possibly with, ummm, seven layers... Thoughts? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jmamodio at gmail.com Thu Jul 26 15:14:51 2012 From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:14:51 -0500 Subject: [ih] Essential components of Internet technology and operation In-Reply-To: <5011BCF5.40705@dcrocker.net> References: <5011BCF5.40705@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: I believe that one of the fundamental aspects of the Internet is that since its conception has been a recursive technology that enable via open participation and interconnection reinventing itself over an over, and I bet it will continue to be as long as we keep the packets flowing and the attorneys busy with other stuff. -J On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > Folks, > > As evidenced by several efforts, including the latest, I doubt that > considering different criteria for defining the start of the Internet is > ever going to lead to rough consensus about a single definition. > > In the face of an impasse about an entirety, it often is useful to break > things down into components and consider them separately. > > So I suggest an exercise a deconstructive exercise. > > For today's Internet: > > a. Consider a technical, administrative or operational innovation that > is generally viewed as important for making the Internet work. > > b. Identify when it was innovated and by whom. > > c. Rinse, repeat, developing a list of essential components and their > origins. > > > For example, a couple of components that aren't near the margins of > importance: > > 1. Packet switching > > While there is some debate about fine-grain of details about > innovation, its conceptualization was roughly the mid-60s by one or very few > folk, and its demonstration in a network was, perhaps, 1969 in the Arpanet. > > 2. Hyperlinks > > Conceptualized by Nelson and Engelbart, apparently separately. (I > don't know enough about the internals of Engelbart's project to know exactly > how it developed there and who exactly should get credit for it.) > Terminology from Nelson. Demonstrated operationally by Engelbart, in a > standalone system. Demonstrated in a distributed system by Berners-Lee. > > > To the extent that my statements are inaccurate or incomplete, I suspect the > debate and repair effort can be more constrained for most of the items (as > long as we keep away from the invention of email...) > > > With a small amount of diligence, this ought to produce an interesting > timeline, possibly with, ummm, seven layers... > > Thoughts? > > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From jeanjour at comcast.net Thu Jul 26 15:31:59 2012 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:31:59 -0400 Subject: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120726023615.7C1B618C124@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <50119C2B.3000705@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: CBI is probably more appropriate. At 17:14 -0400 2012/07/26, Joly MacFie wrote: >I think the Internet Society would be a natural host for such >discussions, and the HoF a natural repository.. Certainly here in NY >we'd be happy to facilitate such. > >j > > > >On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> >> >> On 7/26/2012 10:49 AM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>> >>> The CBI and others do a good job but they tend to be focused on the >>> history of the technology. I think that "Internet History" should >>> encompass more than the technical aspects, but should include how the >>> technology came out of the labs and diffused into the larger picture >>> to become an infrastructure of humanity. >> >> >> >> In terms of methodology, there is an important difference between one-on-one >> formal interviews of individual principals, versus a discussion amongst >> multiple principals. >> >> I think the latter is likely to do better at getting a view of the >> processes, such as Jack describes, as well as the tensions about the >> history. >> >> >> d/ >> >> -- >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net > > > >-- >--------------------------------------------------------------- >Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast >WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org >-------------------------------------------------------------- >- From jack at 3kitty.org Thu Jul 26 17:11:50 2012 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:11:50 -0700 Subject: [ih] Essential components of Internet technology and operation In-Reply-To: <5011BCF5.40705@dcrocker.net> References: <5011BCF5.40705@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: Not to discourage capturing history, but I think this is a really hard task. Consider for example "packet switching", as the "operational innovation" of breaking a message up into smaller pieces, sending the pieces independently and/or redundantly, and putting it all together at the destination. The earliest instance of this technique (as opposed to specific computer implementation) that I've encountered was ... during the heyday of the Roman Empire. Roman generals out in remote parts of the frontier had to communicate with Rome reliably and securely. So, slaves were tasked to write a message on a scroll, possibly even making several scrolls with the same message. Each scroll was then ripped into strips, each containing only an unintelligible fragment of the message. Each strip was given to a different courier, who would run to the destination. Different couriers were sent by different means, e.g., one by land and one by sea, one by mountains, one through the desert, and would choose their route based on local conditions they encountered. When enough couriers reached the destination the message could be reassembled and read. Spies or hostile forces along the way might intercept some couriers, but they couldn't read the message. Slaves were expendable "packets". With enough couriers, a message would very likely get through. Sounds like "Packet Switching" to me. Once computers got invented slaves were no longer the best choice, so now we employ computers to do our packet switching. Credit Caesar, roughly 2000 years ago. One of his staff probably actually defined the technique, after hearing about it at the local pub from a traveler from a distant land. Sadly, this was all documented in RFC MCLVII, which was never issued. /Jack On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > Folks, > > As evidenced by several efforts, including the latest, I doubt that > considering different criteria for defining the start of the Internet is > ever going to lead to rough consensus about a single definition. > > In the face of an impasse about an entirety, it often is useful to break > things down into components and consider them separately. > > So I suggest an exercise a deconstructive exercise. > > For today's Internet: > > a. Consider a technical, administrative or operational innovation that > is generally viewed as important for making the Internet work. > > b. Identify when it was innovated and by whom. > > c. Rinse, repeat, developing a list of essential components and their > origins. > > > For example, a couple of components that aren't near the margins of > importance: > > 1. Packet switching > > While there is some debate about fine-grain of details about > innovation, its conceptualization was roughly the mid-60s by one or very few > folk, and its demonstration in a network was, perhaps, 1969 in the Arpanet. > > 2. Hyperlinks > > Conceptualized by Nelson and Engelbart, apparently separately. (I > don't know enough about the internals of Engelbart's project to know exactly > how it developed there and who exactly should get credit for it.) > Terminology from Nelson. Demonstrated operationally by Engelbart, in a > standalone system. Demonstrated in a distributed system by Berners-Lee. > > > To the extent that my statements are inaccurate or incomplete, I suspect the > debate and repair effort can be more constrained for most of the items (as > long as we keep away from the invention of email...) > > > With a small amount of diligence, this ought to produce an interesting > timeline, possibly with, ummm, seven layers... > > Thoughts? > > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From bernie at fantasyfarm.com Thu Jul 26 18:19:17 2012 From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:19:17 -0400 Subject: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invente In-Reply-To: <50119C2B.3000705@dcrocker.net> References: <20120726023615.7C1B618C124@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>, , <50119C2B.3000705@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <5011EC95.29718.4B3B3D2A@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> On 26 Jul 2012 at 12:36, Dave Crocker wrote: > In terms of methodology, there is an important difference between > one-on-one formal interviews of individual principals, versus a > discussion amongst multiple principals. > > I think the latter is likely to do better at getting a view of the > processes, such as Jack describes, as well as the tensions about the > history. Indeed, that's what Andreu Ve? did at his get-together [I forget what it was called.] Virtually ALL of the folks who worked on ARPAnet and many who worked on CSNET were there and we were all hashing things out -- for many, they were working on different parts of the same thing and this get-together was actually the first time they got to "compare notes" and see how the pieces fit together. I know many of you were there... has anyone heard if Andreu has made any progress transcribing the discussions [or if they're available so someone else could]?? /Bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie at fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From vint at google.com Thu Jul 26 21:04:43 2012 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 00:04:43 -0400 Subject: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invente In-Reply-To: <5011EC95.29718.4B3B3D2A@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> References: <20120726023615.7C1B618C124@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <50119C2B.3000705@dcrocker.net> <5011EC95.29718.4B3B3D2A@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: he is just finishing the third volume of interviews so I don't think he has tackled transcriptions of the gathering yet. v On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Bernie Cosell wrote: > On 26 Jul 2012 at 12:36, Dave Crocker wrote: > >> In terms of methodology, there is an important difference between >> one-on-one formal interviews of individual principals, versus a >> discussion amongst multiple principals. >> >> I think the latter is likely to do better at getting a view of the >> processes, such as Jack describes, as well as the tensions about the >> history. > > Indeed, that's what Andreu Ve? did at his get-together [I forget what it > was called.] Virtually ALL of the folks who worked on ARPAnet and many > who worked on CSNET were there and we were all hashing things out -- for > many, they were working on different parts of the same thing and this > get-together was actually the first time they got to "compare notes" and > see how the pieces fit together. I know many of you were there... has > anyone heard if Andreu has made any progress transcribing the discussions > [or if they're available so someone else could]?? > > /Bernie\ > -- > Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers > mailto:bernie at fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA > --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- > > > > From feinler at earthlink.net Thu Jul 26 21:24:26 2012 From: feinler at earthlink.net (Elizabeth Feinler) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:24:26 -0700 Subject: [ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 64, Issue 28 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:12 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: infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] > (Larry Press) > 2. Re: Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and > Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who > Really Invented the Internet?") (Joly MacFie) > 3. Re: Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and > Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who > Really Invented the Internet?") (Dave Crocker) > 4. Re: Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and > Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who > Really Invented the Internet?") (Joly MacFie) > 5. Essential components of Internet technology and operation > (Dave Crocker) > 6. Re: Essential components of Internet technology and operation > (Jorge Amodio) > 7. Re: Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and > Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who > Really Invented the Internet?") (John Day) > 8. Re: Essential components of Internet technology and operation > (Jack Haverty) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:18:02 -0700 > From: Larry Press > Subject: Re: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the > Internet] > To: Andrew Russell > Cc: "internet-history at postel.org" , > "dcrocker at bbiw.net" > Message-ID: <501197EA.8020301 at csudh.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed > > On 7/26/2012 11:31 AM, Andrew Russell wrote: > >> I haven't watched the initial Obama comments that seemed to have touched off this controversy > > It was these sentences from a campaign speech in Roanoke Virginia > (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia): > > "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research > created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the > Internet." The govt. funded the research based on what looked like some good ideas. Researchers and academic people built it and private industry took the ball and ran with it. That cooperation among all three sectors is what fosters innovation and has created thousands of new companies and hundreds of thousands of jobs. No one knew in the beginning exactly where the Internet was headed, but we all knew it was exciting, innovative, challenging and a darned good idea. That is usually the way it is with basic ideas - they inspire people first to dream, and then to see if they can make the dream come true. >> most people - and certainly Crovitz - are (perhaps willfully) > ignorant of the available literature on these topics. > > > In a "reasonable" post, I cut Crovitz and the WSJ editors some slack by > suggesting that their ignorance was not willful, but may have been a > case of sub-conscious confabulation: > > https://plus.google.com/114528586908817727732/posts/1cDvPWC2MxW > > Loren Weinstein was not so kind :-): > > https://plus.google.com/114528586908817727732/posts/1cDvPWC2MxW > > Larry > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:17:57 -0400 > From: Joly MacFie > Subject: Re: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and > Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really > Invented the Internet?") > To: Jack Haverty > Cc: internet-history at postel.org, Noel Chiappa > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > When ISOC mooted the Internet Hall of Fame, I suggested there be an annex > for the infamous. > > Possibly also a statue of the "unknown user" outside. > > j > > > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > >> The CBI and others do a good job but they tend to be focused on the >> history of the technology. > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20120726/352d83f8/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:36:11 -0700 > From: Dave Crocker > Subject: Re: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and > Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really > Invented the Internet?") > To: Jack Haverty > Cc: internet-history at postel.org, Noel Chiappa > > Message-ID: <50119C2B.3000705 at dcrocker.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > On 7/26/2012 10:49 AM, Jack Haverty wrote: >> The CBI and others do a good job but they tend to be focused on the >> history of the technology. I think that "Internet History" should >> encompass more than the technical aspects, but should include how the >> technology came out of the labs and diffused into the larger picture >> to become an infrastructure of humanity. > > > In terms of methodology, there is an important difference between > one-on-one formal interviews of individual principals, versus a > discussion amongst multiple principals. > > I think the latter is likely to do better at getting a view of the > processes, such as Jack describes, as well as the tensions about the > history. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:14:33 -0400 > From: Joly MacFie > Subject: Re: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and > Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really > Invented the Internet?") > To: dcrocker at bbiw.net > Cc: internet-history at postel.org, Noel Chiappa > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I think the Internet Society would be a natural host for such > discussions, and the HoF a natural repository.. Certainly here in NY > we'd be happy to facilitate such. > > j > > > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> >> >> On 7/26/2012 10:49 AM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>> >>> The CBI and others do a good job but they tend to be focused on the >>> history of the technology. I think that "Internet History" should >>> encompass more than the technical aspects, but should include how the >>> technology came out of the labs and diffused into the larger picture >>> to become an infrastructure of humanity. >> >> >> >> In terms of methodology, there is an important difference between one-on-one >> formal interviews of individual principals, versus a discussion amongst >> multiple principals. >> >> I think the latter is likely to do better at getting a view of the >> processes, such as Jack describes, as well as the tensions about the >> history. >> >> >> d/ >> >> -- >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:56:05 -0700 > From: Dave Crocker > Subject: [ih] Essential components of Internet technology and > operation > To: "internet-history at postel.org" > Message-ID: <5011BCF5.40705 at dcrocker.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Folks, > > As evidenced by several efforts, including the latest, I doubt that > considering different criteria for defining the start of the Internet is > ever going to lead to rough consensus about a single definition. > > In the face of an impasse about an entirety, it often is useful to break > things down into components and consider them separately. > > So I suggest an exercise a deconstructive exercise. > > For today's Internet: > > a. Consider a technical, administrative or operational innovation > that is generally viewed as important for making the Internet work. > > b. Identify when it was innovated and by whom. > > c. Rinse, repeat, developing a list of essential components and > their origins. > > > For example, a couple of components that aren't near the margins of > importance: > > 1. Packet switching > > While there is some debate about fine-grain of details about > innovation, its conceptualization was roughly the mid-60s by one or very > few folk, and its demonstration in a network was, perhaps, 1969 in the > Arpanet. > > 2. Hyperlinks > > Conceptualized by Nelson and Engelbart, apparently separately. > (I don't know enough about the internals of Engelbart's project to know > exactly how it developed there and who exactly should get credit for > it.) Terminology from Nelson. Demonstrated operationally by Engelbart, > in a standalone system. Demonstrated in a distributed system by > Berners-Lee. > > > To the extent that my statements are inaccurate or incomplete, I suspect > the debate and repair effort can be more constrained for most of the > items (as long as we keep away from the invention of email...) > > > With a small amount of diligence, this ought to produce an interesting > timeline, possibly with, ummm, seven layers... > > Thoughts? > > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:14:51 -0500 > From: Jorge Amodio > Subject: Re: [ih] Essential components of Internet technology and > operation > To: dcrocker at bbiw.net > Cc: "internet-history at postel.org" > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I believe that one of the fundamental aspects of the Internet is that > since its conception has been a recursive technology that > enable via open participation and interconnection reinventing itself > over an over, and I bet it will continue to be as long as we > keep the packets flowing and the attorneys busy with other stuff. > > -J > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> Folks, >> >> As evidenced by several efforts, including the latest, I doubt that >> considering different criteria for defining the start of the Internet is >> ever going to lead to rough consensus about a single definition. >> >> In the face of an impasse about an entirety, it often is useful to break >> things down into components and consider them separately. >> >> So I suggest an exercise a deconstructive exercise. >> >> For today's Internet: >> >> a. Consider a technical, administrative or operational innovation that >> is generally viewed as important for making the Internet work. >> >> b. Identify when it was innovated and by whom. >> >> c. Rinse, repeat, developing a list of essential components and their >> origins. >> >> >> For example, a couple of components that aren't near the margins of >> importance: >> >> 1. Packet switching >> >> While there is some debate about fine-grain of details about >> innovation, its conceptualization was roughly the mid-60s by one or very few >> folk, and its demonstration in a network was, perhaps, 1969 in the Arpanet. >> >> 2. Hyperlinks >> >> Conceptualized by Nelson and Engelbart, apparently separately. (I >> don't know enough about the internals of Engelbart's project to know exactly >> how it developed there and who exactly should get credit for it.) >> Terminology from Nelson. Demonstrated operationally by Engelbart, in a >> standalone system. Demonstrated in a distributed system by Berners-Lee. Engelbart's projects were funded first by NASA and eventually by DARPA with some funding from other govt. agencies - that is to say GOVERNMENT FUNDING (yes I am shouting.) Doug's work laid the groundwork for the revolution in office automation that lead to a whole new way of doing business and eventually created thousands of new jobs I might add. His system, NLS, was networked to several sites (RADC, BRL, ARPA, ALMSA, and others); however, NLS was large in size and at the time the machines (also large in size) were small in capacity. Also, NLS was a very rich system and required training, which was not practical on a government-funded research contract. In 1977 NLS (then renamed Augment) was spun off by SRI to Tymshare Corp. and was sold commercially until Tymshare was bought out a few years later by McDonnell Douglas. When people say that the private sector, not the government, creates jobs, they have not done their homework or have their heads in the sand. Hundreds of companies and thousands of jobs have been created as a consequence of the Internet. Thousands more have been created from basic research funded by NASA, NIH, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Agriculture, DoD, and so on. When a private company does basic research it has its own narrow interests at heart. Google doesn't tell Facebook what it plans to do next or get together to share ideas. That is where government comes in. The more basic research that is shared with everyone openly by govt., the more innovation results. We NEED government to fuel the engine that creates high tech jobs and new industries. And even small businesses are often suppliers to government contractors or the government itself. Jack pointed out what we all know, but the rest of the world doesn't seem to understand - it takes government, academia, and private enerprise to make innovation (read that jobs) happen. In my opinion we have gotten away from this triad model for success. Instead everything now seems to favor the financial sector that builds nothing, contributes nothing to basic research, takes incredible risks wtth other people's money, and mostly shuffles companies around for maximum profit with not a lot of accountability. To me this is the wrong algorithm for job growth and innovation. We need the financial sector but, again in my opinion, it is not the right engine to foster creativity, new industries, and job growth. >> >> >> To the extent that my statements are inaccurate or incomplete, I suspect the >> debate and repair effort can be more constrained for most of the items (as >> long as we keep away from the invention of email...) >> >> >> With a small amount of diligence, this ought to produce an interesting >> timeline, possibly with, ummm, seven layers... Wash your mouth out! :-) >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> d/ >> >> -- >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:31:59 -0400 > From: John Day > Subject: Re: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and > Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really > Invented the Internet?") > To: joly at punkcast.com, dcrocker at bbiw.net > Cc: internet-history at postel.org, Noel Chiappa > > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > > CBI is probably more appropriate. > > At 17:14 -0400 2012/07/26, Joly MacFie wrote: >> I think the Internet Society would be a natural host for such >> discussions, and the HoF a natural repository.. Certainly here in NY >> we'd be happy to facilitate such. >> >> j >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 7/26/2012 10:49 AM, Jack Haverty wrote: >>>> >>>> The CBI and others do a good job but they tend to be focused on the >>>> history of the technology. I think that "Internet History" should >>>> encompass more than the technical aspects, but should include how the >>>> technology came out of the labs and diffused into the larger picture >>>> to become an infrastructure of humanity. >>> >>> >>> >>> In terms of methodology, there is an important difference between one-on-one >>> formal interviews of individual principals, versus a discussion amongst >>> multiple principals. >>> >>> I think the latter is likely to do better at getting a view of the >>> processes, such as Jack describes, as well as the tensions about the >>> history. >>> >>> >>> d/ >>> >>> -- >>> Dave Crocker >>> Brandenburg InternetWorking >>> bbiw.net >> >> >> >> -- >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast >> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com >> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com >> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org >> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> - > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:11:50 -0700 > From: Jack Haverty > Subject: Re: [ih] Essential components of Internet technology and > operation > To: dcrocker at bbiw.net > Cc: "internet-history at postel.org" > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Not to discourage capturing history, but I think this is a really hard task. > > Consider for example "packet switching", as the "operational > innovation" of breaking a message up into smaller pieces, sending the > pieces independently and/or redundantly, and putting it all together > at the destination. > > The earliest instance of this technique (as opposed to specific > computer implementation) that I've encountered was ... during the > heyday of the Roman Empire. Roman generals out in remote parts of > the frontier had to communicate with Rome reliably and securely. So, > slaves were tasked to write a message on a scroll, possibly even > making several scrolls with the same message. Each scroll was then > ripped into strips, each containing only an unintelligible fragment of > the message. Each strip was given to a different courier, who would > run to the destination. Different couriers were sent by different > means, e.g., one by land and one by sea, one by mountains, one through > the desert, and would choose their route based on local conditions > they encountered. When enough couriers reached the destination the > message could be reassembled and read. Spies or hostile forces along > the way might intercept some couriers, but they couldn't read the > message. Slaves were expendable "packets". With enough couriers, a > message would very likely get through. > > Sounds like "Packet Switching" to me. Once computers got invented > slaves were no longer the best choice, so now we employ computers to > do our packet switching. Credit Caesar, roughly 2000 years ago. One > of his staff probably actually defined the technique, after hearing > about it at the local pub from a traveler from a distant land. > > Sadly, this was all documented in RFC MCLVII, which was never issued. > > /Jack > > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> Folks, >> >> As evidenced by several efforts, including the latest, I doubt that >> considering different criteria for defining the start of the Internet is >> ever going to lead to rough consensus about a single definition. >> >> In the face of an impasse about an entirety, it often is useful to break >> things down into components and consider them separately. >> >> So I suggest an exercise a deconstructive exercise. >> >> For today's Internet: >> >> a. Consider a technical, administrative or operational innovation that >> is generally viewed as important for making the Internet work. >> >> b. Identify when it was innovated and by whom. >> >> c. Rinse, repeat, developing a list of essential components and their >> origins. >> >> >> For example, a couple of components that aren't near the margins of >> importance: >> >> 1. Packet switching >> >> While there is some debate about fine-grain of details about >> innovation, its conceptualization was roughly the mid-60s by one or very few >> folk, and its demonstration in a network was, perhaps, 1969 in the Arpanet. >> >> 2. Hyperlinks >> >> Conceptualized by Nelson and Engelbart, apparently separately. (I >> don't know enough about the internals of Engelbart's project to know exactly >> how it developed there and who exactly should get credit for it.) >> Terminology from Nelson. Demonstrated operationally by Engelbart, in a >> standalone system. Demonstrated in a distributed system by Berners-Lee. >> >> >> To the extent that my statements are inaccurate or incomplete, I suspect the >> debate and repair effort can be more constrained for most of the items (as >> long as we keep away from the invention of email...) >> >> >> With a small amount of diligence, this ought to produce an interesting >> timeline, possibly with, ummm, seven layers... >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> d/ >> >> -- >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > End of internet-history Digest, Vol 64, Issue 28 > ************************************************ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vint at google.com Thu Jul 26 21:46:15 2012 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 00:46:15 -0400 Subject: [ih] interesting history reference Message-ID: http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/internet_history60s.htm" From dave.walden.family at gmail.com Fri Jul 27 06:00:08 2012 From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (Dave Walden) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:00:08 -0400 Subject: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invente In-Reply-To: <5011EC95.29718.4B3B3D2A@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> References: <20120726023615.7C1B618C124@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <50119C2B.3000705@dcrocker.net> <5011EC95.29718.4B3B3D2A@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: <50128fab.a94c340a.1ec7.48d8@mx.google.com> Re Bernie's note below, I would say that a "representative group" of people were there. You can read about how this get-together took place in a note in the _IEEE Annals of the History of Computing_, October-December 2010 issue, a copy of which I have posted on my website: http://walden-family.com/ieee/2010-arpanet-pioneers.pdf Dave At 09:19 PM 7/26/2012, Bernie Cosell wrote: >Indeed, that's what Andreu Ve? did at his get-together [I forget what it >was called.] Virtually ALL of the folks who worked on ARPAnet and many >who worked on CSNET were there and we were all hashing things out -- for >many, they were working on different parts of the same thing and this >get-together was actually the first time they got to "compare notes" and >see how the pieces fit together. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bernie at fantasyfarm.com Fri Jul 27 12:24:58 2012 From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:24:58 -0400 Subject: [ih] Internet History Project (was XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invente In-Reply-To: <50128fab.a94c340a.1ec7.48d8@mx.google.com> References: <20120726023615.7C1B618C124@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>, <5011EC95.29718.4B3B3D2A@bernie.fantasyfarm.com>, <50128fab.a94c340a.1ec7.48d8@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <5012EB0A.24220.4F1D34E4@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> On 27 Jul 2012 at 9:00, Dave Walden wrote: > Re Bernie's note below, I would say that a "representative group" of > people were there. Of course and apologies -- I had a small brain cramp and miswrote. What I was thinking was that *representatives* of almost all of the players in developing the ARPAnet were there: I never knew what the Army was working on, or quite how the NSF got involved and decided as it did, or how this gigantic hack we were having so much fun putting together was being justified as a real "defense" expenditure year after year... etc.. /bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie at fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From amckenzie3 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 28 04:03:16 2012 From: amckenzie3 at yahoo.com (Alex McKenzie) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 04:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: <1343327317.7677.YahooMailNeo@web142406.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <20120726050729.43067.qmail@joyce.lan> <50116A6F.40406@dcrocker.net> <501178EA.9040409@dcrocker.net> <501182C7.4060203@dcrocker.net> <1343327317.7677.YahooMailNeo@web142406.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1343473396.80113.YahooMailNeo@web142404.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> In my opinion, what we call The Internet consists of the set of computers which intercommunicate using the TCP/IP protocols.? This Internet has a direct lineage back to the ARPA Experimental Internet consisting of the ARPAnet, the ARPA Atlantic Satellite Net, and one or more ARPA Packet Radio Nets interconnected by routers (called gateways then) implementing IP.? I believe there is a direct line of growth by accretion from this small set of autonomous networks to today's Internet.? Since all of the networks in the original set were funded by ARPA/DARPA, a part of the US government, it seems ludicrous to say that the Internet was not started by government. The development of TCP is described in my paper "INWG and the Conception of the Internet: An Eyewitness Account" which appeared in the IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, Vol 33, No 1, pp 66-71.? A slightly updated version of that paper can be found at http://alexmckenzie.weebly.com/inwg-and-the-conception-of-the-internet-an-eyewitness-account.html Specifically, the first paper by Cerf and Kahn describing TCP states on its cover page that it is "an attempt to collect and integrate the ideas uncovered at the June 1973 INWG meeting in New York, as well as some ideas which have been worked out since that time by various other people." There were 7 people at that June meeting, one of whom was Bob Metcalfe, who implemented Ethernet at the Xerox PARC facility - so the Ethernet ideas were represented in the development of TCP. Bob Metcalfe developed the idea for Ethernet in his Harvard PhD thesis.? I don't have a copy of the thesis handy, but I'm pretty sure it gives credit for support of his research to an ARPA contract at MIT where Bob was employed while working on his thesis.? Bob specifically acknowledges the prominent role played by the Aloha Network in giving him the idea for Ethernet.? The Aloha Network was developed at the University of Hawaii by a team led by Norm Abramson under US government funding. So regardless of your answer to the question "Who invented the Internet?" it seems pretty clear to me that the US government was centrally involved in providing the funding that made it happen. Alex McKenzie PS: At the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony entertainment last night there was a sizeable segment call "Thank You Tim" which was intended to portray the pervasive influence of the "digital revolution" on the lives of today's youth and crediting Tim Berners-Lee (who was a paticipant in the segment) for "inventing the World Wide Web." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave.walden.family at gmail.com Sat Jul 28 04:53:48 2012 From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (Dave Walden) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 07:53:48 -0400 Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: <1343473396.80113.YahooMailNeo@web142404.mail.bf1.yahoo.com > References: <20120726050729.43067.qmail@joyce.lan> <50116A6F.40406@dcrocker.net> <501178EA.9040409@dcrocker.net> <501182C7.4060203@dcrocker.net> <1343327317.7677.YahooMailNeo@web142406.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1343473396.80113.YahooMailNeo@web142404.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5013d17a.a916340a.3e03.ffffa11b@mx.google.com> >Alex says: "I don't have a copy of the thesis handy, but I'm pretty >sure it gives credit for support of his research to an ARPA contract >at MIT where Bob was employed while working on his thesis." I do have a copy of Bob's thesis handy and it says (in more words) "research supported by ARPA". -- home address: 12 Linden Rd., E. Sandwich, MA 02537 home ph=508-888-7655; cell ph = 503-757-3137 email address: dave at walden-family.com; website: http://www.walden-family.com/bbn/ From dave.walden.family at gmail.com Sat Jul 28 04:57:23 2012 From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (Dave Walden) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 07:57:23 -0400 Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] Message-ID: <5013d24f.8b44340a.0d9b.ffff9d4d@mx.google.com> PS, Given the topic we are discussing, I shouldn't have been quite so short in my quasi-quote. It also indicates that the ARPA contract was monitored by ONR (another part of the government). >Alex says: "I don't have a copy of the thesis handy, but I'm pretty >sure it gives credit for support of his research to an ARPA contract >at MIT where Bob was employed while working on his thesis." I do have a copy of Bob's thesis handy and it says (in more words) "research supported by ARPA". -- home address: 12 Linden Rd., E. Sandwich, MA 02537 home ph=508-888-7655; cell ph = 503-757-3137 email address: dave at walden-family.com; website: http://www.walden-family.com/bbn/ From dave.walden.family at gmail.com Sat Jul 28 06:11:27 2012 From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (Dave Walden) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 09:11:27 -0400 Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: <1343473396.80113.YahooMailNeo@web142404.mail.bf1.yahoo.com > References: <20120726050729.43067.qmail@joyce.lan> <50116A6F.40406@dcrocker.net> <501178EA.9040409@dcrocker.net> <501182C7.4060203@dcrocker.net> <1343327317.7677.YahooMailNeo@web142406.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1343473396.80113.YahooMailNeo@web142404.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5013e399.2458340a.11dd.3896@mx.google.com> >While I was at my bookshelf looking at Bob's thesis, I also looked >again at Abbate's book. It has probably already been mentioned in >this thread that this would be a good book for someone to look at >who wonders about how the Internet came about. Of course, since >many of her sources were people on this list, that book might be >seen by the WSJ as part of promotion of a myth of government >involvement in the development of the Internet. I have found an illustration from from or less the same time as the packet-radio net, ARPANET, Satnet, etc., internetworking demo described on about page 132 of Abbate's book that shows (as I read the illustration) a 2-net internet experiment experiment using internet gateways (IGs) to partition BBN's Research Computer Center (i.e., TENEX systems) from the ARPANET with connections via the IGs to IMP 5 at BBN and to the Satellite Network (a comm link to the IG at the Clarksburg site) and thus to ARPANET via a second path (up to the satellite from Clarksburg, MD, and back down to Etam, WV, with its IG to the SDAC IMP. As I read the history, Tomlinson did a first implementation of TCP in TENEX (and Plummer improved its efficiency); that explains one of the above mentioned IGs. I don't remember how the IGs at the Satellite IMPs were implemented. I should perhaps visit BBN and take a copy of the whole Quarterly Technical Report to ARPA (in addition to the figure I copied a few years ago) so I know more precise details about this experiment. I remember that various government contracts were supporting more than one early TCP implementation efforts at BBN. From amckenzie3 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 28 08:37:30 2012 From: amckenzie3 at yahoo.com (Alex McKenzie) Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 08:37:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: <5013e399.2458340a.11dd.3896@mx.google.com> References: <20120726050729.43067.qmail@joyce.lan> <50116A6F.40406@dcrocker.net> <501178EA.9040409@dcrocker.net> <501182C7.4060203@dcrocker.net> <1343327317.7677.YahooMailNeo@web142406.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1343473396.80113.YahooMailNeo@web142404.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5013e399.2458340a.11dd.3896@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <1343489850.70416.YahooMailNeo@web142403.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Dave, There were Internet Gateways of that period built by BBN (Ginny Strasizar), University College London (Peter Kirstein's group) and Stanford University (Vint Cerf's group).? At least the BBN and Stanford gateway projects were funded by DARPA.? I do not know which of these gateways were used at the non-BBN sites at the time of the picture you cite, and I do not believe the BBN Report provides any information.? I do know that _eventually_ all the SATNET gateways were provided by BBN. Regards, Alex ________________________________ From: Dave Walden To: Alex McKenzie ; Internet History Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] > While I was at my bookshelf looking at Bob's thesis, I also looked again at Abbate's book.? It has probably already been mentioned in this thread that this would be a good book for someone to look at who wonders about how the Internet came about.? Of course, since many of her sources were people on this list, that book might be seen by the WSJ as part of promotion of a myth of government involvement in the development of the Internet. I have found an illustration from from or less the same time as the packet-radio net, ARPANET, Satnet, etc., internetworking demo described on about page 132 of Abbate's book that shows (as I read the illustration) a 2-net internet experiment experiment using internet gateways (IGs) to partition BBN's Research Computer Center (i.e., TENEX systems) from the ARPANET with connections via the IGs to IMP 5 at BBN and to the Satellite Network (a comm link to the IG at the Clarksburg site) and thus to ARPANET via a second path (up to the satellite from Clarksburg, MD, and back down to Etam, WV, with its IG to the SDAC IMP.? As I read the history, Tomlinson did a first implementation of TCP in TENEX (and Plummer improved its efficiency); that explains one of the above mentioned IGs.? I don't remember how the IGs at the Satellite IMPs were implemented.? I should perhaps visit BBN and take a copy of the whole Quarterly Technical Report to ARPA (in addition to the figure I copied a few years ago) so I know more precise details about this experiment.? I remember that various government contracts were supporting more than one early TCP implementation efforts at BBN. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From winowicki at yahoo.com Sun Jul 29 10:07:31 2012 From: winowicki at yahoo.com (Bill Nowicki) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 10:07:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <79c13e81de2230fd12ce7ef5a073d8af.squirrel@webmail.ic.unicamp.br> References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> <79c13e81de2230fd12ce7ef5a073d8af.squirrel@webmail.ic.unicamp.br> Message-ID: <1343581651.55279.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Most of this has been discussed much already, but I just wanted to add my chorus to those who point out how much cross-fertilization there was in those days. Remember Xerox PARC is on Stanford land, and not only did many of us work as summer interns, they gave us "no fee consulting" agreements so that we could bicycle up the hill to attend "dealers" that sounded interesting and collaborate on other projects as Xerox people would also listen in on seminars. People like Dave Boggs (Ethernet co-inventor) and John Shoch were Stanford graduate students, and many others were students of CMU, MIT, Berkeley, etc. which were all ARPA contractors. The ARPA-funded (along with other government agencies)?projects at SRI like NLS were also clearly connected by some of the same people. ?Xerox even designed and built a computer (jokingly called "MAXC" which makes another great anecdote) specifically to run the TENEX operating system of BBN and put it on the ARPANET. ? So as usual real history is more complicated that pundits like to convey. ? It might be safe to say that PUP was the first working corporate internet ("intranet" was not coined yet). It did have multiple different computer architectures and network technology from the start, but did not have the multi-organizational issues of the ARPA/netInternet. To follow PUP is also interesting. I was hired by Xerox?briefly as a consultant to help a few researchers run a version of PUP we did for BSD Unix. I do? not think 3Com ever did sell PUP. Xerox tried to come up with a new generation protocol which they called Xerox Network Systems which is probably what was meant. XNS used 48-bit addresses, while PUP used only 16 bits and TCP/IP used 32 bits. The irony was that Novell tried to implement XNS from the specifications, but made a few byte-swapping errors. This Novell variant was arguably the most commercially sucessful internet protocol as part of their NetWare product during its short heyday in the 1980s. ? So spinning this history to either?the political left or right is clearly misleading. Internet technology is a very good example of what government's role should be: fund the research, then get out of the way and let the market competitive forces drive products. The more interesting debate is what the government role is later after the technology matures. Do they subsidize the entrenched interests who can afford lobbyists (the phone company and cable TV model), or act as referee to attempt to keep the marketplace competitive (at the expense of perhaps hampering the innovation). But those are opinions creeping in again. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Sun Jul 29 11:02:51 2012 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:02:51 -0400 Subject: [ih] NBC and TBL Message-ID: Just for anyone who missed it. Clip is here. http://ethanklapper.tumblr.com/post/28164455886/meredith-vieira-doesnt-know-who-tim-berners-lee -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - From jack at 3kitty.org Sun Jul 29 14:00:26 2012 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:00:26 -0700 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <1343581651.55279.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> <79c13e81de2230fd12ce7ef5a073d8af.squirrel@webmail.ic.unicamp.br> <1343581651.55279.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Bill, We probably ran into each other in some hallway at PARC. Yes, there was a lot of cross-fertilization back then - and not just in the research communities. I think the government played a role in "internet technology" that was much more than "fund research and get out of the way". It proactively constructed the way, filling holes and removing obstacles to create "the way" which then was the easiest (and most profitable) path for others to take. I've always wondered if that decades-long activity was orchestrated or just happened by a collection of smaller random quantum events. I experienced a few of these government efforts. No doubt there were many many others. Here's some I can remember. The government: - funded the creation of the Arpanet as a research tool, and the deployment of multiple Arpanet clones in operational environments - funded software development of TCP implementations for a wide variety of computers, making sure there were equipment choices available that could use the Internet. - established TCP/IP as an official DoD Standard, much to the chagrin of many researchers (guilty!) who didn't think it was ready (there was always a never-shrinking list of issues to be researched) - directed work at government labs into the TCP-based technology. I recall discussing the IP "source quench" with someone working on TCP at the Army's Ballistic Research Lab, and the difficulty of getting a host to actually stop sending traffic. We joked about "Ballistic Source Quench" as a possible technique using some ordnance they had lying around. - applied procurement rules so that contracts for any project using computers had to be able to use TCP. In other words, the government created a market, into which the Internet industry could grow, and guaranteed at least one huge customer. It thereby motivated the broader technical industry to figure out how to incorporate TCP into their products and services, or risk losing future government contracts. It removed the ability for different parts of the government (DoD) to make different choices of technology; if it communicated, it had to be TCP. - adopted the Internet TCP/IP technology as the basis for its own operational networks. In marketing lingo, this is "eating your own dog food", and shows that the technology not only works, but is trusted for non-research uses. - modified the Arpanet, in January 1983, so that only computers using TCP would be able to communicate, after a long warning period; funded development of tools and services to assist government systems contractors in preparing their existing operational systems to survive the transition - scuttled the pre-existing plans to implement the next generation DoD communications system called Autodin-II, and contracted instead to build the Defense Data Network, using proven Arpanet technology, which made a clear path to internet evolution - funded the definition and development of operational rules, procedures, mechanisms, and techniques to enable the reliable operation of non-research networks by people who weren't the ones who wrote the code. This was crucial to scaling the Internet. - proactively marketed the Internet technology within the government into non-research organizations, who had been using their own "Arpanet clone" networks and faced the same challenges of communicating across multiple networks. I recall one meeting where Vint presented the Internet slideshow to the guy in charge of a very large existing non-research network with many hosts. When the slide showing the current Internet map - the standard boxes-and-lines graphic - was shown, his reaction was "That's it! I want one of those." His aides, sitting behind him, were taking notes. He got his own TCP-based internet. There were other such vignettes. Such marketing created a growing demand for commercial TCP-based products and services and helped establish an Internet industry. - marketed TCP into other governments, especially in Europe, through collaboration and joint projects - by instilling TCP technology into a wide range of educational institutions, e.g., through NSFNet and CSNet, created a large and growing pool of skilled labor, emerging from school for employment by the technology industry as well as institutions using of TCP-based systems. These new employees usually didn't know how to use other internet technologies, but were well-versed in TCP. - by establishing the Internet as a visible, reliable, and available networking approach, created demand from non-governmental early adopters. I did some work in the late 80s with companies on Wall Street, who were feverishly building their own Internet systems. They chose TCP because it worked, did not lock them into any single vendor, and most importantly it allowed them to make more money. At that point, the government didn't have to "step out of the way". It just became one of the many, many customers. IMHO, none of the activities I've listed above would be categorized typically as "funding research". They are more like the steps a company follows to create a successful product-line and crush the competition. With 2 billion users now, and all the competitors gone, it seems they did a hell of a job too. I still wonder if this was orchestrated and if so by whom. If Xerox, or IBM, or Novell, CCITT/ISO, or any of the other contemporary competitors building internet technology had done the same things, The Internet today might be running on X.25/X.75, or carrying PUPs, or using SPX/IPX, instead of TCP/IP. But they didn't. The government(s) did. /Jack Haverty On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Bill Nowicki wrote: > Most of this has been discussed much already, but I just wanted to add my > chorus to those who point out how much cross-fertilization there was in > those days. Remember Xerox PARC is on Stanford land, and not only did many > of us work as summer interns, they gave us "no fee consulting" agreements so > that we could bicycle up the hill to attend "dealers" that sounded > interesting and collaborate on other projects as Xerox people would also > listen in on seminars. People like Dave Boggs (Ethernet co-inventor) and > John Shoch were Stanford graduate students, and many others were students of > CMU, MIT, Berkeley, etc. which were all ARPA contractors. The ARPA-funded > (along with other government agencies) projects at SRI like NLS were also > clearly connected by some of the same people. Xerox even designed and built > a computer (jokingly called "MAXC" which makes another great anecdote) > specifically to run the TENEX operating system of BBN and put it on the > ARPANET. > > So as usual real history is more complicated that pundits like to convey. > > It might be safe to say that PUP was the first working corporate internet > ("intranet" was not coined yet). It did have multiple different computer > architectures and network technology from the start, but did not have the > multi-organizational issues of the ARPA/netInternet. To follow PUP is also > interesting. I was hired by Xerox briefly as a consultant to help a few > researchers run a version of PUP we did for BSD Unix. I do not think 3Com > ever did sell PUP. Xerox tried to come up with a new generation protocol > which they called Xerox Network Systems which is probably what was meant. > XNS used 48-bit addresses, while PUP used only 16 bits and TCP/IP used 32 > bits. The irony was that Novell tried to implement XNS from the > specifications, but made a few byte-swapping errors. This Novell variant was > arguably the most commercially sucessful internet protocol as part of their > NetWare product during its short heyday in the 1980s. > > So spinning this history to either the political left or right is clearly > misleading. Internet technology is a very good example of what government's > role should be: fund the research, then get out of the way and let the > market competitive forces drive products. The more interesting debate is > what the government role is later after the technology matures. Do they > subsidize the entrenched interests who can afford lobbyists (the phone > company and cable TV model), or act as referee to attempt to keep the > marketplace competitive (at the expense of perhaps hampering the > innovation). But those are opinions creeping in again. From winowicki at yahoo.com Sun Jul 29 15:01:32 2012 From: winowicki at yahoo.com (Bill Nowicki) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:01:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> <79c13e81de2230fd12ce7ef5a073d8af.squirrel@webmail.ic.unicamp.br> <1343581651.55279.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1343599292.47907.YahooMailNeo@web125404.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Oh yes, I agree with Jack Haverty's points. Perhaps I was guilt of the same sin by trying to simplify. Indeed, the government's role is fuzzy, not a stark binary choice at all. Sorry if I was not clear. What I was trying to say was that?governments (not just the US for that matter)?generally provided?(maybe not always) the right mix of some central coordination with healthy competition. So it was not a step function, but rather a transition over a couple decades as efforts took a life of their own (IETF, InterOp, ISOC, etc.), while continuing to fund the research and educational communities to buy the tools they needed to design the next generation.?? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scott.brim at gmail.com Sun Jul 29 18:29:09 2012 From: scott.brim at gmail.com (Scott Brim) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:29:09 -0700 Subject: [ih] NBC and TBL In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Joly MacFie wrote: > Just for anyone who missed it. Clip is here. > > http://ethanklapper.tumblr.com/post/28164455886/meredith-vieira-doesnt-know-who-tim-berners-lee and cellular SMS has nothing to do with the WWW in any case. From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Sun Jul 29 20:14:15 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 20:14:15 -0700 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> <79c13e81de2230fd12ce7ef5a073d8af.squirrel@webmail.ic.unicamp.br> <1343581651.55279.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5015FC07.90801@dcrocker.net> On 7/29/2012 2:00 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > If Xerox, or IBM, or Novell, CCITT/ISO, or any of the other > contemporary competitors building internet technology had done the > same things, The Internet today might be running on X.25/X.75, or > carrying PUPs, or using SPX/IPX, instead of TCP/IP. As a diffusion of innovation theoretical exercise, this might hypothesis might we worth considering. I could easily believe that XNS was capability of enjoying the same fate as what developed for TCP/IP. I don't know what changes Novell made to their XNS, nee SPX/IPX, but if it wasn't too bad, I'll class that as fate-sharing with XNS. I don't believe for one minute that X.25/X.75 were capable of the kind of usage TCP/IP has experienced. The complexity and limitations they imposed seem to me to require massively more expensive and massively less flexible, robust, etc., etc., operation. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jack at 3kitty.org Sun Jul 29 21:00:12 2012 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 21:00:12 -0700 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <5015FC07.90801@dcrocker.net> References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> <79c13e81de2230fd12ce7ef5a073d8af.squirrel@webmail.ic.unicamp.br> <1343581651.55279.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <5015FC07.90801@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: I didn't mean that, in some alternate universe, the "internet today" based on not-TCP would necessarily be anything like The TCP-based Internet that we are actually experiencing in our universe. It might be much smaller, more expensive, slower, provide less functionality, etc. But if one of those competitors had been more proactive and successful at nurturing their technology, and the government had not nurtured TCP as I outlined, some alternate Internet might have come into existence, rather than the TCP-based one. That other "Internet" would exist, but I suspect we wouldn't like it. Actually there *was* an alternate "Internet" using X.75, and as I recall it was virtually unusable - slow, unreliable, and expensive. I forgot to mention other competitors, e.g., Appletalk, DECNet, SNA (which had "gateways"), and probably more that I've forgotten. /Jack On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > On 7/29/2012 2:00 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: >> >> If Xerox, or IBM, or Novell, CCITT/ISO, or any of the other >> contemporary competitors building internet technology had done the >> same things, The Internet today might be running on X.25/X.75, or >> carrying PUPs, or using SPX/IPX, instead of TCP/IP. > > > > As a diffusion of innovation theoretical exercise, this might hypothesis > might we worth considering. > > I could easily believe that XNS was capability of enjoying the same fate as > what developed for TCP/IP. I don't know what changes Novell made to their > XNS, nee SPX/IPX, but if it wasn't too bad, I'll class that as fate-sharing > with XNS. > > I don't believe for one minute that X.25/X.75 were capable of the kind of > usage TCP/IP has experienced. The complexity and limitations they imposed > seem to me to require massively more expensive and massively less flexible, > robust, etc., etc., operation. > > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Sun Jul 29 21:06:29 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 21:06:29 -0700 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> <79c13e81de2230fd12ce7ef5a073d8af.squirrel@webmail.ic.unicamp.br> <1343581651.55279.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <5015FC07.90801@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <50160845.5030507@dcrocker.net> On 7/29/2012 9:00 PM, Jack Haverty wrote: > I didn't mean that, in some alternate universe, the "internet today" > based on not-TCP would necessarily be anything like The TCP-based > Internet that we are actually experiencing in our universe. It might > be much smaller, more expensive, slower, provide less functionality, Well, I think one of the interesting aspects of an exercise like this is to consider what the important differences might have been and whether any of them could be classed as showstoppers. Remember a world of telephone monopoly, with literally everything that touched the network required to come from the operator. We well might have wound up with a global digital network that would have been more like that than the significantly more competitive and varied and robust and... that we do have. In any event, your extended list of government proactive efforts for TCP/IP usage are well-taken. But to riff off of a phrase that Marshall Rose coined -- with enough thrust, pigs /can/ fly -- some of the alternatives would have required planetary levels of thrust. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From marty at martylyons.com Sun Jul 29 23:25:09 2012 From: marty at martylyons.com (Marty Lyons) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 23:25:09 -0700 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <5015FC07.90801@dcrocker.net> References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> <79c13e81de2230fd12ce7ef5a073d8af.squirrel@webmail.ic.unicamp.br> <1343581651.55279.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <5015FC07.90801@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <5C314FDB-B7A2-42DC-B16F-08A0BBC42FFE@martylyons.com> On Jul 29, 2012, at 8:14 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > I don't believe for one minute that X.25/X.75 were capable of the kind of usage TCP/IP has experienced. The complexity and limitations they imposed seem to me to require massively more expensive and massively less flexible, robust, etc., etc., operation. In the U.S. some of the X.25 universe of companies included Telenet (last owner: Sprint), Uninet (part of Sprint circa 1986), and Tymnet (last owner: MCI/Verizon). There were some other networks as well, but Telenet and Tymnet continued operating the longest until being replaced by the IP backbones of their parent companies. I'm not sure of the final dates but I seem to recall sometime around 1997 the last X.25 backbones were withdrawn for new connections. One of the principle reasons X.25 failed was the utter complexity of getting reliable and fairly priced billing contracts. Back in 1982 the lab I worked at ran both a Telenet and Uninet node, and the bills were very expensive and difficult to verify for correctness. Around 1985, I got the same lab connected to BITNET on a 9600bps leased line, and the accounting was simple -- one flat rate per month. BITNET took off in terms of universities joining because all you needed was two CSUs, a friendly partner site to connect to, and a little bit of money for a circuit (this was still in the era of requiring government sponsorship for ARPA connectivity, so this was the easiest way to get a dedicated campus connection). Almost every BITNET site ended up with a fully loaded circuit very quickly, particularly when the undergrads discovered online chatting (see stories elsewhere of how BITNET RELAY almost shut down the network due to load). In 1993, building the network at America Online I found that our X.25 providers were sending us massive bills and we still couldn't get a handle on the finances (ten years after my university days and apparently nothing had changed). We moved as fast as possible to trunk all the traffic on IP backhaul. So one argument in why the Internet (in all its component parts) has succeeded was the simplicity of bit accounting -- get a leased line, and pay one price for the connection per month, independent of loading of the circuit. Buying channels or a full T-span has always made much more sense than paying a X.25 carrier to account for your packets, route them correctly, and manage load balancing in their cloud -- which never seemed to be handled well, since the routing tables had to be updated by hand and pushed to the control nodes. TCP/IP moved us from a world of "the phone company" where the model was charge-by-packet and let someone else do network control, to simple finances and control of our own network management. There was just no way financially or administratively X.25 stood a chance once NSF dropped the AUP, and people could buy a Cisco router, call UUnet/CIX member and get connected directly. X.25 was the mainframe of the networking world (centralized control), TCP/IP was the IBM PC (decentralized). Around 1995, I had conversations with several (different) IP backbone providers which were trying to figure out how to sell connections with bit rate billing. Thankfully that never happened. I got the impression that some were close to floating it as a product though. Having run networks of every one of those "other" protocols (SNA, DECnet, XNS, SPX/IPX), it was a happier time when they all finally seemed to go away. Of all of the alternatives, XNS was probably the most interesting and if Xerox had licensed it correctly, it may have had wider use. And SNA continues to live on in private environments -- some quite substantial. Side story on deployment in interesting places: I converted all of South Pole Station, Antarctica to TCP/IP in November 1991. Previously the station used a mix of various protocols. The Suns were ready out of box, but once the Vaxen has TGV MultiNet installed, the pole was free from gulag DECnet and we enabled lots more science to happen by installing freeware IP clients on PCs and Macs. Marty From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Jul 30 04:39:47 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:39:47 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <50160845.5030507@dcrocker.net> References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> <79c13e81de2230fd12ce7ef5a073d8af.squirrel@webmail.ic.unicamp.br> <1343581651.55279.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <5015FC07.90801@dcrocker.net> <50160845.5030507@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <0C815F22-4FF9-4BFD-88FA-91D0BBFA441A@istaff.org> On Jul 30, 2012, at 12:06 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > Remember a world of telephone monopoly, with literally everything that touched the network required to come from the operator. We well might have wound up with a global digital network that would have been more like that than the significantly more competitive and varied and robust and... that we do have. Than we have _at present_... What we actually wind up for the Internet remains an open question, as those governments which still have telephone monopolies are giving it their best shot to move the Internet to more formally tariffed and controlled model. While the benefits of the present system are apparent to many of us, it is not the case with large commercial "near monopolies" (who are concerned with a perceived mismatch of revenues/costs between content and carriage), nor for those telecommunications ministers in developing countries (who have a real and compelling concern about the economic impact from eroding international access settlement charges due to popularity of VoIP). Both of these communities are advocating for increased regulation and introduction of tariff models for the Internet via the upcoming ITU World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) this December in Dubai [1][2]. While it is easy to dismiss the decisions of individual governments in their ability impact the Internet (due the ability of the Internet to "route around" damage, ala John Gilmore's quote), there are ultimate limits to this ability, and an adverse decision by this international regulatory body could easily exceed our ability to maintain the present open Internet structure. FYI, /John [1] http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120709_carriage_vs_content/ [2] http://www.techcentral.ie/19106/eu-carriers-were-not-asking-the-un-for-internet-taxes From vint at google.com Mon Jul 30 04:39:57 2012 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:39:57 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <5C314FDB-B7A2-42DC-B16F-08A0BBC42FFE@martylyons.com> References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> <79c13e81de2230fd12ce7ef5a073d8af.squirrel@webmail.ic.unicamp.br> <1343581651.55279.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <5015FC07.90801@dcrocker.net> <5C314FDB-B7A2-42DC-B16F-08A0BBC42FFE@martylyons.com> Message-ID: TYMNET engineering eventually ended up reporting to me when I was still at MCI/Worldcom. In 2003, if memory serves, one of my engineers, Scott Huddle, planned and oversaw the shutdown of the MCI TYMNET x.25 service. Considering that x.25 was standardized around 1976, that's a pretty good run. Of course, TYMNET was started earlier than that, around 1968, using the "colored ball" protocols and given a patina of x.25 when that became the preferred interface for packet networking. British Telecom continued to operated its portion of the X.25 TYMNET until 2004 (see Wikipedia for TYMNET). v On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 2:25 AM, Marty Lyons wrote: > > On Jul 29, 2012, at 8:14 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > >> I don't believe for one minute that X.25/X.75 were capable of the kind of usage TCP/IP has experienced. The complexity and limitations they imposed seem to me to require massively more expensive and massively less flexible, robust, etc., etc., operation. > > In the U.S. some of the X.25 universe of companies included Telenet (last owner: Sprint), Uninet (part of Sprint circa 1986), and Tymnet (last owner: MCI/Verizon). There were some other networks as well, but Telenet and Tymnet continued operating the longest until being replaced by the IP backbones of their parent companies. I'm not sure of the final dates but I seem to recall sometime around 1997 the last X.25 backbones were withdrawn for new connections. > > One of the principle reasons X.25 failed was the utter complexity of getting reliable and fairly priced billing contracts. Back in 1982 the lab I worked at ran both a Telenet and Uninet node, and the bills were very expensive and difficult to verify for correctness. Around 1985, I got the same lab connected to BITNET on a 9600bps leased line, and the accounting was simple -- one flat rate per month. BITNET took off in terms of universities joining because all you needed was two CSUs, a friendly partner site to connect to, and a little bit of money for a circuit (this was still in the era of requiring government sponsorship for ARPA connectivity, so this was the easiest way to get a dedicated campus connection). Almost every BITNET site ended up with a fully loaded circuit very quickly, particularly when the undergrads discovered online chatting (see stories elsewhere of how BITNET RELAY almost shut down the network due to load). > > In 1993, building the network at America Online I found that our X.25 providers were sending us massive bills and we still couldn't get a handle on the finances (ten years after my university days and apparently nothing had changed). We moved as fast as possible to trunk all the traffic on IP backhaul. > > So one argument in why the Internet (in all its component parts) has succeeded was the simplicity of bit accounting -- get a leased line, and pay one price for the connection per month, independent of loading of the circuit. Buying channels or a full T-span has always made much more sense than paying a X.25 carrier to account for your packets, route them correctly, and manage load balancing in their cloud -- which never seemed to be handled well, since the routing tables had to be updated by hand and pushed to the control nodes. > > TCP/IP moved us from a world of "the phone company" where the model was charge-by-packet and let someone else do network control, to simple finances and control of our own network management. There was just no way financially or administratively X.25 stood a chance once NSF dropped the AUP, and people could buy a Cisco router, call UUnet/CIX member and get connected directly. X.25 was the mainframe of the networking world (centralized control), TCP/IP was the IBM PC (decentralized). > > Around 1995, I had conversations with several (different) IP backbone providers which were trying to figure out how to sell connections with bit rate billing. Thankfully that never happened. I got the impression that some were close to floating it as a product though. > > Having run networks of every one of those "other" protocols (SNA, DECnet, XNS, SPX/IPX), it was a happier time when they all finally seemed to go away. Of all of the alternatives, XNS was probably the most interesting and if Xerox had licensed it correctly, it may have had wider use. And SNA continues to live on in private environments -- some quite substantial. > > Side story on deployment in interesting places: I converted all of South Pole Station, Antarctica to TCP/IP in November 1991. Previously the station used a mix of various protocols. The Suns were ready out of box, but once the Vaxen has TGV MultiNet installed, the pole was free from gulag DECnet and we enabled lots more science to happen by installing freeware IP clients on PCs and Macs. > > Marty > > From craig at aland.bbn.com Mon Jul 30 05:04:59 2012 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:04:59 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") Message-ID: <20120730120459.8692E28E137@aland.bbn.com> > But to riff off of a phrase that Marshall Rose coined -- with enough > thrust, pigs /can/ fly -- some of the alternatives would have required > planetary levels of thrust. I think Marshall was riffing off Milo Medin's comment "with enough thrust, anything can fly" -- give that Milo was at NASA at the time, I wouldn't be surprised if Milo was using an internal NASA idiom. Thanks! Craig From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Mon Jul 30 05:43:07 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 05:43:07 -0700 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <20120730120459.8692E28E137@aland.bbn.com> References: <20120730120459.8692E28E137@aland.bbn.com> Message-ID: <5016815B.4090505@dcrocker.net> On 7/30/2012 5:04 AM, Craig Partridge wrote: >> But to riff off of a phrase that Marshall Rose coined -- with enough >> thrust, pigs /can/ fly -- some of the alternatives would have required >> planetary levels of thrust. > > I think Marshall was riffing off Milo Medin's comment "with enough thrust, > anything can fly" -- give that Milo was at NASA at the time, I wouldn't be > surprised if Milo was using an internal NASA idiom. That's possible, but I see the elaboration as emphasizing quality issues that are more subtly encoded in Milo's form. For most IETF-related discussions that might benefit from this type of comment, they tend to need to be made with directness and force, not subtlety. In any event, Marshall's form is more entertaining... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From bill.n1vux at gmail.com Mon Jul 30 06:23:17 2012 From: bill.n1vux at gmail.com (Bill Ricker) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:23:17 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <50160845.5030507@dcrocker.net> References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> <79c13e81de2230fd12ce7ef5a073d8af.squirrel@webmail.ic.unicamp.br> <1343581651.55279.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <5015FC07.90801@dcrocker.net> <50160845.5030507@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: > In any event, your extended list of government proactive efforts for > TCP/IP usage are well-taken. > > But to riff off of a phrase that Marshall Rose coined -- with enough > thrust, pigs /can/ fly -- some of the alternatives would have required > planetary levels of thrust. > Most on the list will remember, but so far only a side reference to AutoDIN-II has acknowledged that US Government support for further development of TCP/IP was once not a forgone conclusion. Shortly after the TCP/IP Flagday, much of the US Government was actively hostile to TCP/IP and proactively supporting OSI. The ISO OSI "ISORM" was mandated for civil and military procurements, much as ADA was for military. I've never been clear on whether this was a DOD peace treaty with NBS/NIST, or an attempt to bring NATO on-board for air-land-battle interop without offending them with US-centric standards, or undue influence from vendors who had greater sway in ANSI/ISO commitees than in NWG's where vendor advantage was not a proper concern. Probably an unholy combination. Some latterday supporters of TCP/IP were in the day actively selling the on-paper elegant, in practice baroque or not yet implemented, vendor-sponsored OSI style, calculating how much thrust their pig would require. (I was a couple doors down from Mike Padlipsky in the mid-80's -- I was on the periphery of the ADA vs MLS and Kernel vs Crypto battles -- so had a ring-side seat as one of Mike's confidants. I am the party guilty of referring his Tea Bag Papers to the PH Field-Editor, which Mike then expanded into /The Elements of Networking Style/. Hence my life sentence as Literary Heir.) Cheers (as Mike taught us to say), Bill Ricker custodian of the Padlipsky Archive @n1vux bill.n1vux at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Jul 30 06:51:16 2012 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:51:16 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> <79c13e81de2230fd12ce7ef5a073d8af.squirrel@webmail.ic.unicamp.br> <1343581651.55279.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <5015FC07.90801@dcrocker.net> <5C314FDB-B7A2-42DC-B16F-08A0BBC42FFE@martylyons.com> Message-ID: O, right! I had forgotten about the colored ball protocols. Good grief they were a mess! There was a rather well-known Tymnet paper in the mid-to-late 70s about them. When I read the paper back then it really gave the impression of a group stumbling into how a network works, rather than thinking it through first. They didn't see the flow control problems coming. It was all "wait until it happens and retrofit a fix." As to X.25, it suffered from what all ITU efforts suffer from: shooting for a market window 15 minutes in the future. Well that and trying emulate what they knew. There was no way anyone was going to handle even modest bandwidth with that protocol. Yet the Europeans kept insisting all through the 80s that it was the answer to everything. The earlier comment on the cost of accounting. That had nothing to do with the technology. One could have charged a flat fee for X.25 just as easily as for the Internet. It was more the perception of whether the resource was plentiful or scarce. Europe had always had the experience that everything was scarce (and they were a bunch of greedy bastards!) ;-) The fear that the PTTs in Europe would require attaching only their equipment was real and other onerous constraints. It was fighting that that caused Pouzin to be basically black listed. In the US, we had Carterphone, which would have prevented that. At 7:39 -0400 2012/07/30, Vint Cerf wrote: >TYMNET engineering eventually ended up reporting to me when I was >still at MCI/Worldcom. > >In 2003, if memory serves, one of my engineers, Scott Huddle, planned >and oversaw the shutdown of the MCI TYMNET x.25 service. Considering >that x.25 was standardized around 1976, that's a pretty good run. Of >course, TYMNET was started earlier than that, around 1968, using the >"colored ball" protocols and given a patina of x.25 when that became >the preferred interface for packet networking. British Telecom >continued to operated its portion of the X.25 TYMNET until 2004 (see >Wikipedia for TYMNET). > >v > > >On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 2:25 AM, Marty Lyons wrote: >> >> On Jul 29, 2012, at 8:14 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> >>> I don't believe for one minute that X.25/X.75 were capable of the >>>kind of usage TCP/IP has experienced. The complexity and >>>limitations they imposed seem to me to require massively more >>>expensive and massively less flexible, robust, etc., etc., >>>operation. >> >> In the U.S. some of the X.25 universe of companies included >>Telenet (last owner: Sprint), Uninet (part of Sprint circa 1986), >>and Tymnet (last owner: MCI/Verizon). There were some other >>networks as well, but Telenet and Tymnet continued operating the >>longest until being replaced by the IP backbones of their parent >>companies. I'm not sure of the final dates but I seem to recall >>sometime around 1997 the last X.25 backbones were withdrawn for new >>connections. >> >> One of the principle reasons X.25 failed was the utter complexity >>of getting reliable and fairly priced billing contracts. Back in >>1982 the lab I worked at ran both a Telenet and Uninet node, and >>the bills were very expensive and difficult to verify for >>correctness. Around 1985, I got the same lab connected to BITNET >>on a 9600bps leased line, and the accounting was simple -- one flat >>rate per month. BITNET took off in terms of universities joining >>because all you needed was two CSUs, a friendly partner site to >>connect to, and a little bit of money for a circuit (this was still >>in the era of requiring government sponsorship for ARPA >>connectivity, so this was the easiest way to get a dedicated campus >>connection). Almost every BITNET site ended up with a fully loaded >>circuit very quickly, particularly when the undergrads discovered >>online chatting (see stories elsewhere of how BITNET RELAY almost >>shut down the network due to load). > > >> In 1993, building the network at America Online I found that our >>X.25 providers were sending us massive bills and we still couldn't >>get a handle on the finances (ten years after my university days >>and apparently nothing had changed). We moved as fast as possible >>to trunk all the traffic on IP backhaul. >> >> So one argument in why the Internet (in all its component parts) >>has succeeded was the simplicity of bit accounting -- get a leased >>line, and pay one price for the connection per month, independent >>of loading of the circuit. Buying channels or a full T-span has >>always made much more sense than paying a X.25 carrier to account >>for your packets, route them correctly, and manage load balancing >>in their cloud -- which never seemed to be handled well, since the >>routing tables had to be updated by hand and pushed to the control >>nodes. >> >> TCP/IP moved us from a world of "the phone company" where the >>model was charge-by-packet and let someone else do network control, >>to simple finances and control of our own network management. There >>was just no way financially or administratively X.25 stood a chance >>once NSF dropped the AUP, and people could buy a Cisco router, call >>UUnet/CIX member and get connected directly. X.25 was the >>mainframe of the networking world (centralized control), TCP/IP was >>the IBM PC (decentralized). >> >> Around 1995, I had conversations with several (different) IP >>backbone providers which were trying to figure out how to sell >>connections with bit rate billing. Thankfully that never happened. >>I got the impression that some were close to floating it as a >>product though. >> >> Having run networks of every one of those "other" protocols (SNA, >>DECnet, XNS, SPX/IPX), it was a happier time when they all finally >>seemed to go away. Of all of the alternatives, XNS was probably >>the most interesting and if Xerox had licensed it correctly, it may >>have had wider use. And SNA continues to live on in private >>environments -- some quite substantial. >> >> Side story on deployment in interesting places: I converted all of >>South Pole Station, Antarctica to TCP/IP in November 1991. >>Previously the station used a mix of various protocols. The Suns >>were ready out of box, but once the Vaxen has TGV MultiNet >>installed, the pole was free from gulag DECnet and we enabled lots >>more science to happen by installing freeware IP clients on PCs and >>Macs. >> >> Marty >> >> From bernie at fantasyfarm.com Mon Jul 30 06:51:12 2012 From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:51:12 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com>, <50160845.5030507@dcrocker.net>, Message-ID: <50169150.6934.5D5E8743@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> On 30 Jul 2012 at 9:23, Bill Ricker wrote: > Most on the list will remember, but so far only a side reference to > AutoDIN-II hasacknowledgedthat US Government support for further > development of TCP/IP was once not a forgone conclusion. Actually, wasn't it less than that: if I remember correctly AutoDIN-II was first awarded to Western Union. BBN's proposal [for an ARPAnet-like network] lost. I wasn't involved with what happened, but that all fell apart or never worked or something and they ended up re-awarding the contract. /bernie\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie at fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From vint at google.com Mon Jul 30 06:52:43 2012 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:52:43 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> <79c13e81de2230fd12ce7ef5a073d8af.squirrel@webmail.ic.unicamp.br> <1343581651.55279.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <5015FC07.90801@dcrocker.net> <50160845.5030507@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: the unexpected about-face towards OSI by DOD raised my blood pressure. I am reasonably sure this came from the DCA people who touted X.25 and lambasted datagrams and TCP/IP. I am not sure why NIST too the OSI path but I guess the idea that it was an ISO standards effort led some to think it was unlikely that a DOD-developed protocol would ever be acceptable to the rest of the world while the cold war was one, etc. hah! v On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Bill Ricker wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> >> In any event, your extended list of government proactive efforts for >> TCP/IP usage are well-taken. >> >> But to riff off of a phrase that Marshall Rose coined -- with enough >> thrust, pigs /can/ fly -- some of the alternatives would have required >> planetary levels of thrust. > > > > Most on the list will remember, but so far only a side reference to > AutoDIN-II has acknowledged that US Government support for further > development of TCP/IP was once not a forgone conclusion. Shortly after the > TCP/IP Flagday, much of the US Government was actively hostile to TCP/IP and > proactively supporting OSI. > > The ISO OSI "ISORM" was mandated for civil and military procurements, much > as ADA was for military. I've never been clear on whether this was a DOD > peace treaty with NBS/NIST, or an attempt to bring NATO on-board for > air-land-battle interop without offending them with US-centric standards, or > undue influence from vendors who had greater sway in ANSI/ISO commitees than > in NWG's where vendor advantage was not a proper concern. Probably an unholy > combination. Some latterday supporters of TCP/IP were in the day actively > selling the on-paper elegant, in practice baroque or not yet implemented, > vendor-sponsored OSI style, calculating how much thrust their pig would > require. > > (I was a couple doors down from Mike Padlipsky in the mid-80's -- I was on > the periphery of the ADA vs MLS and Kernel vs Crypto battles -- so had a > ring-side seat as one of Mike's confidants. I am the party guilty of > referring his Tea Bag Papers to the PH Field-Editor, which Mike then > expanded into /The Elements of Networking Style/. Hence my life sentence as > Literary Heir.) > > Cheers (as Mike taught us to say), > > Bill Ricker > custodian of the Padlipsky Archive > @n1vux bill.n1vux at gmail.com From vint at google.com Mon Jul 30 07:14:39 2012 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:14:39 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <50169150.6934.5D5E8743@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> <50160845.5030507@dcrocker.net> <50169150.6934.5D5E8743@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: Peter Sevcik was deeply involved in AUTODINII as I recall. Was Heidi Heiden in charge on the military side? v On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Bernie Cosell wrote: > On 30 Jul 2012 at 9:23, Bill Ricker wrote: > >> Most on the list will remember, but so far only a side reference to >> AutoDIN-II hasacknowledgedthat US Government support for further >> development of TCP/IP was once not a forgone conclusion. > > Actually, wasn't it less than that: if I remember correctly AutoDIN-II > was first awarded to Western Union. BBN's proposal [for an ARPAnet-like > network] lost. I wasn't involved with what happened, but that all fell > apart or never worked or something and they ended up re-awarding the > contract. > > /bernie\ > > -- > Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers > mailto:bernie at fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA > --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- > > > From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Mon Jul 30 07:17:45 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:17:45 -0700 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> <79c13e81de2230fd12ce7ef5a073d8af.squirrel@webmail.ic.unicamp.br> <1343581651.55279.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <5015FC07.90801@dcrocker.net> <50160845.5030507@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <50169789.5020408@dcrocker.net> On 7/30/2012 6:52 AM, Vint Cerf wrote: > the unexpected about-face towards OSI by DOD raised my blood pressure. > I am reasonably sure this came from the DCA people who touted X.25 and > lambasted datagrams and TCP/IP. I am not sure why NIST too the OSI > path but I guess the idea that it was an ISO standards effort led some > to think it was unlikely that a DOD-developed protocol would ever be > acceptable to the rest of the world while the cold war was one, etc. By most measures, the OSI work had more than enough formal thrust to fly. Governments and major corporations were all thoroughly committed to it, for a very long time and with quite a lot of money.[1] We ought to learn lessons from its failure. While some of us easily rattle of our favorite lists of reasons we think the Internet stuff won[2], I don't recall seeing a careful analysis by a professional historian, reporter, sociologist, economist or the like. The importance of such an analysis should be to provide a cautionary tale to those who think that powerful, formal support ensures success. d/ [1] In the late 80s, I managed a shop that did TCP/IP stacks, including for DEC's VMS. 25% of my revenue came from customers in Europe, the supposed hot-bed for OSI. What I concluded was the OSI had established the market need, but hadn't satisfied it. In fact, one of my customers ran the IT operation for ISO! I asked him about the irony of this and with no smile he said he was assigned a job to do and his only concern was making sure it got done. He could do it with TCP/IP and he couldn't do it with OSI. I think it was his statement that convinced me which side would win this particular war. [2] Mine attributes the primary reason to the Internet's having operational end-to-end service that was useful. Actual practice beats theories about future use and utility any day. I think that the recent comment on the list about the flat-fee pricing structure is also likely correct. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Mon Jul 30 07:20:21 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:20:21 -0700 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <50169150.6934.5D5E8743@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com>, <50160845.5030507@dcrocker.net>, <50169150.6934.5D5E8743@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: <50169825.8050900@dcrocker.net> On 7/30/2012 6:51 AM, Bernie Cosell wrote: > Actually, wasn't it less than that: if I remember correctly AutoDIN-II > was first awarded to Western Union. BBN's proposal [for an ARPAnet-like > network] lost. I wasn't involved with what happened, but that all fell > apart or never worked or something and they ended up re-awarding the > contract. As I recall, Western Union did a fresh, cumbersome system that would have had relatively few super-nodes around the country and the design was so bad it needed to be kills. The decision was to 'accept' the work, declare it done, and then drop it in favor of a replicated Arpanet technology from BBN. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From dave.walden.family at gmail.com Mon Jul 30 07:29:49 2012 From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (Dave Walden) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:29:49 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <50169150.6934.5D5E8743@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> <50160845.5030507@dcrocker.net> <50169150.6934.5D5E8743@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: <501698ff.ac1d340a.6fef.3903@mx.google.com> The Western Union team won the Autodin-II procurement. The BBN team lost (at least partly by not being adequately responsive to what the government asked for the in request for proposal -- this is not speculation). Western Union had trouble meeting its development milestones (perhaps partly by agreeing to what the government asked for in its request for proposal -- this is speculation). Eventually the government held a new procurement with the BBN team and the WU teams bidding with government people somehow participating in each team's bidding. The BBN team was chosen to adapt the ARPANET technology to become DDN. The WU Autodin-II contract was then canceled with the government paying money to the WU team to end the contract. That's how I remember it. Peter Sevcik probably knows the story more precisely. At 09:51 AM 7/30/2012, Bernie Cosell wrote: >Actually, wasn't it less than that: if I remember correctly AutoDIN-II >was first awarded to Western Union. BBN's proposal [for an ARPAnet-like >network] lost. I wasn't involved with what happened, but that all fell >apart or never worked or something and they ended up re-awarding the >contract. From dave.walden.family at gmail.com Mon Jul 30 07:37:10 2012 From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (Dave Walden) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:37:10 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> <50160845.5030507@dcrocker.net> <50169150.6934.5D5E8743@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: <50169ab6.ac1d340a.6fef.39a7@mx.google.com> At 10:14 AM 7/30/2012, Vint Cerf wrote: >Peter Sevcik was deeply involved in AUTODINII as I recall. Was Heidi >Heiden in charge on the military side? >Peter was involved in Autodin-II and then with the BBN adoption of >the ARPANET technology for DDN which is why he knows all sides of the story. I think Heidi might have been one of the government people (see my immediately prior message) who participated in (guided?) BBN's proposal for the adoption of the ARPANET technology for DDN. I definitely remember him being involved in DDN once BBN's solution was selected. Alex will know more about this, as of course will Peter. -- home address: 12 Linden Rd., E. Sandwich, MA 02537 home ph=508-888-7655; cell ph = 503-757-3137 email address: dave at walden-family.com; website: http://www.walden-family.com/bbn/ From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Jul 30 07:49:53 2012 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:49:53 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <50169825.8050900@dcrocker.net> References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com>, <50160845.5030507@dcrocker.net>, <50169150.6934.5D5E8743@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> <50169825.8050900@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: O, gawd, yes. On the day that contract was awarded, I predicted Western Union would crash and burn. It did, but sooner would have been better. Those were the days, when CSC produced a copy of the ARPANET that was 7 times slower. Given a working example, I still don't understand how they accomplished that! And they thought that opening a connection to send mail was too much trouble. They would just end it on the NCP control link! Arrrgh! It was hard to imagine how much dumber it could have been. Jack Benoit from MITRE said he held his breath and stamped his feet on that one so they changed the title of the document to Functional Specification of NCP to Non-Functional Specification of NCP. I kid you not! At 7:20 -0700 2012/07/30, Dave Crocker wrote: >On 7/30/2012 6:51 AM, Bernie Cosell wrote: >>Actually, wasn't it less than that: if I remember correctly AutoDIN-II >>was first awarded to Western Union. BBN's proposal [for an ARPAnet-like >>network] lost. I wasn't involved with what happened, but that all fell >>apart or never worked or something and they ended up re-awarding the >>contract. > > >As I recall, Western Union did a fresh, cumbersome system that would >have had relatively few super-nodes around the country and the >design was so bad it needed to be kills. The decision was to >'accept' the work, declare it done, and then drop it in favor of a >replicated Arpanet technology from BBN. > >d/ > >-- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From galmes at tamu.edu Mon Jul 30 07:51:20 2012 From: galmes at tamu.edu (Guy Almes) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:51:20 -0500 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> <79c13e81de2230fd12ce7ef5a073d8af.squirrel@webmail.ic.unicamp.br> <1343581651.55279.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <5015FC07.90801@dcrocker.net> <50160845.5030507@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <50169F68.9050101@tamu.edu> Bill et al., Just a short note apropos both (a) the unfortunate government drive to OSI of the 1980s and (b) Milo's distinctive sense of humor. At a late-1980s (or so) meeting of engineers from agency networks and some NSFnet regional folks, we were obliged to go around the table, reporting on how our networks were responding to the mandate to support the (at least connectionless) OSI protocols. People were routinely making polite and overly optimistic statements about how progress was being made, until it was Milo's turn to report for NASA. "NASA", said Milo with a mostly straight face, "is going to OSI , and to Mars, and to Pluto. But not necessarily in that order." From that moment, the meeting engaged in a greater degree of truth telling, and I personally reckon the doom of OSI from that moment. -- Guy On 7/30/12 8:23 AM, Bill Ricker wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Dave Crocker > wrote: > > In any event, your extended list of government proactive efforts for > TCP/IP usage are well-taken. > > But to riff off of a phrase that Marshall Rose coined -- with enough > thrust, pigs /can/ fly -- some of the alternatives would have > required planetary levels of thrust. > > > > Most on the list will remember, but so far only a side reference to > AutoDIN-II has acknowledged that US Government support for further > development of TCP/IP was once not a forgone conclusion. Shortly after > the TCP/IP Flagday, much of the US Government was actively hostile to > TCP/IP and proactively supporting OSI. > > The ISO OSI "ISORM" was mandated for civil and military procurements, > much as ADA was for military. I've never been clear on whether this was > a DOD peace treaty with NBS/NIST, or an attempt to bring NATO on-board > for air-land-battle interop without offending them with US-centric > standards, or undue influence from vendors who had greater sway in > ANSI/ISO commitees than in NWG's where vendor advantage was not a proper > concern. Probably an unholy combination. Some latterday supporters of > TCP/IP were in the day actively selling the on-paper elegant, in > practice baroque or not yet implemented, vendor-sponsored OSI style, > calculating how much thrust their pig would require. > > (I was a couple doors down from Mike Padlipsky in the mid-80's -- I was > on the periphery of the ADA vs MLS and Kernel vs Crypto battles -- so > had a ring-side seat as one of Mike's confidants. I am the party guilty > of referring his Tea Bag Papers to the PH Field-Editor, which Mike then > expanded into /The Elements of Networking Style/. Hence my life sentence > as Literary Heir.) > > Cheers (as Mike taught us to say), > > Bill Ricker > custodian of the Padlipsky Archive > @n1vux bill.n1vux at gmail.com From bernie at fantasyfarm.com Mon Jul 30 08:16:06 2012 From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:16:06 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com>, <50169825.8050900@dcrocker.net>, Message-ID: <5016A536.27021.5DAC4046@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> On 30 Jul 2012 at 10:49, John Day wrote: > Those were the days, when CSC produced a copy of the ARPANET that was > 7 times slower. Given a working example, I still don't understand > how they accomplished that! Maybe their programmers weren't as good...:o) /B\ -- Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers mailto:bernie at fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Jul 30 08:42:33 2012 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:42:33 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <5016A536.27021.5DAC4046@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com>, <50169825.8050900@dcrocker.net>, <5016A536.27021.5DAC4046@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: I thought it must have taken some kind of amazing talent! ;-) At 11:16 -0400 2012/07/30, Bernie Cosell wrote: >On 30 Jul 2012 at 10:49, John Day wrote: > >> Those were the days, when CSC produced a copy of the ARPANET that was >> 7 times slower. Given a working example, I still don't understand >> how they accomplished that! > >Maybe their programmers weren't as good...:o) > > /B\ > >-- >Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers >mailto:bernie at fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA > --> Too many people, too few sheep <-- From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Jul 30 08:44:31 2012 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:44:31 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <50169F68.9050101@tamu.edu> References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> <79c13e81de2230fd12ce7ef5a073d8af.squirrel@webmail.ic.unicamp.br> <1343581651.55279.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <5015FC07.90801@dcrocker.net> <50160845.5030507@dcrocker.net> <50169F68.9050101@tamu.edu> Message-ID: No, OSI committed suicide in 1979, when they decided to do the work jointly with the ITU. It was just a matter of time after that. The rest was just noise. OSI was killed by its own internal conflicts. At 9:51 -0500 2012/07/30, Guy Almes wrote: >Bill et al., > Just a short note apropos both (a) the unfortunate government >drive to OSI of the 1980s and (b) Milo's distinctive sense of humor. > > At a late-1980s (or so) meeting of engineers from agency networks >and some NSFnet regional folks, we were obliged to go around the >table, reporting on how our networks were responding to the mandate >to support the (at least connectionless) OSI protocols. > People were routinely making polite and overly optimistic >statements about how progress was being made, until it was Milo's >turn to report for NASA. > "NASA", said Milo with a mostly straight face, "is going to OSI >, and to Mars, and to Pluto. But not necessarily in >that order." > From that moment, the meeting engaged in a greater degree of truth >telling, and I personally reckon the doom of OSI from that moment. > > -- Guy > >On 7/30/12 8:23 AM, Bill Ricker wrote: >> >> >>On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Dave Crocker >> wrote: >> >> In any event, your extended list of government proactive efforts for >> TCP/IP usage are well-taken. >> >> But to riff off of a phrase that Marshall Rose coined -- with enough >> thrust, pigs /can/ fly -- some of the alternatives would have >> required planetary levels of thrust. >> >> >> >>Most on the list will remember, but so far only a side reference to >>AutoDIN-II has acknowledged that US Government support for further >>development of TCP/IP was once not a forgone conclusion. Shortly after >>the TCP/IP Flagday, much of the US Government was actively hostile to >>TCP/IP and proactively supporting OSI. >> >>The ISO OSI "ISORM" was mandated for civil and military procurements, >>much as ADA was for military. I've never been clear on whether this was >>a DOD peace treaty with NBS/NIST, or an attempt to bring NATO on-board >>for air-land-battle interop without offending them with US-centric >>standards, or undue influence from vendors who had greater sway in >>ANSI/ISO commitees than in NWG's where vendor advantage was not a proper >>concern. Probably an unholy combination. Some latterday supporters of >>TCP/IP were in the day actively selling the on-paper elegant, in >>practice baroque or not yet implemented, vendor-sponsored OSI style, >>calculating how much thrust their pig would require. >> >>(I was a couple doors down from Mike Padlipsky in the mid-80's -- I was >>on the periphery of the ADA vs MLS and Kernel vs Crypto battles -- so >>had a ring-side seat as one of Mike's confidants. I am the party guilty >>of referring his Tea Bag Papers to the PH Field-Editor, which Mike then >>expanded into /The Elements of Networking Style/. Hence my life sentence >>as Literary Heir.) >> >>Cheers (as Mike taught us to say), >> >>Bill Ricker >>custodian of the Padlipsky Archive >>@n1vux bill.n1vux at gmail.com From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Mon Jul 30 08:59:17 2012 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:59:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") Message-ID: <20120730155917.6682C18C0D9@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Guy Almes > I personally reckon the doom of OSI from that moment. And the tombstone was formally erected when Marshall Rose gave his infamous 'small furry animal' spiel at an IETF. (I wonder if anyone has a recording of that?) I was laughing so hard I was coughing (like many there), it was so funny - but then I looked over at Ross Callon (I think it was), whom I was standing next to, and the look on his face... all of a sudden it wasn't quite so funny a spiel. I really liked Ross, and Dave P., and Lyman, and those guys, and so I felt very bad for them. So after the session, I went up to Marshall and said that I understood what he was trying to do, but I wasn't sure his method was the most effective. But in hindsight, I'm not so sure anymore. I think it's like the old 'pull the bandage off quickly vs. slowly' thing; Marshall's way was certainly painful, but I think it did really bring it home to people that OSI was not on a path to success. In particular, I'm instructed on this point by the way IPv6 has been treated - it's clearly not making progress, and enormous amounts of time/energy/money continue to be wasted on it, but nobody is pulling the bandage off. So in retrospect, with that example in front of my eyes, I've changed my mind about Marshall's approach to ISO. He probably saved a lot of people a lot of wasted time/energy/money, etc. Noel From dhc2 at dcrocker.net Mon Jul 30 08:59:00 2012 From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:59:00 -0700 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <5016A536.27021.5DAC4046@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com>, <50169825.8050900@dcrocker.net>, <5016A536.27021.5DAC4046@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: <5016AF44.8060904@dcrocker.net> On 7/30/2012 8:16 AM, Bernie Cosell wrote: > On 30 Jul 2012 at 10:49, John Day wrote: > >> Those were the days, when CSC produced a copy of the ARPANET that was >> 7 times slower. Given a working example, I still don't understand >> how they accomplished that! > > Maybe their programmers weren't as good...:o) Back in the early 90s, I wrote a couple of summaries about the IETF processing, including an attempt to consider salient differences from other standards groups. e.g., http://www.bbiw.net/ietf/ietf-stds.html In thinking about the comparison, I considered the usually range of claimed differences that were important, like intelligence of participants, politicization of the process, etc. My own assessment was/is that us and them all tended to have bright, well-intentioned and knowledgeable people. That is, all of the trivial points seemed consonant, rather than being legitimate points of departure. (I'm painting with very broad strokes here. So, yes, I think that their requiring "consensus" and our permitting "rough consensus" is an important difference. But see below.) I finally decided that the essential difference was that they tended to seek a solution that was the union of everyone's separate wish lists, whereas the IETF tended to settle on the intersection. The critical pressure that seemed to force this was a sense of urgency for getting an initial, working capability fielded. Would that that still drove IETF work. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jack at 3kitty.org Mon Jul 30 17:56:41 2012 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:56:41 -0700 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: <0C815F22-4FF9-4BFD-88FA-91D0BBFA441A@istaff.org> References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> <79c13e81de2230fd12ce7ef5a073d8af.squirrel@webmail.ic.unicamp.br> <1343581651.55279.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <5015FC07.90801@dcrocker.net> <50160845.5030507@dcrocker.net> <0C815F22-4FF9-4BFD-88FA-91D0BBFA441A@istaff.org> Message-ID: Indeed, the history of The Internet is still being written. I can envision a future universe where The Internet is dominated by hundreds of millions of people using handheld computers, communicating primarily over the phone network, paying $1000 or more a year for every device that they own to use the net, and only able to "plug in" hardware and applications that are approved by the vendor. Wait a minute .. how many I-thingies, tablets and smartphones are in people's hands today!? And what are they paying whom to use them with no-longer-unlimited "data plans"? And how fast is that type of usage growing? If I were in charge of that mythical Internet Company that wiped out all the competitors a decade or so ago, I'd be a tad concerned. I don't particularly like the vision, but it may be inevitable. /Jack Haverty On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:39 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Jul 30, 2012, at 12:06 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> >> Remember a world of telephone monopoly, with literally everything that touched the network required to come from the operator. We well might have wound up with a global digital network that would have been more like that than the significantly more competitive and varied and robust and... that we do have. > > Than we have _at present_... What we actually wind up for the Internet remains > an open question, as those governments which still have telephone monopolies > are giving it their best shot to move the Internet to more formally tariffed > and controlled model. While the benefits of the present system are apparent > to many of us, it is not the case with large commercial "near monopolies" (who > are concerned with a perceived mismatch of revenues/costs between content and > carriage), nor for those telecommunications ministers in developing countries > (who have a real and compelling concern about the economic impact from eroding > international access settlement charges due to popularity of VoIP). Both of > these communities are advocating for increased regulation and introduction of > tariff models for the Internet via the upcoming ITU World Conference on > International Telecommunications (WCIT) this December in Dubai [1][2]. > > While it is easy to dismiss the decisions of individual governments in their > ability impact the Internet (due the ability of the Internet to "route around" > damage, ala John Gilmore's quote), there are ultimate limits to this ability, > and an adverse decision by this international regulatory body could easily > exceed our ability to maintain the present open Internet structure. > > FYI, > /John > > [1] http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120709_carriage_vs_content/ > [2] http://www.techcentral.ie/19106/eu-carriers-were-not-asking-the-un-for-internet-taxes > > > > > > From randy at psg.com Mon Jul 30 18:11:32 2012 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:11:32 -0700 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> <79c13e81de2230fd12ce7ef5a073d8af.squirrel@webmail.ic.unicamp.br> <1343581651.55279.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <5015FC07.90801@dcrocker.net> <50160845.5030507@dcrocker.net> <0C815F22-4FF9-4BFD-88FA-91D0BBFA441A@istaff.org> Message-ID: the isoc has done five or so videos of alternate internet futures. you might find them interesting. http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/how-it%E2%80%99s-evolving/future-scenarios randy From jack at 3kitty.org Mon Jul 30 18:39:51 2012 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:39:51 -0700 Subject: [ih] infrastructure history [was: who invented the Internet] In-Reply-To: <1343489850.70416.YahooMailNeo@web142403.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <20120726050729.43067.qmail@joyce.lan> <50116A6F.40406@dcrocker.net> <501178EA.9040409@dcrocker.net> <501182C7.4060203@dcrocker.net> <1343327317.7677.YahooMailNeo@web142406.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1343473396.80113.YahooMailNeo@web142404.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5013e399.2458340a.11dd.3896@mx.google.com> <1343489850.70416.YahooMailNeo@web142403.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Alex, Dave, et al A little piece of Internet/BBN history from that era -- BBN Report 4825, QTR #23, dated November 1981. Section 5.1 is titled "Gateway Development". It is part of Section 5 which is titled "Internet Operations and Maintenance" It says in part: "During this quarter, responsibility for all gateway maintenance and development was transferred from the Information Sciences Division to the Computer Systems Division (now Communications System Division). The motivation for this transfer was the need to emphasize the treatment of the gateways as an operational communications system, rather than a research tool to support the growing user community. In this approach, we plan increasingly to treat the gateway system much as we do the ARPANET and SATNET systems in terms of monitoring and maintenance." I was on the receiving end of this transfer, so I then had the responsibility for effecting that change in direction and managing the efforts going forward to make the Internet operational. After the change, the "Gateway group" was literally down the hall from the "Arpanet group". I think this was the point where the "Arpanet DNA" began to strongly influence the evolution of the gateways which formed the early Internet, as we began to change the hardware and software to make it more manageable and reliable and more like the Arpanet, which had already proven the techniques. Before long, all of the "core gateways", as well as the Arpanet IMPs and SATNET SIMPs, were being operated and managed by the same NOC at BBN. One might note this as the point in time where the Internet stopped being a pure research tool and started being a communications utility. I'm not sure who invented The Internet, but I think it was "turned on" sometime in the quarter of August/September/October 1981. All of this was government funded. The full report is available online from DTIC - http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a108783.pdf /Jack Haverty On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Alex McKenzie wrote: > Dave, > > There were Internet Gateways of that period built by BBN (Ginny Strasizar), > University College London (Peter Kirstein's group) and Stanford University > (Vint Cerf's group). At least the BBN and Stanford gateway projects were > funded by DARPA. I do not know which of these gateways were used at the > non-BBN sites at the time of the picture you cite, and I do not believe the > BBN Report provides any information. I do know that _eventually_ all the > SATNET gateways were provided by BBN. > > Regards, > Alex > From bill.n1vux at gmail.com Mon Jul 30 20:11:32 2012 From: bill.n1vux at gmail.com (Bill Ricker) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 23:11:32 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> <79c13e81de2230fd12ce7ef5a073d8af.squirrel@webmail.ic.unicamp.br> <1343581651.55279.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <5015FC07.90801@dcrocker.net> <50160845.5030507@dcrocker.net> <50169F68.9050101@tamu.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:44 AM, John Day wrote: > No, OSI committed suicide in 1979, when they decided to do the work > jointly with the ITU. It was just a matter of time after that. The rest > was just noise. > Point taken. But the long death rattle sure fooled a lot of folks and annoyed quite a few d'ARPAnauts for most of a decade ! -- Bill @n1vux bill.n1vux at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vint at google.com Mon Jul 30 20:55:04 2012 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 23:55:04 -0400 Subject: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") In-Reply-To: References: <20120723194218.514D028E137@aland.bbn.com> <79c13e81de2230fd12ce7ef5a073d8af.squirrel@webmail.ic.unicamp.br> <1343581651.55279.YahooMailNeo@web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <5015FC07.90801@dcrocker.net> <50160845.5030507@dcrocker.net> <50169F68.9050101@tamu.edu> Message-ID: to say nothing of the Internauts! v On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Bill Ricker wrote: > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:44 AM, John Day wrote: >> >> No, OSI committed suicide in 1979, when they decided to do the work >> jointly with the ITU. It was just a matter of time after that. The rest >> was just noise. > > > Point taken. But the long death rattle sure fooled a lot of folks and > annoyed quite a few d'ARPAnauts for most of a decade ! > > -- > Bill > @n1vux bill.n1vux at gmail.com From feinler at earthlink.net Tue Jul 31 12:39:45 2012 From: feinler at earthlink.net (Elizabeth Feinler) Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 12:39:45 -0700 Subject: [ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 64, Issue 32 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <666141F9-C62F-4C20-91C5-1734C66C3A98@earthlink.net> On Jul 29, 2012, 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: XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon > Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") (Bill Nowicki) > 2. NBC and TBL (Joly MacFie) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 10:07:31 -0700 (PDT) > From: Bill Nowicki > Subject: Re: [ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - > Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?") > To: "internet-history at postel.org" > Message-ID: > <1343581651.55279.YahooMailNeo at web125402.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Most of this has been discussed much already, but I just wanted to add my chorus to those who point out how much cross-fertilization there was in those days. Remember Xerox PARC is on Stanford land, and not only did many of us work as summer interns, they gave us "no fee consulting" agreements so that we could bicycle up the hill to attend "dealers" that sounded interesting and collaborate on other projects as Xerox people would also listen in on seminars. People like Dave Boggs (Ethernet co-inventor) and John Shoch were Stanford graduate students, and many others were students of CMU, MIT, Berkeley, etc. which were all ARPA contractors. The ARPA-funded (along with other government agencies)?projects at SRI like NLS were also clearly connected by some of the same people. ?Xerox even designed and built a computer (jokingly called "MAXC" which makes another great anecdote) specifically to run the TENEX operating system of BBN and put it on the ARPANET. We might also point out that several of Engelbart's group left SRI to help start up Xerox-Parc mainly because Xerox had more toys to play with. This would include Bill English, Bill Duvall, and Bob Belleville among others > ? > So as usual real history is more complicated that pundits like to convey. > ? > It might be safe to say that PUP was the first working corporate internet ("intranet" was not coined yet). It did have multiple different computer architectures and network technology from the start, but did not have the multi-organizational issues of the ARPA/netInternet. To follow PUP is also interesting. I was hired by Xerox?briefly as a consultant to help a few researchers run a version of PUP we did for BSD Unix. I do? not think 3Com ever did sell PUP. Xerox tried to come up with a new generation protocol which they called Xerox Network Systems which is probably what was meant. XNS used 48-bit addresses, while PUP used only 16 bits and TCP/IP used 32 bits. The irony was that Novell tried to implement XNS from the specifications, but made a few byte-swapping errors. This Novell variant was arguably the most commercially sucessful internet protocol as part of their NetWare product during its short heyday in the 1980s. > ? > So spinning this history to either?the political left or right is clearly misleading. Internet technology is a very good example of what government's role should be: fund the research, then get out of the way and let the market competitive forces drive products. The more interesting debate is what the government role is later after the technology matures. Do they subsidize the entrenched interests who can afford lobbyists (the phone company and cable TV model), or act as referee to attempt to keep the marketplace competitive (at the expense of perhaps hampering the innovation). But those are opinions creeping in again. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20120729/239b8b79/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:02:51 -0400 > From: Joly MacFie > Subject: [ih] NBC and TBL > To: internet-history at postel.org > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Just for anyone who missed it. Clip is here. > > http://ethanklapper.tumblr.com/post/28164455886/meredith-vieira-doesnt-know-who-tim-berners-lee > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > internet-history mailing list > internet-history at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > End of internet-history Digest, Vol 64, Issue 32 > ************************************************