[ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?")

[Vint Cerf]

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 <jack at 3kitty.org> 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 <vint at google.com> 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 <jack at 3kitty.org> 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 <vint at google.com> 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 <dhc2 at dcrocker.net> 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