[ih] Hesitating to disagree with one of the fathers of the Internet…..

[Vint Cerf]

so we need to make the distinction between the subnet, which was
primarily supplied by and operated by BBN and the system of hosts,
protocol stack, applications, etc. - the latter is clearly well beyond
the subnet and BBN's work there. However, BBN also contributed in that
area - from early implementations of email and TCP/IP to distributed
applications like the Air Traffic Control System simulator to say
nothing of the TENEX operating system, the gateways, and so on.

Lots of people and institutions eventually became part of the NWG that
morphed into the IETF for all practical purposes. There was an
Internet research group in the early 1970s, distinct from the general
ARPANET (including hosts) community but that work, too, eventually was
absorbed into IETF and into NSF, NASA and DOE sponsors (among others).

A problem in discussions like this is the ambiguity of the term "ARPANET"

v


On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:34 PM, David Elliott Bell
<bell1945 at offthisweek.com> wrote:
> I don't disagree that BBN designed the IMP.   I also don't think design-the-IMP is the same as design-ARPANET.
>
>  Mike viewed the main topic of the NWG to be .... dang, forgot the term.   But disparate, possibly different, computers computing together.   The communications subnet certainly was crucial but the need for layers (3 will do if you know what you're going; if you don't, 11 won't help you); a world view about which layers and the rigidity required to enforce layers; proposing alternate protocols for achieving a desired goal; things like that are part of design-ARPANET.   As I recall, BBN was the only (principal?) corporation involved in the NWG.  Others were government and academia and a few non-profits.
>
> For Mike's view of what the ARPANET was, his *ARPANET Reference Model* is the best source.
>
> David
>
> iPh
>
> On May 10, 2012, at 16:55, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
>
>> so, we need to distinguish the subnet from the host on the ARPANET.
>> The latter were the subject of much debate from the participating
>> sites. The design of the IMP system, on the other hand was really BBN.
>> If you really think Mike disagreed with that, you must imply that he
>> had a rather odd model of what the "ARPANET" was.
>>
>> vint
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:58 PM, David Elliott Bell
>> <bell1945 at offthisweek.com> wrote:
>>> nevertheless, I would point out that not everyone agreed that
>>>
>>> "BBN was the designer and operator of the ARPANET from the outset to its
>>> termination in 1990."
>>>
>>> The disagreement would be over the phrase "the designer".
>>>
>>> Michael Padlipsky clearly did not agree. per his book The Elements of
>>> Networking Style (& Other Essays & Animadversions of the Art of
>>> Intercomputer Networking. (Peter Salus continues to have a high opinion of
>>> this book, which includes the only reference on Wikipedia to the Arpanet
>>> Reference Model.)
>>>
>>> One of the chapters in that book "And They Argued All Night...."  posited
>>> that much of what happened in the early days of the Arpanet was the result
>>> of group discussion where the participants did not always themselves
>>> remember who said what and where ideas came from.
>>>
>>> I recommend his book for some reflection of the life and times of the early
>>> days of ARPA's Network Working Group (?  phrasing right?).
>>>
>>> David Bell
>>>