From jklensin at gmail.com  Tue Aug  4 07:58:02 2015
From: jklensin at gmail.com (John Klensin)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 10:58:02 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:
> After grubbing through my basement storage, I haven't found "email" in
> any of my piles of old paper....sorry about that.
>
> But I *do* recall the first time I saw the phrase "email", although not
> exactly where and when that was.
>
> Through the early and mid-70s, I was a student and subsequently staff
> member in Professor Licklider's group at MIT project MAC.  Lick had been
> promoting the ideas of man-computer synergy for a while -- how to use
> the power of the computer to augment human communications.   While I was
> there, he also returned for another tour of duty at ARPA; he bounced
> back and forth between MIT and ARPA.
>...

> None of the terminology we discussed then included "email" or "e-mail".
>
> But I do still recall first seeing that term, and being discouraged that
> all of the work and discussions about the breadth of computer-aided
> human communications was being lumped into a single vague and ambiguous
> term "email" (or maybe "e-mail").
>
> The term was used in one of the trade publications popular at the time,
> which had grown up around the emerging technologies of computer
> networking.   I'm sorry I can't remember which one.  Most likely it was
> Network World, or Communications Week, which were very popular at the
> time and had discovered the world of networking.   It was a "newspaper"
> type of publication, not a magazine or journal.   The kind of thing you
> read while eating lunch.
>....

Jack,

My memory is very vague, and I certainly remember using just "mail"
(or, when the distinction was important, "network mail" or "netmail"
or other variations), but that part of the trade press seems likely as
an originator and time.  The other possibility that occurs to me is
that the term might have come out of one of the iterations with USPS
about what they thought about the whole situation, whether it was a
business they wanted to be in, own, or control, etc.  The first round,
with Tom Van Vleck and Noel Morris during the CTSS period has been
fairly well documented, but the were several others.   The stories I
heard from some of those who were involved in the discussions were, in
the rounds in which they cared,  the Post Office folks very clearly
did not want to make a distinction between traffic within a host or
between hosts.   Given that, and government bureaucrat-speak, one can
easily imagine "email" or "e-mail" coming out.   However, that is pure
speculation about another place to look, not any sort of claim or
evidence.

    john
    (who was working on Lick's other, larger, project at the time)

p.s. the recent micro-snit that spelled over onto the IETF list was
about the RFC Editor having introduced macros or a style sheet that
generated a spelling like "EMail" or "eMail".  I just couldn't imagine
any benefit from yet another term or spelling.


From jack at 3kitty.org  Tue Aug  4 10:11:42 2015
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 10:11:42 -0700
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>

Good point, John.  Computer-based mail had been around for more than a
decade by the late 70s, and was on the radar of at least some parts of
the government.  I recall using CTSS mail back in the late 60s, as well
as similar services even on IBM mainframes.

I'd also suggest that the historians broaden the search for the genesis
of the term "email" beyond the work done by research and government
communities.

In particular, I think the "History of the Internet" must include
activities outside of what we often think of as the ARPANET and
TCP-based Internet.  I recall there were lots of other activities
creating new technologies using computers and communications, and the
ARPA-based work was only one of them.  The historians seem to have
forgotten about the rest.

Specifically, I remember that Xerox circa 1980 had a prominent presence
in the commercial arena, focused on computerized and networked systems
for business use and office automation, including what we would call
mail.   Bob Metcalfe was in the middle of that; he was also a product of
Lick/Vezza's group, working on ARPANET projects (and the early stages of
Ethernet) before leaving it to join Xerox PARC.

So, it's quite possible that the trade-press article in which I recall
first seeing "email" was reporting about some project at PARC, or some
discussions in the PTT/Postal world.  It may have had nothing to do with
our ARPANET-based electronic mail.   It probably wasn't the first use of
the term either.  We were far from alone in working with such ideas.

I also recall thinking at the time when I saw "email" that it was yet
another example of someone outside the technical cognoscenti attempting
to corral some complex technology under the umbrella of a new vague
buzzword, by attaching an "e" to the front of a well-known word, for use
with non-technical audiences.   I think there were lots of other
"e-xxxx" terms coined in that time frame.... but I can't recall any of them.

So, more places for the historians to research...

/Jack


On 08/04/2015 07:58 AM, John Klensin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:
>> After grubbing through my basement storage, I haven't found "email" in
>> any of my piles of old paper....sorry about that.
>>
>> But I *do* recall the first time I saw the phrase "email", although not
>> exactly where and when that was.
>>
>> Through the early and mid-70s, I was a student and subsequently staff
>> member in Professor Licklider's group at MIT project MAC.  Lick had been
>> promoting the ideas of man-computer synergy for a while -- how to use
>> the power of the computer to augment human communications.   While I was
>> there, he also returned for another tour of duty at ARPA; he bounced
>> back and forth between MIT and ARPA.
>> ...
> 
>> None of the terminology we discussed then included "email" or "e-mail".
>>
>> But I do still recall first seeing that term, and being discouraged that
>> all of the work and discussions about the breadth of computer-aided
>> human communications was being lumped into a single vague and ambiguous
>> term "email" (or maybe "e-mail").
>>
>> The term was used in one of the trade publications popular at the time,
>> which had grown up around the emerging technologies of computer
>> networking.   I'm sorry I can't remember which one.  Most likely it was
>> Network World, or Communications Week, which were very popular at the
>> time and had discovered the world of networking.   It was a "newspaper"
>> type of publication, not a magazine or journal.   The kind of thing you
>> read while eating lunch.
>> ....
> 
> Jack,
> 
> My memory is very vague, and I certainly remember using just "mail"
> (or, when the distinction was important, "network mail" or "netmail"
> or other variations), but that part of the trade press seems likely as
> an originator and time.  The other possibility that occurs to me is
> that the term might have come out of one of the iterations with USPS
> about what they thought about the whole situation, whether it was a
> business they wanted to be in, own, or control, etc.  The first round,
> with Tom Van Vleck and Noel Morris during the CTSS period has been
> fairly well documented, but the were several others.   The stories I
> heard from some of those who were involved in the discussions were, in
> the rounds in which they cared,  the Post Office folks very clearly
> did not want to make a distinction between traffic within a host or
> between hosts.   Given that, and government bureaucrat-speak, one can
> easily imagine "email" or "e-mail" coming out.   However, that is pure
> speculation about another place to look, not any sort of claim or
> evidence.
> 
>     john
>     (who was working on Lick's other, larger, project at the time)
> 
> p.s. the recent micro-snit that spelled over onto the IETF list was
> about the RFC Editor having introduced macros or a style sheet that
> generated a spelling like "EMail" or "eMail".  I just couldn't imagine
> any benefit from yet another term or spelling.
> 


From arussell at stevens.edu  Tue Aug  4 11:02:59 2015
From: arussell at stevens.edu (Andrew Russell)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 18:02:59 +0000
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>

> 
> On Aug 4, 2015, at 1:11 PM, Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:
> 
> Good point, John.  Computer-based mail had been around for more than a
> decade by the late 70s, and was on the radar of at least some parts of
> the government.  I recall using CTSS mail back in the late 60s, as well
> as similar services even on IBM mainframes.
> 
> I'd also suggest that the historians broaden the search for the genesis
> of the term "email" beyond the work done by research and government
> communities.
> 
> In particular, I think the "History of the Internet" must include
> activities outside of what we often think of as the ARPANET and
> TCP-based Internet.  I recall there were lots of other activities
> creating new technologies using computers and communications, and the
> ARPA-based work was only one of them.  The historians seem to have
> forgotten about the rest.

No, we haven?t.  I (and several co-authors) made this exact point in:

- a 2012 conference paper called ?Histories of Networking vs The History of the Internet" - http://arussell.org/papers/russell-SIGCIS-2012.pdf
- a co-authored introduction to a 2015 special issue on ?Histories of the Internet? - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2517598 (the special issue has six papers that flesh out your insight - so that makes at least 9 of us who haven?t forgotten! - http://www.infoculturejournal.org/abstracts.  FWIW I wanted to call the special issue ?Histories of Computer Networking,? after my senior colleagues suggested calling it ?The History of the Internet,? so we compromised on ?Histories of the Internet."
- a 2014 book where I describe OSI and other non-Arpanet/TCP efforts - http://arussell.org/open/
- a co-authored 2014 article, titled ?In the Shadow of the ARPANET and Internet: Louis Pouzin and the Cyclades Network in the 1970s,? regrettably behind a paywall at http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/technology_and_culture/toc/tech.55.4.html, but I am happy to send the pdf to anyone interested.

? and I?m sure I?m forgetting many more similar analyses by historians, published and not, by me and by others.

I would like to think that journalists and their readers would understand (or at least try to understand) that a technology can be ?invented? or ?developed? by one community, but a popular name for that technology can be ?coined? by someone else; that priority in coinage is not necessarily causality in invention and usage (we don?t use ?email" *because* Shiva A called it that in the late 70s); and that invention and innovation are not the most significant or interesting aspects of technological and social change.  But you?ll forgive me for thinking that I?m fighting a losing battle along multiple fronts.


> 
> Specifically, I remember that Xerox circa 1980 had a prominent presence
> in the commercial arena, focused on computerized and networked systems
> for business use and office automation, including what we would call
> mail.   Bob Metcalfe was in the middle of that; he was also a product of
> Lick/Vezza's group, working on ARPANET projects (and the early stages of
> Ethernet) before leaving it to join Xerox PARC.
> 
> So, it's quite possible that the trade-press article in which I recall
> first seeing "email" was reporting about some project at PARC, or some
> discussions in the PTT/Postal world.  It may have had nothing to do with
> our ARPANET-based electronic mail.   It probably wasn't the first use of
> the term either.  We were far from alone in working with such ideas.
> 
> I also recall thinking at the time when I saw "email" that it was yet
> another example of someone outside the technical cognoscenti attempting
> to corral some complex technology under the umbrella of a new vague
> buzzword, by attaching an "e" to the front of a well-known word, for use
> with non-technical audiences.  

It appears that there are at least two of us that understand this point - maybe there?s hope after all!!  ;)

Andy




> I think there were lots of other
> "e-xxxx" terms coined in that time frame.... but I can't recall any of them.
> 
> So, more places for the historians to research...
> 
> /Jack
> 
> 
> On 08/04/2015 07:58 AM, John Klensin wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:
>>> After grubbing through my basement storage, I haven't found "email" in
>>> any of my piles of old paper....sorry about that.
>>> 
>>> But I *do* recall the first time I saw the phrase "email", although not
>>> exactly where and when that was.
>>> 
>>> Through the early and mid-70s, I was a student and subsequently staff
>>> member in Professor Licklider's group at MIT project MAC.  Lick had been
>>> promoting the ideas of man-computer synergy for a while -- how to use
>>> the power of the computer to augment human communications.   While I was
>>> there, he also returned for another tour of duty at ARPA; he bounced
>>> back and forth between MIT and ARPA.
>>> ...
>> 
>>> None of the terminology we discussed then included "email" or "e-mail".
>>> 
>>> But I do still recall first seeing that term, and being discouraged that
>>> all of the work and discussions about the breadth of computer-aided
>>> human communications was being lumped into a single vague and ambiguous
>>> term "email" (or maybe "e-mail").
>>> 
>>> The term was used in one of the trade publications popular at the time,
>>> which had grown up around the emerging technologies of computer
>>> networking.   I'm sorry I can't remember which one.  Most likely it was
>>> Network World, or Communications Week, which were very popular at the
>>> time and had discovered the world of networking.   It was a "newspaper"
>>> type of publication, not a magazine or journal.   The kind of thing you
>>> read while eating lunch.
>>> ....
>> 
>> Jack,
>> 
>> My memory is very vague, and I certainly remember using just "mail"
>> (or, when the distinction was important, "network mail" or "netmail"
>> or other variations), but that part of the trade press seems likely as
>> an originator and time.  The other possibility that occurs to me is
>> that the term might have come out of one of the iterations with USPS
>> about what they thought about the whole situation, whether it was a
>> business they wanted to be in, own, or control, etc.  The first round,
>> with Tom Van Vleck and Noel Morris during the CTSS period has been
>> fairly well documented, but the were several others.   The stories I
>> heard from some of those who were involved in the discussions were, in
>> the rounds in which they cared,  the Post Office folks very clearly
>> did not want to make a distinction between traffic within a host or
>> between hosts.   Given that, and government bureaucrat-speak, one can
>> easily imagine "email" or "e-mail" coming out.   However, that is pure
>> speculation about another place to look, not any sort of claim or
>> evidence.
>> 
>>    john
>>    (who was working on Lick's other, larger, project at the time)
>> 
>> p.s. the recent micro-snit that spelled over onto the IETF list was
>> about the RFC Editor having introduced macros or a style sheet that
>> generated a spelling like "EMail" or "eMail".  I just couldn't imagine
>> any benefit from yet another term or spelling.
>> 
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.




From jklensin at gmail.com  Tue Aug  4 11:19:46 2015
From: jklensin at gmail.com (John Klensin)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:19:46 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <CAC-QkABgBCfCzkynCHOYnAktFFOn-p6ig2WcXFPx1M25jLszBw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:
> Good point, John.  Computer-based mail had been around for more than a
> decade by the late 70s, and was on the radar of at least some parts of
> the government.  I recall using CTSS mail back in the late 60s, as well
> as similar services even on IBM mainframes.

Yes.  If we are looking at the late 70s, I think at least the design
efforts for the first versions of the DoD internal system ("Defense
Messages System" or something like that)  got going during that period
and I think the efforts that led to ISO MHS/ ITU X.400 must have
started before the end of the decade.  Both are signs of interest and
activity by non-specialists   Those dates are fairly easily checked,
but the important point is precisely the one you are making: there
were many computer-based messaging activities in progress or under
discussion by the end of that decade and almost any of them could have
spawned press coverage or other informal treatment that could have, in
turn, generated new terminology.

> I'd also suggest that the historians broaden the search for the genesis
> of the term "email" beyond the work done by research and government
> communities.

If the real question is when that term came into use, I agree that a
broaden search is needed.

     john


From jklensin at gmail.com  Tue Aug  4 11:26:51 2015
From: jklensin at gmail.com (John Klensin)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 14:26:51 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
Message-ID: <CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Andrew Russell <arussell at stevens.edu> wrote:
> No, we haven?t.  I (and several co-authors) made this exact point in:
>...
> ? and I?m sure I?m forgetting many more similar analyses by historians, published and not, by me and by others.
>
> I would like to think that journalists and their readers would understand (or at least try to understand) that a technology can be ?invented? or ?developed? by one community, but a popular name for that technology can be ?coined? by someone else; that priority in coinage is not necessarily causality in invention and usage (we don?t use ?email" *because* Shiva A called it that in the late 70s); and that invention and innovation are not the most significant or interesting aspects of technological and social change.  But you?ll forgive me for thinking that I?m fighting a losing battle along multiple fronts.

Sorry Andy.  I've read a few of those papers and others and obviously
agree.  I construed Jack's remark as more of a reminder to those of us
who tend to focused on the Internet about the importance of looking
more broadly when some of these questions come up rather than as a
criticism of the historical community and responded on that basis.
No disrespect or implication that you folks had not been doing your
jobs intended.

    john



From arussell at stevens.edu  Tue Aug  4 11:56:12 2015
From: arussell at stevens.edu (Andrew Russell)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 18:56:12 +0000
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>


> On Aug 4, 2015, at 2:26 PM, John Klensin <jklensin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Andrew Russell <arussell at stevens.edu> wrote:
>> No, we haven?t.  I (and several co-authors) made this exact point in:
>> ...
>> ? and I?m sure I?m forgetting many more similar analyses by historians, published and not, by me and by others.
>> 
>> I would like to think that journalists and their readers would understand (or at least try to understand) that a technology can be ?invented? or ?developed? by one community, but a popular name for that technology can be ?coined? by someone else; that priority in coinage is not necessarily causality in invention and usage (we don?t use ?email" *because* Shiva A called it that in the late 70s); and that invention and innovation are not the most significant or interesting aspects of technological and social change.  But you?ll forgive me for thinking that I?m fighting a losing battle along multiple fronts.
> 
> Sorry Andy.  I've read a few of those papers and others and obviously
> agree.  I construed Jack's remark as more of a reminder to those of us
> who tend to focused on the Internet about the importance of looking
> more broadly when some of these questions come up rather than as a
> criticism of the historical community and responded on that basis.
> No disrespect or implication that you folks had not been doing your
> jobs intended.
> 
>    john

Thanks - no apology necessary - upon re-reading it, my tone had more huff than I intended.  I read Jack?s email when my blood pressure hadn?t settled after watching the CBS/Henry Ford segment on the invention of email at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9od6oIqHDH0.  

In any case, I think we all agree that there is plenty of research that we (historians and our allies) need to do.  And, we can always do more to get more accurate and more nuanced stories into public view, even if we?re frustrated by the results.  

Cheers,

Andy







From jack at 3kitty.org  Tue Aug  4 13:16:12 2015
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 13:16:12 -0700
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
Message-ID: <55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>

Andy,

I should have been more careful with my wording to avoid generalizing.
Perhaps "Some historians..." would have been better.

I wouldn't have expected History to raise blood pressure, but sometimes
I experience that myself.  This often happens when I read some document
purporting to describe a historical situation, and it happens to be one
where I was there at the time.   Some of the books and papers about
network history I've read raised my BP when their description of events
and causality didn't match my personal memory much at all, or left out
important related activities occurring at the same time.

Sadly, I think we who were involved back then have to share much of the
blame.  Computers, word processing, file systems, FTP sites, and other
such stuff were the new toys.  They were our own toys.  We built them.
We liked to play with them.  We preferred to use them rather than
traditional methods.

So we wrote lots of code.  We wrote lots of documentation, and embedded
it in the code.  We put useful files in readily accessible places, on
our own FTP servers or the ones at the NIC.  We had extensive
discussions and debates on all sorts of technical and other issues,
using our brand new mail systems.

We didn't write a lot of papers or more formal documents.  Anything on
paper was suspected to be obsolete anyway.   We did write RFCs, IENs,
and other such semi-formal documents, which have fortunately been well
preserved by Jake Feinler and others.   But even those are sometimes
misinterpreted as capturing a moment in time, when they often actually
captured a moment in the past.   I remember finally writing up an RFC
defining the XNET protocol, but only after it had been in use for years.

We used the ephemeral mechanisms of the network to document our work,
and I suspect most of it has been lost or become unreadable.   We tried
to create mechanisms for longevity, e.g., the DataComputer at CCA, but
the technology wasn't up to the task.

We made life for today's historians much more difficult than it might
have been.

I've often wondered if that's one major reason why the Internet survived
when all of the other similar efforts didn't.   Rough consensus
(achieved electronically) and running code instead of formal documents,
committees, voting, et al.

Keep up the good work!
/Jack

On 08/04/2015 11:56 AM, Andrew Russell wrote:
> 
>> On Aug 4, 2015, at 2:26 PM, John Klensin <jklensin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Andrew Russell <arussell at stevens.edu> wrote:
>>> No, we haven?t.  I (and several co-authors) made this exact point in:
>>> ...
>>> ? and I?m sure I?m forgetting many more similar analyses by historians, published and not, by me and by others.
>>>
>>> I would like to think that journalists and their readers would understand (or at least try to understand) that a technology can be ?invented? or ?developed? by one community, but a popular name for that technology can be ?coined? by someone else; that priority in coinage is not necessarily causality in invention and usage (we don?t use ?email" *because* Shiva A called it that in the late 70s); and that invention and innovation are not the most significant or interesting aspects of technological and social change.  But you?ll forgive me for thinking that I?m fighting a losing battle along multiple fronts.
>>
>> Sorry Andy.  I've read a few of those papers and others and obviously
>> agree.  I construed Jack's remark as more of a reminder to those of us
>> who tend to focused on the Internet about the importance of looking
>> more broadly when some of these questions come up rather than as a
>> criticism of the historical community and responded on that basis.
>> No disrespect or implication that you folks had not been doing your
>> jobs intended.
>>
>>    john
> 
> Thanks - no apology necessary - upon re-reading it, my tone had more huff than I intended.  I read Jack?s email when my blood pressure hadn?t settled after watching the CBS/Henry Ford segment on the invention of email at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9od6oIqHDH0.  
> 
> In any case, I think we all agree that there is plenty of research that we (historians and our allies) need to do.  And, we can always do more to get more accurate and more nuanced stories into public view, even if we?re frustrated by the results.  
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> 


From dave.walden.family at gmail.com  Tue Aug  4 14:42:25 2015
From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (dave.walden.family at gmail.com)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 17:42:25 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>

Jack,
I feel like we, at least at BBN, wrote lots of published papers, e.g., see
    http://walden-family.com/bbn/ArpanetInternetBiblio.pdf  
I think the good news from Andy's post is that academic historians are monitoring the ih list.
Dave


From leo at vegoda.org  Tue Aug  4 14:50:54 2015
From: leo at vegoda.org (Leo Vegoda)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 22:50:54 +0100
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <20150804215054.GA28409@vegoda.org>

On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 01:16:12PM -0700, Jack Haverty wrote:

[...]

> So we wrote lots of code.  We wrote lots of documentation, and embedded
> it in the code.  We put useful files in readily accessible places, on
> our own FTP servers or the ones at the NIC.  We had extensive
> discussions and debates on all sorts of technical and other issues,
> using our brand new mail systems.
> 
> We didn't write a lot of papers or more formal documents.  Anything on
> paper was suspected to be obsolete anyway.   We did write RFCs, IENs,
> and other such semi-formal documents, which have fortunately been well
> preserved by Jake Feinler and others.   But even those are sometimes
> misinterpreted as capturing a moment in time, when they often actually
> captured a moment in the past.   I remember finally writing up an RFC
> defining the XNET protocol, but only after it had been in use for years.
> 
> We used the ephemeral mechanisms of the network to document our work,
> and I suspect most of it has been lost or become unreadable.   We tried
> to create mechanisms for longevity, e.g., the DataComputer at CCA, but
> the technology wasn't up to the task.
> 
> We made life for today's historians much more difficult than it might
> have been.

I expect that historians of earlier times would love to have such a
wide variety of sources to read and interpret. In the days when
paper was expensive and few people were literate much less could be
documented. As long as these sources are archived and remain
available there's every chance for a far more accurate history of
the development of networking emerging than there is of the
emergence of technologies like working iron.

Regards,

Leo


From dhc2 at dcrocker.net  Fri Aug  7 06:35:14 2015
From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 06:35:14 -0700
Subject: [ih] X.400 (Re: Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or
	"email"?
In-Reply-To: <CAC-QkABgBCfCzkynCHOYnAktFFOn-p6ig2WcXFPx1M25jLszBw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkABgBCfCzkynCHOYnAktFFOn-p6ig2WcXFPx1M25jLszBw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55C4B412.4000708@dcrocker.net>


> and I think the efforts that led to ISO MHS/ ITU X.400 must have
> started before the end of the decade.  

Pre-standards work for X.400 began in 1978, through IFIP Working Group
6.5.  That's where the UA/MTA conceptual split was developed, based on
the design of 4 existing systems.

The CCITT X.MHS effort (X.400) started in 1980, with the first
publication in 1984.  It was notable for high ambitious and complexity,
but insufficient functionality to be directly useful.  It was also
notable for an addressing scheme that required specifying who your
'carrier' was (ADMD).  Business cards with X.400 addresses, for folk at
large companies, would show a list of several different ADMD operators.


> Both are signs of interest and
> activity by non-specialists 

Not sure what this means.  Quite a number of folk involved with the
specification of X.400 had quite a bit of email-related experience.

>

> but the important point is precisely the one you are making: there
> were many computer-based messaging activities in progress or under
> discussion by the end of that decade and almost any of them could have
> spawned press coverage or other informal treatment that could have, in
> turn, generated new terminology.

Yup.


d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net


From jack at 3kitty.org  Fri Aug  7 13:12:01 2015
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 13:12:01 -0700
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org>

On 08/04/2015 02:42 PM, dave.walden.family at gmail.com wrote:
> Jack,
> I feel like we, at least at BBN, wrote lots of published papers, e.g., see
>     http://walden-family.com/bbn/ArpanetInternetBiblio.pdf  
> I think the good news from Andy's post is that academic historians are monitoring the ih list.
> Dave
> 

Hi Dave,

That bibliography will be very helpful to historians.   I agree there
were quite a few papers published over the years.

My point really was that there was also lots of material of historical
interest that didn't get published in the traditional way, especially
over the period starting when network mechanisms such as email,
newsgroups, and FTP became core infrastructure tools for everyone who
had access to them.

The network changed the environment for human collaboration.  In the
traditional ways, discussion and debate would occur by a series of
papers and presentations, published over months if not years.  In the
new network way, similar discussions and debates occurred, in hours or
days, over mail conversations, mailing lists, newsgroups, etc.  Only a
part of that was captured in formal means which survive today.  IMHO, it
was unfortunately a pretty small part.

Of course, those electronic interactions happened much more rapidly, and
much more broadly, than the older mechanisms.   IMHO, this was important
for the success of the Internet, by enhancing its ability to adapt
quickly as it grew explosively.

There is a period of time, perhaps from about 1975 through the 80s,
where archival of such interactions was spotty.  It's gotten better now
with the advent of vast searchable gleaning databases, but that
generally still only captures material from the web, which is only a
part of the communication over the network.   At least the ones that are
public...

I think the network, i.e., the ARPANET and its successor The Internet,
changed the way that people interact, and changed the culture of how
such interactions were recorded, if at all.   Rough consensus, achieved
over ephemeral means, and running code didn't leave as much of a trail
of papers and publications in their wake.

-----

The other point I was trying to bring out is that the History of The
Internet is about more than the history of the technology.   Or
"technologies" if you include all of the other networking activities in
other commercial and organizational R&D.

For example, there are a lot of publications concerning various aspects
of the ARPANET and the technology it developed.   But there is very
little (that I have found) concerning how the ARPANET was used, and how
its technology diffused into the broader world beyond DoD.

One of the historians I spoke with lamented the situation.   He can find
data today that describes the traffic flows across the early net, the
numbers of computers connected, number of sites, and other such
historically interesting information.  But it is difficult to find
anything that describes what those users were actually doing over the
network, how it was changing their worlds, what their reactions were,
and how they were adapting to it.

Similarly, the ARPANET was a very important network, and comparatively
well documented.  But there were also at least dozens of clones of the
ARPANET that BBN deployed into numerous other government environments,
and subsequently into commercial and industrial applications in finance,
manufacturing, communications, transportation, etc.

It's difficult to find even a list of such networks, let alone details
about their use, and how they impacted the related businesses.

IMHO, such events are an important part of Internet History, in their
role to "pave the way" for widespread adoption of Internet technology as
it went from research project to world infrastructure.  That roadway
included some interactions that I think would be historically interesting.

For example, during the 80s the ARPANET technology embraced X.25, and
deployed networks following the CCITT vision, presumably paving the way
for adoption of the CCITT/ISO approach.  But I don't think much of that
story about that era of ARPANET evolution was written, except in the
informal world of emails and such.

The ARPANET also served, at the same time, as the nursery for the
fledgling Internet, as people connected routers to the ARPANET instead
of the traditional timesharing computers.   It paved the way for the
Internet to grow, and the ARPANET itself had to adapt its mechanisms to
the new ways it was being used.  But I don't think there's much written
material about that battle between TCP/IP and X.25 in the ARPANET arena.

I think this was a general effect, and many other institutions did very
interesting work which is hard to unearth - especially those hidden
behind non-disclosures and other such proprietary barriers as tech
companies fought to be leaders in the new world.

It *is* good to see professional historians involved!  I wish we had
such presences back in the 70s/80s.  Perhaps DARPA and other research
groups should have a historian on staff just for such purposes to
capture whatever they're doing now....

My caution to historians would be to be especially wary of the "Early
Networking" era when human interactions first embraced electronic
mechanisms, before it was common to capture everything.

Leo Vegoda said: "As long as these sources are archived and remain
available there's every chance for a far more accurate history of
the development of networking emerging than there is of the
emergence of technologies like working iron."

I think that's a good point.  My caution is that with the ARPANET we
entered a new world where the "archiving and availability" machinery has
hit a few potholes in the Road of History.

This Internet History discussion has been held on a mailing list,
archived on some server somewhere ... I wonder how long it will survive.
  Through the 70s/80s and beyond, there were many, many discussions just
like this one, where ideas were debated and decisions were made outside
of the traditional publication mechanisms.

Enjoy!
/Jack Haverty



From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Fri Aug  7 23:47:53 2015
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 18:47:53 +1200
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>

On 08/08/2015 08:12, Jack Haverty wrote:
...
> But I don't think there's much written
> material about that battle between TCP/IP and X.25 in the ARPANET arena.

I'd say that battle was mainly fought in Europe. It certainly features
heavily in TERENA's history book [1], and anecdotally in my own
offering [2].

   Brian

[1] A History of International Research Networking: the People who Made it Happen,
Howard Davies & Beatrice Bressan (ed), ISBN: 978-3-527-32710-2, Wiley, 2010.

[2] https://sites.google.com/site/bcabrc/network-geeks-book


From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net  Sat Aug  8 00:42:57 2015
From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman)
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 03:42:57 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org>
	<55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>


> On 08/08/2015 08:12, Jack Haverty wrote:
> ...
>> But I don't think there's much written
>> material about that battle between TCP/IP and X.25 in the ARPANET arena.

Jack,

Granted that the TCP/IP cutover happened 2 years before I got to BBN, so my exposure wasn't quite firsthand -
but weren't the battles really between 1822 and X.25, and then TCP/IP vs. the ISO stack?  After all, 1822 and X.25 were both single subnet protocols, with no support for internetworking (and that IP runs over both of them, just fine).

Miles



-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra



From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net  Sat Aug  8 00:49:50 2015
From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman)
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 03:49:50 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org>
	<55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55C5B49E.3090106@meetinghouse.net>

Jack Haverty wrote:

>
> The network changed the environment for human collaboration.  In the
> traditional ways, discussion and debate would occur by a series of
> papers and presentations, published over months if not years.  In the
> new network way, similar discussions and debates occurred, in hours or
> days, over mail conversations, mailing lists, newsgroups, etc.  Only a
> part of that was captured in formal means which survive today.  IMHO, it
> was unfortunately a pretty small part.
Jack,

Parenthetical comment:  This is kind of what's driven my career - I 
still remember "catching the bug" from the really early email lists and 
bboards at MIT.  Led to work on C2 systems, and starting the Center for 
Civic Networking.

I keep thinking that there's a book to be written about this.

Cheers,

Miles

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra



From vint at google.com  Sat Aug  8 03:05:47 2015
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 06:05:47 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
Message-ID: <CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>

Larry Roberts asked me what he should use for protocol in Telenet and I
said TCP but he said he could not sell datagrams and went on to develop
X.25's virtual circuits with French, Canadian and UK assistance at CCITT
(now ITU-T). That was standardized in 1976 while TCP was evolving. I told
him we would run TCP (eventually TCP/IP) over X.25 and by 1981 or so that
is what we did in CSNET. 1822 was never a contender for a global standard.
X.25 begot X.75 which was the CCITT response to the Internet's TCP/IP.

OSI was yet another effort to craft a non-TCP/IP Internet and that got
started in 1978, using X.25 as the underlying virtual circuit basis.
Eventually an OSI connectionless mode was developed CLNP but never gained
much popularity.

The TCP/IP vs OSI battle lasted from 1978 to 1993. X.25 was around from
1976 to 2003 or so as I recall. I shut down the last MCI X.25 offering
about 2003 or so if memory serves.

On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
wrote:

>
> > On 08/08/2015 08:12, Jack Haverty wrote:
> > ...
> >> But I don't think there's much written
> >> material about that battle between TCP/IP and X.25 in the ARPANET arena.
>
> Jack,
>
> Granted that the TCP/IP cutover happened 2 years before I got to BBN, so
> my exposure wasn't quite firsthand -
> but weren't the battles really between 1822 and X.25, and then TCP/IP vs.
> the ISO stack?  After all, 1822 and X.25 were both single subnet protocols,
> with no support for internetworking (and that IP runs over both of them,
> just fine).
>
> Miles
>
>
>
> --
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20150808/924472fe/attachment.htm>

From randy at psg.com  Sat Aug  8 03:46:12 2015
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 19:46:12 +0900
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
	<CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <m2fv3urrbf.wl%randy@psg.com>

> Eventually an OSI connectionless mode was developed CLNP but never
> gained much popularity.

today, most of the big backbones use is-is, which is over clnp

> The TCP/IP vs OSI battle lasted from 1978 to 1993.

marshall's rude train wreck preso comes to mind

randy


From jcurran at istaff.org  Sat Aug  8 05:18:41 2015
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 08:18:41 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <m2fv3urrbf.wl%randy@psg.com>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
	<CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<m2fv3urrbf.wl%randy@psg.com>
Message-ID: <862A751B-1608-4E86-AA23-DC20C58D6BDE@istaff.org>

On Aug 8, 2015, at 6:46 AM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:

>> Eventually an OSI connectionless mode was developed CLNP but never
>> gained much popularity.
> 
> today, most of the big backbones use is-is, which is over clnp

Indeed - we could have easily ended up with TCP/UDP over CLNP (TUBA)
as IPng, as it worked just fine...

Ultimately, the concerns about potential change control arguments with ITU 
resulted using CLNP's address format for IPv6, only with a fixed length. 
(Those dealing with virtualization today will curse loudly someday when they 
discover that we actively chose to undo existing, working variable length 
addressing in defining IPv6...)

/John




From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat Aug  8 05:48:39 2015
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 08:48:39 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <862A751B-1608-4E86-AA23-DC20C58D6BDE@istaff.org>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
	<CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<m2fv3urrbf.wl%randy@psg.com>
	<862A751B-1608-4E86-AA23-DC20C58D6BDE@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <445C300A-5FEF-44B3-B810-F6C371889E33@comcast.net>

Pretty amusing, considering ITU had nothing to do with its development.  It was all done in ISO meetings.


> On Aug 8, 2015, at 08:18, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> 
> On Aug 8, 2015, at 6:46 AM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Eventually an OSI connectionless mode was developed CLNP but never
>>> gained much popularity.
>> 
>> today, most of the big backbones use is-is, which is over clnp
> 
> Indeed - we could have easily ended up with TCP/UDP over CLNP (TUBA)
> as IPng, as it worked just fine...
> 
> Ultimately, the concerns about potential change control arguments with ITU 
> resulted using CLNP's address format for IPv6, only with a fixed length. 
> (Those dealing with virtualization today will curse loudly someday when they 
> discover that we actively chose to undo existing, working variable length 
> addressing in defining IPv6...)
> 
> /John
> 
> 
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.




From randy at psg.com  Sat Aug  8 05:53:50 2015
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 21:53:50 +0900
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <862A751B-1608-4E86-AA23-DC20C58D6BDE@istaff.org>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
	<CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<m2fv3urrbf.wl%randy@psg.com>
	<862A751B-1608-4E86-AA23-DC20C58D6BDE@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <m2bneirlep.wl%randy@psg.com>

>>> Eventually an OSI connectionless mode was developed CLNP but never
>>> gained much popularity.
>> 
>> today, most of the big backbones use is-is, which is over clnp
> 
> Indeed - we could have easily ended up with TCP/UDP over CLNP (TUBA)
> as IPng, as it worked just fine...
> 
> Ultimately, the concerns about potential change control arguments with ITU 
> resulted using CLNP's address format for IPv6, only with a fixed length. 
> (Those dealing with virtualization today will curse loudly someday when they 
> discover that we actively chose to undo existing, working variable length 
> addressing in defining IPv6...)

insert emoji of steam coming out of ears


From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu  Sat Aug  8 06:00:54 2015
From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Sat,  8 Aug 2015 09:00:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
Message-ID: <20150808130054.A4D9418C180@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>

    > From: John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org>

    > (Those dealing with virtualization today will curse loudly someday when
    > they discover that we actively chose to undo existing, working variable
    > length addressing in defining IPv6...)

"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce." Ever read the
IPv3 spec?

	Noel


From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sat Aug  8 07:03:12 2015
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 15:03:12 +0100
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <862A751B-1608-4E86-AA23-DC20C58D6BDE@istaff.org>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
	<CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<m2fv3urrbf.wl%randy@psg.com>
	<862A751B-1608-4E86-AA23-DC20C58D6BDE@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <dde853bc-65d2-4440-ad61-225df7b78e4c@typeapp.com>

The available CLNP address format (GOSIP aka DECNET phase V) was fixed length however. And would have been a privacy nightmare.

Sent from phone
?? Brian



On 8 Aug 2015 13:54, at 13:54, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
>On Aug 8, 2015, at 6:46 AM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
>
>>> Eventually an OSI connectionless mode was developed CLNP but never
>>> gained much popularity.
>> 
>> today, most of the big backbones use is-is, which is over clnp
>
>Indeed - we could have easily ended up with TCP/UDP over CLNP (TUBA)
>as IPng, as it worked just fine...
>
>Ultimately, the concerns about potential change control arguments with
>ITU 
>resulted using CLNP's address format for IPv6, only with a fixed
>length. 
>(Those dealing with virtualization today will curse loudly someday when
>they 
>discover that we actively chose to undo existing, working variable
>length 
>addressing in defining IPv6...)
>
>/John
>
>
>_______
>internet-history mailing list
>internet-history at postel.org
>http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20150808/03b06bd5/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at istaff.org  Sat Aug  8 07:11:18 2015
From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran)
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 10:11:18 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <445C300A-5FEF-44B3-B810-F6C371889E33@comcast.net>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
	<CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<m2fv3urrbf.wl%randy@psg.com>
	<862A751B-1608-4E86-AA23-DC20C58D6BDE@istaff.org>
	<445C300A-5FEF-44B3-B810-F6C371889E33@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <C71DABBD-43C7-4931-B2E5-8E66B20BC5C0@istaff.org>


> On Aug 8, 2015, at 8:48 AM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> Pretty amusing, considering ITU had nothing to do with its development.  It was all done in ISO meetings.

(Apologies - that was my subconscious (and errant) substitution of the boogeyman du jour? )

The discussion that took place was regarding potential for IETF to lack change control vis-a-vis 
the ISO process, and it turns out to be fairly well covered in final IPng recommendation doc 
(RFC1752) - 

" There seems to be a profound disagreement within the TUBA community
   over the question of the ability of the IETF to modify the CLNP standards.  
   In our presentation in Houston we said that we felt that "clone and run? 
   was a legitimate process.  This is also what the IAB proposed in "IP version 7?. 
   [IAB92]  The TUBA community has not reached consensus that this view is 
   reasonable.  While many,  including a number of the CLNP document authors, 
   are adamant that this is not an issue and the IETF can make modifications 
   to the base standards, many others are just as adamant that the standards
   ca only be changed through the ISO standards process.  Since the
   overwhelming feeling within the IETF is that the IETF must 'own' the
   standards on which it is basing its future, this disagreement within
   the TUBA community was disquieting. 
"

i.e. we came close to use of ISO-CLMP protocol for the Internet at large, but in the 
end went in a different direction primarily due to reasons that were not technical.

/John




From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net  Sat Aug  8 07:18:36 2015
From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman)
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 10:18:36 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org>	<55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
	<CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55C60FBC.4030502@meetinghouse.net>

Which raises an obvious question:  Did X.75 ever get much traction?  In 
my days at BBN (1985-1992), and for a few years earlier, when I was 
selling time sharing services, and using TELENET, I can't really recall 
ever encountering it in real use.

Miles

Vint Cerf wrote:
> Larry Roberts asked me what he should use for protocol in Telenet and 
> I said TCP but he said he could not sell datagrams and went on to 
> develop X.25's virtual circuits with French, Canadian and UK 
> assistance at CCITT (now ITU-T). That was standardized in 1976 while 
> TCP was evolving. I told him we would run TCP (eventually TCP/IP) over 
> X.25 and by 1981 or so that is what we did in CSNET. 1822 was never a 
> contender for a global standard. X.25 begot X.75 which was the CCITT 
> response to the Internet's TCP/IP.
>
> OSI was yet another effort to craft a non-TCP/IP Internet and that got 
> started in 1978, using X.25 as the underlying virtual circuit basis. 
> Eventually an OSI connectionless mode was developed CLNP but never 
> gained much popularity.
>
> The TCP/IP vs OSI battle lasted from 1978 to 1993. X.25 was around 
> from 1976 to 2003 or so as I recall. I shut down the last MCI X.25 
> offering about 2003 or so if memory serves.
>
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Miles Fidelman 
> <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>> wrote:
>
>
>     > On 08/08/2015 08:12, Jack Haverty wrote:
>     > ...
>     >> But I don't think there's much written
>     >> material about that battle between TCP/IP and X.25 in the
>     ARPANET arena.
>
>     Jack,
>
>     Granted that the TCP/IP cutover happened 2 years before I got to
>     BBN, so my exposure wasn't quite firsthand -
>     but weren't the battles really between 1822 and X.25, and then
>     TCP/IP vs. the ISO stack?  After all, 1822 and X.25 were both
>     single subnet protocols, with no support for internetworking (and
>     that IP runs over both of them, just fine).
>
>     Miles
>
>
>
>     --
>     In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>     In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>
>     _______
>     internet-history mailing list
>     internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
>     http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>     Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> for
>     assistance.
>
>


-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra



From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat Aug  8 07:21:45 2015
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 10:21:45 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <C71DABBD-43C7-4931-B2E5-8E66B20BC5C0@istaff.org>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
	<CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<m2fv3urrbf.wl%randy@psg.com>
	<862A751B-1608-4E86-AA23-DC20C58D6BDE@istaff.org>
	<445C300A-5FEF-44B3-B810-F6C371889E33@comcast.net>
	<C71DABBD-43C7-4931-B2E5-8E66B20BC5C0@istaff.org>
Message-ID: <0084598E-D916-4386-9465-759E8E5609ED@comcast.net>

Yes, I remember.

It is (and was) still pretty amusing. IEEE does it all the time and has for a very long time.




> On Aug 8, 2015, at 10:11, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Aug 8, 2015, at 8:48 AM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Pretty amusing, considering ITU had nothing to do with its development.  It was all done in ISO meetings.
> 
> (Apologies - that was my subconscious (and errant) substitution of the boogeyman du jour? )
> 
> The discussion that took place was regarding potential for IETF to lack change control vis-a-vis 
> the ISO process, and it turns out to be fairly well covered in final IPng recommendation doc 
> (RFC1752) - 
> 
> " There seems to be a profound disagreement within the TUBA community
>   over the question of the ability of the IETF to modify the CLNP standards.  
>   In our presentation in Houston we said that we felt that "clone and run? 
>   was a legitimate process.  This is also what the IAB proposed in "IP version 7?. 
>   [IAB92]  The TUBA community has not reached consensus that this view is 
>   reasonable.  While many,  including a number of the CLNP document authors, 
>   are adamant that this is not an issue and the IETF can make modifications 
>   to the base standards, many others are just as adamant that the standards
>   ca only be changed through the ISO standards process.  Since the
>   overwhelming feeling within the IETF is that the IETF must 'own' the
>   standards on which it is basing its future, this disagreement within
>   the TUBA community was disquieting. 
> "
> 
> i.e. we came close to use of ISO-CLMP protocol for the Internet at large, but in the 
> end went in a different direction primarily due to reasons that were not technical.
> 
> /John
> 




From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat Aug  8 08:03:49 2015
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 11:03:49 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <dde853bc-65d2-4440-ad61-225df7b78e4c@typeapp.com>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
	<CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<m2fv3urrbf.wl%randy@psg.com>
	<862A751B-1608-4E86-AA23-DC20C58D6BDE@istaff.org>
	<dde853bc-65d2-4440-ad61-225df7b78e4c@typeapp.com>
Message-ID: <EBB5E722-AB93-4A9A-902D-6F23AFD41626@comcast.net>

Yes, address plans belong to layers not to protocols.  But then IP didn?t learn that lesson either.


> On Aug 8, 2015, at 10:03, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The available CLNP address format (GOSIP aka DECNET phase V) was fixed length however. And would have been a privacy nightmare.
> 
> Sent from phone
>    Brian
> 
> On 8 Aug 2015, at 13:54, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org <mailto:jcurran at istaff.org>> wrote:
> On Aug 8, 2015, at 6:46 AM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
> 
>  Eventually an OSI connectionless mode was developed CLNP but never
>  gained much popularity.
>  
>  today, most of the big backbones use is-is, which is over clnp
> 
> Indeed - we could have easily ended up with TCP/UDP over CLNP (TUBA)
> as IPng, as it worked just fine...
> 
> Ultimately, the concerns about potential change control arguments with ITU 
> resulted using CLNP's address format for IPv6, only with a fixed length. 
> (Those dealing with virtualization today will curse loudly someday when they 
> discover that we actively chose to undo existing, working variable length 
> addressing in defining
> IPv6...)
> 
> /John
> 
> 
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20150808/f2ca296b/attachment.htm>

From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat Aug  8 08:04:40 2015
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 11:04:40 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <55C60FBC.4030502@meetinghouse.net>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
	<CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C60FBC.4030502@meetinghouse.net>
Message-ID: <EE917245-83CD-44F9-BEFE-46CD9928DBE7@comcast.net>

X.75 was widely used within PTT packet-offerings.  As you would imagine mostly outside North America.


> On Aug 8, 2015, at 10:18, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
> 
> Which raises an obvious question:  Did X.75 ever get much traction?  In 
> my days at BBN (1985-1992), and for a few years earlier, when I was 
> selling time sharing services, and using TELENET, I can't really recall 
> ever encountering it in real use.
> 
> Miles
> 
> Vint Cerf wrote:
>> Larry Roberts asked me what he should use for protocol in Telenet and 
>> I said TCP but he said he could not sell datagrams and went on to 
>> develop X.25's virtual circuits with French, Canadian and UK 
>> assistance at CCITT (now ITU-T). That was standardized in 1976 while 
>> TCP was evolving. I told him we would run TCP (eventually TCP/IP) over 
>> X.25 and by 1981 or so that is what we did in CSNET. 1822 was never a 
>> contender for a global standard. X.25 begot X.75 which was the CCITT 
>> response to the Internet's TCP/IP.
>> 
>> OSI was yet another effort to craft a non-TCP/IP Internet and that got 
>> started in 1978, using X.25 as the underlying virtual circuit basis. 
>> Eventually an OSI connectionless mode was developed CLNP but never 
>> gained much popularity.
>> 
>> The TCP/IP vs OSI battle lasted from 1978 to 1993. X.25 was around 
>> from 1976 to 2003 or so as I recall. I shut down the last MCI X.25 
>> offering about 2003 or so if memory serves.
>> 
>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Miles Fidelman 
>> <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 08/08/2015 08:12, Jack Haverty wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> But I don't think there's much written
>>>> material about that battle between TCP/IP and X.25 in the
>>    ARPANET arena.
>> 
>>    Jack,
>> 
>>    Granted that the TCP/IP cutover happened 2 years before I got to
>>    BBN, so my exposure wasn't quite firsthand -
>>    but weren't the battles really between 1822 and X.25, and then
>>    TCP/IP vs. the ISO stack?  After all, 1822 and X.25 were both
>>    single subnet protocols, with no support for internetworking (and
>>    that IP runs over both of them, just fine).
>> 
>>    Miles
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>    --
>>    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>>    In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>> 
>>    _______
>>    internet-history mailing list
>>    internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
>>    http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>    Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> for
>>    assistance.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
> 
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.




From leo at vegoda.org  Sat Aug  8 08:08:11 2015
From: leo at vegoda.org (Leo Vegoda)
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 08:08:11 -0700
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
	<CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPfiqjYvKZCC7t-Y7mDENqQpBJQbUt5t2Ky=Gn9+pBkpGR40Eg@mail.gmail.com>

On 8 August 2015 at 03:05, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:

[...]

> The TCP/IP vs OSI battle lasted from 1978 to 1993. X.25 was around from 1976
> to 2003 or so as I recall. I shut down the last MCI X.25 offering about 2003
> or so if memory serves.

In 2007 I researched the status of each of the addresses in 14/8,
which at that time was reserved for the gateways between x.25 and
IPv4, as a part of reclaiming that /8. A large number of the addresses
were still in use for a government network in Sweden (a labor
exchange, I believe) and they were returned after the gateways were
renumbered. Deutsche Telekom and BT were also still selling X.25
circuits at that time.

Looking at BT's current published pricing, I think they still sell
X.25 circuits:

https://www.bt.com/pricing/current/BT_IP_Networking_boo/0177_d0e8876.htm#0177-d0e8876

I suppose people still use X.25 and the telcos at least cover their costs.

REgards,

Leo


From vint at google.com  Sat Aug  8 08:18:55 2015
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 11:18:55 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <CAPfiqjYvKZCC7t-Y7mDENqQpBJQbUt5t2Ky=Gn9+pBkpGR40Eg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
	<CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPfiqjYvKZCC7t-Y7mDENqQpBJQbUt5t2Ky=Gn9+pBkpGR40Eg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggd97-d3dYFnKFnPOusbXk-p15MaXvq2dPipFhhCe+qb9w@mail.gmail.com>

thanks for the additional color - stuff that works tends to persist.

v


On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Leo Vegoda <leo at vegoda.org> wrote:

> On 8 August 2015 at 03:05, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > The TCP/IP vs OSI battle lasted from 1978 to 1993. X.25 was around from
> 1976
> > to 2003 or so as I recall. I shut down the last MCI X.25 offering about
> 2003
> > or so if memory serves.
>
> In 2007 I researched the status of each of the addresses in 14/8,
> which at that time was reserved for the gateways between x.25 and
> IPv4, as a part of reclaiming that /8. A large number of the addresses
> were still in use for a government network in Sweden (a labor
> exchange, I believe) and they were returned after the gateways were
> renumbered. Deutsche Telekom and BT were also still selling X.25
> circuits at that time.
>
> Looking at BT's current published pricing, I think they still sell
> X.25 circuits:
>
>
> https://www.bt.com/pricing/current/BT_IP_Networking_boo/0177_d0e8876.htm#0177-d0e8876
>
> I suppose people still use X.25 and the telcos at least cover their costs.
>
> REgards,
>
> Leo
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20150808/43d91501/attachment.htm>

From vint at google.com  Sat Aug  8 08:19:57 2015
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 11:19:57 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <EE917245-83CD-44F9-BEFE-46CD9928DBE7@comcast.net>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
	<CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C60FBC.4030502@meetinghouse.net>
	<EE917245-83CD-44F9-BEFE-46CD9928DBE7@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggf-jdaa-wH8QsJUKLxmw0v9SZU=06A8=nYFzXb8UR591Q@mail.gmail.com>

the US-based Telenet and Tymnet both offered X.25 service and implemented
X.75 I believe.

On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 11:04 AM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:

> X.75 was widely used within PTT packet-offerings.  As you would imagine
> mostly outside North America.
>
>
> > On Aug 8, 2015, at 10:18, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > Which raises an obvious question:  Did X.75 ever get much traction?  In
> > my days at BBN (1985-1992), and for a few years earlier, when I was
> > selling time sharing services, and using TELENET, I can't really recall
> > ever encountering it in real use.
> >
> > Miles
> >
> > Vint Cerf wrote:
> >> Larry Roberts asked me what he should use for protocol in Telenet and
> >> I said TCP but he said he could not sell datagrams and went on to
> >> develop X.25's virtual circuits with French, Canadian and UK
> >> assistance at CCITT (now ITU-T). That was standardized in 1976 while
> >> TCP was evolving. I told him we would run TCP (eventually TCP/IP) over
> >> X.25 and by 1981 or so that is what we did in CSNET. 1822 was never a
> >> contender for a global standard. X.25 begot X.75 which was the CCITT
> >> response to the Internet's TCP/IP.
> >>
> >> OSI was yet another effort to craft a non-TCP/IP Internet and that got
> >> started in 1978, using X.25 as the underlying virtual circuit basis.
> >> Eventually an OSI connectionless mode was developed CLNP but never
> >> gained much popularity.
> >>
> >> The TCP/IP vs OSI battle lasted from 1978 to 1993. X.25 was around
> >> from 1976 to 2003 or so as I recall. I shut down the last MCI X.25
> >> offering about 2003 or so if memory serves.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Miles Fidelman
> >> <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 08/08/2015 08:12, Jack Haverty wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>> But I don't think there's much written
> >>>> material about that battle between TCP/IP and X.25 in the
> >>    ARPANET arena.
> >>
> >>    Jack,
> >>
> >>    Granted that the TCP/IP cutover happened 2 years before I got to
> >>    BBN, so my exposure wasn't quite firsthand -
> >>    but weren't the battles really between 1822 and X.25, and then
> >>    TCP/IP vs. the ISO stack?  After all, 1822 and X.25 were both
> >>    single subnet protocols, with no support for internetworking (and
> >>    that IP runs over both of them, just fine).
> >>
> >>    Miles
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>    --
> >>    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> >>    In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
> >>
> >>    _______
> >>    internet-history mailing list
> >>    internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
> >>    http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >>    Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> for
> >>    assistance.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> > In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
> >
> > _______
> > internet-history mailing list
> > internet-history at postel.org
> > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>
>
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20150808/6df5575f/attachment.htm>

From bill.n1vux at gmail.com  Sat Aug  8 08:49:58 2015
From: bill.n1vux at gmail.com (Bill Ricker)
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 11:49:58 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAbKA3XNe4ZBgAK=dq+YmRqWNoO_ZF46vT6KiVz2Voz6xkompw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 2:47 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> > But I don't think there's much written
> > material about that battle between TCP/IP and X.25 in the ARPANET arena.
>
> I'd say that battle was mainly fought in Europe.


?I have to point out that Padlipsky's book "Elements of Networking Style"?
contains lightly edited primary source material with "prefatory
afterthoughts" added on the fight over whether the MILnet successsors to
(d)ARPAnet would be based on the ISO/OSI standardized stack and reference
model or the ARPA TCP/IP  stack and model.  It's not the whole book, but
one might not exaggerate to say it's the primary conflict presented.

?The book is "in print" only in Ready-Print at this time.  If a historian
researching the standards-wielders ' attempt to subvert the open-ness of
the Internet needs a dead-tree copy to understand the MILnet/DODIIS/...
political intrigue and the resistance of the "Old Network Boys" from the
NWG, contact me off-list.

Highlights (included as ready for framing slogans in appendix too):

   - Beware of the panacea peddlers: just because you wind up naked doesn?t
   make you an emperor
   - Layering makes a good servant but a bad master
   - If you know what you?re doing, three layers is enough; if you don?t
   seventeen won?t help
   - If you build a better mousetrap, the voluntary standards organizations
   will plod a path at least 37*?* off-course from your door
   - Standards should be discovered, not decreed
   - Oversold, underdesigned, and years from here

[For those younger than I, the last is a delightful riff on the English
complaint of Yank soldiers quartered in Britain pre-D-Day ... 71 years ago
... were "Over-paid, Over-sexed, and Over-here". Yes they appreciated our
assistance but side-effect of the ravishing of their pubs and young ladies
there-to-fore supposedly patiently waiting for Tommy Oversea. ]

Miles asks,
> but weren't the battles really between 1822 and X.25, and then TCP/IP vs.
the ISO stack?
> After all, 1822 and X.25 were both single subnet protocols, with

Yes, the names selected as "champions" of their camps aren't directly
comparable Oranges to Footballs (American or European?), but X.25 was the
element of interest to Telcos so was their champion. The real competition
was OSI RM [or  ISORM (eye-sore-m) as MAP called it] vs the (d)ARPA suite
of protocols based on TCP/IP (sometimes called ARM).


Bill Ricker
?The Literary Estate of M.A.Padlipsky?
bill.n1vux at gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20150808/ca332031/attachment.htm>

From bill.n1vux at gmail.com  Sat Aug  8 08:53:18 2015
From: bill.n1vux at gmail.com (Bill Ricker)
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 11:53:18 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <20150808130054.A4D9418C180@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
References: <20150808130054.A4D9418C180@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <CAAbKA3UGh5wSmmORiUUFHfnTG1o2osMqJMKeZdcx8XoUw9hOLQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Noel Chiappa <jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
wrote:

> "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce."
> Ever read the
> ? ?
> IPv3 spec?
>

?Ouch.
MAP would appreciate that.?

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1vux at gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20150808/398d0adf/attachment.htm>

From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sat Aug  8 09:45:45 2015
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2015 04:45:45 +1200
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggf-jdaa-wH8QsJUKLxmw0v9SZU=06A8=nYFzXb8UR591Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org>
	<55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>	<CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>	<55C60FBC.4030502@meetinghouse.net>	<EE917245-83CD-44F9-BEFE-46CD9928DBE7@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggf-jdaa-wH8QsJUKLxmw0v9SZU=06A8=nYFzXb8UR591Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55C63239.9050309@gmail.com>

X.75 was a given in Europe, for those who didn't use private
international leased lines. I think we just considered it to be normal
and not worth mentioning separately.

Regards
   Brian

On 09/08/2015 03:19, Vint Cerf wrote:
> the US-based Telenet and Tymnet both offered X.25 service and implemented
> X.75 I believe.
> 
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 11:04 AM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> X.75 was widely used within PTT packet-offerings.  As you would imagine
>> mostly outside North America.
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 8, 2015, at 10:18, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Which raises an obvious question:  Did X.75 ever get much traction?  In
>>> my days at BBN (1985-1992), and for a few years earlier, when I was
>>> selling time sharing services, and using TELENET, I can't really recall
>>> ever encountering it in real use.
>>>
>>> Miles
>>>
>>> Vint Cerf wrote:
>>>> Larry Roberts asked me what he should use for protocol in Telenet and
>>>> I said TCP but he said he could not sell datagrams and went on to
>>>> develop X.25's virtual circuits with French, Canadian and UK
>>>> assistance at CCITT (now ITU-T). That was standardized in 1976 while
>>>> TCP was evolving. I told him we would run TCP (eventually TCP/IP) over
>>>> X.25 and by 1981 or so that is what we did in CSNET. 1822 was never a
>>>> contender for a global standard. X.25 begot X.75 which was the CCITT
>>>> response to the Internet's TCP/IP.
>>>>
>>>> OSI was yet another effort to craft a non-TCP/IP Internet and that got
>>>> started in 1978, using X.25 as the underlying virtual circuit basis.
>>>> Eventually an OSI connectionless mode was developed CLNP but never
>>>> gained much popularity.
>>>>
>>>> The TCP/IP vs OSI battle lasted from 1978 to 1993. X.25 was around
>>>> from 1976 to 2003 or so as I recall. I shut down the last MCI X.25
>>>> offering about 2003 or so if memory serves.
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Miles Fidelman
>>>> <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 08/08/2015 08:12, Jack Haverty wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> But I don't think there's much written
>>>>>> material about that battle between TCP/IP and X.25 in the
>>>>    ARPANET arena.
>>>>
>>>>    Jack,
>>>>
>>>>    Granted that the TCP/IP cutover happened 2 years before I got to
>>>>    BBN, so my exposure wasn't quite firsthand -
>>>>    but weren't the battles really between 1822 and X.25, and then
>>>>    TCP/IP vs. the ISO stack?  After all, 1822 and X.25 were both
>>>>    single subnet protocols, with no support for internetworking (and
>>>>    that IP runs over both of them, just fine).
>>>>
>>>>    Miles
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    --
>>>>    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>>>>    In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>>>>
>>>>    _______
>>>>    internet-history mailing list
>>>>    internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
>>>>    http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>    Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> for
>>>>    assistance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>>> In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>>>
>>> _______
>>> internet-history mailing list
>>> internet-history at postel.org
>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>>
>>
>> _______
>> internet-history mailing list
>> internet-history at postel.org
>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
> 


From agmalis at gmail.com  Sat Aug  8 10:04:23 2015
From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis)
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 13:04:23 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <CAPfiqjYvKZCC7t-Y7mDENqQpBJQbUt5t2Ky=Gn9+pBkpGR40Eg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org>
	<55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com> <55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
	<CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPfiqjYvKZCC7t-Y7mDENqQpBJQbUt5t2Ky=Gn9+pBkpGR40Eg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAA=duU3=jEOqX7GiEMK=ULK_nwBDc4Gj0VBNhe8UeQm_gQL+6g@mail.gmail.com>

X.25 was widely used (and may still be, for all I know) by cash ATMs.

Cheers,
Andy


On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Leo Vegoda <leo at vegoda.org> wrote:

> On 8 August 2015 at 03:05, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > The TCP/IP vs OSI battle lasted from 1978 to 1993. X.25 was around from
> 1976
> > to 2003 or so as I recall. I shut down the last MCI X.25 offering about
> 2003
> > or so if memory serves.
>
> In 2007 I researched the status of each of the addresses in 14/8,
> which at that time was reserved for the gateways between x.25 and
> IPv4, as a part of reclaiming that /8. A large number of the addresses
> were still in use for a government network in Sweden (a labor
> exchange, I believe) and they were returned after the gateways were
> renumbered. Deutsche Telekom and BT were also still selling X.25
> circuits at that time.
>
> Looking at BT's current published pricing, I think they still sell
> X.25 circuits:
>
>
> https://www.bt.com/pricing/current/BT_IP_Networking_boo/0177_d0e8876.htm#0177-d0e8876
>
> I suppose people still use X.25 and the telcos at least cover their costs.
>
> REgards,
>
> Leo
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20150808/f51aa80d/attachment.htm>

From jack at 3kitty.org  Sat Aug  8 13:48:10 2015
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 13:48:10 -0700
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org>	<55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
Message-ID: <55C66B0A.1010109@3kitty.org>


On 08/08/2015 12:42 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:

> Granted that the TCP/IP cutover happened 2 years before I got to BBN, so my exposure wasn't quite firsthand -
> but weren't the battles really between 1822 and X.25, and then TCP/IP vs. the ISO stack?  After all, 1822 and X.25 were both single subnet protocols, with no support for internetworking (and that IP runs over both of them, just fine).


Miles et al,

IMHO, its more revealing to view the battles as between competing
"ecosystems" rather than between protocol or interface designs and
specifications.

By "ecosystem" I mean all of the things - technology, processes,
methodologies, and humans - surrounding the core mechanisms of
protocols, formats, and algorithms.

In the Internet ecosystem, we had:

- a complex distributed multi-computer system that we were building, and
also using every day while we were building it.  It had to work or we
couldn't.

- tools to watch what was happening, diagnose problems, and change
things quickly to fix and adapt; we built the tools because we needed
them to make things work which we needed to be able to do our work.
Things like ping, traceroute, SNMP, XNET, dig, etc., etc.

- from the early days of the ARPANET onwards, tools for rapid
collaboration, debate, and dissemination of ideas and results, good and
bad, with broad reach.  Things like FTP, mail, Gopher, USENET, etc.

- management who made key decisions, such as to:
	- keep the technical details open, readily and broadly available, and free
	- create (fund) implementations of core components and make them
available also.  Things like TCP implementations for many different
kinds of computers, along with the basic "apps" of mail, remote-login,
and file-transfer.
	- mandate key burn-the-bridge steps.  Things like forcing all of us to
jump into the deep end on 1/1/1983 when only TCP would be usable on the
ARPANET.  So we had to make it work.
	- force the technology out of the computer research world into other
scientific arenas.  Things like NSFNet.
	- force the technology out of the research lab educational arena and
into real-world operational use.  Things like making TCP mandatory for
procurement of DoD systems.

- an environment in which people who saw a need could take it on and
"just do it", letting the ecosystem later decide whether or not it would
endure.  Rough consensus, running code led to Internet Darwinism, not a
committee vote.

- people who seized various needs and just did it without much debate or
discussion.  Dave Mills, for example, focused in on Time, and he and his
crew created NNTP, which is why your computer on The Internet today
knows what time it is.

- people who took on some less glamorous, but crucial, roles.  Jon
Postel is a good example of this, working in a calm but forceful way to
keep some discipline in the rowdy crowd.   He organized "TCP Bakeoff"
events to make sure we were all on the same page.  He made sure
important things got written down with permanence, even if he had to do
it himself - perhaps the First Internet Historian.  His iron hand as
Numbers Czar was something no one else particularly wanted to do.  I
recall several conversations with Jon (mostly by email of course) to get
a new Number assigned, when he would patiently explain why it was a bad
idea and that there was a way to do what I wanted without using up
Number Space.  The First Internet Bureaucrat, but with a penchant to
find a solution.

- by virtue of free and working code, and the core documentation which
Jon, Jake, and others excelled in making available, universities and
colleges across the reach of the Internet created a pipeline of students
who continuously emerged into the workforce with a timely and practical
knowledge and experience in The Internet Way.  They rarely had any
similar experience in any other networking system.   I recall managers
lamenting that they were having trouble hiring people because their
company wasn't "on the net".

All of that and more is the ecosystem.

This is not an exhaustive list, and I mentioned as examples just a few
of the people I worked with during that era.   There were many more.
But I hope it conveys the idea of what I mean by "ecosystem".

I recall clearly when I first realized that the Internet ecosystem had
won.  In the early 90s I was "Internet Architect" at Oracle, and was
asked to lead a discussion about the Internet with a group of about 20
key customers.

The group was a collection of executive-level managers - CTOs, CIOs,
etc., from a broad range of industry and government - Banks,
Manufacturers, etc.  We went around the room asking what networking
technology they were using at the time, and got the expected range of
answers.  There were IBM shops, DEC shops, etc., but no "TCP shops".
However, they all did have TCP in-house somewhere in a testbed environment.

Going around the room again, they explained their future plans - their
"roadmap" for their technology.  Every person said the same thing -
"We're going to TCP as fast as we can."  The reasons?  "It works."  "Our
new hires know how to use it."  "We can't wait anymore."

Of course, we subsequently helped them do exactly that.  IMHO, it was
the TCP-based ecosystem that made it all happen.  Not a particular
protocol, or interface, or other technical detail.

The battles in the networking industry may have been between protocols
and architectures.   But all the end users really cared about was that
it - the Internet Ecosystem - worked.

/Jack



From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net  Sat Aug  8 14:29:51 2015
From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman)
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 17:29:51 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <55C66B0A.1010109@3kitty.org>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org>	<55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
	<55C66B0A.1010109@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <55C674CF.3050202@meetinghouse.net>

Jack,

A good way of summarizing things.  Funny thing, I'm sort of making that 
argument right now, in a business plan, discussing e-commerce 
ecosystems. :-)

Best,

Miles

Jack Haverty wrote:
> On 08/08/2015 12:42 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
>> Granted that the TCP/IP cutover happened 2 years before I got to BBN, so my exposure wasn't quite firsthand -
>> but weren't the battles really between 1822 and X.25, and then TCP/IP vs. the ISO stack?  After all, 1822 and X.25 were both single subnet protocols, with no support for internetworking (and that IP runs over both of them, just fine).
>
> Miles et al,
>
> IMHO, its more revealing to view the battles as between competing
> "ecosystems" rather than between protocol or interface designs and
> specifications.
>
> By "ecosystem" I mean all of the things - technology, processes,
> methodologies, and humans - surrounding the core mechanisms of
> protocols, formats, and algorithms.
>
> In the Internet ecosystem, we had:
>
> - a complex distributed multi-computer system that we were building, and
> also using every day while we were building it.  It had to work or we
> couldn't.
>
> - tools to watch what was happening, diagnose problems, and change
> things quickly to fix and adapt; we built the tools because we needed
> them to make things work which we needed to be able to do our work.
> Things like ping, traceroute, SNMP, XNET, dig, etc., etc.
>
> - from the early days of the ARPANET onwards, tools for rapid
> collaboration, debate, and dissemination of ideas and results, good and
> bad, with broad reach.  Things like FTP, mail, Gopher, USENET, etc.
>
> - management who made key decisions, such as to:
> 	- keep the technical details open, readily and broadly available, and free
> 	- create (fund) implementations of core components and make them
> available also.  Things like TCP implementations for many different
> kinds of computers, along with the basic "apps" of mail, remote-login,
> and file-transfer.
> 	- mandate key burn-the-bridge steps.  Things like forcing all of us to
> jump into the deep end on 1/1/1983 when only TCP would be usable on the
> ARPANET.  So we had to make it work.
> 	- force the technology out of the computer research world into other
> scientific arenas.  Things like NSFNet.
> 	- force the technology out of the research lab educational arena and
> into real-world operational use.  Things like making TCP mandatory for
> procurement of DoD systems.
>
> - an environment in which people who saw a need could take it on and
> "just do it", letting the ecosystem later decide whether or not it would
> endure.  Rough consensus, running code led to Internet Darwinism, not a
> committee vote.
>
> - people who seized various needs and just did it without much debate or
> discussion.  Dave Mills, for example, focused in on Time, and he and his
> crew created NNTP, which is why your computer on The Internet today
> knows what time it is.
>
> - people who took on some less glamorous, but crucial, roles.  Jon
> Postel is a good example of this, working in a calm but forceful way to
> keep some discipline in the rowdy crowd.   He organized "TCP Bakeoff"
> events to make sure we were all on the same page.  He made sure
> important things got written down with permanence, even if he had to do
> it himself - perhaps the First Internet Historian.  His iron hand as
> Numbers Czar was something no one else particularly wanted to do.  I
> recall several conversations with Jon (mostly by email of course) to get
> a new Number assigned, when he would patiently explain why it was a bad
> idea and that there was a way to do what I wanted without using up
> Number Space.  The First Internet Bureaucrat, but with a penchant to
> find a solution.
>
> - by virtue of free and working code, and the core documentation which
> Jon, Jake, and others excelled in making available, universities and
> colleges across the reach of the Internet created a pipeline of students
> who continuously emerged into the workforce with a timely and practical
> knowledge and experience in The Internet Way.  They rarely had any
> similar experience in any other networking system.   I recall managers
> lamenting that they were having trouble hiring people because their
> company wasn't "on the net".
>
> All of that and more is the ecosystem.
>
> This is not an exhaustive list, and I mentioned as examples just a few
> of the people I worked with during that era.   There were many more.
> But I hope it conveys the idea of what I mean by "ecosystem".
>
> I recall clearly when I first realized that the Internet ecosystem had
> won.  In the early 90s I was "Internet Architect" at Oracle, and was
> asked to lead a discussion about the Internet with a group of about 20
> key customers.
>
> The group was a collection of executive-level managers - CTOs, CIOs,
> etc., from a broad range of industry and government - Banks,
> Manufacturers, etc.  We went around the room asking what networking
> technology they were using at the time, and got the expected range of
> answers.  There were IBM shops, DEC shops, etc., but no "TCP shops".
> However, they all did have TCP in-house somewhere in a testbed environment.
>
> Going around the room again, they explained their future plans - their
> "roadmap" for their technology.  Every person said the same thing -
> "We're going to TCP as fast as we can."  The reasons?  "It works."  "Our
> new hires know how to use it."  "We can't wait anymore."
>
> Of course, we subsequently helped them do exactly that.  IMHO, it was
> the TCP-based ecosystem that made it all happen.  Not a particular
> protocol, or interface, or other technical detail.
>
> The battles in the networking industry may have been between protocols
> and architectures.   But all the end users really cared about was that
> it - the Internet Ecosystem - worked.
>
> /Jack
>
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.


-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra



From casner at acm.org  Sat Aug  8 15:50:09 2015
From: casner at acm.org (Stephen Casner)
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 15:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <55C66B0A.1010109@3kitty.org>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net> <55C66B0A.1010109@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.19.9991.1508081547480.95963@auge.attlocal.net>

On Sat, 8 Aug 2015, Jack Haverty wrote:

> - people who seized various needs and just did it without much debate or
> discussion.  Dave Mills, for example, focused in on Time, and he and his
> crew created NNTP, which is why your computer on The Internet today
> knows what time it is.

NTP is time
NNTP is network news

How is Father Time, by the way?  Still alive and well, I hope?

                                                        -- Steve


From vint at google.com  Sat Aug  8 17:07:14 2015
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2015 20:07:14 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.19.9991.1508081547480.95963@auge.attlocal.net>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net> <55C66B0A.1010109@3kitty.org>
	<alpine.OSX.2.19.9991.1508081547480.95963@auge.attlocal.net>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggekOKRRuGCsZ+AOTdtYsqVVUCoUtvRpxwHp5LgVSMx1Sg@mail.gmail.com>

as far as i know, Dave is alive and well but I think his vision has
deteriorated I am sorry to report.

v


On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Stephen Casner <casner at acm.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Aug 2015, Jack Haverty wrote:
>
> > - people who seized various needs and just did it without much debate or
> > discussion.  Dave Mills, for example, focused in on Time, and he and his
> > crew created NNTP, which is why your computer on The Internet today
> > knows what time it is.
>
> NTP is time
> NNTP is network news
>
> How is Father Time, by the way?  Still alive and well, I hope?
>
>                                                         -- Steve
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20150808/fdc34f5f/attachment.htm>

From jack at 3kitty.org  Sat Aug  8 18:16:57 2015
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 18:16:57 -0700
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.19.9991.1508081547480.95963@auge.attlocal.net>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net> <55C66B0A.1010109@3kitty.org>
	<alpine.OSX.2.19.9991.1508081547480.95963@auge.attlocal.net>
Message-ID: <55C6AA09.9070305@3kitty.org>

Arrgh, you're right, slip of the fingers or neurons.  But NNTP probably
belongs in that list of ecosystem components too.

Haven't heard from Dave in a long time.

/Jack

On 08/08/2015 03:50 PM, Stephen Casner wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Aug 2015, Jack Haverty wrote:
> 
>> - people who seized various needs and just did it without much debate or
>> discussion.  Dave Mills, for example, focused in on Time, and he and his
>> crew created NNTP, which is why your computer on The Internet today
>> knows what time it is.
> 
> NTP is time
> NNTP is network news
> 
> How is Father Time, by the way?  Still alive and well, I hope?
> 
>                                                         -- Steve
> 


From larrysheldon at cox.net  Sat Aug  8 19:45:29 2015
From: larrysheldon at cox.net (Larry Sheldon)
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2015 21:45:29 -0500
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <2ReV1r00M3VDnm801ReWHq>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org>
	<55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
	<55C66B0A.1010109@3kitty.org>	<alpine.OSX.2.19.9991.1508081547480.95963@auge.attlocal.net>
	<2ReV1r00M3VDnm801ReWHq>
Message-ID: <55C6BEC9.5040805@cox.net>

On 8/8/2015 20:16, Jack Haverty wrote:
> Arrgh, you're right, slip of the fingers or neurons.  But NNTP probably
> belongs in that list of ecosystem components too.
>
> Haven't heard from Dave in a long time.
>
> /Jack
>
> On 08/08/2015 03:50 PM, Stephen Casner wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Aug 2015, Jack Haverty wrote:
>>
>>> - people who seized various needs and just did it without much debate or
>>> discussion.  Dave Mills, for example, focused in on Time, and he and his
>>> crew created NNTP, which is why your computer on The Internet today
>>> knows what time it is.
>>
>> NTP is time
>> NNTP is network news
>>
>> How is Father Time, by the way?  Still alive and well, I hope?

It seems like back in the day when I was first learning useful stuff 
like NTP, a would up reading a lot of Mills via news-groups.  Am I wrong?

On the "email" as tag thing--I first encountered electronic messaging in 
a place far away from the Internet life line--a commercial product 
called Sperrylink, and it seems like the IBMish folks down the hall had 
something like it--and I think we might have called it Email (with a 
proper capital), but I have no supporting documentation.

My first contact with email in a global context was via UUCP in the 
pre-Internet era--and again I think we called it email then.

My point is I wonder if there were so many implementations in Un-Inter 
networking that looking for the big bank only along the Internet 
timeline might miss it.

-- 
sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)


From touch at isi.edu  Sun Aug  9 20:21:45 2015
From: touch at isi.edu (Joe Touch)
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2015 20:21:45 -0700
Subject: [ih] more on bogus list unsubscribes
Message-ID: <55C818C9.5010309@isi.edu>

Hi, all,

The requests appear to be coming from the web interface. Either someone
wrote a script or is manually trying to unsubscribe.

There is no admin configuration that disables that web page and we would
not want to do that for others who legitimately want to unsubscribe. The
unsubscribe page would benefit from a CAPTCHA, but the version of
Mailman we are using doesn't have that feature.

At this point, the only solution I can recommend is to either ignore or
automatically discard these messages.

Joe (list admin)


From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sun Aug  9 21:05:12 2015
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:05:12 +1200
Subject: [ih] more on bogus list unsubscribes
In-Reply-To: <55C818C9.5010309@isi.edu>
References: <55C818C9.5010309@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <55C822F8.8060509@gmail.com>

In that case, since the subscriber list is private, either it is a list
member who's doing it, or somebody who has extracted valid email addresses
from the public list archive, in order to fabricate URLs of the form
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/options/internet-history/user%40domain

It's hard to see a motivation* for this, so I still wonder whether it isn't
a software quirk somewhere.

*I know that seeking for rational motivation may be a fool's errand.

Regards
   Brian


On 10/08/2015 15:21, Joe Touch wrote:
> Hi, all,
> 
> The requests appear to be coming from the web interface. Either someone
> wrote a script or is manually trying to unsubscribe.
> 
> There is no admin configuration that disables that web page and we would
> not want to do that for others who legitimately want to unsubscribe. The
> unsubscribe page would benefit from a CAPTCHA, but the version of
> Mailman we are using doesn't have that feature.
> 
> At this point, the only solution I can recommend is to either ignore or
> automatically discard these messages.
> 
> Joe (list admin)
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
> 


From randy at psg.com  Sun Aug  9 21:22:36 2015
From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:22:36 +0900
Subject: [ih] more on bogus list unsubscribes
In-Reply-To: <55C822F8.8060509@gmail.com>
References: <55C818C9.5010309@isi.edu>
	<55C822F8.8060509@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <m2wpx3n56b.wl%randy@psg.com>

> It's hard to see a motivation* for this

it is the new fashion, the right to be forgotten; aka the right to
rewrite history

randy




From bill.n1vux at gmail.com  Sun Aug  9 22:18:57 2015
From: bill.n1vux at gmail.com (Bill Ricker)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 01:18:57 -0400
Subject: [ih] more on bogus list unsubscribes
In-Reply-To: <55C822F8.8060509@gmail.com>
References: <55C818C9.5010309@isi.edu> <55C822F8.8060509@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAbKA3VqeHhBaSQM6HE2hnm1mzL0PDJF5S0sLngtienntPBQSA@mail.gmail.com>

*I know that seeking for rational motivation may be a fool's errand.
>

?Perhaps it's an ironic art project to protest ?the insecurity of the end
product, ironic because of inflicting it on the Old Network Boys as they
discuss the  origins of the flawed network.

Collegiality does NOT scale. We know that_ we don't need to be reminded by
that in microcosm.

But if it be irony, the point is noted.

?But it's hard to infer irony with certainty when it could easily be a bad
interaction between Mailman and some MTA's bounce message begging to unsub
the recipient being mis-interpreted as unsub the sender of the bounced
message; or some skiddie being a random nuisance because skiddie kan haz
skriptz. :-/  It could well be a more evolved mistreant is using the unsub
API on *multiple* mailman nodes to automatically vet email addresses
scraped elsewhere for currency, and cares not which lists.


?Re "private list", this list seems to have avoided having any unauthorized
3rd party archives. Several well-known list-aggregators are archiving a
'private' list i'm currently managing. [ ?Since they had years of archive
before i even joined the list let alone took on management, i haven't
unplugged them. Not much point in leaving the list private now but ... ]

Normally i wouldn't discuss forensics on-list, but if it's Art, the Artiste
may appreciate the hat-tip. And if it's not targeted but all Mailman,
they're not listening anyway.


-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1vux at gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20150810/178d3ab6/attachment.htm>

From jpgs at ittc.ku.edu  Sun Aug  9 23:30:46 2015
From: jpgs at ittc.ku.edu (=?utf-8?Q?=22James_P=2EG=2E_Sterbenz_=E5=8F=B8=E5=BE=92=E5=82=91?= =?utf-8?Q?=E8=8E=AB_=EC=86=A1=EC=9E=AC=EC=9C=A4=22?=)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:30:46 +0800
Subject: [ih] more on bogus list unsubscribes
In-Reply-To: <55C822F8.8060509@gmail.com>
References: <55C818C9.5010309@isi.edu> <55C822F8.8060509@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D549D7CC-1611-4ED0-9115-E2FCD2231BF9@ittc.ku.edu>


On 10 Aug 2015, at 12:05, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> In that case, since the subscriber list is private, either it is a list
> member who's doing it, or somebody who has extracted valid email addresses
> from the public list archive, in order to fabricate URLs of the form
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/options/internet-history/user%40domain
> 
> It's hard to see a motivation* for this, so I still wonder whether it isn't
> a software quirk somewhere.
> 
> *I know that seeking for rational motivation may be a fool's errand.

Perhaps it is someone with an alternate reality of email history that wishes to disrupt this list?

Cheers,
James

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
James P.G. Sterbenz  ????  ???  +1 508 944 3067  www.ittc.ku.edu/~jpgs
jpgs@{ittc|eecs}.ku.edu  154 Nichols  ITTC EECS ? The University of Kansas 
jpgs at comp.lancs.ac.uk    Comp & Comms and InfoLab21 ? Lancaster University
jpgs at comp.polyu.edu.hk    Computing ? The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
jpgs at tik.ee.ethz.ch            jpgs@{acm|ieee|comsoc|computer|m.ieice}.org
jpgs at sterbenz.org              skype:jpgsterbenz     jpgsterbenz at gmail.com 
jpgs!scc!lancs!janet!geant!moskvax!ihnp4!internet2!gpn!kanren!ku!ittc!jpgs



















From jeanjour at comcast.net  Mon Aug 10 04:02:51 2015
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 07:02:51 -0400
Subject: [ih] more on bogus list unsubscribes
In-Reply-To: <D549D7CC-1611-4ED0-9115-E2FCD2231BF9@ittc.ku.edu>
References: <55C818C9.5010309@isi.edu> <55C822F8.8060509@gmail.com>
	<D549D7CC-1611-4ED0-9115-E2FCD2231BF9@ittc.ku.edu>
Message-ID: <D525ABF1-B9C2-4ACF-BEB8-1293AA680F9E@comcast.net>

I really doubt it is anyone who thinks we are that important.  ;-)

Some time ago, I saw that someone from outside the US had hacked a small town (pop. ~8000) hospital in rural southern Illinois.  Why?  More a question of Why not. This is probably more in that vein.  ;-)


> On Aug 10, 2015, at 02:30, James P.G. Sterbenz ???? ??? <jpgs at ittc.ku.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10 Aug 2015, at 12:05, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> In that case, since the subscriber list is private, either it is a list
>> member who's doing it, or somebody who has extracted valid email addresses
>> from the public list archive, in order to fabricate URLs of the form
>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/options/internet-history/user%40domain
>> 
>> It's hard to see a motivation* for this, so I still wonder whether it isn't
>> a software quirk somewhere.
>> 
>> *I know that seeking for rational motivation may be a fool's errand.
> 
> Perhaps it is someone with an alternate reality of email history that wishes to disrupt this list?
> 
> Cheers,
> James
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> James P.G. Sterbenz  ????  ???  +1 508 944 3067  www.ittc.ku.edu/~jpgs
> jpgs@{ittc|eecs}.ku.edu  154 Nichols  ITTC EECS ? The University of Kansas 
> jpgs at comp.lancs.ac.uk    Comp & Comms and InfoLab21 ? Lancaster University
> jpgs at comp.polyu.edu.hk    Computing ? The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
> jpgs at tik.ee.ethz.ch            jpgs@{acm|ieee|comsoc|computer|m.ieice}.org
> jpgs at sterbenz.org              skype:jpgsterbenz     jpgsterbenz at gmail.com 
> jpgs!scc!lancs!janet!geant!moskvax!ihnp4!internet2!gpn!kanren!ku!ittc!jpgs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.




From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu  Mon Aug 10 04:40:21 2015
From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 07:40:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ih] more on bogus list unsubscribes
Message-ID: <20150810114021.6C81A18C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>

    > From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>

    > I still wonder whether it isn't a software quirk somewhere.

An additional data point (not sure if I've mentioned this before): I seem to
get them when someone else replies to a message I've sent (i.e. I'm the To:
field), and they (or their email software automatically) CC's the list.

So either someone is doing this manually _only_ in those circumstances (even
harder to explain, unless we're being trolled by someone who's making it look
like a bug), or it's software somewhere (either a bug, or someone who wants to
make it look that way).

The requests themselves are no biggie, I just ignore them. But I always
follow the Beowulf Schaeffer rule - 'anything you don't understand could be
dangerous'.

	Noel


From craig at aland.bbn.com  Mon Aug 10 05:33:19 2015
From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:33:19 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
Message-ID: <20150810123319.484C728E137@aland.bbn.com>


Hi Jack:

Quick comments on two points you raise.

> I think the network, i.e., the ARPANET and its successor The Internet,
> changed the way that people interact, and changed the culture of how
> such interactions were recorded, if at all.   Rough consensus, achieved
> over ephemeral means, and running code didn't leave as much of a trail
> of papers and publications in their wake.

While a lot of this is right, we did leave around more ephemera than
people tend to think.  I grabbed the MSGGROUP, HEADER-PEOPLE and NAMEDROPPERS
archives before they vanished (I believe due to the realization that
posters still owned copyright - but perhaps they have re-emerged) and there's
a lot of material there.

Once IETF started, interim ideas are often at least mentioned in the meeting
reports (which are on-line).

I was able to use this to reconstruct (along with a lot of personal
recollections) the history of the development of Internet email.

> For example, during the 80s the ARPANET technology embraced X.25, and
> deployed networks following the CCITT vision, presumably paving the way
> for adoption of the CCITT/ISO approach.  But I don't think much of that
> story about that era of ARPANET evolution was written, except in the
> informal world of emails and such.

Also in the monthly reports and final project reports to DISA and DARPA.

Unfortunately that material, while at the National Archives, is not yet
publicly available (I checked as many ARPANET maps survive only in those
reports and I was hoping to access them).  Sometime in the future, some
historian will mine that material.  Of course it could be centuries from
now (I'm reminded that many medieval records remain under- or unstudied).

Thanks!

Craig


From craig at aland.bbn.com  Mon Aug 10 05:51:37 2015
From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:51:37 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
Message-ID: <20150810125137.4D33228E137@aland.bbn.com>

> Ultimately, the concerns about potential change control arguments with ITU 
> resulted using CLNP's address format for IPv6, only with a fixed length. 
> (Those dealing with virtualization today will curse loudly someday when they 
> discover that we actively chose to undo existing, working variable length 
> addressing in defining IPv6...)

As someone who may bear some responsibility (I'd have to dig through too
much stuff to be sure)...

Remember that parsing variable length addresses was more expensive and that
in the mid-1990s, computational power in routers was on the borderline of
being insufficient to keep up with network bandwidth. At the time,
projections were that the problem would become much worse before it
became better.  So it seemed irresponsible (at least to those of us
desperately trying to keep routers working) to use variable length addressing.
Those projections about computing power were right, but the period of
difficulty was much shorter than anticipated -- now routers have lots of
computational power and variable length addresses would not be a problem.

Craig


From craig at aland.bbn.com  Mon Aug 10 06:01:32 2015
From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:01:32 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
Message-ID: <20150810130132.EC55B28E137@aland.bbn.com>

> Which raises an obvious question:  Did X.75 ever get much traction?  In 
> my days at BBN (1985-1992), and for a few years earlier, when I was 
> selling time sharing services, and using TELENET, I can't really recall 
> ever encountering it in real use.

The CSNET X.25 network had to go through international X.75 gateways
(recall the primary reason for the CSNET X.25 network was to connect
international IP networks to the US).

My memory is that they were a serious pain.  I believe they permitted
only two packets inflight over a connection -- and I think packets were
either 128 or 256 bytes -- so we had to fragment IP datagrams and *slowly*
relay them.

Craig


From vint at google.com  Mon Aug 10 06:18:31 2015
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:18:31 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <20150810123319.484C728E137@aland.bbn.com>
References: <20150810123319.484C728E137@aland.bbn.com>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggfkf5f0Z-Q2EmYjgbzRXG3E0GY5Zwcyo0t8THbmwp22Bg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Craig Partridge <craig at aland.bbn.com>
wrote:

>
> Unfortunately that material, while at the National Archives, is not yet
> publicly available (I checked as many ARPANET maps survive only in those
> reports and I was hoping to access them).  Sometime in the future, some
> historian will mine that material.  Of course it could be centuries from
> now (I'm reminded that many medieval records remain under- or unstudied).
>

why would the Archives restrict access to ARPA reports?

v
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20150810/43893252/attachment.htm>

From jeanjour at comcast.net  Mon Aug 10 06:27:30 2015
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:27:30 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <20150810130132.EC55B28E137@aland.bbn.com>
References: <20150810130132.EC55B28E137@aland.bbn.com>
Message-ID: <80A76CB9-8199-4984-8F5E-DBD4479CB362@comcast.net>

Yes, MTU sizes were quite small and very few networks could afford the luxury of DS0s everywhere. Many networks including corporate networks in the US were using lines well below 56K for long distance links.  It is really nice to have a Sugar Daddy.  ;-)

Take care,
John
> On Aug 10, 2015, at 09:01, Craig Partridge <craig at aland.bbn.com> wrote:
> 
>> Which raises an obvious question:  Did X.75 ever get much traction?  In 
>> my days at BBN (1985-1992), and for a few years earlier, when I was 
>> selling time sharing services, and using TELENET, I can't really recall 
>> ever encountering it in real use.
> 
> The CSNET X.25 network had to go through international X.75 gateways
> (recall the primary reason for the CSNET X.25 network was to connect
> international IP networks to the US).
> 
> My memory is that they were a serious pain.  I believe they permitted
> only two packets inflight over a connection -- and I think packets were
> either 128 or 256 bytes -- so we had to fragment IP datagrams and *slowly*
> relay them.
> 
> Craig
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.




From craig at aland.bbn.com  Mon Aug 10 06:32:27 2015
From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:32:27 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggfkf5f0Z-Q2EmYjgbzRXG3E0GY5Zwcyo0t8THbmwp22Bg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150810123319.484C728E137@aland.bbn.com>
	<CAHxHggfkf5f0Z-Q2EmYjgbzRXG3E0GY5Zwcyo0t8THbmwp22Bg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B20F5AB6-A038-449B-85F6-D15A9DC60363@aland.bbn.com>

Hi Vint:

Some of the research results are apparently classified.  See, for instance, the following entry for some project and proposal files from 1969:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/17618304?q=Advanced%20Research%20Projects%20Agency

And a larger file of project reports from 1959 to 1971

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/18252798?q=*:*

Both are tagged as restricted access.

Note that much of the early ARPANET materials appear to now be available.  An agency provided finding aid has been posted:

http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/rcs/schedules/departments/department-of-defense/defense-agencies/rg-0371/nc1-371-81-01_sf115.pdf

I worry that some of the most interesting technical materials (e.g. group 875-04 ? ARPANET improvement plans) seem to have been designated for destruction.  I wonder if they actually were given to NARA instead.

Thanks!

Craig


> On Aug 10, 2015, at 9:18 AM, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Craig Partridge <craig at aland.bbn.com <mailto:craig at aland.bbn.com>> wrote:
> 
> Unfortunately that material, while at the National Archives, is not yet
> publicly available (I checked as many ARPANET maps survive only in those
> reports and I was hoping to access them).  Sometime in the future, some
> historian will mine that material.  Of course it could be centuries from
> now (I'm reminded that many medieval records remain under- or unstudied).
> 
> why would the Archives restrict access to ARPA reports?
> 
> v
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20150810/51a4bdb0/attachment.htm>

From jeanjour at comcast.net  Mon Aug 10 07:23:49 2015
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:23:49 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <20150810125137.4D33228E137@aland.bbn.com>
References: <20150810125137.4D33228E137@aland.bbn.com>
Message-ID: <2669796C-F436-4AEF-8D09-1E88D020F729@comcast.net>

My understanding at the time from talking to numerous people was that those who knew how knew that handling variable length addresses was not really a problem and I have heard since that that many people who were concerned about that have said they were mistaken at the time.

Actually since addresses belong to layers rather than protocols, the point is moot.  One can have your cake and eat it too.

The real crime with not adopting CLNP was passing up a chance to reduce router table size by a factor of probably between 3 or 4. That would be real handy right about now. 

Now *that* was truly irresponsible, if not criminal.  We could be reducing the number of v4 routes to increase the number of v6 routes instead of the other way around. But then v6 was unnecessary to begin with, so was CLNP.

John
> On Aug 10, 2015, at 08:51, Craig Partridge <craig at aland.bbn.com> wrote:
> 
>> Ultimately, the concerns about potential change control arguments with ITU 
>> resulted using CLNP's address format for IPv6, only with a fixed length. 
>> (Those dealing with virtualization today will curse loudly someday when they 
>> discover that we actively chose to undo existing, working variable length 
>> addressing in defining IPv6...)
> 
> As someone who may bear some responsibility (I'd have to dig through too
> much stuff to be sure)...
> 
> Remember that parsing variable length addresses was more expensive and that
> in the mid-1990s, computational power in routers was on the borderline of
> being insufficient to keep up with network bandwidth. At the time,
> projections were that the problem would become much worse before it
> became better.  So it seemed irresponsible (at least to those of us
> desperately trying to keep routers working) to use variable length addressing.
> Those projections about computing power were right, but the period of
> difficulty was much shorter than anticipated -- now routers have lots of
> computational power and variable length addresses would not be a problem.
> 
> Craig
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.




From craig at aland.bbn.com  Mon Aug 10 07:40:05 2015
From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:40:05 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
Message-ID: <20150810144005.6A84228E137@aland.bbn.com>

> My understanding at the time from talking to numerous people was that =
> those who knew how knew that handling variable length addresses was not =
> really a problem and I have heard since that that many people who were =
> concerned about that have said they were mistaken at the time.

Hi John:

The team I was leading around that time (from 1992-1997) was one of the
two leading multi-gigabit router architecture teams of the time (Tony Li's
at Juniper was the other).

I heard multiple folks say variable length addresses were not a problem.
When I asked them to show me how to do it within the instruction budgets
for forwarding that multi-gigabit routers had at the time, no one could
do it.

A bit more for clarity.  There are two issues -- the route lookup and
the packet header cracking.  The route lookup was NOT the performance issue.
The issue was packet header cracking -- in 64-bit processors with limited
barrel rollers and serious hits for branches, parsing variable address
lengths and address lengths that varied from packet to packet, hurt...

In the post 2000 world, those issues are so much less severe as not to
matter.  So in retrospect, if someone thought the issue was route lookup,
then they would certainly say they were wrong.  If someone thought the
issue was header cracking, they could easily say "whoops, goofed on timeline."
But at the moment, header cracking was the issue.

Thanks!

Craig


From sob at harvard.edu  Mon Aug 10 07:59:39 2015
From: sob at harvard.edu (Bradner, Scott)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 14:59:39 +0000
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <20150810125137.4D33228E137@aland.bbn.com>
References: <20150810125137.4D33228E137@aland.bbn.com>
Message-ID: <8D902224-A115-46DF-BECC-888098F67B70@harvard.edu>

the people that complained the most about variable length addresses were the host people
in particular Jim Bound

the router people (Tonl Li and the rest of the gang from Cisco for example) pushed hard for 
variable length

we did have a variable length proposal right at the end of the IPng process
see
	http://www.sobco.com/ipng/big_ten/big_ten_packet_format.txt
	http://www.sobco.com/ipng/big_ten/big_ten_address_format.txt
	and
	http://www.sobco.com/ipng/big_ten/big_ten_address_allocation.txt

but that did not achieve escape velocity

Scott

> On Aug 10, 2015, at 8:51 AM, Craig Partridge <craig at aland.bbn.com> wrote:
> 
>> Ultimately, the concerns about potential change control arguments with ITU 
>> resulted using CLNP's address format for IPv6, only with a fixed length. 
>> (Those dealing with virtualization today will curse loudly someday when they 
>> discover that we actively chose to undo existing, working variable length 
>> addressing in defining IPv6...)
> 
> As someone who may bear some responsibility (I'd have to dig through too
> much stuff to be sure)...
> 
> Remember that parsing variable length addresses was more expensive and that
> in the mid-1990s, computational power in routers was on the borderline of
> being insufficient to keep up with network bandwidth. At the time,
> projections were that the problem would become much worse before it
> became better.  So it seemed irresponsible (at least to those of us
> desperately trying to keep routers working) to use variable length addressing.
> Those projections about computing power were right, but the period of
> difficulty was much shorter than anticipated -- now routers have lots of
> computational power and variable length addresses would not be a problem.
> 
> Craig
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.




From jpgs at ittc.ku.edu  Mon Aug 10 08:35:27 2015
From: jpgs at ittc.ku.edu (=?utf-8?Q?=22James_P=2EG=2E_Sterbenz_=E5=8F=B8=E5=BE=92=E5=82=91?= =?utf-8?Q?=E8=8E=AB_=EC=86=A1=EC=9E=AC=EC=9C=A4=22?=)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 23:35:27 +0800
Subject: [ih] more on bogus list unsubscribes
In-Reply-To: <20150810114021.6C81A18C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
References: <20150810114021.6C81A18C110@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <C91FF5C5-5CBD-4787-881E-75050A4D6CB4@ittc.ku.edu>


On 10 Aug 2015, at 19:40, Noel Chiappa <jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:

>> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
> 
>> I still wonder whether it isn't a software quirk somewhere.
> 
> An additional data point (not sure if I've mentioned this before): I seem to
> get them when someone else replies to a message I've sent (i.e. I'm the To:
> field), and they (or their email software automatically) CC's the list.
> 
> So either someone is doing this manually _only_ in those circumstances (even
> harder to explain, unless we're being trolled by someone who's making it look
> like a bug), or it's software somewhere (either a bug, or someone who wants to
> make it look that way).
> 
> The requests themselves are no biggie, I just ignore them. But I always
> follow the Beowulf Schaeffer rule - 'anything you don't understand could be
> dangerous?.

I just got one, some hours after I posted.  Too long to be a bot, but just right for someone manually in North America (I posted late morning Hong Kong time).

I have a hypothesis...

Cheers,
James

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
James P.G. Sterbenz  ????  ???  +1 508 944 3067  www.ittc.ku.edu/~jpgs
jpgs@{ittc|eecs}.ku.edu  154 Nichols  ITTC EECS ? The University of Kansas 
jpgs at comp.lancs.ac.uk    Comp & Comms and InfoLab21 ? Lancaster University
jpgs at comp.polyu.edu.hk    Computing ? The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
jpgs at tik.ee.ethz.ch            jpgs@{acm|ieee|comsoc|computer|m.ieice}.org
jpgs at sterbenz.org              skype:jpgsterbenz     jpgsterbenz at gmail.com 
jpgs!scc!lancs!janet!geant!moskvax!ihnp4!internet2!gpn!kanren!ku!ittc!jpgs



















From jack at 3kitty.org  Mon Aug 10 09:01:22 2015
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:01:22 -0700
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggfkf5f0Z-Q2EmYjgbzRXG3E0GY5Zwcyo0t8THbmwp22Bg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150810123319.484C728E137@aland.bbn.com>
	<CAHxHggfkf5f0Z-Q2EmYjgbzRXG3E0GY5Zwcyo0t8THbmwp22Bg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55C8CAD2.8020203@3kitty.org>

There was a lot of ARPA work that, while unclassified, was characterized
FOUO (For Official Use Only).  Perhaps that makes it still Restricted.

Some of it was probably an important part of Internet History.

/Jack

On 08/10/2015 06:18 AM, Vint Cerf wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Craig Partridge <craig at aland.bbn.com
> <mailto:craig at aland.bbn.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     Unfortunately that material, while at the National Archives, is not yet
>     publicly available (I checked as many ARPANET maps survive only in those
>     reports and I was hoping to access them).  Sometime in the future, some
>     historian will mine that material.  Of course it could be centuries from
>     now (I'm reminded that many medieval records remain under- or
>     unstudied).
> 
> 
> why would the Archives restrict access to ARPA reports?
> 
> v
> 


From vint at google.com  Mon Aug 10 09:02:13 2015
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:02:13 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <55C8CAD2.8020203@3kitty.org>
References: <20150810123319.484C728E137@aland.bbn.com>
	<CAHxHggfkf5f0Z-Q2EmYjgbzRXG3E0GY5Zwcyo0t8THbmwp22Bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C8CAD2.8020203@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <CAHxHgge1Lwv=GAjzGNKxPHo5vdBX-uJNiM6-4prvoU9mm3YpKA@mail.gmail.com>

some of the general ARPA restriction has to do with nuclear stuff.

v


On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:

> There was a lot of ARPA work that, while unclassified, was characterized
> FOUO (For Official Use Only).  Perhaps that makes it still Restricted.
>
> Some of it was probably an important part of Internet History.
>
> /Jack
>
> On 08/10/2015 06:18 AM, Vint Cerf wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Craig Partridge <craig at aland.bbn.com
> > <mailto:craig at aland.bbn.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >     Unfortunately that material, while at the National Archives, is not
> yet
> >     publicly available (I checked as many ARPANET maps survive only in
> those
> >     reports and I was hoping to access them).  Sometime in the future,
> some
> >     historian will mine that material.  Of course it could be centuries
> from
> >     now (I'm reminded that many medieval records remain under- or
> >     unstudied).
> >
> >
> > why would the Archives restrict access to ARPA reports?
> >
> > v
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20150810/3b45bc58/attachment.htm>

From dhc2 at dcrocker.net  Mon Aug 10 09:34:24 2015
From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:34:24 -0700
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <55C8D290.2050704@dcrocker.net>

On 8/7/2015 1:12 PM, Jack Haverty wrote:
> This Internet History discussion has been held on a mailing list,
> archived on some server somewhere ... I wonder how long it will survive.


The community seems to have some difficulty in attending to the basic
differences between good, basic methods that produce reliable
operations, versus a careful, museum-quality approach to archiving that
targets access in perpetuity.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net


From bill.n1vux at gmail.com  Mon Aug 10 17:56:20 2015
From: bill.n1vux at gmail.com (Bill Ricker)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 20:56:20 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <55C8D290.2050704@dcrocker.net>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C8D290.2050704@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <CAAbKA3UNruF2rXgn8Gozymx1wzLO9yx_c5OS-c06QW-hvH_j=A@mail.gmail.com>

Back to the original topic, one of the editors at BoingBoing.net just
tweeted he still liked his year-ago post "Why I hate email" featuring a
(supposedly) c.1977 Honewell advert that leads with
 "Electronic Mail is a term that's been bandied about data processing
circles for years."
??http://boingboing.net/2014/08/10/why-i-hate-email.html
?for which he cited as source a page only available now as
https://web.archive.org/web/20140305112636/http://www.retronaut.com/2014/02/heck-electronic-mail/
?which slugs it as ?1977: ?What the Heck is Electronic Mail????

An amusing April 1 article is the earliest found in books.google.com from
Computerworld (aside from an OCR false positive)? 3/30/1981 p.66
forecasting a federal trial grinding along in 4/1/1999 pitting US vs  UT&T
and MCM regarding monopolization of email. Pretty funny.


books.google must have a vast number of OCR false positives, as Ngram finds
'email' in the 19th century. "e-mail" inflects from background radiation of
false positives in the 1973-1975 period and flys 1976 forward.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/interactive_chart?content=e-mail%2C%22electronic+mail%22%2Cemail&year_start=1960&year_end=1980&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ce%20-%20mail%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%22%20electronic%20mail%20%22%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cemail%3B%2Cc0
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20150810/918cee8b/attachment.htm>

From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Mon Aug 10 21:22:55 2015
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:22:55 +1200
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <CAAbKA3UNruF2rXgn8Gozymx1wzLO9yx_c5OS-c06QW-hvH_j=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org>
	<55C8D290.2050704@dcrocker.net>
	<CAAbKA3UNruF2rXgn8Gozymx1wzLO9yx_c5OS-c06QW-hvH_j=A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55C9789F.3060401@gmail.com>

On 11/08/2015 12:56, Bill Ricker wrote:

...
> books.google must have a vast number of OCR false positives, as Ngram finds
> 'email' in the 19th century. 

Maybe not, since '?mail' is a perfectly fine French word for enamel
that might well have been used by literate writers of English in the 19C.

    Brian




From dhc2 at dcrocker.net  Tue Aug 11 07:15:45 2015
From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:15:45 -0700
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <CAAbKA3UNruF2rXgn8Gozymx1wzLO9yx_c5OS-c06QW-hvH_j=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org>
	<55C8D290.2050704@dcrocker.net>
	<CAAbKA3UNruF2rXgn8Gozymx1wzLO9yx_c5OS-c06QW-hvH_j=A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55CA0391.8080303@dcrocker.net>

On 8/10/2015 5:56 PM, Bill Ricker wrote:
>  "Electronic Mail is a term that's been bandied about data processing
> circles for years."
> ??http://boingboing.net/2014/08/10/why-i-hate-email.html
> ?for which he cited as source a page only available now as
> https://web.archive.org/web/20140305112636/http://www.retronaut.com/2014/02/heck-electronic-mail/
> 
> ?which slugs it as ?1977: ?What the Heck is Electronic Mail????


The retraunaut.com citation didn't produce anything other than a repeat
of the title.  However a search for the slug did produce:

     What The Heck is Electronic Mail? Asks Ad From 1977
     http://contentcatnip.com/2015/07/13/what-the-heck-is-electronic-mail/

Which shows a copy of an ad.  The ad starts with the text:

     "Electronic mail is a term that's been bandied about data
processing circules for years."


d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net


From touch at isi.edu  Tue Aug 11 10:37:36 2015
From: touch at isi.edu (Joe Touch)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:37:36 -0700
Subject: [ih] more on bogus list unsubscribes
In-Reply-To: <55C822F8.8060509@gmail.com>
References: <55C818C9.5010309@isi.edu> <55C822F8.8060509@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55CA32E0.9070407@isi.edu>



On 8/9/2015 9:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> In that case, since the subscriber list is private, either it is a list
> member who's doing it, or somebody who has extracted valid email addresses
> from the public list archive, in order to fabricate URLs of the form
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/options/internet-history/user%40domain

FYI, every post anyone makes to "reply-all" includes the actual address
of at least the party to whom they're responding.

It might be useful to trim your recipient lists to only the list address.

Joe (list admin)

> 
> It's hard to see a motivation* for this, so I still wonder whether it isn't
> a software quirk somewhere.
> 
> *I know that seeking for rational motivation may be a fool's errand.
> 
> Regards
>    Brian
> 
> 
> On 10/08/2015 15:21, Joe Touch wrote:
>> Hi, all,
>>
>> The requests appear to be coming from the web interface. Either someone
>> wrote a script or is manually trying to unsubscribe.
>>
>> There is no admin configuration that disables that web page and we would
>> not want to do that for others who legitimately want to unsubscribe. The
>> unsubscribe page would benefit from a CAPTCHA, but the version of
>> Mailman we are using doesn't have that feature.
>>
>> At this point, the only solution I can recommend is to either ignore or
>> automatically discard these messages.
>>
>> Joe (list admin)
>> _______
>> internet-history mailing list
>> internet-history at postel.org
>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>>
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
> 


From jabley at hopcount.ca  Tue Aug 11 11:26:58 2015
From: jabley at hopcount.ca (Joe Abley)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:26:58 -0400
Subject: [ih] more on bogus list unsubscribes
In-Reply-To: <55CA32E0.9070407@isi.edu>
References: <55C818C9.5010309@isi.edu> <55C822F8.8060509@gmail.com>
	<55CA32E0.9070407@isi.edu>
Message-ID: <A8385089-2763-4205-A930-9EADA572DB85@hopcount.ca>



On 11 Aug 2015, at 13:37, Joe Touch wrote:

> On 8/9/2015 9:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> In that case, since the subscriber list is private, either it is a 
>> list
>> member who's doing it, or somebody who has extracted valid email 
>> addresses
>> from the public list archive, in order to fabricate URLs of the form
>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/options/internet-history/user%40domain
>
> FYI, every post anyone makes to "reply-all" includes the actual 
> address
> of at least the party to whom they're responding.
>
> It might be useful to trim your recipient lists to only the list 
> address.

Since we're already in the weeds: I find it more desirable (as a 
recipient of mail when people reply-all to threads I have contributed 
to) if they don't trim my name from the explicit cc list. It allows me 
to distinguish real-time, I'm-watching-this threads from read-later, 
I-don't-have-time-right-now threads easily.

I'm not suggesting that anybody's viewpoint is less valid than anybody 
else's, just observing that one size doesn't necessarily fit all.


Joe


From touch at isi.edu  Tue Aug 11 11:57:09 2015
From: touch at isi.edu (Joe Touch)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:57:09 -0700
Subject: [ih] more on bogus list unsubscribes
In-Reply-To: <A8385089-2763-4205-A930-9EADA572DB85@hopcount.ca>
References: <55C818C9.5010309@isi.edu> <55C822F8.8060509@gmail.com>
	<55CA32E0.9070407@isi.edu>
	<A8385089-2763-4205-A930-9EADA572DB85@hopcount.ca>
Message-ID: <55CA4585.4080908@isi.edu>



On 8/11/2015 11:26 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11 Aug 2015, at 13:37, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>> On 8/9/2015 9:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> In that case, since the subscriber list is private, either it is a list
>>> member who's doing it, or somebody who has extracted valid email
>>> addresses
>>> from the public list archive, in order to fabricate URLs of the form
>>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/options/internet-history/user%40domain
>>
>> FYI, every post anyone makes to "reply-all" includes the actual address
>> of at least the party to whom they're responding.
>>
>> It might be useful to trim your recipient lists to only the list address.
> 
> Since we're already in the weeds: I find it more desirable (as a
> recipient of mail when people reply-all to threads I have contributed
> to) if they don't trim my name from the explicit cc list. It allows me
> to distinguish real-time, I'm-watching-this threads from read-later,
> I-don't-have-time-right-now threads easily.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that anybody's viewpoint is less valid than anybody
> else's, just observing that one size doesn't necessarily fit all.

I'm suggesting that this might be a way to avoid an automated bot that
is sending list unsubscribe requests.

Joe (as list admin)



From jklensin at gmail.com  Wed Aug 12 20:15:36 2015
From: jklensin at gmail.com (John Klensin)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 23:15:36 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggfkf5f0Z-Q2EmYjgbzRXG3E0GY5Zwcyo0t8THbmwp22Bg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150810123319.484C728E137@aland.bbn.com>
	<CAHxHggfkf5f0Z-Q2EmYjgbzRXG3E0GY5Zwcyo0t8THbmwp22Bg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAC-QkADmZ7QAsOH+hFCSMyFG20duBjYcFn7SKrYgPWDw3RwM+w@mail.gmail.com>

Vint, reasonably or not, some of the work that we and others on the
"human resources" side of the house were doing was considered to be
relevant to battlefield communications and/or psychological warfare.
While none of it was classified and those claims took, IMO, a real
stretch of the imagination (and nothing prevented me from saying that,
then or now), there often didn't seem to be a lot of desire to make
the reports easy to find, especially if one did not know _exactly_
what one was looking for.

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:

> why would the Archives restrict access to ARPA reports?


From chris.leslie at nyu.edu  Sat Aug 15 08:18:58 2015
From: chris.leslie at nyu.edu (Christopher Leslie)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 11:18:58 -0400
Subject: [ih] CFP: International Communities of Invention and Innovation
 (New York City, May 2016; deadline 8 January)
Message-ID: <CANQermOhT5haK=c4L9rEygn+2-Z7JEYT_jO=J0Gz6YNBrN9OxA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear List,

As the organizer of the next IFIP Working Group 9.7 conference, I've been
mindful of how much I learn from people on this list who are not
professional historians. Although there are always some computer
scientists, computer engineers, and other technical people at IFIP
conferences, there does seem to be  a limit to the participants outside of
the humanities and social sciences. I've been thinking about bridging the
gap between those two cultures, which we'll try to do at the May 2016
conference in New York.

I asked some colleagues in computer science and engineering at Poly about
why history conferences do not have too many technical professionals in
attendance, and they suggested that one reason is that writing historical
papers is not a professional credential. For that reason, we've added an
explicit invitation to non-historians to the CFP. Participants can, if they
like, contribute a full, academic paper, but if they'd prefer to
participate without a paper and maybe meet an historian with an eye to
future collaboration, we'll have somewhat informal roundtables as well.

Either way, the deadline for consideration is Jan. 8. I hope many of you
will consider attending the conference. Please feel free to forward this
message as appropriate.

Sincerely,

Chris Leslie

--- - --- - --- - --- - --- -

International Communities of Invention and Innovation
IFIP Working Group 9.7 Conference
NYU Polytechnic School of Engineering, Brooklyn, NY
25-29 May 2016

Analog and digital computers were developed by individuals aware of an
international scientific community. Likewise, although sometimes thought of
as solely national projects, the first computer networks were built in an
age of growing interconnectivity among nations. This meeting of IFIP
Working Group 9.7 in New York City gathers historians and other
professionals to reflect on histories that foreground the international
community. Participants with an interest in this historical context for
computers and computer networks may present academic papers or join in
roundtable discussions.

In accordance with this theme, we hope to blur the dichotomy between core
and periphery and complicate simplistic notions of linear technological
progress. Far from a deterministic view that computers and computer
networks were developed in isolation and according to their own technical
imperatives, we will show the history of pre-existing relationships and
communities that led to the triumphs (and dead ends) in the history of
computing. This broad perspective will help us to tell a more accurate
story of important developments like the Internet, to be sure, but also it
will provide us with a better understanding of how to sponsor future
invention and innovation.

At the conference, we seek to foster a conversation about internationalism
in the history of computers and computer networks along four broad themes:

1. Invention:
     ? communities where analog computers were developed
     ? communication about and competition for early devices
     ? innovations brought in from the supposed periphery
     ? failed, forgotten, or thwarted efforts to develop
        networks or industries

2. Policy:
     ? trade and treaties supporting computers and networks
     ? organizations like IFIP with a mission to promote
        collaboration
     ? long trajectories of digital divides
     ? case studies revealing ethical considerations
     ? cross-national comparisons of gender or ethnic diversity
        in industry and education

3. Infrastructure:
     ? communication and data networks before the Internet
     ? development and diffusion of TCP/IP
     ? connectivity efforts before NSFNET, NSFNET, and beyond
     ? resistance to and success of the WorldWideWeb

4. Social History:
     ? differences and similarities in international impacts
        on general society
     ? antecedents (Wells's World Brain) and visions (Human-Nets's
        WorldNet)
     ? individuals who championed connections between nations
     ? historiography of internationalism in computing
     ? representations of international computing communities
        in film or literature

It is hoped that the conference will be of interest to a broad range of
people who study computing and computer networks, including academic
scholars and graduate students, but also those who have a professional or
technical interest in computing. Accordingly, there are two ways to
participate:

1. Academic Papers

For consideration, please submit your draft paper before January 8 via the
conference website (http://wp.nyu.edu/ifip_wg97/). Enquires are welcome in
advance of your submission (wg9.7conference at nyu.edu). Draft papers will be
circulated before the conference in order to encourage a meaningful
discussion. At the conference, each selected participant will be allotted
time to present an overview of his or her paper. It is our intention to
publish selected conference papers in an anthology by Springer, and
hopefully the conference feedback will be useful as presenters complete
their final drafts.

2. Roundtable Discussions

In order to welcome technical professionals and others who may not desire
to prepare a full paper, the conference will also feature roundtables of
10?15 minute, relatively informal presentations related to the conference
theme. These presentations could focus on key figures, historical
anecdotes, or observations on particular projects. We hope that these
roundtables will spark lively conversation and, perhaps, generate research
partnerships between historians and technical professionals. For
consideration, send a 250-word summary of the topic and your interest in it
before January 8 via the conference website (http://wp.nyu.edu/ifip_wg97/).
Enquires are welcome in advance of your submission (wg9.7conference at nyu.edu
).

The conference will be held at New York University's Polytechnic School of
Engineering in MetroTech Center, Brooklyn, New York 11201. About 20 minutes
away by subway from NYU's Greenwich Village location, MetroTech Center is
located in the heart of Downtown Brooklyn and within walking distance of
the Brooklyn Bridge as well as the iconic neighborhoods of DUMBO, Fort
Greene, and Brooklyn Heights. In order to help make the conference more
affordable, we will offer accommodations in the school's dormitory,
adjacent to the conference venue, at a competitive price for those who do
not wish to stay in a nearby hotel.
Further details will be made available at http://wp.nyu.edu/ifip_wg97/

About IFIP WG 9.7: IFIP, the International Federation for Information
Processing, was founded in 1960. It is a nongovernmental organization
dedicated to information and communication technologies and sciences. It
sponsors fourteen committees primarily of a technical nature. Technical
Committee 9, however, is dedicated to ICT and Society. The organizer of
this conference is TC9?s Working Group 7, which focuses on the history of
computing.

Important Dates
  ? Deadline for consideration: January 8, 2016
  ? Acceptances announced: February 5
  ? Early deadline for payment of registration fee: March 1
  ? Revised papers and abstracts due: April 1
  ? Last day to reserve a room in the dormitory: April 10
  ? Papers and abstracts made available to participants: May 1
  ? Revised papers due for consideration in proceedings: July 1


-- 
Christopher S. Leslie, Ph.D.
Co-Director of Science and Technology Studies
Faculty Fellow in Residence for Othmer Hall and Clark Street
Vice Chair, IFIP Working Group 9.7 - History of Computing

NYU Polytechnic School of Engineering
5 MetroTech Center, LC 131
Brooklyn, NY 11201
(646) 997-3130
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20150815/3afc25da/attachment.htm>

From vint at google.com  Sun Aug 16 06:58:00 2015
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:58:00 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <CAC-QkADmZ7QAsOH+hFCSMyFG20duBjYcFn7SKrYgPWDw3RwM+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150810123319.484C728E137@aland.bbn.com>
	<CAHxHggfkf5f0Z-Q2EmYjgbzRXG3E0GY5Zwcyo0t8THbmwp22Bg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAC-QkADmZ7QAsOH+hFCSMyFG20duBjYcFn7SKrYgPWDw3RwM+w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggddVfp3SW58RRtzqUnOLU3ch_+X+Wnp1JPSxBfkEdXaQw@mail.gmail.com>

that's annoying - my guess is more that aggregate DARPA records contain
sensitive material and that this is likely not some much IPTO stuff than
other offices.

v


On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:15 PM, John Klensin <jklensin at gmail.com> wrote:

> Vint, reasonably or not, some of the work that we and others on the
> "human resources" side of the house were doing was considered to be
> relevant to battlefield communications and/or psychological warfare.
> While none of it was classified and those claims took, IMO, a real
> stretch of the imagination (and nothing prevented me from saying that,
> then or now), there often didn't seem to be a lot of desire to make
> the reports easy to find, especially if one did not know _exactly_
> what one was looking for.
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
>
> > why would the Archives restrict access to ARPA reports?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20150816/e03d9814/attachment.htm>

From jim at deitygraveyard.com  Sun Aug 30 03:22:53 2015
From: jim at deitygraveyard.com (Jim Carpenter)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 06:22:53 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggf-jdaa-wH8QsJUKLxmw0v9SZU=06A8=nYFzXb8UR591Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
	<CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C60FBC.4030502@meetinghouse.net>
	<EE917245-83CD-44F9-BEFE-46CD9928DBE7@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggf-jdaa-wH8QsJUKLxmw0v9SZU=06A8=nYFzXb8UR591Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+oaVqxqbdkt2X=tEBMM0bAx1GY8it2+dCwusvLQHOJde_4jfQ@mail.gmail.com>

Telenet used X.75 inside but I'm not sure what Tymnet used or when they
used it. If anybody has any recommended bedtime reading for (technical)
details of the internals of Telenet and Tymnet, especially TYM2, I'd be
quite interested.

Jim Carpenter
the US-based Telenet and Tymnet both offered X.25 service and implemented
X.75 I believe.

On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 11:04 AM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:

> X.75 was widely used within PTT packet-offerings.  As you would imagine
> mostly outside North America.
>
>
> > On Aug 8, 2015, at 10:18, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > Which raises an obvious question:  Did X.75 ever get much traction?  In
> > my days at BBN (1985-1992), and for a few years earlier, when I was
> > selling time sharing services, and using TELENET, I can't really recall
> > ever encountering it in real use.
> >
> > Miles
> >
> > Vint Cerf wrote:
> >> Larry Roberts asked me what he should use for protocol in Telenet and
> >> I said TCP but he said he could not sell datagrams and went on to
> >> develop X.25's virtual circuits with French, Canadian and UK
> >> assistance at CCITT (now ITU-T). That was standardized in 1976 while
> >> TCP was evolving. I told him we would run TCP (eventually TCP/IP) over
> >> X.25 and by 1981 or so that is what we did in CSNET. 1822 was never a
> >> contender for a global standard. X.25 begot X.75 which was the CCITT
> >> response to the Internet's TCP/IP.
> >>
> >> OSI was yet another effort to craft a non-TCP/IP Internet and that got
> >> started in 1978, using X.25 as the underlying virtual circuit basis.
> >> Eventually an OSI connectionless mode was developed CLNP but never
> >> gained much popularity.
> >>
> >> The TCP/IP vs OSI battle lasted from 1978 to 1993. X.25 was around
> >> from 1976 to 2003 or so as I recall. I shut down the last MCI X.25
> >> offering about 2003 or so if memory serves.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Miles Fidelman
> >> <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 08/08/2015 08:12, Jack Haverty wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>> But I don't think there's much written
> >>>> material about that battle between TCP/IP and X.25 in the
> >>    ARPANET arena.
> >>
> >>    Jack,
> >>
> >>    Granted that the TCP/IP cutover happened 2 years before I got to
> >>    BBN, so my exposure wasn't quite firsthand -
> >>    but weren't the battles really between 1822 and X.25, and then
> >>    TCP/IP vs. the ISO stack?  After all, 1822 and X.25 were both
> >>    single subnet protocols, with no support for internetworking (and
> >>    that IP runs over both of them, just fine).
> >>
> >>    Miles
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>    --
> >>    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> >>    In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
> >>
> >>    _______
> >>    internet-history mailing list
> >>    internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
> >>    http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >>    Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> for
> >>    assistance.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> > In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
> >
> > _______
> > internet-history mailing list
> > internet-history at postel.org
> > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>
>
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>


_______
internet-history mailing list
internet-history at postel.org
http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20150830/cf55862a/attachment.htm>

From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sun Aug 30 04:06:01 2015
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 07:06:01 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <CA+oaVqxqbdkt2X=tEBMM0bAx1GY8it2+dCwusvLQHOJde_4jfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
	<CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C60FBC.4030502@meetinghouse.net>
	<EE917245-83CD-44F9-BEFE-46CD9928DBE7@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggf-jdaa-wH8QsJUKLxmw0v9SZU=06A8=nYFzXb8UR591Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+oaVqxqbdkt2X=tEBMM0bAx1GY8it2+dCwusvLQHOJde_4jfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1D6407EB-EF77-4DC8-9331-3747B2DBD768@comcast.net>

Not off the top of my head, but there were articles in conferences at the time on Tymnet and how it worked internally.  The protocols were (I believe) mostly homegrown.  What I remember about Tymnet was that they were pretty slapdash. They never saw anything coming until they ran into it, so even something like flow control was a retrofitted kludge.  At least that is the impression, I had at the time.

Take care,
John
> On Aug 30, 2015, at 06:22, Jim Carpenter <jim at deitygraveyard.com> wrote:
> 
> Telenet used X.75 inside but I'm not sure what Tymnet used or when they used it. If anybody has any recommended bedtime reading for (technical) details of the internals of Telenet and Tymnet, especially TYM2, I'd be quite interested.
> 
> Jim Carpenter
> 
> the US-based Telenet and Tymnet both offered X.25 service and implemented X.75 I believe.
> 
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 11:04 AM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
> X.75 was widely used within PTT packet-offerings.  As you would imagine mostly outside North America.
> 
> 
> > On Aug 8, 2015, at 10:18, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>> wrote:
> >
> > Which raises an obvious question:  Did X.75 ever get much traction?  In
> > my days at BBN (1985-1992), and for a few years earlier, when I was
> > selling time sharing services, and using TELENET, I can't really recall
> > ever encountering it in real use.
> >
> > Miles
> >
> > Vint Cerf wrote:
> >> Larry Roberts asked me what he should use for protocol in Telenet and
> >> I said TCP but he said he could not sell datagrams and went on to
> >> develop X.25's virtual circuits with French, Canadian and UK
> >> assistance at CCITT (now ITU-T). That was standardized in 1976 while
> >> TCP was evolving. I told him we would run TCP (eventually TCP/IP) over
> >> X.25 and by 1981 or so that is what we did in CSNET. 1822 was never a
> >> contender for a global standard. X.25 begot X.75 which was the CCITT
> >> response to the Internet's TCP/IP.
> >>
> >> OSI was yet another effort to craft a non-TCP/IP Internet and that got
> >> started in 1978, using X.25 as the underlying virtual circuit basis.
> >> Eventually an OSI connectionless mode was developed CLNP but never
> >> gained much popularity.
> >>
> >> The TCP/IP vs OSI battle lasted from 1978 to 1993. X.25 was around
> >> from 1976 to 2003 or so as I recall. I shut down the last MCI X.25
> >> offering about 2003 or so if memory serves.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Miles Fidelman
> >> <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 08/08/2015 08:12, Jack Haverty wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>> But I don't think there's much written
> >>>> material about that battle between TCP/IP and X.25 in the
> >>    ARPANET arena.
> >>
> >>    Jack,
> >>
> >>    Granted that the TCP/IP cutover happened 2 years before I got to
> >>    BBN, so my exposure wasn't quite firsthand -
> >>    but weren't the battles really between 1822 and X.25, and then
> >>    TCP/IP vs. the ISO stack?  After all, 1822 and X.25 were both
> >>    single subnet protocols, with no support for internetworking (and
> >>    that IP runs over both of them, just fine).
> >>
> >>    Miles
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>    --
> >>    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> >>    In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
> >>
> >>    _______
> >>    internet-history mailing list
> >>    internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org> <mailto:internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>>
> >>    http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
> >>    Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> <mailto:list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org>> for
> >>    assistance.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> > In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
> >
> > _______
> > internet-history mailing list
> > internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
> > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
> > Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> for assistance.
> 
> 
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
> Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> for assistance.
> 
> 
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
> Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> for assistance.
> 
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20150830/1a6fd545/attachment.htm>

From vint at google.com  Sun Aug 30 08:09:57 2015
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 11:09:57 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <1D6407EB-EF77-4DC8-9331-3747B2DBD768@comcast.net>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
	<CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C60FBC.4030502@meetinghouse.net>
	<EE917245-83CD-44F9-BEFE-46CD9928DBE7@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggf-jdaa-wH8QsJUKLxmw0v9SZU=06A8=nYFzXb8UR591Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+oaVqxqbdkt2X=tEBMM0bAx1GY8it2+dCwusvLQHOJde_4jfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D6407EB-EF77-4DC8-9331-3747B2DBD768@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggdpSrgQZA6TZCiew5LHNBt0nJQuTqOo4Q-UKbr=5TGj2g@mail.gmail.com>

I used to manage the TYMNET engineering team when I was SVP at MCI and the
protocols were by no means slapdash. They were quite carefully thought out.
The mechanism was statistical multiplexing of keystrokes into frames for
hop by hop transfer. As the frame arrived at the next hop, it was
disassembled and new frames created including other keystrokes from other
forwarders that lay along the source-to-destination paths to the target.
Sort of like buses or airplanes full of people that land at a hub airport,
and reassemble onto new buses or planes for the next hop.

There was a "colored ball" protocol to determine whether the train of
keystrokes had been fully delivered to the destination by tossing in a
colored ball and waiting for it to return.

Joe Rinde was one of the authors of the TYMNET protocols  - he seems to
have moved to Arizona and gone into the real estate business (!).

I am copying him (if the email is still valid) for his observations.

Joe - I recall that X.25 was an exterior "skin" for the TYMNET colored ball
protocols and that X.75 was indeed in use for inter-network exchanges via
X.25. Can you confirm?

vint


On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 7:06 AM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:

> Not off the top of my head, but there were articles in conferences at the
> time on Tymnet and how it worked internally.  The protocols were (I
> believe) mostly homegrown.  What I remember about Tymnet was that they were
> pretty slapdash. They never saw anything coming until they ran into it, so
> even something like flow control was a retrofitted kludge.  At least that
> is the impression, I had at the time.
>
> Take care,
> John
>
> On Aug 30, 2015, at 06:22, Jim Carpenter <jim at deitygraveyard.com> wrote:
>
> Telenet used X.75 inside but I'm not sure what Tymnet used or when they
> used it. If anybody has any recommended bedtime reading for (technical)
> details of the internals of Telenet and Tymnet, especially TYM2, I'd be
> quite interested.
>
> Jim Carpenter
> the US-based Telenet and Tymnet both offered X.25 service and implemented
> X.75 I believe.
>
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 11:04 AM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> X.75 was widely used within PTT packet-offerings.  As you would imagine
>> mostly outside North America.
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 8, 2015, at 10:18, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Which raises an obvious question:  Did X.75 ever get much traction?  In
>> > my days at BBN (1985-1992), and for a few years earlier, when I was
>> > selling time sharing services, and using TELENET, I can't really recall
>> > ever encountering it in real use.
>> >
>> > Miles
>> >
>> > Vint Cerf wrote:
>> >> Larry Roberts asked me what he should use for protocol in Telenet and
>> >> I said TCP but he said he could not sell datagrams and went on to
>> >> develop X.25's virtual circuits with French, Canadian and UK
>> >> assistance at CCITT (now ITU-T). That was standardized in 1976 while
>> >> TCP was evolving. I told him we would run TCP (eventually TCP/IP) over
>> >> X.25 and by 1981 or so that is what we did in CSNET. 1822 was never a
>> >> contender for a global standard. X.25 begot X.75 which was the CCITT
>> >> response to the Internet's TCP/IP.
>> >>
>> >> OSI was yet another effort to craft a non-TCP/IP Internet and that got
>> >> started in 1978, using X.25 as the underlying virtual circuit basis.
>> >> Eventually an OSI connectionless mode was developed CLNP but never
>> >> gained much popularity.
>> >>
>> >> The TCP/IP vs OSI battle lasted from 1978 to 1993. X.25 was around
>> >> from 1976 to 2003 or so as I recall. I shut down the last MCI X.25
>> >> offering about 2003 or so if memory serves.
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Miles Fidelman
>> >> <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On 08/08/2015 08:12, Jack Haverty wrote:
>> >>> ...
>> >>>> But I don't think there's much written
>> >>>> material about that battle between TCP/IP and X.25 in the
>> >>    ARPANET arena.
>> >>
>> >>    Jack,
>> >>
>> >>    Granted that the TCP/IP cutover happened 2 years before I got to
>> >>    BBN, so my exposure wasn't quite firsthand -
>> >>    but weren't the battles really between 1822 and X.25, and then
>> >>    TCP/IP vs. the ISO stack?  After all, 1822 and X.25 were both
>> >>    single subnet protocols, with no support for internetworking (and
>> >>    that IP runs over both of them, just fine).
>> >>
>> >>    Miles
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>    --
>> >>    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>> >>    In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>> >>
>> >>    _______
>> >>    internet-history mailing list
>> >>    internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
>> >>    http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> >>    Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> for
>> >>    assistance.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>> > In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>> >
>> > _______
>> > internet-history mailing list
>> > internet-history at postel.org
>> > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>>
>>
>> _______
>> internet-history mailing list
>> internet-history at postel.org
>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>>
>
>
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>
>
>
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20150830/b2464c54/attachment.htm>

From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sun Aug 30 11:54:25 2015
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 14:54:25 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggdpSrgQZA6TZCiew5LHNBt0nJQuTqOo4Q-UKbr=5TGj2g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
	<CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C60FBC.4030502@meetinghouse.net>
	<EE917245-83CD-44F9-BEFE-46CD9928DBE7@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggf-jdaa-wH8QsJUKLxmw0v9SZU=06A8=nYFzXb8UR591Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+oaVqxqbdkt2X=tEBMM0bAx1GY8it2+dCwusvLQHOJde_4jfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D6407EB-EF77-4DC8-9331-3747B2DBD768@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggdpSrgQZA6TZCiew5LHNBt0nJQuTqOo4Q-UKbr=5TGj2g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4AD7ADDB-6E90-4B89-B66F-0819874C231D@comcast.net>


> On Aug 30, 2015, at 11:09, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
> 
> I used to manage the TYMNET engineering team when I was SVP at MCI and the protocols were by no means slapdash. They were quite carefully thought out. The mechanism was statistical multiplexing of keystrokes into frames for hop by hop transfer. As the frame arrived at the next hop, it was disassembled and new frames created including other keystrokes from other forwarders that lay along the source-to-destination paths to the target. Sort of like buses or airplanes full of people that land at a hub airport, and reassemble onto new buses or planes for the next hop.

Okay, so they weren?t slapdash. Yes, this sounds very close to the stat mux protocols that Codex did.  They insisted it wasn?t packet switching but I finally convinced them that the only difference was the granularity.  I later used this as the argument for why people should be considering ATM over IP, rather IP over ATM.  ;-)  It was the same idea.
> 
> There was a "colored ball" protocol to determine whether the train of keystrokes had been fully delivered to the destination by tossing in a colored ball and waiting for it to return. 

This is what I thought was slap dash. I remember reading an early article (probably around 76 when the first Telenet articles were ) on TYMNET in which they described how they built the network and ran into problems and found they needed to add the ?colored ball? stuff, which was something they should have seen before they started.  I am sure that by the time you saw it at MCI it had evolved quite a bit.
> 
> Joe Rinde was one of the authors of the TYMNET protocols  - he seems to have moved to Arizona and gone into the real estate business (!). 
> 
> I am copying him (if the email is still valid) for his observations.
> 
> Joe - I recall that X.25 was an exterior "skin" for the TYMNET colored ball protocols and that X.75 was indeed in use for inter-network exchanges via X.25. Can you confirm?

That would make sense since X.25 was a DTE-DCE protocol and not necessarily a DCE-DCE protocol.

Take care,
John
> 
> vint
> 
> 
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 7:06 AM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
> Not off the top of my head, but there were articles in conferences at the time on Tymnet and how it worked internally.  The protocols were (I believe) mostly homegrown.  What I remember about Tymnet was that they were pretty slapdash. They never saw anything coming until they ran into it, so even something like flow control was a retrofitted kludge.  At least that is the impression, I had at the time.
> 
> Take care,
> John
>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 06:22, Jim Carpenter <jim at deitygraveyard.com <mailto:jim at deitygraveyard.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Telenet used X.75 inside but I'm not sure what Tymnet used or when they used it. If anybody has any recommended bedtime reading for (technical) details of the internals of Telenet and Tymnet, especially TYM2, I'd be quite interested.
>> 
>> Jim Carpenter
>> 
>> the US-based Telenet and Tymnet both offered X.25 service and implemented X.75 I believe.
>> 
>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 11:04 AM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>> X.75 was widely used within PTT packet-offerings.  As you would imagine mostly outside North America.
>> 
>> 
>> > On Aug 8, 2015, at 10:18, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Which raises an obvious question:  Did X.75 ever get much traction?  In
>> > my days at BBN (1985-1992), and for a few years earlier, when I was
>> > selling time sharing services, and using TELENET, I can't really recall
>> > ever encountering it in real use.
>> >
>> > Miles
>> >
>> > Vint Cerf wrote:
>> >> Larry Roberts asked me what he should use for protocol in Telenet and
>> >> I said TCP but he said he could not sell datagrams and went on to
>> >> develop X.25's virtual circuits with French, Canadian and UK
>> >> assistance at CCITT (now ITU-T). That was standardized in 1976 while
>> >> TCP was evolving. I told him we would run TCP (eventually TCP/IP) over
>> >> X.25 and by 1981 or so that is what we did in CSNET. 1822 was never a
>> >> contender for a global standard. X.25 begot X.75 which was the CCITT
>> >> response to the Internet's TCP/IP.
>> >>
>> >> OSI was yet another effort to craft a non-TCP/IP Internet and that got
>> >> started in 1978, using X.25 as the underlying virtual circuit basis.
>> >> Eventually an OSI connectionless mode was developed CLNP but never
>> >> gained much popularity.
>> >>
>> >> The TCP/IP vs OSI battle lasted from 1978 to 1993. X.25 was around
>> >> from 1976 to 2003 or so as I recall. I shut down the last MCI X.25
>> >> offering about 2003 or so if memory serves.
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Miles Fidelman
>> >> <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On 08/08/2015 08:12, Jack Haverty wrote:
>> >>> ...
>> >>>> But I don't think there's much written
>> >>>> material about that battle between TCP/IP and X.25 in the
>> >>    ARPANET arena.
>> >>
>> >>    Jack,
>> >>
>> >>    Granted that the TCP/IP cutover happened 2 years before I got to
>> >>    BBN, so my exposure wasn't quite firsthand -
>> >>    but weren't the battles really between 1822 and X.25, and then
>> >>    TCP/IP vs. the ISO stack?  After all, 1822 and X.25 were both
>> >>    single subnet protocols, with no support for internetworking (and
>> >>    that IP runs over both of them, just fine).
>> >>
>> >>    Miles
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>    --
>> >>    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>> >>    In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>> >>
>> >>    _______
>> >>    internet-history mailing list
>> >>    internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org> <mailto:internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>>
>> >>    http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
>> >>    Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> <mailto:list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org>> for
>> >>    assistance.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>> > In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>> >
>> > _______
>> > internet-history mailing list
>> > internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
>> > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
>> > Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> for assistance.
>> 
>> 
>> _______
>> internet-history mailing list
>> internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
>> Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> for assistance.
>> 
>> 
>> _______
>> internet-history mailing list
>> internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
>> Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> for assistance.
>> 
>> _______
>> internet-history mailing list
>> internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
>> Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> for assistance.
> 
> 
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
> Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> for assistance.
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20150830/e08485ac/attachment.htm>

From dhc2 at dcrocker.net  Sun Aug 30 16:49:42 2015
From: dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 16:49:42 -0700
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggdpSrgQZA6TZCiew5LHNBt0nJQuTqOo4Q-UKbr=5TGj2g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
	<CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C60FBC.4030502@meetinghouse.net>
	<EE917245-83CD-44F9-BEFE-46CD9928DBE7@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggf-jdaa-wH8QsJUKLxmw0v9SZU=06A8=nYFzXb8UR591Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+oaVqxqbdkt2X=tEBMM0bAx1GY8it2+dCwusvLQHOJde_4jfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D6407EB-EF77-4DC8-9331-3747B2DBD768@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggdpSrgQZA6TZCiew5LHNBt0nJQuTqOo4Q-UKbr=5TGj2g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55E39696.2010104@dcrocker.net>

On 8/30/2015 8:09 AM, Vint Cerf wrote:
> I used to manage the TYMNET engineering team when I was SVP at MCI and
> the protocols were by no means slapdash. They were quite carefully
> thought out. T


I remember hearing a presentation about their packet protocols and was
impressed how well-tailored it was for the specific terminal traffic it
supported.

I especially liked reference to a pacman-like function.  When the user
hit control-c, the packet that got sent ate any preceding terminal
traffic that it encountered along the way to the server...


d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sun Aug 30 18:15:11 2015
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 21:15:11 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <00da01d0e36f$272d2750$758775f0$@org>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org> <55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com>
	<55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
	<CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C60FBC.4030502@meetinghouse.net>
	<EE917245-83CD-44F9-BEFE-46CD9928DBE7@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggf-jdaa-wH8QsJUKLxmw0v9SZU=06A8=nYFzXb8UR591Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+oaVqxqbdkt2X=tEBMM0bAx1GY8it2+dCwusvLQHOJde_4jfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D6407EB-EF77-4DC8-9331-3747B2DBD768@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggdpSrgQZA6TZCiew5LHNBt0nJQuTqOo4Q-UKbr=5TGj2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<4AD7ADDB-6E90-4B89-B66F-0819 874C231D@comca st.net>
	<00da01d0e36f$272d2750$758775f0$@org>
Message-ID: <40E03AC6-60A9-4980-8E47-0BF901FC12D8@comcast.net>


> On Aug 30, 2015, at 17:59, Joe Rinde <joe at rinde.org> wrote:
> 
> John
>  
> I am not sure what questions are being asked here. The colored balls were added fairly early, not sure if they were planned from the start, LaRoy could better answer that.  I know that the red and green balls were fundamental to preserve ?visual clarity? so I suspect they were there from the start.  Your reference is to orange and yellow balls which had a different purpose. Those were the only balls directly initiated by the external processes (hosts).  Black and grey balls indicated loss of data and told the processes (most of which had no way of dealing with them) in which direction the data was lost.  On top of that were ?character gobblers? and ?circuit Zappers? all of which were internal although they could have external counter parts (close circuit, flush data in the circuit).  The external processes usually were Tymshare hosts that took advantage of the capabilities.  

Thanks for the clarification.
>  
> As to X.25 it never had a datagram capability, it was part of the standard but NO ONE implemented it.

That is correct.  (I don?t believe we were talking about datagrams.)

>   To Tymnet X.25 was an external interface whose traffic was carried the in the internal protocol, the same as if you put an X.25 interface on a router today.  X.75 was n o different in that regard.  At MCI we built a frame relay network that was nothing but an external interface that used IP transport internally, same difference.

Yes, correct.  As I said, X.25 was a DTE to DCE protocol, not internal DCE/DCE standard. And X.75 defined the interface between X.25 networks.  CCITT was very careful to define *interfaces* between boxes not to standardize how the internals of networks worked.  One early confusion as I point out in an article currently in press is that for CCITT interfaces were/are between boxes, whereas for the networking crowd interfaces were between layers.  
>  
> Again I am not sure what is being asked here.  Tymnet provided a very efficient method of transport given the available transmission technology at the time.  It was able to operate on much lower speed lines than Arpanet/Telenet.  In today?s world the design would have been very different.

Yes, it was. As I said, I came into contact with a similar technology when I worked at Codex.

Take care,
John
>  
>  
> Joe Rinde CCSS CNE CDPE CSSN
> United Real Estate Scottsdale
> 602-334-6790
> http://RindeRealEstate.com <http://rinderealestate.com/>
>  
> Confidentiality Warning:
> This message and any associated files are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, dissemination or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Thank you.
>  
> From: John Day [mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>] 
> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2015 11:54 AM
> To: Vint Cerf
> Cc: Joe Rinde; Jim Carpenter; internet history
> Subject: Re: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
>  
>  
>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 11:09, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com <mailto:vint at google.com>> wrote:
>>  
>> I used to manage the TYMNET engineering team when I was SVP at MCI and the protocols were by no means slapdash. They were quite carefully thought out. The mechanism was statistical multiplexing of keystrokes into frames for hop by hop transfer. As the frame arrived at the next hop, it was disassembled and new frames created including other keystrokes from other forwarders that lay along the source-to-destination paths to the target. Sort of like buses or airplanes full of people that land at a hub airport, and reassemble onto new buses or planes for the next hop.
>  
> Okay, so they weren?t slapdash. Yes, this sounds very close to the stat mux protocols that Codex did.  They insisted it wasn?t packet switching but I finally convinced them that the only difference was the granularity.  I later used this as the argument for why people should be considering ATM over IP, rather IP over ATM.  ;-)  It was the same idea.
> 
>  
> There was a "colored ball" protocol to determine whether the train of keystrokes had been fully delivered to the destination by tossing in a colored ball and waiting for it to return. 
>  
> This is what I thought was slap dash. I remember reading an early article (probably around 76 when the first Telenet articles were ) on TYMNET in which they described how they built the network and ran into problems and found they needed to add the ?colored ball? stuff, which was something they should have seen before they started.  I am sure that by the time you saw it at MCI it had evolved quite a bit.
> 
>  
> Joe Rinde was one of the authors of the TYMNET protocols  - he seems to have moved to Arizona and gone into the real estate business (!). 
>  
> I am copying him (if the email is still valid) for his observations.
>  
> Joe - I recall that X.25 was an exterior "skin" for the TYMNET colored ball protocols and that X.75 was indeed in use for inter-network exchanges via X.25. Can you confirm?
>  
> That would make sense since X.25 was a DTE-DCE protocol and not necessarily a DCE-DCE protocol.
>  
> Take care,
> John
> 
>  
> vint
>  
>  
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 7:06 AM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
> Not off the top of my head, but there were articles in conferences at the time on Tymnet and how it worked internally.  The protocols were (I believe) mostly homegrown.  What I remember about Tymnet was that they were pretty slapdash. They never saw anything coming until they ran into it, so even something like flow control was a retrofitted kludge.  At least that is the impression, I had at the time.
>  
> Take care,
> John
>> On Aug 30, 2015, at 06:22, Jim Carpenter <jim at deitygraveyard.com <mailto:jim at deitygraveyard.com>> wrote:
>>  
>> Telenet used X.75 inside but I'm not sure what Tymnet used or when they used it. If anybody has any recommended bedtime reading for (technical) details of the internals of Telenet and Tymnet, especially TYM2, I'd be quite interested.
>> Jim Carpenter
>> the US-based Telenet and Tymnet both offered X.25 service and implemented X.75 I believe.
>>  
>> On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 11:04 AM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>> X.75 was widely used within PTT packet-offerings.  As you would imagine mostly outside North America.
>> 
>> 
>> > On Aug 8, 2015, at 10:18, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Which raises an obvious question:  Did X.75 ever get much traction?  In
>> > my days at BBN (1985-1992), and for a few years earlier, when I was
>> > selling time sharing services, and using TELENET, I can't really recall
>> > ever encountering it in real use.
>> >
>> > Miles
>> >
>> > Vint Cerf wrote:
>> >> Larry Roberts asked me what he should use for protocol in Telenet and
>> >> I said TCP but he said he could not sell datagrams and went on to
>> >> develop X.25's virtual circuits with French, Canadian and UK
>> >> assistance at CCITT (now ITU-T). That was standardized in 1976 while
>> >> TCP was evolving. I told him we would run TCP (eventually TCP/IP) over
>> >> X.25 and by 1981 or so that is what we did in CSNET. 1822 was never a
>> >> contender for a global standard. X.25 begot X.75 which was the CCITT
>> >> response to the Internet's TCP/IP.
>> >>
>> >> OSI was yet another effort to craft a non-TCP/IP Internet and that got
>> >> started in 1978, using X.25 as the underlying virtual circuit basis.
>> >> Eventually an OSI connectionless mode was developed CLNP but never
>> >> gained much popularity.
>> >>
>> >> The TCP/IP vs OSI battle lasted from 1978 to 1993. X.25 was around
>> >> from 1976 to 2003 or so as I recall. I shut down the last MCI X.25
>> >> offering about 2003 or so if memory serves.
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Miles Fidelman
>> >> <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On 08/08/2015 08:12, Jack Haverty wrote:
>> >>> ...
>> >>>> But I don't think there's much written
>> >>>> material about that battle between TCP/IP and X.25 in the
>> >>    ARPANET arena.
>> >>
>> >>    Jack,
>> >>
>> >>    Granted that the TCP/IP cutover happened 2 years before I got to
>> >>    BBN, so my exposure wasn't quite firsthand -
>> >>    but weren't the battles really between 1822 and X.25, and then
>> >>    TCP/IP vs. the ISO stack?  After all, 1822 and X.25 were both
>> >>    single subnet protocols, with no support for internetworking (and
>> >>    that IP runs over both of them, just fine).
>> >>
>> >>    Miles
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>    --
>> >>    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>> >>    In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>> >>
>> >>    _______
>> >>    internet-history mailing list
>> >>    internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org> <mailto:internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>>
>> >>    http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
>> >>    Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> <mailto:list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org>> for
>> >>    assistance.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>> > In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>> >
>> > _______
>> > internet-history mailing list
>> > internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
>> > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
>> > Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> for assistance.
>> 
>> 
>> _______
>> internet-history mailing list
>> internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
>> Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> for assistance.
>>  
>> 
>> _______
>> internet-history mailing list
>> internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
>> Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> for assistance.
>> 
>> _______
>> internet-history mailing list
>> internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
>> Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> for assistance.
> 
>  
> 
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
> Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> for assistance.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20150830/de51f12d/attachment.htm>

From jim at deitygraveyard.com  Mon Aug 31 05:25:32 2015
From: jim at deitygraveyard.com (Jim Carpenter)
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 08:25:32 -0400
Subject: [ih] Any suggestions for first uses of "e-mail" or "email"?
In-Reply-To: <55E39696.2010104@dcrocker.net>
References: <CAHxHggf7psx_3=LJmkkutCWs87prc=jvz=VbQOq=PLVVGfq3WQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55B402F8.1070107@3kitty.org>
	<CAC-QkAB6YhTL515cA+g1anYnjVgL1qvxe_q1yPyUVvM=sHHLBw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C0F24E.9020602@3kitty.org>
	<F618C19A-0B1B-4BD6-9B6E-C2945B9A7629@stevens.edu>
	<CAC-QkACvK3fUBOSnceuL-UyOAEtg3jiNodNZjHV2QvsZN2uCqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<62849CE3-7F89-46E5-94E2-89610E7CA2A5@stevens.edu>
	<55C11D8C.1090808@3kitty.org>
	<DB648B67-CBFB-4BF1-8DB5-18AAD33EC849@gmail.com>
	<55C51111.6060505@3kitty.org>
	<55C5A619.1040305@gmail.com> <55C5B301.7080907@meetinghouse.net>
	<CAHxHgget94Tj9-rwDp68h5x3MTxhbi7J4ePEsLfw7pXdyZxvHA@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C60FBC.4030502@meetinghouse.net>
	<EE917245-83CD-44F9-BEFE-46CD9928DBE7@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggf-jdaa-wH8QsJUKLxmw0v9SZU=06A8=nYFzXb8UR591Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+oaVqxqbdkt2X=tEBMM0bAx1GY8it2+dCwusvLQHOJde_4jfQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1D6407EB-EF77-4DC8-9331-3747B2DBD768@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggdpSrgQZA6TZCiew5LHNBt0nJQuTqOo4Q-UKbr=5TGj2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<55E39696.2010104@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <CA+oaVqzB=W1yEwqDr_o=9JvrB-UDRthuThEcjfp2y=cqZLZ_qQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net> wrote:

> I especially liked reference to a pacman-like function.  When the user
> hit control-c, the packet that got sent ate any preceding terminal
> traffic that it encountered along the way to the server...
>
>
I believe that was called a "character gobbler". Also used when (hard?)
zapping a circuit. (I think I have my terminology right.)

I don't know who came up with the name, but I like it. :)

It's briefly mentioned here:
http://cap-lore.com/Tymnet/BP.html
http://cap-lore.com/Tymnet/TOCN.html

Jim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20150831/7aa0b742/attachment.htm>