[ih] Peter Salus / Baran's work

[Noel Chiappa]

    > From: Brian E Carpenter

    > I just checked in my copy of "Computer Networks and Their Protocols"
    > by Davies et al., (1979) and they cite the 1964 Baran paper and the
    > RAND reports, on page 47, as "the first full description of [packet
    > switching]". So it's not like this was arcane knowledge.

So, if not, why is the meme that Baran's work was 'classified and not
widely available' so common (and, given the evidence of the '64 IEEE
publication, apparently entirely wrong)?

I mean, I didn't know of the '64 IEEE publication until Paulina pointed it
out; I had always assumed the meme was correct.

Interestingly, "The ARPANET Sourcebook" also includes a very interesting
note by Willis Ware of RAND (pp. 70-71) which makes quite plain that the
11-volume set was publicly available from the start, and also widely
distributed ("At that time, RAND document distribution always included a
lengthy list of deposit campus and urban libraries"). However, Willis'
note does not mention the publication in the IEEE journal.

The IEEE paper also clearly referenced thee complete set, and indicated that
it was "intended to release the volumes as a set"

As to why Baran's work took a while to be noticed, my _guess_ is that Baran's
focus on survivability may have led people to assume that his ideas had no
relevance to networks intended for 'general' use, so it had little impact when
first published - but that's just a quess.

And as far as the meme goes, the fact that tiny portions of the large 1964
RAND publications on Baran's work _were_ classified may have somehow gotten
conflated in the general mind with the report as a whole.


However, hopefully, if it keeps being pointed out that the introductory
document from the RAND set was published in an IEEE journal, eventually the
meme that 'Baran's work was classified and not widely distributed' will be
extinguished.

	Noel