From arussell at arussell.org  Wed Jul  3 06:54:48 2019
From: arussell at arussell.org (Andrew Russell)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 09:54:48 -0400
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
Message-ID: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>

Hi everyone - 

You might have seen the CACM featured an article in the most recent issue ?On the Hourglass Model? - https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/7/237714-on-the-hourglass-model/fulltext <https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/7/237714-on-the-hourglass-model/fulltext>. 

It?s not a history paper, but it raised a history-related question for me.  As far as I know the visual representation in question started with a drawing of a margarita glass in 1979, in the context of an OSI committee meeting and the 7-layer model. I reproduced the image on page 214 of my book ?Open Standards and the Digital Age? - it?s visible to me here: 
https://books.google.com/books?id=jqroAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214 <https://books.google.com/books?id=jqroAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214>.

My question for the list has 2 parts:
1) when/where did the margarita glass turn into an hourglass?
2) when/where did the TCP/IP community borrow it from the OSI community?  (I?m assuming this is how it happened, would be very interested in evidence or recollections to the contrary)

My hunch, without doing a fresh round of research, is that I should look first to papers by David Clark and co-authors in the 1980s to answer a third question, which is how this illustrated concept morphed into a ?Theorem? (as the CACM essay puts it).  But that?s just a hunch, and I?d really appreciate pointers or recollections.

Thank you!

Andy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190703/d9b1c652/attachment.htm>

From jeanjour at comcast.net  Wed Jul  3 07:29:57 2019
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 10:29:57 -0400
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
Message-ID: <642AE54E-3A35-4B25-93FE-6C0B2FC980BE@comcast.net>

Actually, the first appearance of the margarita glass is an Annex to TC97/SC16/N227, October 1978. The second meeting of OSI, the first meeting of the Working Groups. It was drawn by John Aschenbrenner of IBM and one of the originators of SNA.

The 1979 document you cite was Aschenbrenner?s report to the ANSI group after the 2nd SC16 Plenary in London in mid-1979. Since the October 1978 meetings were Working Groups only, Aschenbrenner would only report after an SC meeting.

John

> On Jul 3, 2019, at 09:54, Andrew Russell <arussell at arussell.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone - 
> 
> You might have seen the CACM featured an article in the most recent issue ?On the Hourglass Model? - https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/7/237714-on-the-hourglass-model/fulltext <https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/7/237714-on-the-hourglass-model/fulltext>. 
> 
> It?s not a history paper, but it raised a history-related question for me.  As far as I know the visual representation in question started with a drawing of a margarita glass in 1979, in the context of an OSI committee meeting and the 7-layer model. I reproduced the image on page 214 of my book ?Open Standards and the Digital Age? - it?s visible to me here: 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=jqroAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214 <https://books.google.com/books?id=jqroAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214>.
> 
> My question for the list has 2 parts:
> 1) when/where did the margarita glass turn into an hourglass?
> 2) when/where did the TCP/IP community borrow it from the OSI community?  (I?m assuming this is how it happened, would be very interested in evidence or recollections to the contrary)
> 
> My hunch, without doing a fresh round of research, is that I should look first to papers by David Clark and co-authors in the 1980s to answer a third question, which is how this illustrated concept morphed into a ?Theorem? (as the CACM essay puts it).  But that?s just a hunch, and I?d really appreciate pointers or recollections.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Andy
> _______
> 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/20190703/7d9fde0d/attachment.htm>

From sob at sobco.com  Wed Jul  3 08:30:49 2019
From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 11:30:49 -0400
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <642AE54E-3A35-4B25-93FE-6C0B2FC980BE@comcast.net>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<642AE54E-3A35-4B25-93FE-6C0B2FC980BE@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <8DFA02FA-11FD-457D-AA78-92DCEBF0D9C3@sobco.com>

as far as I know - the first use of an IP based hourglass was in Realizing the Information Future (1994) 
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/4755/realizing-the-information-future-the-internet-and-beyond

Scott

> On Jul 3, 2019, at 10:29 AM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> Actually, the first appearance of the margarita glass is an Annex to TC97/SC16/N227, October 1978. The second meeting of OSI, the first meeting of the Working Groups. It was drawn by John Aschenbrenner of IBM and one of the originators of SNA.
> 
> The 1979 document you cite was Aschenbrenner?s report to the ANSI group after the 2nd SC16 Plenary in London in mid-1979. Since the October 1978 meetings were Working Groups only, Aschenbrenner would only report after an SC meeting.
> 
> John
> 
>> On Jul 3, 2019, at 09:54, Andrew Russell <arussell at arussell.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi everyone - 
>> 
>> You might have seen the CACM featured an article in the most recent issue ?On the Hourglass Model? - https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/7/237714-on-the-hourglass-model/fulltext. 
>> 
>> It?s not a history paper, but it raised a history-related question for me.  As far as I know the visual representation in question started with a drawing of a margarita glass in 1979, in the context of an OSI committee meeting and the 7-layer model. I reproduced the image on page 214 of my book ?Open Standards and the Digital Age? - it?s visible to me here: 
>> https://books.google.com/books?id=jqroAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214.
>> 
>> My question for the list has 2 parts:
>> 1) when/where did the margarita glass turn into an hourglass?
>> 2) when/where did the TCP/IP community borrow it from the OSI community?  (I?m assuming this is how it happened, would be very interested in evidence or recollections to the contrary)
>> 
>> My hunch, without doing a fresh round of research, is that I should look first to papers by David Clark and co-authors in the 1980s to answer a third question, which is how this illustrated concept morphed into a ?Theorem? (as the CACM essay puts it).  But that?s just a hunch, and I?d really appreciate pointers or recollections.
>> 
>> Thank you!
>> 
>> Andy
>> _______
>> 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 jack at 3kitty.org  Wed Jul  3 10:20:59 2019
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 10:20:59 -0700
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
Message-ID: <ea857e71-5296-c4a6-116d-93a38a5b3411@3kitty.org>

On 7/3/19 6:54 AM, Andrew Russell wrote:

> 2) when/where did the TCP/IP community borrow it from the OSI
> community? ?(I?m assuming this is how it happened, would be very
> interested in evidence or recollections to the contrary)
>
My recollection from many meetings in the early 80s of the ICCB/IAB, TCP
Working Group, Internet Working Group, et al is that the TCP/IP
community did *not* borrow the OSI model at all.? Or at least not in the
early days of the Internet through 1983 or so, I'm not sure what
happened later.

There were people who liked having a model, and the organizational
aspects of all the layers - kind of like a Unified Theory of
Networking.? They wrote lots of papers about it.? However, the
discussions I recall were pretty much all about how the TCP/IP
technology we were building, in the real world of computer code and
packet headers, didn't fit at all into the layering of the paper
world.?? Still doesn't, AFAIK.

/Jack Haverty



From bfidler at stevens.edu  Wed Jul  3 11:09:45 2019
From: bfidler at stevens.edu (Bradley Fidler)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 14:09:45 -0400
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <ea857e71-5296-c4a6-116d-93a38a5b3411@3kitty.org>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<ea857e71-5296-c4a6-116d-93a38a5b3411@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <CAMTey=ArTLPbErdPxVhLBBajw7zDCij0pdh+YmsdKfc3zEhwtQ@mail.gmail.com>

The hourglass shows up in May 1990 at IETF 17, in a presentation by Cyndi
Mills (page 220 of the proceedings). Her presentation was on metering so I
assume her use of the term was uncontroversial. RFC references appear to
come after.

One way to answer Andy's question 3 would be to look for the evolution of
the concept but not the term, which would encourage us to ask how strictly
it should be delineated from modularity, and if the Internet community's
intellectual history includes lineages with earlier spanning layer work;
Ba?rwolff's dissertation on the end to end argument provides some of this
groundwork, for example by pointing to Saltzer and others in the 70s.

Jack's comment raises for me the question of how IP was understood, or how
its future implementations were considered, over time; for example, the
significance of the creation and eventual disuse of certain IP options for
the hourglass model. Presumably the TCP/IP split was relevant as well.

Brad



On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 13:43, Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:

> On 7/3/19 6:54 AM, Andrew Russell wrote:
>
> > 2) when/where did the TCP/IP community borrow it from the OSI
> > community?  (I?m assuming this is how it happened, would be very
> > interested in evidence or recollections to the contrary)
> >
> My recollection from many meetings in the early 80s of the ICCB/IAB, TCP
> Working Group, Internet Working Group, et al is that the TCP/IP
> community did *not* borrow the OSI model at all.  Or at least not in the
> early days of the Internet through 1983 or so, I'm not sure what
> happened later.
>
> There were people who liked having a model, and the organizational
> aspects of all the layers - kind of like a Unified Theory of
> Networking.  They wrote lots of papers about it.  However, the
> discussions I recall were pretty much all about how the TCP/IP
> technology we were building, in the real world of computer code and
> packet headers, didn't fit at all into the layering of the paper
> world.   Still doesn't, AFAIK.
>
> /Jack Haverty
>
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190703/1530637f/attachment.htm>

From touch at strayalpha.com  Wed Jul  3 11:10:24 2019
From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 11:10:24 -0700
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <8DFA02FA-11FD-457D-AA78-92DCEBF0D9C3@sobco.com>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<642AE54E-3A35-4B25-93FE-6C0B2FC980BE@comcast.net>
	<8DFA02FA-11FD-457D-AA78-92DCEBF0D9C3@sobco.com>
Message-ID: <1a43fe35-e5a0-19c1-9461-971d3620a3c6@strayalpha.com>


On 7/3/2019 8:30 AM, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
> as far as I know - the first use of an IP based hourglass was in Realizing the Information Future (1994) 
> https://www.nap.edu/catalog/4755/realizing-the-information-future-the-internet-and-beyond

I recall seeing IP variants long before this; it would be odd for
anything truly new to appear in any of these sort of "promotional
reports" (I have a whole series in my office, FWIW). Those reports were
more effective in getting departments renamed (to match the report
heading) than anything else.

Joe



From touch at strayalpha.com  Wed Jul  3 11:20:32 2019
From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 11:20:32 -0700
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <ea857e71-5296-c4a6-116d-93a38a5b3411@3kitty.org>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<ea857e71-5296-c4a6-116d-93a38a5b3411@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <ff124479-c40a-55f5-e2eb-741ea298f7e7@strayalpha.com>

Hi, all,

On 7/3/2019 10:20 AM, Jack Haverty wrote:
> My recollection from many meetings in the early 80s of the ICCB/IAB, TCP
> Working Group, Internet Working Group, et al is that the TCP/IP
> community did *not* borrow the OSI model at all.? Or at least not in the
> early days of the Internet through 1983 or so, I'm not sure what
> happened later.

I think there was at least some terminology borrowing; not sure who came
up with what first, e.g., link, net, transport, etc.

However, the idea that specific functions were unique to a single layer
was (AFAICT) born and died (thankfully) with OSI.

The idea that there are a fixed number of layers or that they are
absolute, rather than relative, died with tunnels, IMO.

The (correct) idea that a layer has defined interfaces above and below
was almost killed by the IETF (in declaring that APIs were
"implementation issues" for a long time), but has (thankfully) since
been recognized as important.

And of course, John (Day) and I both believe layers are really instances
of a single, recursive concept.

YMMV.

Joe




From jack at 3kitty.org  Wed Jul  3 13:26:54 2019
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 13:26:54 -0700
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <ff124479-c40a-55f5-e2eb-741ea298f7e7@strayalpha.com>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<ea857e71-5296-c4a6-116d-93a38a5b3411@3kitty.org>
	<ff124479-c40a-55f5-e2eb-741ea298f7e7@strayalpha.com>
Message-ID: <63046a64-c530-2b05-92d6-5fb9db2720f8@3kitty.org>

On 7/3/19 11:20 AM, Joe Touch wrote:

> I think there was at least some terminology borrowing; not sure who came
> up with what first, e.g., link, net, transport, etc.

IMHO it's important when looking at history to remember that computer
networking did not start with OSI, or the Internet, or even the ARPANET.??

Before those existed, there were lots of people sitting in front of lots
of terminals using the telephone network to interact with their
mainframes.?? Protocols like BISYNC (circa 1967) and others were used,
along with "multidrop lines" that enabled lots of terminals to use the
same telephone line.

IIRC, much of the "networking" terminology was borrowed from that
environment - terms like "link" and "transport" for example.? I suspect
you'd find a lot of "our" terms in early IBM documents.

My impression of the 7-layer model has always been that it came from
that kind of early 60s "network" world - lots of human users sitting at
a slightly smart terminal (e.g., IBM 2260 or later 3270) interacting
with some application running on a remote mainframe over a virtual
circuit carried by modems and telephone lines.? The seven layers match
reasonably well to that technology.

The problem we had back in the early 80s with forcing the Internet into
that model was a result of the multiple endpoints involved in virtually
every scenario.?? Users were still at terminals, but only the TIP/TAC
scenario (remote login) fit into the 7-layer model.?

Most scenarios were more complex, and the communications over the
ARPANET and later Internet were largely computers interacting with other
computers.? When a human user was involved he or she was likely using a
"client" program on a local computer (e.g., Telnet or FTP from ISIA,
BBNE, MIT-DM (where I hung out)...) and that local computer was
interacting with a computer at the "other end" as well as with computers
"in the middle", e.g., information exchanges with gateways (routers),
with servers such as DNS or NTP, etc.

There were lots of other scenarios with no human user in sight, e.g,.
mail servers talking amongst themselves, DNS servers getting
synchronized and updated, etc.

It was really hard to put the round ARPA Networking block into the
square OSI hole....

Today, if you look at a single web-page, you'd likely see dozens of
interactions going on between lots of network sites as all of the page
content is pulled or constructed from all over the Internet to get the
ads, cryptominer malware, teasers for other sites, et al onto the
screen.? Sure seems far away from that 7-layer model....

/Jack

PS - a factoid you might find amusing.? In the Internet, routers used to
be called "gateways".? When I was at BBN in the 80s, we sporadically
tried to sell gateways to our X.25 network customers.?? No one would
touch a "gateway".?? We finally learned that the term "gateway" in
IBM-land referred to something which had a reputation of being
expensive, hard to install, and very unreliable.?? So we started calling
them "routers" instead...




From touch at strayalpha.com  Wed Jul  3 14:33:46 2019
From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 14:33:46 -0700
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <63046a64-c530-2b05-92d6-5fb9db2720f8@3kitty.org>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<ea857e71-5296-c4a6-116d-93a38a5b3411@3kitty.org>
	<ff124479-c40a-55f5-e2eb-741ea298f7e7@strayalpha.com>
	<63046a64-c530-2b05-92d6-5fb9db2720f8@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <4bfd8963-cc15-e325-dacb-227bef912edb@strayalpha.com>


On 7/3/2019 1:26 PM, Jack Haverty wrote:
> The problem we had back in the early 80s with forcing the Internet into
> that model was a result of the multiple endpoints involved in virtually
> every scenario.?? Users were still at terminals, but only the TIP/TAC
> scenario (remote login) fit into the 7-layer model. 

FWIW, this recalls the elevators and parking lots issue in Padlipsky's
book...

Although both that and the idea of "gathering info from everywhere" seem
disconnected from the 7-layer model, they do both fit quite well within
recursive models, FWIW.

Joe



From jeanjour at comcast.net  Fri Jul  5 12:09:45 2019
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 15:09:45 -0400
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <63046a64-c530-2b05-92d6-5fb9db2720f8@3kitty.org>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<ea857e71-5296-c4a6-116d-93a38a5b3411@3kitty.org>
	<ff124479-c40a-55f5-e2eb-741ea298f7e7@strayalpha.com>
	<63046a64-c530-2b05-92d6-5fb9db2720f8@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <8307A411-C490-4EE5-88E6-65A46FE0BE21@comcast.net>

Jack,

> On Jul 3, 2019, at 16:26, Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:
> 
> On 7/3/19 11:20 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
>> I think there was at least some terminology borrowing; not sure who came
>> up with what first, e.g., link, net, transport, etc.
> 
> IMHO it's important when looking at history to remember that computer
> networking did not start with OSI, or the Internet, or even the ARPANET.  
> 
> Before those existed, there were lots of people sitting in front of lots
> of terminals using the telephone network to interact with their
> mainframes.   Protocols like BISYNC (circa 1967) and others were used,
> along with "multidrop lines" that enabled lots of terminals to use the
> same telephone line.
> 
> IIRC, much of the "networking" terminology was borrowed from that
> environment - terms like "link" and "transport" for example.  I suspect
> you'd find a lot of "our" terms in early IBM documents.

Well, sort of. There was a distinct shift between the early phone and datacomm networks and what we called ?networking? even then.

The phones and terminals were attached to the network and were not really active participants in it.

Hosts, OTOH, are active participants in the network. Admittedly at first, there was an attempt to ?protect? the hosts from dealing with the network, but that was more an issue of the resource limitations of the hosts. It was readily apparent even in the early 70s that this form of networking was qualitatively different. It was a distributed computing problem, in some regards a distributed OS, that it was a network of peers, not master/slave as with the data comm networks. Datacom networks and the PTTs follow what I have called the beads-on-a-string model:  boxes connected by wires, where layers are just modules in the boxes. The Host has members in the lower 4 layers.  The Networking model, OTOH, is focused on distributed cooperating processes that form layers of different scope. The boxes are just containers and less important.

> 
> My impression of the 7-layer model has always been that it came from
> that kind of early 60s "network" world - lots of human users sitting at
> a slightly smart terminal (e.g., IBM 2260 or later 3270) interacting
> withal some application running on a remote mainframe over a virtual
> circuit carried by modems and telephone lines.  The seven layers match
> reasonably well to that technology.

To some degree, I would agree with that Charlie Bachman (author of the 7 layer model) who worked for Honeywell-Bull did come from that background and I have always thought that the label of Presentation Layer was an indicator of that. But there was also a considerable distributed computing influence as well. First internally Honeywell-Bull referred to it as a distributed computing architecture and the French side of Honeywell Bull in the person of Michel Elie was working closely with the CYCLADES group who definitely saw it that way.  Much of what they were trying to do was focused on computer-to-computer uses as you point out.

Once the committee got hold of the model it set out to further generalize it beyond Charlie?s original. (Although I have to say Charlie wasn?t stuck in that view and was pushing a distributed view, but more from the business side than the research side.)  For example, the Presentation Layer had nothing to do with ?presenting? but with selecting transfer syntax. The Application Layer was modular and modules could be re-used for different applications, etc.
> 
> The problem we had back in the early 80s with forcing the Internet into
> that model was a result of the multiple endpoints involved in virtually
> every scenario.   Users were still at terminals, but only the TIP/TAC
> scenario (remote login) fit into the 7-layer model. 

In the OSI model there were no terminals. Terminals were outside the model. It was a model of peer systems.

Now, ITU (CCITT in those days) did include the terminal in their model. They called it a ?stop/start mode-DTE? (Data Terminating Equipment) and what we called a TIP,  they called a PAD (Packet Assembler/Disassembler) which they saw as an ?interface between a start/stop-mode DTE and a packet-mode DTE (host).  Well, not really. A TIP was an IMP with a piece of software that looked like a host to the IMP. There were ?network access? devices built at the time that were small stand-alone very limited hosts that provided terminals access to the network. Strictly speaking, this latter type was more equivalent to a PAD than the TIP was. All of this pre-dates OSI.

I did (I think) a delightful picture back then that I still use that shows the sequence of a terminal connected to a host connected to a couple of switches/routers connected to another host. The top of the picture is labeled the way we would have done it, the bottom labels the same objects as the CCITT labeled them. The upper labeling is symmetric, the lower labeling asymmetric. And of course, in the upper labeling ?interfaces? are APIs and in the lower labeling, ?interfaces? are wires between boxes. The point was that one could build on the top labeling, but the bottom labeling was pretty much a dead-end.
> 
> Most scenarios were more complex, and the communications over the
> ARPANET and later Internet were largely computers interacting with other
> computers.  When a human user was involved he or she was likely using a
> "client" program on a local computer (e.g., Telnet or FTP from ISIA,
> BBNE, MIT-DM (where I hung out)...) and that local computer was
> interacting with a computer at the "other end" as well as with computers
> "in the middle", e.g., information exchanges with gateways (routers),
> with servers such as DNS or NTP, etc.
> 
> There were lots of other scenarios with no human user in sight, e.g,.
> mail servers talking amongst themselves, DNS servers getting
> synchronized and updated, etc.

Agreed.

In fact, when peer-to-peer [sic] became a big buzzword, I asked an advocate what the big deal was. The reply with bated breath was, ?that a host could be a client and a server at the same time!!!? I said, yea, that was true the day we turned the Net on!
> 
> It was really hard to put the round ARPA Networking block into the
> square OSI hole?.

Sounds to me like you are confusing the OSI work with the ITU X.25 beads-on-a-string model. Remember OSI was an effort started by US computer companies with the support of European computer companies. It was later that the Europeans insisted that ISO and ITU produce joint standards. Personally, I think this was a big mistake, but with no signs of deregulation in Europe, there wasn?t much choice.

> 
> Today, if you look at a single web-page, you'd likely see dozens of
> interactions going on between lots of network sites as all of the page
> content is pulled or constructed from all over the Internet to get the
> ads, cryptominer malware, teasers for other sites, et al onto the
> screen.  Sure seems far away from that 7-layer model?.

I don?t see how.  Fits perfectly from my understanding of both. In fact, web fits better in the 7 layer model (with its additional architecture investigations). I use the web to explain the insights made in understanding the OSI Application Layer. There were some very important insights developed. 

(Now that said, was the OSI Model perfect? Far from it. There were some very good ideas in there, but the phone companies (and their allies) introduced a lot of old think and a lot that was just plain wrong. I have yet to see them get anything right, even today. In fact, I see them proposing the same thing they were in the 1970s, just with flashier buzzwords.)

> 
> /Jack
> 
> PS - a factoid you might find amusing.  In the Internet, routers used to
> be called "gateways".  When I was at BBN in the 80s, we sporadically
> tried to sell gateways to our X.25 network customers.   No one would
> touch a "gateway".   We finally learned that the term "gateway" in
> IBM-land referred to something which had a reputation of being
> expensive, hard to install, and very unreliable.   So we started calling
> them "routers" instead?

Even more interesting factoid.  The term ?gateway? had nothing to do with IBM.

A ?router? or switch, the names were used interchangeably, was the relay within the networks of an internet, while a ?gateway' was the relay between networks.  So a router is a relay between hosts and gateways, or between gateways; while a gateway is a higher layer relay between hosts and gateways.

This was the whole idea that Abbate documents in her book: that while the PTTs adopted protocol translation at the boundaries between networks and didn?t need gateways. (They were translating between very similar X.25 networks, so it wasn?t too messy (and they had X.75 to define the translation) and it maintained their desire for ?value-added services? in the network.  The researchers expecting a wide variety of new network technologies and knowing how messy m x n translation could get chose an overlay, an internet layer, so that the networks of an internet supported a common layer with no protocol translation.

This was the model that INWG was using in the mid-70s and reflected by the fact that the 3 transport protocols they were looking at had internet (transport) addresses, over network addresses, over data link addresses with decreasing scope. (This was before IP was separated from TCP.) 

A decade later, OSI independently came to the same conclusion in ISO 8648 Internal Organization of the Network Layer, which says that there are 3 sublayers (all not always present). In OSI-ese, they were 3a, Subnetwork Access; 3b, Subnet Dependent Convergence; and 3c, Subnet Indpendent Convergence. IOW, (3a,b) was the Network Layer; (3c, Transport) was the Internet Layer. (This is also reflected in that intra-domain routing uses the Data Link Layer (the network layer?s lower layer) to exchange routing updates; and Inter-Domain routing uses a Transport Protocol, e.g. TCP or TP4. as an SNDC (the internet layer?s lower layer) to exchange routing information.)

[I know it was independently arrived at because I was in a position to observe both groups up close, but was not participating in their discussions, and there was no overlap in their membership. Yes, the basic Reference Model should have been re-written to reflect this structure but it was deemed politically impossible to do so. Similarly, by 1983, the upper layers were admitted to be a single layer. The protocol specifications were ?adjusted? so they could be implemented as a single layer and were. (Noticing this simplification was often referred to as the OSI Clueless Test.) ;-)  Uncovering that had been complicated by the PTTs stealing the Session Layer, which further obscured that the upper 3 layers were not only one layer but upside down. Also in the early 1980s, proof was found that addresses should not be exposed at the layer boundary as had been forced on the Reference Model in 1978 and that (N-1)-addresses should not be used as a suffix of an (N)-address. But again, it was deemed politically impossible to outright re-write the Basic Reference Model to directly reflect this and various definition subterfuges were used to get around it.]

But you are right, that by 1983 the term gateway had pretty much disappeared in the Internet discussions, but that was primarily because the Internet had become one big network with translation (IP Fragmentation and later NATs) at the boundaries. 

Take care,
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 craig at tereschau.net  Fri Jul  5 14:14:05 2019
From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 15:14:05 -0600
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
Message-ID: <CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>

Related but not quite on target.

The hourglass/margarita glass is a representation of layering.  And back in
1988 I tried to figure out the origins of the layered model for a
collection of networking papers I edited.  At the time, the best answer I
found was that layering, from a networking perspective, originated with a
paper by Davidson et al. on the ARPANET TELNET protocol from the DATACOM
conference in 1977.  It portrays layering as a fan, in which different
protocols layer on each other as needed.  But it clearly articulates the
notion of layering and how layers interact.  (And there's a narrow window
between the 1977 paper and the Cerf/Kahn 1974 paper on TCP/IP, which
presumably would have mentioned layering if the concept was in wide use).

Craig

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:10 AM Andrew Russell <arussell at arussell.org> wrote:

> Hi everyone -
>
> You might have seen the CACM featured an article in the most recent issue
> ?On the Hourglass Model? -
> https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/7/237714-on-the-hourglass-model/fulltext
> .
>
> It?s not a history paper, but it raised a history-related question for
> me.  As far as I know the visual representation in question started with a
> drawing of a margarita glass in 1979, in the context of an OSI committee
> meeting and the 7-layer model. I reproduced the image on page 214 of my
> book ?Open Standards and the Digital Age? - it?s visible to me here:
> https://books.google.com/books?id=jqroAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214.
>
> My question for the list has 2 parts:
> 1) when/where did the margarita glass turn into an hourglass?
> 2) when/where did the TCP/IP community borrow it from the OSI community?
>  (I?m assuming this is how it happened, would be very interested in
> evidence or recollections to the contrary)
>
> My hunch, without doing a fresh round of research, is that I should look
> first to papers by David Clark and co-authors in the 1980s to answer a
> third question, which is how this illustrated concept morphed into a
> ?Theorem? (as the CACM essay puts it).  But that?s just a hunch, and I?d
> really appreciate pointers or recollections.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Andy
> _______
> 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.
>


-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190705/15be3440/attachment.htm>

From steve at shinkuro.com  Fri Jul  5 14:35:27 2019
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 17:35:27 -0400
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>

Layering was part of the earliest discussions we had in 1968-69.

On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 5:34 PM Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net> wrote:

> Related but not quite on target.
>
> The hourglass/margarita glass is a representation of layering.  And back
> in 1988 I tried to figure out the origins of the layered model for a
> collection of networking papers I edited.  At the time, the best answer I
> found was that layering, from a networking perspective, originated with a
> paper by Davidson et al. on the ARPANET TELNET protocol from the DATACOM
> conference in 1977.  It portrays layering as a fan, in which different
> protocols layer on each other as needed.  But it clearly articulates the
> notion of layering and how layers interact.  (And there's a narrow window
> between the 1977 paper and the Cerf/Kahn 1974 paper on TCP/IP, which
> presumably would have mentioned layering if the concept was in wide use).
>
> Craig
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:10 AM Andrew Russell <arussell at arussell.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone -
>>
>> You might have seen the CACM featured an article in the most recent issue
>> ?On the Hourglass Model? -
>> https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/7/237714-on-the-hourglass-model/fulltext
>> .
>>
>> It?s not a history paper, but it raised a history-related question for
>> me.  As far as I know the visual representation in question started with a
>> drawing of a margarita glass in 1979, in the context of an OSI committee
>> meeting and the 7-layer model. I reproduced the image on page 214 of my
>> book ?Open Standards and the Digital Age? - it?s visible to me here:
>> https://books.google.com/books?id=jqroAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214.
>>
>> My question for the list has 2 parts:
>> 1) when/where did the margarita glass turn into an hourglass?
>> 2) when/where did the TCP/IP community borrow it from the OSI community?
>>  (I?m assuming this is how it happened, would be very interested in
>> evidence or recollections to the contrary)
>>
>> My hunch, without doing a fresh round of research, is that I should look
>> first to papers by David Clark and co-authors in the 1980s to answer a
>> third question, which is how this illustrated concept morphed into a
>> ?Theorem? (as the CACM essay puts it).  But that?s just a hunch, and I?d
>> really appreciate pointers or recollections.
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Andy
>> _______
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> --
> *****
> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
> mailing lists.
> _______
> 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/20190705/348399cd/attachment.htm>

From jeanjour at comcast.net  Fri Jul  5 17:37:17 2019
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 20:37:17 -0400
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>

Thanks Steve for that. Just to add.

Keep in mind computing was still very small (there was only one or two computer conferences a year, when did NCC split into Fall and Spring Joint?) The networking field was even smaller. Publishing a paper was considerably more work and the criteria considerably higher than they are now. A lot of work and a lot of discussing went on that never appeared in publications or even in RFCs or other samizdat circulations. (I have all sorts of papers from this period that were not part of any even informal publication series.

In 1968, Dykstra published his paper on THE and layered OSs. And it was all the buzz.  Most, if not all, of the NWG were OS guys. You needed OS guys to figure out how to introduce the IMP-Host protocol and then the Host-Host on top of that in the OS. By 1970, layer diagrams of IMP-Host, Host-Host(NCP), (Telnet, DTP), FTP, RJE were common. (DTP was Data Transfer Protocol, the part of FTP that did the actual transfer.)

By 72/3, the layers of Physical, Data Link, Network, Transport from CYCLADES were pretty common as well as a general characterization that wasn?t specific to a given network. INWG began in 72 after ICCC ?72 and these layers were common by then. There is also strong evidence that because CYCLADES was building a network to do research on networks (very different from what the ARPNET was)*, they had figured out a lot more about layers than most of us knew at the time.

John

*Remember the ARPANET was built to lower the cost of research but not really to do research on networks. That could be a side benefit and a lot of us thought there was a lot to do, but it wasn?t ARPAs main focus for the ARPANET. Once it was built, ARPA considered the network part done! (At least for awhile they did.) BBN couldn?t take the net whenever they wanted to do some experiment. The ARPANET was in a fairly real sense, a production network to support ARPA research.

> On Jul 5, 2019, at 17:35, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
> 
> Layering was part of the earliest discussions we had in 1968-69.
> 
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 5:34 PM Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net <mailto:craig at tereschau.net>> wrote:
> Related but not quite on target.
> 
> The hourglass/margarita glass is a representation of layering.  And back in 1988 I tried to figure out the origins of the layered model for a collection of networking papers I edited.  At the time, the best answer I found was that layering, from a networking perspective, originated with a paper by Davidson et al. on the ARPANET TELNET protocol from the DATACOM conference in 1977.  It portrays layering as a fan, in which different protocols layer on each other as needed.  But it clearly articulates the notion of layering and how layers interact.  (And there's a narrow window between the 1977 paper and the Cerf/Kahn 1974 paper on TCP/IP, which presumably would have mentioned layering if the concept was in wide use).
> 
> Craig
> 
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:10 AM Andrew Russell <arussell at arussell.org <mailto:arussell at arussell.org>> wrote:
> Hi everyone - 
> 
> You might have seen the CACM featured an article in the most recent issue ?On the Hourglass Model? - https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/7/237714-on-the-hourglass-model/fulltext <https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/7/237714-on-the-hourglass-model/fulltext>. 
> 
> It?s not a history paper, but it raised a history-related question for me.  As far as I know the visual representation in question started with a drawing of a margarita glass in 1979, in the context of an OSI committee meeting and the 7-layer model. I reproduced the image on page 214 of my book ?Open Standards and the Digital Age? - it?s visible to me here: 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=jqroAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214 <https://books.google.com/books?id=jqroAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214>.
> 
> My question for the list has 2 parts:
> 1) when/where did the margarita glass turn into an hourglass?
> 2) when/where did the TCP/IP community borrow it from the OSI community?  (I?m assuming this is how it happened, would be very interested in evidence or recollections to the contrary)
> 
> My hunch, without doing a fresh round of research, is that I should look first to papers by David Clark and co-authors in the 1980s to answer a third question, which is how this illustrated concept morphed into a ?Theorem? (as the CACM essay puts it).  But that?s just a hunch, and I?d really appreciate pointers or recollections.
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Andy
> _______
> 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.
> 
> 
> -- 
> *****
> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists.
> _______
> 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/20190705/4929a3d8/attachment.htm>

From steve at shinkuro.com  Fri Jul  5 17:48:24 2019
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 20:48:24 -0400
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>

Your characterization of the Arpanet as focused on lowering the cost of research is off the mark.  It was motivated by the desire to increase the collaboration and sharing of resources.  ?Resources? included people resources as well as computational resources.

Steve

Steve

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 5, 2019, at 8:37 PM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Steve for that. Just to add.
> 
> Keep in mind computing was still very small (there was only one or two computer conferences a year, when did NCC split into Fall and Spring Joint?) The networking field was even smaller. Publishing a paper was considerably more work and the criteria considerably higher than they are now. A lot of work and a lot of discussing went on that never appeared in publications or even in RFCs or other samizdat circulations. (I have all sorts of papers from this period that were not part of any even informal publication series.
> 
> In 1968, Dykstra published his paper on THE and layered OSs. And it was all the buzz.  Most, if not all, of the NWG were OS guys. You needed OS guys to figure out how to introduce the IMP-Host protocol and then the Host-Host on top of that in the OS. By 1970, layer diagrams of IMP-Host, Host-Host(NCP), (Telnet, DTP), FTP, RJE were common. (DTP was Data Transfer Protocol, the part of FTP that did the actual transfer.)
> 
> By 72/3, the layers of Physical, Data Link, Network, Transport from CYCLADES were pretty common as well as a general characterization that wasn?t specific to a given network. INWG began in 72 after ICCC ?72 and these layers were common by then. There is also strong evidence that because CYCLADES was building a network to do research on networks (very different from what the ARPNET was)*, they had figured out a lot more about layers than most of us knew at the time.
> 
> John
> 
> *Remember the ARPANET was built to lower the cost of research but not really to do research on networks. That could be a side benefit and a lot of us thought there was a lot to do, but it wasn?t ARPAs main focus for the ARPANET. Once it was built, ARPA considered the network part done! (At least for awhile they did.) BBN couldn?t take the net whenever they wanted to do some experiment. The ARPANET was in a fairly real sense, a production network to support ARPA research.
> 
>> On Jul 5, 2019, at 17:35, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Layering was part of the earliest discussions we had in 1968-69.
>> 
>> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 5:34 PM Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net> wrote:
>>> Related but not quite on target.
>>> 
>>> The hourglass/margarita glass is a representation of layering.  And back in 1988 I tried to figure out the origins of the layered model for a collection of networking papers I edited.  At the time, the best answer I found was that layering, from a networking perspective, originated with a paper by Davidson et al. on the ARPANET TELNET protocol from the DATACOM conference in 1977.  It portrays layering as a fan, in which different protocols layer on each other as needed.  But it clearly articulates the notion of layering and how layers interact.  (And there's a narrow window between the 1977 paper and the Cerf/Kahn 1974 paper on TCP/IP, which presumably would have mentioned layering if the concept was in wide use).
>>> 
>>> Craig
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:10 AM Andrew Russell <arussell at arussell.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi everyone - 
>>>> 
>>>> You might have seen the CACM featured an article in the most recent issue ?On the Hourglass Model? - https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/7/237714-on-the-hourglass-model/fulltext. 
>>>> 
>>>> It?s not a history paper, but it raised a history-related question for me.  As far as I know the visual representation in question started with a drawing of a margarita glass in 1979, in the context of an OSI committee meeting and the 7-layer model. I reproduced the image on page 214 of my book ?Open Standards and the Digital Age? - it?s visible to me here: 
>>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=jqroAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214.
>>>> 
>>>> My question for the list has 2 parts:
>>>> 1) when/where did the margarita glass turn into an hourglass?
>>>> 2) when/where did the TCP/IP community borrow it from the OSI community?  (I?m assuming this is how it happened, would be very interested in evidence or recollections to the contrary)
>>>> 
>>>> My hunch, without doing a fresh round of research, is that I should look first to papers by David Clark and co-authors in the 1980s to answer a third question, which is how this illustrated concept morphed into a ?Theorem? (as the CACM essay puts it).  But that?s just a hunch, and I?d really appreciate pointers or recollections.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you!
>>>> 
>>>> Andy
>>>> _______
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> *****
>>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists.
>>> _______
>>> 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/20190705/c339fec1/attachment.htm>

From dave.walden.family at gmail.com  Fri Jul  5 18:31:50 2019
From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (David Walden)
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 21:31:50 -0400
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
Message-ID: <2dehcpktdx8vvdccs6550s8h.1562375020773@email.android.com>

I drew the diagram which Craig mentions and included it in the 1977 Telnet paper (walden-family.com/public/telnet-overview.pdf).  I believe my original use of the diagram was for a 197? presentation and following 1975 paper for Infocom (walden-family.com/public/infotech-host-protocols.pdf , page 298). I thought it was a good way to illustrate the layering which the Arpanet protocol development people were creating, including that other things could come in at any place. 

On July 5, 2019, at 5:30 PM, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net> wrote:

>Related but not quite on target.
>
>The hourglass/margarita glass is a representation of layering.? And back in 1988 I tried to figure out the origins of the layered model for a collection of networking papers I edited.? At the time, the best answer I found was that layering, from a networking perspective, originated with a paper by Davidson et al. on the ARPANET TELNET protocol from the DATACOM conference in 1977.? It portrays layering as a fan, in which different protocols layer on each other as needed.? But it clearly articulates the notion of layering and how layers interact. ?(And there's a narrow window between the 1977 paper and the Cerf/Kahn 1974 paper on TCP/IP, which presumably would have mentioned layering if the concept was in wide use).
>
>Craig

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190705/cd675c78/attachment.htm>

From jeanjour at comcast.net  Fri Jul  5 19:23:03 2019
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 22:23:03 -0400
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
	<C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
Message-ID: <DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>

Okay, thanks for that clarification. Somewhere I had been told that the reason for resource sharing was so ARPA didn?t have to buy lots of computing equipment for multiple sites, but they could share it.  And of course that included collaboration as well. 

If collaboration of people was one of the main goals, why was USING turned off? That seemed to be a hot bed of collaboration with great potential.

Take care,
John

> On Jul 5, 2019, at 20:48, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
> 
> Your characterization of the Arpanet as focused on lowering the cost of research is off the mark.  It was motivated by the desire to increase the collaboration and sharing of resources.  ?Resources? included people resources as well as computational resources.
> 
> Steve
> 
> Steve
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jul 5, 2019, at 8:37 PM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Steve for that. Just to add.
>> 
>> Keep in mind computing was still very small (there was only one or two computer conferences a year, when did NCC split into Fall and Spring Joint?) The networking field was even smaller. Publishing a paper was considerably more work and the criteria considerably higher than they are now. A lot of work and a lot of discussing went on that never appeared in publications or even in RFCs or other samizdat circulations. (I have all sorts of papers from this period that were not part of any even informal publication series.
>> 
>> In 1968, Dykstra published his paper on THE and layered OSs. And it was all the buzz.  Most, if not all, of the NWG were OS guys. You needed OS guys to figure out how to introduce the IMP-Host protocol and then the Host-Host on top of that in the OS. By 1970, layer diagrams of IMP-Host, Host-Host(NCP), (Telnet, DTP), FTP, RJE were common. (DTP was Data Transfer Protocol, the part of FTP that did the actual transfer.)
>> 
>> By 72/3, the layers of Physical, Data Link, Network, Transport from CYCLADES were pretty common as well as a general characterization that wasn?t specific to a given network. INWG began in 72 after ICCC ?72 and these layers were common by then. There is also strong evidence that because CYCLADES was building a network to do research on networks (very different from what the ARPNET was)*, they had figured out a lot more about layers than most of us knew at the time.
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> *Remember the ARPANET was built to lower the cost of research but not really to do research on networks. That could be a side benefit and a lot of us thought there was a lot to do, but it wasn?t ARPAs main focus for the ARPANET. Once it was built, ARPA considered the network part done! (At least for awhile they did.) BBN couldn?t take the net whenever they wanted to do some experiment. The ARPANET was in a fairly real sense, a production network to support ARPA research.
>> 
>>> On Jul 5, 2019, at 17:35, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com <mailto:steve at shinkuro.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Layering was part of the earliest discussions we had in 1968-69.
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 5:34 PM Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net <mailto:craig at tereschau.net>> wrote:
>>> Related but not quite on target.
>>> 
>>> The hourglass/margarita glass is a representation of layering.  And back in 1988 I tried to figure out the origins of the layered model for a collection of networking papers I edited.  At the time, the best answer I found was that layering, from a networking perspective, originated with a paper by Davidson et al. on the ARPANET TELNET protocol from the DATACOM conference in 1977.  It portrays layering as a fan, in which different protocols layer on each other as needed.  But it clearly articulates the notion of layering and how layers interact.  (And there's a narrow window between the 1977 paper and the Cerf/Kahn 1974 paper on TCP/IP, which presumably would have mentioned layering if the concept was in wide use).
>>> 
>>> Craig
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:10 AM Andrew Russell <arussell at arussell.org <mailto:arussell at arussell.org>> wrote:
>>> Hi everyone - 
>>> 
>>> You might have seen the CACM featured an article in the most recent issue ?On the Hourglass Model? - https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/7/237714-on-the-hourglass-model/fulltext <https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/7/237714-on-the-hourglass-model/fulltext>. 
>>> 
>>> It?s not a history paper, but it raised a history-related question for me.  As far as I know the visual representation in question started with a drawing of a margarita glass in 1979, in the context of an OSI committee meeting and the 7-layer model. I reproduced the image on page 214 of my book ?Open Standards and the Digital Age? - it?s visible to me here: 
>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=jqroAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214 <https://books.google.com/books?id=jqroAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214>.
>>> 
>>> My question for the list has 2 parts:
>>> 1) when/where did the margarita glass turn into an hourglass?
>>> 2) when/where did the TCP/IP community borrow it from the OSI community?  (I?m assuming this is how it happened, would be very interested in evidence or recollections to the contrary)
>>> 
>>> My hunch, without doing a fresh round of research, is that I should look first to papers by David Clark and co-authors in the 1980s to answer a third question, which is how this illustrated concept morphed into a ?Theorem? (as the CACM essay puts it).  But that?s just a hunch, and I?d really appreciate pointers or recollections.
>>> 
>>> Thank you!
>>> 
>>> Andy
>>> _______
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> *****
>>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists.
>>> _______
>>> 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/20190705/505f16a8/attachment.htm>

From steve at shinkuro.com  Fri Jul  5 19:24:00 2019
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 22:24:00 -0400
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
	<C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
	<DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CABf5zvLucEKOFn_EKdG8gHRe0JHxk-zX2ZxM4xXjQR1r8QqnqQ@mail.gmail.com>

With apology, what was USING?

On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 10:23 PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:

> Okay, thanks for that clarification. Somewhere I had been told that the
> reason for resource sharing was so ARPA didn?t have to buy lots of
> computing equipment for multiple sites, but they could share it.  And of
> course that included collaboration as well.
>
> If collaboration of people was one of the main goals, why was USING turned
> off? That seemed to be a hot bed of collaboration with great potential.
>
> Take care,
> John
>
>
> On Jul 5, 2019, at 20:48, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
>
> Your characterization of the Arpanet as focused on lowering the cost of
> research is off the mark.  It was motivated by the desire to increase the
> collaboration and sharing of resources.  ?Resources? included people
> resources as well as computational resources.
>
> Steve
>
> Steve
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 5, 2019, at 8:37 PM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks Steve for that. Just to add.
>
> Keep in mind computing was still very small (there was only one or two
> computer conferences a year, when did NCC split into Fall and Spring
> Joint?) The networking field was even smaller. Publishing a paper was
> considerably more work and the criteria considerably higher than they are
> now. A lot of work and a lot of discussing went on that never appeared in
> publications or even in RFCs or other samizdat circulations. (I have all
> sorts of papers from this period that were not part of any even informal
> publication series.
>
> In 1968, Dykstra published his paper on THE and layered OSs. And it was
> all the buzz.  Most, if not all, of the NWG were OS guys. You needed OS
> guys to figure out how to introduce the IMP-Host protocol and then the
> Host-Host on top of that in the OS. By 1970, layer diagrams of IMP-Host,
> Host-Host(NCP), (Telnet, DTP), FTP, RJE were common. (DTP was Data Transfer
> Protocol, the part of FTP that did the actual transfer.)
>
> By 72/3, the layers of Physical, Data Link, Network, Transport from
> CYCLADES were pretty common as well as a general characterization that
> wasn?t specific to a given network. INWG began in 72 after ICCC ?72 and
> these layers were common by then. There is also strong evidence that
> because CYCLADES was building a network to do research on networks (very
> different from what the ARPNET was)*, they had figured out a lot more about
> layers than most of us knew at the time.
>
> John
>
> *Remember the ARPANET was built to lower the cost of research but not
> really to do research on networks. That could be a side benefit and a lot
> of us thought there was a lot to do, but it wasn?t ARPAs main focus for the
> ARPANET. Once it was built, ARPA considered the network part done! (At
> least for awhile they did.) BBN couldn?t take the net whenever they wanted
> to do some experiment. The ARPANET was in a fairly real sense, a production
> network to support ARPA research.
>
> On Jul 5, 2019, at 17:35, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
>
> Layering was part of the earliest discussions we had in 1968-69.
>
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 5:34 PM Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Related but not quite on target.
>>
>> The hourglass/margarita glass is a representation of layering.  And back
>> in 1988 I tried to figure out the origins of the layered model for a
>> collection of networking papers I edited.  At the time, the best answer I
>> found was that layering, from a networking perspective, originated with a
>> paper by Davidson et al. on the ARPANET TELNET protocol from the DATACOM
>> conference in 1977.  It portrays layering as a fan, in which different
>> protocols layer on each other as needed.  But it clearly articulates the
>> notion of layering and how layers interact.  (And there's a narrow window
>> between the 1977 paper and the Cerf/Kahn 1974 paper on TCP/IP, which
>> presumably would have mentioned layering if the concept was in wide use).
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:10 AM Andrew Russell <arussell at arussell.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone -
>>>
>>> You might have seen the CACM featured an article in the most recent
>>> issue ?On the Hourglass Model? -
>>> https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/7/237714-on-the-hourglass-model/fulltext
>>> .
>>>
>>> It?s not a history paper, but it raised a history-related question for
>>> me.  As far as I know the visual representation in question started with a
>>> drawing of a margarita glass in 1979, in the context of an OSI committee
>>> meeting and the 7-layer model. I reproduced the image on page 214 of my
>>> book ?Open Standards and the Digital Age? - it?s visible to me here:
>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=jqroAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214.
>>>
>>> My question for the list has 2 parts:
>>> 1) when/where did the margarita glass turn into an hourglass?
>>> 2) when/where did the TCP/IP community borrow it from the OSI community?
>>>  (I?m assuming this is how it happened, would be very interested in
>>> evidence or recollections to the contrary)
>>>
>>> My hunch, without doing a fresh round of research, is that I should look
>>> first to papers by David Clark and co-authors in the 1980s to answer a
>>> third question, which is how this illustrated concept morphed into a
>>> ?Theorem? (as the CACM essay puts it).  But that?s just a hunch, and I?d
>>> really appreciate pointers or recollections.
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> Andy
>>> _______
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *****
>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
>> mailing lists.
>> _______
>> 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/20190705/4b6f693f/attachment.htm>

From dhc at dcrocker.net  Fri Jul  5 20:56:14 2019
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 20:56:14 -0700
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <CABf5zvLucEKOFn_EKdG8gHRe0JHxk-zX2ZxM4xXjQR1r8QqnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
	<C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
	<DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
	<CABf5zvLucEKOFn_EKdG8gHRe0JHxk-zX2ZxM4xXjQR1r8QqnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <453e59a3-b921-a94e-0917-ac44e4399108@dcrocker.net>

On 7/5/2019 7:24 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
> With apology, what was USING?
> 
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 10:23 PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net 
> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
...
>     If collaboration of people was one of the main goals, why was USING
>     turned off? That seemed to be a hot bed of collaboration with great
>     potential.


USING was the Users Interest Network Group.  I co-chaired it with Nancy 
Neigus, and the 'sponsorship' of Craig Fields, then of Arpa:

      https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc585/

It was yet-another very early and spontaneous effort, with an initial 
task of figuring what it was for.

The RFC summarized this as:

    The group will devote itself to lobbying on behalf of user interests,
    to promoting and facilitating resource sharing, to improving user
    interfaces (support), and to studies of standardization.  The
    ultimate goal will be provide users identification of, and
    facilitated access to, whatever resources on the Network they might
    wish to use.

I've seen various explanations of why we shut down, but my own 
recollection is that we simply could not gain enough traction.  That is, 
not a broad enough based of community interest.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net


From steve at shinkuro.com  Fri Jul  5 20:59:41 2019
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 23:59:41 -0400
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <453e59a3-b921-a94e-0917-ac44e4399108@dcrocker.net>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
	<C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
	<DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
	<CABf5zvLucEKOFn_EKdG8gHRe0JHxk-zX2ZxM4xXjQR1r8QqnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<453e59a3-b921-a94e-0917-ac44e4399108@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <CABf5zvL8Gk9OHj_s1OBU-_jo0=zKirvU530uJ+Lcd08+NpDn_g@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks.  Key word lobbying.  I didn?t see anything technical.

Steve

On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 11:56 PM Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:

> On 7/5/2019 7:24 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
> > With apology, what was USING?
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 10:23 PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net
> > <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
> ...
> >     If collaboration of people was one of the main goals, why was USING
> >     turned off? That seemed to be a hot bed of collaboration with great
> >     potential.
>
>
> USING was the Users Interest Network Group.  I co-chaired it with Nancy
> Neigus, and the 'sponsorship' of Craig Fields, then of Arpa:
>
>       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc585/
>
> It was yet-another very early and spontaneous effort, with an initial
> task of figuring what it was for.
>
> The RFC summarized this as:
>
>     The group will devote itself to lobbying on behalf of user interests,
>     to promoting and facilitating resource sharing, to improving user
>     interfaces (support), and to studies of standardization.  The
>     ultimate goal will be provide users identification of, and
>     facilitated access to, whatever resources on the Network they might
>     wish to use.
>
> I've seen various explanations of why we shut down, but my own
> recollection is that we simply could not gain enough traction.  That is,
> not a broad enough based of community interest.
>
> d/
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190705/31d2eeb0/attachment.htm>

From vint at google.com  Fri Jul  5 22:09:46 2019
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 01:09:46 -0400
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
	<C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
	<DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggdtJV4oWx3n5mncpOC1g_Y4m0qmUBJchfB5-3p9P1fb7Q@mail.gmail.com>

John, i had the same impression - that there was demand for new computing
equipment and ARPA wanted the research groups to be able to share
resources as well as sharing code and research results freely.

vint


On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 10:50 PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:

> Okay, thanks for that clarification. Somewhere I had been told that the
> reason for resource sharing was so ARPA didn?t have to buy lots of
> computing equipment for multiple sites, but they could share it.  And of
> course that included collaboration as well.
>
> If collaboration of people was one of the main goals, why was USING turned
> off? That seemed to be a hot bed of collaboration with great potential.
>
> Take care,
> John
>
> On Jul 5, 2019, at 20:48, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
>
> Your characterization of the Arpanet as focused on lowering the cost of
> research is off the mark.  It was motivated by the desire to increase the
> collaboration and sharing of resources.  ?Resources? included people
> resources as well as computational resources.
>
> Steve
>
> Steve
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 5, 2019, at 8:37 PM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks Steve for that. Just to add.
>
> Keep in mind computing was still very small (there was only one or two
> computer conferences a year, when did NCC split into Fall and Spring
> Joint?) The networking field was even smaller. Publishing a paper was
> considerably more work and the criteria considerably higher than they are
> now. A lot of work and a lot of discussing went on that never appeared in
> publications or even in RFCs or other samizdat circulations. (I have all
> sorts of papers from this period that were not part of any even informal
> publication series.
>
> In 1968, Dykstra published his paper on THE and layered OSs. And it was
> all the buzz.  Most, if not all, of the NWG were OS guys. You needed OS
> guys to figure out how to introduce the IMP-Host protocol and then the
> Host-Host on top of that in the OS. By 1970, layer diagrams of IMP-Host,
> Host-Host(NCP), (Telnet, DTP), FTP, RJE were common. (DTP was Data Transfer
> Protocol, the part of FTP that did the actual transfer.)
>
> By 72/3, the layers of Physical, Data Link, Network, Transport from
> CYCLADES were pretty common as well as a general characterization that
> wasn?t specific to a given network. INWG began in 72 after ICCC ?72 and
> these layers were common by then. There is also strong evidence that
> because CYCLADES was building a network to do research on networks (very
> different from what the ARPNET was)*, they had figured out a lot more about
> layers than most of us knew at the time.
>
> John
>
> *Remember the ARPANET was built to lower the cost of research but not
> really to do research on networks. That could be a side benefit and a lot
> of us thought there was a lot to do, but it wasn?t ARPAs main focus for the
> ARPANET. Once it was built, ARPA considered the network part done! (At
> least for awhile they did.) BBN couldn?t take the net whenever they wanted
> to do some experiment. The ARPANET was in a fairly real sense, a production
> network to support ARPA research.
>
> On Jul 5, 2019, at 17:35, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
>
> Layering was part of the earliest discussions we had in 1968-69.
>
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 5:34 PM Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Related but not quite on target.
>>
>> The hourglass/margarita glass is a representation of layering.  And back
>> in 1988 I tried to figure out the origins of the layered model for a
>> collection of networking papers I edited.  At the time, the best answer I
>> found was that layering, from a networking perspective, originated with a
>> paper by Davidson et al. on the ARPANET TELNET protocol from the DATACOM
>> conference in 1977.  It portrays layering as a fan, in which different
>> protocols layer on each other as needed.  But it clearly articulates the
>> notion of layering and how layers interact.  (And there's a narrow window
>> between the 1977 paper and the Cerf/Kahn 1974 paper on TCP/IP, which
>> presumably would have mentioned layering if the concept was in wide use).
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:10 AM Andrew Russell <arussell at arussell.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone -
>>>
>>> You might have seen the CACM featured an article in the most recent
>>> issue ?On the Hourglass Model? -
>>> https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/7/237714-on-the-hourglass-model/fulltext
>>> .
>>>
>>> It?s not a history paper, but it raised a history-related question for
>>> me.  As far as I know the visual representation in question started with a
>>> drawing of a margarita glass in 1979, in the context of an OSI committee
>>> meeting and the 7-layer model. I reproduced the image on page 214 of my
>>> book ?Open Standards and the Digital Age? - it?s visible to me here:
>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=jqroAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214.
>>>
>>> My question for the list has 2 parts:
>>> 1) when/where did the margarita glass turn into an hourglass?
>>> 2) when/where did the TCP/IP community borrow it from the OSI community?
>>>  (I?m assuming this is how it happened, would be very interested in
>>> evidence or recollections to the contrary)
>>>
>>> My hunch, without doing a fresh round of research, is that I should look
>>> first to papers by David Clark and co-authors in the 1980s to answer a
>>> third question, which is how this illustrated concept morphed into a
>>> ?Theorem? (as the CACM essay puts it).  But that?s just a hunch, and I?d
>>> really appreciate pointers or recollections.
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> Andy
>>> _______
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *****
>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
>> mailing lists.
>> _______
>> 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.
>


-- 
New postal address:
Google
1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor
Reston, VA 20190
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190706/42d8dbff/attachment.htm>

From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat Jul  6 03:21:40 2019
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 06:21:40 -0400
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <CABf5zvL8Gk9OHj_s1OBU-_jo0=zKirvU530uJ+Lcd08+NpDn_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
	<C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
	<DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
	<CABf5zvLucEKOFn_EKdG8gHRe0JHxk-zX2ZxM4xXjQR1r8QqnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<453e59a3-b921-a94e-0917-ac44e4399108@dcrocker.net>
	<CABf5zvL8Gk9OHj_s1OBU-_jo0=zKirvU530uJ+Lcd08+NpDn_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ECF9F49E-96C2-444A-AF4D-0E1ECCAF29DB@comcast.net>

There was a technical part. I thought it was mostly technical.  There was a real attempt to come up with protocols to make resource sharing a lot more seamless beyond RJE and just logging in to another system as a timesharing user. Things to facilitate running a distributed program over more than one machine, etc.  There were probably 5 or 6 new protocols being proposed to develop.  I don?t remember what they were now, but could dig it out.

The one I do remember from the first meeting was, that someone proposed that we needed a common editor. (Remember the ?my editor?s better than your editor! debates??), ;-) 

I remember thinking ?o, good grief given the debates we had over FTP, this is going to go forever!? Padlipsky piped up and said, ?The example PL/1 program in the Multics Programmers Manual is a simple editor. Lets just use that.? The reaction was, 'sure why not' and the discussion was over in minutes. Total shock.  And within a few weeks there were NETEDs all over the ?Net.  (And I don?t think any of them were exactly the same.) ;-) They just couldn?t resist the temptation to ?improve? it.  ;-)

Take care,
John



> On Jul 5, 2019, at 23:59, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks.  Key word lobbying.  I didn?t see anything technical.
> 
> Steve
> 
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 11:56 PM Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net <mailto:dhc at dcrocker.net>> wrote:
> On 7/5/2019 7:24 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
> > With apology, what was USING?
> > 
> > On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 10:23 PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net> 
> > <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>> wrote:
> ...
> >     If collaboration of people was one of the main goals, why was USING
> >     turned off? That seemed to be a hot bed of collaboration with great
> >     potential.
> 
> 
> USING was the Users Interest Network Group.  I co-chaired it with Nancy 
> Neigus, and the 'sponsorship' of Craig Fields, then of Arpa:
> 
>       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc585/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc585/>
> 
> It was yet-another very early and spontaneous effort, with an initial 
> task of figuring what it was for.
> 
> The RFC summarized this as:
> 
>     The group will devote itself to lobbying on behalf of user interests,
>     to promoting and facilitating resource sharing, to improving user
>     interfaces (support), and to studies of standardization.  The
>     ultimate goal will be provide users identification of, and
>     facilitated access to, whatever resources on the Network they might
>     wish to use.
> 
> I've seen various explanations of why we shut down, but my own 
> recollection is that we simply could not gain enough traction.  That is, 
> not a broad enough based of community interest.
> 
> d/
> -- 
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net <http://bbiw.net/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190706/3df50b0b/attachment.htm>

From vint at google.com  Sat Jul  6 04:08:38 2019
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 07:08:38 -0400
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <ECF9F49E-96C2-444A-AF4D-0E1ECCAF29DB@comcast.net>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
	<C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
	<DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
	<CABf5zvLucEKOFn_EKdG8gHRe0JHxk-zX2ZxM4xXjQR1r8QqnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<453e59a3-b921-a94e-0917-ac44e4399108@dcrocker.net>
	<CABf5zvL8Gk9OHj_s1OBU-_jo0=zKirvU530uJ+Lcd08+NpDn_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<ECF9F49E-96C2-444A-AF4D-0E1ECCAF29DB@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggcZCdzswH2T483Nonz7=sJkKq42-ei31_rLMyCFAnSfwg@mail.gmail.com>

many mourn the demise of TECO....

:-)

v


On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 6:46 AM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:

> There was a technical part. I thought it was mostly technical.  There was
> a real attempt to come up with protocols to make resource sharing a lot
> more seamless beyond RJE and just logging in to another system as a
> timesharing user. Things to facilitate running a distributed program over
> more than one machine, etc.  There were probably 5 or 6 new protocols being
> proposed to develop.  I don?t remember what they were now, but could dig it
> out.
>
> The one I do remember from the first meeting was, that someone proposed
> that we needed a common editor. (Remember the ?my editor?s better than your
> editor! debates??), ;-)
>
> I remember thinking ?o, good grief given the debates we had over FTP, this
> is going to go forever!? Padlipsky piped up and said, ?The example PL/1
> program in the Multics Programmers Manual is a simple editor. Lets just use
> that.? The reaction was, 'sure why not' and the discussion was over in
> minutes. Total shock.  And within a few weeks there were NETEDs all over
> the ?Net.  (And I don?t think any of them were exactly the same.) ;-) They
> just couldn?t resist the temptation to ?improve? it.  ;-)
>
> Take care,
> John
>
>
>
> On Jul 5, 2019, at 23:59, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks.  Key word lobbying.  I didn?t see anything technical.
>
> Steve
>
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 11:56 PM Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/5/2019 7:24 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
>> > With apology, what was USING?
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 10:23 PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net
>> > <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>> ...
>> >     If collaboration of people was one of the main goals, why was USING
>> >     turned off? That seemed to be a hot bed of collaboration with great
>> >     potential.
>>
>>
>> USING was the Users Interest Network Group.  I co-chaired it with Nancy
>> Neigus, and the 'sponsorship' of Craig Fields, then of Arpa:
>>
>>       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc585/
>>
>> It was yet-another very early and spontaneous effort, with an initial
>> task of figuring what it was for.
>>
>> The RFC summarized this as:
>>
>>     The group will devote itself to lobbying on behalf of user interests,
>>     to promoting and facilitating resource sharing, to improving user
>>     interfaces (support), and to studies of standardization.  The
>>     ultimate goal will be provide users identification of, and
>>     facilitated access to, whatever resources on the Network they might
>>     wish to use.
>>
>> I've seen various explanations of why we shut down, but my own
>> recollection is that we simply could not gain enough traction.  That is,
>> not a broad enough based of community interest.
>>
>> d/
>> --
>> Dave Crocker
>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>> bbiw.net
>>
>
> _______
> 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.
>


-- 
New postal address:
Google
1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor
Reston, VA 20190
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190706/ec64303e/attachment.htm>

From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat Jul  6 04:20:04 2019
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 07:20:04 -0400
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggcZCdzswH2T483Nonz7=sJkKq42-ei31_rLMyCFAnSfwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
	<C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
	<DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
	<CABf5zvLucEKOFn_EKdG8gHRe0JHxk-zX2ZxM4xXjQR1r8QqnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<453e59a3-b921-a94e-0917-ac44e4399108@dcrocker.net>
	<CABf5zvL8Gk9OHj_s1OBU-_jo0=zKirvU530uJ+Lcd08+NpDn_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<ECF9F49E-96C2-444A-AF4D-0E1ECCAF29DB@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggcZCdzswH2T483Nonz7=sJkKq42-ei31_rLMyCFAnSfwg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FB9AAF2B-79A3-40B1-A85F-F9B2E0A78EED@comcast.net>

;-) lol, 

yea, teco and emacs!  ;-)

One of my biggest complaints is cryptic user interfaces and those two were pretty close to the top of the list.

But there were a lot of people who regaled in being teco and emacs experts.

> On Jul 6, 2019, at 07:08, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
> 
> many mourn the demise of TECO....
> 
> :-)
> 
> v
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 6:46 AM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
> There was a technical part. I thought it was mostly technical.  There was a real attempt to come up with protocols to make resource sharing a lot more seamless beyond RJE and just logging in to another system as a timesharing user. Things to facilitate running a distributed program over more than one machine, etc.  There were probably 5 or 6 new protocols being proposed to develop.  I don?t remember what they were now, but could dig it out.
> 
> The one I do remember from the first meeting was, that someone proposed that we needed a common editor. (Remember the ?my editor?s better than your editor! debates??), ;-) 
> 
> I remember thinking ?o, good grief given the debates we had over FTP, this is going to go forever!? Padlipsky piped up and said, ?The example PL/1 program in the Multics Programmers Manual is a simple editor. Lets just use that.? The reaction was, 'sure why not' and the discussion was over in minutes. Total shock.  And within a few weeks there were NETEDs all over the ?Net.  (And I don?t think any of them were exactly the same.) ;-) They just couldn?t resist the temptation to ?improve? it.  ;-)
> 
> Take care,
> John
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jul 5, 2019, at 23:59, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com <mailto:steve at shinkuro.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks.  Key word lobbying.  I didn?t see anything technical.
>> 
>> Steve
>> 
>> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 11:56 PM Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net <mailto:dhc at dcrocker.net>> wrote:
>> On 7/5/2019 7:24 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
>> > With apology, what was USING?
>> > 
>> > On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 10:23 PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net> 
>> > <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>>> wrote:
>> ...
>> >     If collaboration of people was one of the main goals, why was USING
>> >     turned off? That seemed to be a hot bed of collaboration with great
>> >     potential.
>> 
>> 
>> USING was the Users Interest Network Group.  I co-chaired it with Nancy 
>> Neigus, and the 'sponsorship' of Craig Fields, then of Arpa:
>> 
>>       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc585/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc585/>
>> 
>> It was yet-another very early and spontaneous effort, with an initial 
>> task of figuring what it was for.
>> 
>> The RFC summarized this as:
>> 
>>     The group will devote itself to lobbying on behalf of user interests,
>>     to promoting and facilitating resource sharing, to improving user
>>     interfaces (support), and to studies of standardization.  The
>>     ultimate goal will be provide users identification of, and
>>     facilitated access to, whatever resources on the Network they might
>>     wish to use.
>> 
>> I've seen various explanations of why we shut down, but my own 
>> recollection is that we simply could not gain enough traction.  That is, 
>> not a broad enough based of community interest.
>> 
>> d/
>> -- 
>> Dave Crocker
>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>> bbiw.net <http://bbiw.net/>
> 
> _______
> 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.
> 
> 
> -- 
> New postal address:
> Google
> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor
> Reston, VA 20190

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190706/f26622f3/attachment.htm>

From bernie at fantasyfarm.com  Sat Jul  6 04:47:26 2019
From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell)
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2019 07:47:26 -0400
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggcZCdzswH2T483Nonz7=sJkKq42-ei31_rLMyCFAnSfwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
	<C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
	<DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
	<CABf5zvLucEKOFn_EKdG8gHRe0JHxk-zX2ZxM4xXjQR1r8QqnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<453e59a3-b921-a94e-0917-ac44e4399108@dcrocker.net>
	<CABf5zvL8Gk9OHj_s1OBU-_jo0=zKirvU530uJ+Lcd08+NpDn_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<ECF9F49E-96C2-444A-AF4D-0E1ECCAF29DB@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggcZCdzswH2T483Nonz7=sJkKq42-ei31_rLMyCFAnSfwg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16bc71c40b0.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com>

On July 6, 2019 07:28:51 Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
> many mourn the demise of TECO....


i doubt many people mourn not being able edit paper tapes, ?

but doesn't TECO live on inside emacs?  i know emacs was rewritten in
lisp and mostly the lisp stuff is dominant, but is there still a TECO buried
underneath {I'm thinking much as you can find your way to a UNIX
shell inside the Mac os}?   i haven't used emacs in decades, so I dunno
in the original TECO heart is still hidden within.  but many of us still
remember that emacs was once a collection of ITS TECO macros
that took advantage of the {then} recently added "real time mode"

/bernie\

                     Bernie Cosell
           bernie at fantasyfarm. com
? Too many people,  too few sheep ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190706/96c89f56/attachment.htm>

From sob at sobco.com  Sat Jul  6 05:12:23 2019
From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner)
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 08:12:23 -0400
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <16bc71c40b0.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
	<C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
	<DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
	<CABf5zvLucEKOFn_EKdG8gHRe0JHxk-zX2ZxM4xXjQR1r8QqnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<453e59a3-b921-a94e-0917-ac44e4399108@dcrocker.net>
	<CABf5zvL8Gk9OHj_s1OBU-_jo0=zKirvU530uJ+Lcd08+NpDn_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<ECF9F49E-96C2-444A-AF4D-0E1ECCAF29DB@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggcZCdzswH2T483Nonz7=sJkKq42-ei31_rLMyCFAnSfwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<16bc71c40b0.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com>
Message-ID: <04240EC8-09E5-4762-954E-CE737ADB662E@sobco.com>

I?m not sure that TECO was written in LISP - at least the pdf-8 version was not

Scott

> On Jul 6, 2019, at 7:47 AM, Bernie Cosell <bernie at fantasyfarm.com> wrote:
> 
> On July 6, 2019 07:28:51 Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
> 
>> many mourn the demise of TECO....
> 
> 
> i doubt many people mourn not being able edit paper tapes, ?
> 
> but doesn't TECO live on inside emacs?  i know emacs was rewritten in
> lisp and mostly the lisp stuff is dominant, but is there still a TECO buried
> underneath {I'm thinking much as you can find your way to a UNIX
> shell inside the Mac os}?   i haven't used emacs in decades, so I dunno 
> in the original TECO heart is still hidden within.  but many of us still
> remember that emacs was once a collection of ITS TECO macros
> that took advantage of the {then} recently added "real time mode" 
> 
> /bernie\
> 
>                      Bernie Cosell
>            bernie at fantasyfarm. com
> ? Too many people,  too few sheep ?
> _______
> 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 steve at shinkuro.com  Sat Jul  6 05:23:51 2019
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 08:23:51 -0400
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <FB9AAF2B-79A3-40B1-A85F-F9B2E0A78EED@comcast.net>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
	<C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
	<DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
	<CABf5zvLucEKOFn_EKdG8gHRe0JHxk-zX2ZxM4xXjQR1r8QqnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<453e59a3-b921-a94e-0917-ac44e4399108@dcrocker.net>
	<CABf5zvL8Gk9OHj_s1OBU-_jo0=zKirvU530uJ+Lcd08+NpDn_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<ECF9F49E-96C2-444A-AF4D-0E1ECCAF29DB@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggcZCdzswH2T483Nonz7=sJkKq42-ei31_rLMyCFAnSfwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<FB9AAF2B-79A3-40B1-A85F-F9B2E0A78EED@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <91B4DADF-3DF7-4194-B438-2A209B6A9074@shinkuro.com>

Emacs is definitely not dead.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 6, 2019, at 7:20 AM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> ;-) lol, 
> 
> yea, teco and emacs!  ;-)
> 
> One of my biggest complaints is cryptic user interfaces and those two were pretty close to the top of the list.
> 
> But there were a lot of people who regaled in being teco and emacs experts.
> 
>> On Jul 6, 2019, at 07:08, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
>> 
>> many mourn the demise of TECO....
>> 
>> :-)
>> 
>> v
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 6:46 AM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
>>> There was a technical part. I thought it was mostly technical.  There was a real attempt to come up with protocols to make resource sharing a lot more seamless beyond RJE and just logging in to another system as a timesharing user. Things to facilitate running a distributed program over more than one machine, etc.  There were probably 5 or 6 new protocols being proposed to develop.  I don?t remember what they were now, but could dig it out.
>>> 
>>> The one I do remember from the first meeting was, that someone proposed that we needed a common editor. (Remember the ?my editor?s better than your editor! debates??), ;-) 
>>> 
>>> I remember thinking ?o, good grief given the debates we had over FTP, this is going to go forever!? Padlipsky piped up and said, ?The example PL/1 program in the Multics Programmers Manual is a simple editor. Lets just use that.? The reaction was, 'sure why not' and the discussion was over in minutes. Total shock.  And within a few weeks there were NETEDs all over the ?Net.  (And I don?t think any of them were exactly the same.) ;-) They just couldn?t resist the temptation to ?improve? it.  ;-)
>>> 
>>> Take care,
>>> John
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 5, 2019, at 23:59, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.  Key word lobbying.  I didn?t see anything technical.
>>>> 
>>>> Steve
>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 11:56 PM Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 7/5/2019 7:24 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
>>>>> > With apology, what was USING?
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 10:23 PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net 
>>>>> > <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> >     If collaboration of people was one of the main goals, why was USING
>>>>> >     turned off? That seemed to be a hot bed of collaboration with great
>>>>> >     potential.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> USING was the Users Interest Network Group.  I co-chaired it with Nancy 
>>>>> Neigus, and the 'sponsorship' of Craig Fields, then of Arpa:
>>>>> 
>>>>>       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc585/
>>>>> 
>>>>> It was yet-another very early and spontaneous effort, with an initial 
>>>>> task of figuring what it was for.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The RFC summarized this as:
>>>>> 
>>>>>     The group will devote itself to lobbying on behalf of user interests,
>>>>>     to promoting and facilitating resource sharing, to improving user
>>>>>     interfaces (support), and to studies of standardization.  The
>>>>>     ultimate goal will be provide users identification of, and
>>>>>     facilitated access to, whatever resources on the Network they might
>>>>>     wish to use.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've seen various explanations of why we shut down, but my own 
>>>>> recollection is that we simply could not gain enough traction.  That is, 
>>>>> not a broad enough based of community interest.
>>>>> 
>>>>> d/
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Dave Crocker
>>>>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>>>>> bbiw.net
>>> 
>>> _______
>>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> New postal address:
>> Google
>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor
>> Reston, VA 20190
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190706/a8ba8f3c/attachment.htm>

From bernie at fantasyfarm.com  Sat Jul  6 05:25:31 2019
From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell)
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2019 08:25:31 -0400
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <04240EC8-09E5-4762-954E-CE737ADB662E@sobco.com>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
	<C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
	<DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
	<CABf5zvLucEKOFn_EKdG8gHRe0JHxk-zX2ZxM4xXjQR1r8QqnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<453e59a3-b921-a94e-0917-ac44e4399108@dcrocker.net>
	<CABf5zvL8Gk9OHj_s1OBU-_jo0=zKirvU530uJ+Lcd08+NpDn_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<ECF9F49E-96C2-444A-AF4D-0E1ECCAF29DB@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggcZCdzswH2T483Nonz7=sJkKq42-ei31_rLMyCFAnSfwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<16bc71c40b0.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com>
	<04240EC8-09E5-4762-954E-CE737ADB662E@sobco.com>
Message-ID: <16bc73f1e78.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com>

On July 6, 2019 08:12:27 "Scott O. Bradner" <sob at sobco.com> wrote:

> I?m not sure that TECO was written in LISP - at least the pdf-8 version was not
no *emacs*, which was then still macros on top of ITS TECO,  was
ported to multics by bernie greenberg and rewritten in lisp {I'm pretty
sure that was the path}.  i have no idea where it went from there and
i have no idea what the innards of emacs looks like these days but i have
a bunch of colleagues who still swear by it.


unless still hidden in emacs, i doubt TECO still exists these days

/b\


                     Bernie Cosell
           bernie at fantasyfarm. com
? Too many people,  too few sheep ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190706/0e2c0da9/attachment.htm>

From johnl at iecc.com  Sat Jul  6 06:32:28 2019
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 6 Jul 2019 09:32:28 -0400
Subject: [ih] editors for real men, not Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <16bc73f1e78.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com>
Message-ID: <20190706133228.A0793424957@ary.local>

In article <16bc73f1e78.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5 at fantasyfarm.com> you write:
>unless still hidden in emacs, i doubt TECO still exists these days

Oh, humph.

https://github.com/blakemcbride/TECOC

It builds painlessly on my Mac laptop, and it's in the usual ports collections
for linux and BSD.


From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net  Sat Jul  6 07:17:31 2019
From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman)
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 10:17:31 -0400
Subject: [ih] editors for real men, not Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <20190706133228.A0793424957@ary.local>
References: <20190706133228.A0793424957@ary.local>
Message-ID: <65c4abf8-0e78-8487-47ad-14e3f74bf335@meetinghouse.net>


On 7/6/19 9:32 AM, John Levine wrote:
> In article <16bc73f1e78.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5 at fantasyfarm.com> you write:
>> unless still hidden in emacs, i doubt TECO still exists these days
> Oh, humph.
>
> https://github.com/blakemcbride/TECOC
>
> It builds painlessly on my Mac laptop, and it's in the usual ports collections
> for linux and BSD.
> _______

Oh pish tosh.

REAL programmers use Butterflies!? (https://xkcd.com/378/)

(Though, in fairness, that doesn't work as well if you're writing a 
paper in Tex).

Miles Fidelman

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

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown



From clemc at ccc.com  Sat Jul  6 07:56:34 2019
From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole)
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 10:56:34 -0400
Subject: [ih] Teco still lives on all hail the internet - was hourglass
In-Reply-To: <91B4DADF-3DF7-4194-B438-2A209B6A9074@shinkuro.com>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
	<C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
	<DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
	<CABf5zvLucEKOFn_EKdG8gHRe0JHxk-zX2ZxM4xXjQR1r8QqnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<453e59a3-b921-a94e-0917-ac44e4399108@dcrocker.net>
	<CABf5zvL8Gk9OHj_s1OBU-_jo0=zKirvU530uJ+Lcd08+NpDn_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<ECF9F49E-96C2-444A-AF4D-0E1ECCAF29DB@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggcZCdzswH2T483Nonz7=sJkKq42-ei31_rLMyCFAnSfwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<FB9AAF2B-79A3-40B1-A85F-F9B2E0A78EED@comcast.net>
	<91B4DADF-3DF7-4194-B438-2A209B6A9074@shinkuro.com>
Message-ID: <CAC20D2NOgOSeLJirq9QfVn+jbaAFvb1Ry_9Uu0co8UtxAr4b8g@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.copters.com/teco.html

PC started writing this at Masscomp, his functional model (or commands) was
based the PDP-10 version.

He still maintains it.

On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 9:08 AM Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:

> Emacs is definitely not dead.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 6, 2019, at 7:20 AM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> ;-) lol,
>
> yea, teco and emacs!  ;-)
>
> One of my biggest complaints is cryptic user interfaces and those two were
> pretty close to the top of the list.
>
> But there were a lot of people who regaled in being teco and emacs experts.
>
> On Jul 6, 2019, at 07:08, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
>
> many mourn the demise of TECO....
>
> :-)
>
> v
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 6:46 AM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> There was a technical part. I thought it was mostly technical.  There was
>> a real attempt to come up with protocols to make resource sharing a lot
>> more seamless beyond RJE and just logging in to another system as a
>> timesharing user. Things to facilitate running a distributed program over
>> more than one machine, etc.  There were probably 5 or 6 new protocols being
>> proposed to develop.  I don?t remember what they were now, but could dig it
>> out.
>>
>> The one I do remember from the first meeting was, that someone proposed
>> that we needed a common editor. (Remember the ?my editor?s better than your
>> editor! debates??), ;-)
>>
>> I remember thinking ?o, good grief given the debates we had over FTP,
>> this is going to go forever!? Padlipsky piped up and said, ?The example
>> PL/1 program in the Multics Programmers Manual is a simple editor. Lets
>> just use that.? The reaction was, 'sure why not' and the discussion was
>> over in minutes. Total shock.  And within a few weeks there were NETEDs all
>> over the ?Net.  (And I don?t think any of them were exactly the same.) ;-)
>> They just couldn?t resist the temptation to ?improve? it.  ;-)
>>
>> Take care,
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 5, 2019, at 23:59, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks.  Key word lobbying.  I didn?t see anything technical.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 11:56 PM Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/5/2019 7:24 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
>>> > With apology, what was USING?
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 10:23 PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net
>>> > <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> >     If collaboration of people was one of the main goals, why was USING
>>> >     turned off? That seemed to be a hot bed of collaboration with great
>>> >     potential.
>>>
>>>
>>> USING was the Users Interest Network Group.  I co-chaired it with Nancy
>>> Neigus, and the 'sponsorship' of Craig Fields, then of Arpa:
>>>
>>>       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc585/
>>>
>>> It was yet-another very early and spontaneous effort, with an initial
>>> task of figuring what it was for.
>>>
>>> The RFC summarized this as:
>>>
>>>     The group will devote itself to lobbying on behalf of user interests,
>>>     to promoting and facilitating resource sharing, to improving user
>>>     interfaces (support), and to studies of standardization.  The
>>>     ultimate goal will be provide users identification of, and
>>>     facilitated access to, whatever resources on the Network they might
>>>     wish to use.
>>>
>>> I've seen various explanations of why we shut down, but my own
>>> recollection is that we simply could not gain enough traction.  That is,
>>> not a broad enough based of community interest.
>>>
>>> d/
>>> --
>>> Dave Crocker
>>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>>> bbiw.net
>>>
>>
>> _______
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> --
> New postal address:
> Google
> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1875+Explorer+Street,+10th+Floor+Reston,+VA+20190?entry=gmail&source=g>
> Reston, VA 20190
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1875+Explorer+Street,+10th+Floor+Reston,+VA+20190?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
>
> _______
> 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.
>
-- 
Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190706/e1c2648c/attachment.htm>

From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sat Jul  6 08:33:03 2019
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 08:33:03 -0700
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggdtJV4oWx3n5mncpOC1g_Y4m0qmUBJchfB5-3p9P1fb7Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
	<C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
	<DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggdtJV4oWx3n5mncpOC1g_Y4m0qmUBJchfB5-3p9P1fb7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <496e45e3-1400-cd3b-be84-8caa4a044a68@dcrocker.net>

On 7/5/2019 10:09 PM, Vint Cerf wrote:
> John, i had the same impression - that there was demand for new 
> computing equipment and ARPA wanted the research groups to be able to 
> share resources?as well as sharing code and research results freely.


I can't speak to the motivations at the base of the Arpanet's origin 
story, but certainly this desire (possibly rising to the level of goal) 
was present by the early 70s.

And thanks so much for giving me the opportunity to recite the proof, 
which will be especially close to Steve's and Vint's heart...

The UCLA project used an XDS Sigma7, running a locally-developed 
time-sharing system, which I believe was formally called the Sigma 
Executive system.  One of my earliest assignments was to develop 
documentation for it.  That process was how I learned about operating 
systems, including comparisons with Tenex.

Eventually and inevitably it needed more main memory and a source of 
some second-hand memory was located.  Arpa was asked for the additional 
funding to buy it, which I believe was relatively modest.  Instead Arpa 
noted that our o/s was unique to UCLA, which meant that it was a dead 
end, but they noted that there was an entire network of resources 
available through the Arpanet.

Even better was that there was the recent availability of PDP-11 based 
network access host systems (Illinois' ANTS and UCSB's ELF).  They told 
us to get a PDP-11 and switch over to using one of those systems and 
relying on network-based computing.

Both ANTS and ELF first versions were done as hacks, but were 
immediately successful.  So version 2 of each was funded.  Both Version 
II efforts were, shall we say, problematic, including highly delayed.  I 
was on an oversight committee that was eventually formed for the ANTS-II 
project and we were in Illinois the day the official analysis of the 
Nixon Tape's 18 1/2 minute gap was announced publicly, citing the 
analysis as having been done by an obscure acoustics research company in 
Cambridge MA, namely BBN.  Jerry Burchfiel, of BBN, was also on our 
committee and quietly told us some stories about that stealth project.

We did take delivery on ANTS-II but it wasn't very usable.  However 
there was a new PDP-11 based operating system that had emerged, called 
Unix, and the folks at Illinois quickly developed an NCP for it.  At 
UCLA we immediately switched over to using it.

The UCLA o/s effort had developed an elaborate naming model for the 
systems and its components.  I'll let Steve and Vint decide whether to 
go into that detail, but if they do, Steve has to tell about our 
father's contribution.

Anyhow the acronym for the Sigma Executive was the SEX system.  Besides 
doing basic documentation for that I was tasked with compiling 
documentation for our use of network resources.  I'm not sure whether I 
named that compendium or someone else did, but it was the Network Use 
Technical Series.  That is, NUTS Notes.  Steve once commented that it 
was the only document that had joint authorship by him, me, Vint and Jon 
Postel (plus some others, of course.)

So Arpanet made us get rid of SEX and use Unix.  I suppose it was 
inevitable that the first superuser password for our new system was... 
eunuchs.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sat Jul  6 08:38:54 2019
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 08:38:54 -0700
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggcZCdzswH2T483Nonz7=sJkKq42-ei31_rLMyCFAnSfwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
	<C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
	<DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
	<CABf5zvLucEKOFn_EKdG8gHRe0JHxk-zX2ZxM4xXjQR1r8QqnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<453e59a3-b921-a94e-0917-ac44e4399108@dcrocker.net>
	<CABf5zvL8Gk9OHj_s1OBU-_jo0=zKirvU530uJ+Lcd08+NpDn_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<ECF9F49E-96C2-444A-AF4D-0E1ECCAF29DB@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggcZCdzswH2T483Nonz7=sJkKq42-ei31_rLMyCFAnSfwg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2b0bcba8-b5d3-b588-1f39-d7238a164567@dcrocker.net>

On 7/6/2019 4:08 AM, Vint Cerf wrote:
> many mourn the demise of TECO....


Most folk probably don't know that the first Mail User Agent (MUA) which 
enabled manipulating individual emails, was written by Larry Roberts, 
while at ARPA, as a set of TECO macros.  (Steve can elaborate, including 
on his own role for that.)

A reimplementation and enhancement effort produced John Vittal's MSG, 
which became widely popular.  It was also the first occurrence of 
forwarding and replying commands.


d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net


From steve at shinkuro.com  Sat Jul  6 09:21:43 2019
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 12:21:43 -0400
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <2b0bcba8-b5d3-b588-1f39-d7238a164567@dcrocker.net>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
	<C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
	<DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
	<CABf5zvLucEKOFn_EKdG8gHRe0JHxk-zX2ZxM4xXjQR1r8QqnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<453e59a3-b921-a94e-0917-ac44e4399108@dcrocker.net>
	<CABf5zvL8Gk9OHj_s1OBU-_jo0=zKirvU530uJ+Lcd08+NpDn_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<ECF9F49E-96C2-444A-AF4D-0E1ECCAF29DB@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggcZCdzswH2T483Nonz7=sJkKq42-ei31_rLMyCFAnSfwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<2b0bcba8-b5d3-b588-1f39-d7238a164567@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <CABf5zvJw0hroRB7AsLhph-RRGTikiGmiR8kVskxgdKboP12ODQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dave,

Perhaps you can fill in some missing pieces for me.  Larry Roberts did
indeed write RD, a set of TECO macros that implemented a mail user agent.
What I'm not clear about is where it fit in the chronology of mail
software.  When Roberts wrote RD, the major parts of mail were working.
His program dealt a file that contained all of the mail that had
accumulated in the inbox, or whatever corresponded to the inbox.  I'm not
sure we had separate folders in those days.  In any case, mail was already
being created and sent before he wrote RD.  So one of my questions is how
much had been built and was working before he wrote RD, and my next
question is why he had to write RD instead of using whatever was available
before.

His version of RD had a serious performance problem.  He injected the
entire file of messages into a TECO buffer and then had various commands
for navigating within the buffer.  The format of messages included a count
of the number of characters in the message, but the count differed from the
number of characters the message occupied in the TECO buffer.  The
discrepancy arose because the count in the header treated a new line as a
single character, but in theTECO buffer each new line took two characters,
one for carriage return and one for line feed.  (I may have this backwards,
but it doesn't matter.  The key point is the count in the header differed
from the actual number of characters in buffer.)

Roberts' macro for moving from one message to the next ignored the count in
the header and laboriously scanned a character at a time until it got to
the next message.

I was quite facile with TECO at the time.  I had previously built myself a
set of macros for managing a set of macros.  A sort of loader macro that
took a set of macros and stuffed them into their appropriate buffers.  This
made it easy to develop and maintain a set of TECO macros.

To speed up his program, I changed his scanning code to move a line at a
time and then adjust the count.  I suspect the speed up was on the order of
twenty to forty times as fast.

Steve


On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 11:54 AM Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:

> On 7/6/2019 4:08 AM, Vint Cerf wrote:
> > many mourn the demise of TECO....
>
>
> Most folk probably don't know that the first Mail User Agent (MUA) which
> enabled manipulating individual emails, was written by Larry Roberts,
> while at ARPA, as a set of TECO macros.  (Steve can elaborate, including
> on his own role for that.)
>
> A reimplementation and enhancement effort produced John Vittal's MSG,
> which became widely popular.  It was also the first occurrence of
> forwarding and replying commands.
>
>
> d/
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> _______
> 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/20190706/a1a4134d/attachment.htm>

From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sat Jul  6 09:44:33 2019
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 09:44:33 -0700
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <CABf5zvJw0hroRB7AsLhph-RRGTikiGmiR8kVskxgdKboP12ODQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
	<C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
	<DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
	<CABf5zvLucEKOFn_EKdG8gHRe0JHxk-zX2ZxM4xXjQR1r8QqnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<453e59a3-b921-a94e-0917-ac44e4399108@dcrocker.net>
	<CABf5zvL8Gk9OHj_s1OBU-_jo0=zKirvU530uJ+Lcd08+NpDn_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<ECF9F49E-96C2-444A-AF4D-0E1ECCAF29DB@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggcZCdzswH2T483Nonz7=sJkKq42-ei31_rLMyCFAnSfwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<2b0bcba8-b5d3-b588-1f39-d7238a164567@dcrocker.net>
	<CABf5zvJw0hroRB7AsLhph-RRGTikiGmiR8kVskxgdKboP12ODQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <81616882-12a8-b7f5-7543-08ef7eab1d5f@dcrocker.net>


> Perhaps you can fill in some missing pieces for me.? Larry Roberts did 
> indeed write RD, a set of TECO macros that implemented a mail user 
> agent.? What I'm not clear about is where it fit in the chronology of 
> mail software.  


In the earliest days of Arpanet Mail -- ie, after Tomlinson's work 
connected Tenex systems and as FTP deployed to allow other hosts to 
exchange mail -- the tools for reading mail really just dumped it out.

On Tenex, there was Sndmsg for sending a message to a set of recipients 
and it's Readmail was arguably sophisticated because it would dump out 
all of the 'new' mail, ie, mail received since the last time mail was 
dumped.  Dumped means display en masse.

Apparently Steve Lukasik was the first email user overwhelmed by the 
scale of messages he received, and he asked Larry to find a way for the 
message flow to be more manageable.  RD was the result.  I believe it 
was the first MUA that allowed per-message manipulation for reading, 
filing and deleting.  Vittal's MSG notably added forwarding and 
replying.  (I quickly viewed the presence of the reply function as 
seminal and subjectively assessed email flow as increasing exponentially 
within months of its availability.)

There are a number of histories that chronicle the timeline.  I've got a 
site that lists quite a few:

    http://emailhistory.net/

Probably the most diligent and detailed chronicle is Craig Patridge's 
2008 effort:

    The Technical Development of Internet Email

 
https://www.computer.org/csdl/magazine/an/2008/02/man2008020003/13rRUx0xPuR

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net


From lars at nocrew.org  Sat Jul  6 09:57:44 2019
From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff)
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2019 16:57:44 +0000
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <16bc71c40b0.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com>
	(Bernie Cosell's message of "Sat, 06 Jul 2019 07:47:26 -0400")
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
	<C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
	<DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
	<CABf5zvLucEKOFn_EKdG8gHRe0JHxk-zX2ZxM4xXjQR1r8QqnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<453e59a3-b921-a94e-0917-ac44e4399108@dcrocker.net>
	<CABf5zvL8Gk9OHj_s1OBU-_jo0=zKirvU530uJ+Lcd08+NpDn_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<ECF9F49E-96C2-444A-AF4D-0E1ECCAF29DB@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggcZCdzswH2T483Nonz7=sJkKq42-ei31_rLMyCFAnSfwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<16bc71c40b0.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com>
Message-ID: <7wwogv6qyf.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>

Bernie Cosell <bernie at fantasyfarm.com> writes:
> but doesn't TECO live on inside emacs? i know emacs was rewritten in
> lisp and mostly the lisp stuff is dominant, but is there still a TECO
> buried underneath

No.  The first Emacs was indeed written in TECO.  But later versions
were not.  The most popular one today, GNU Emacs, is written in a mix of
C and Lisp.


From steve at shinkuro.com  Sat Jul  6 09:58:00 2019
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 12:58:00 -0400
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <81616882-12a8-b7f5-7543-08ef7eab1d5f@dcrocker.net>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
	<C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
	<DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
	<CABf5zvLucEKOFn_EKdG8gHRe0JHxk-zX2ZxM4xXjQR1r8QqnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<453e59a3-b921-a94e-0917-ac44e4399108@dcrocker.net>
	<CABf5zvL8Gk9OHj_s1OBU-_jo0=zKirvU530uJ+Lcd08+NpDn_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<ECF9F49E-96C2-444A-AF4D-0E1ECCAF29DB@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggcZCdzswH2T483Nonz7=sJkKq42-ei31_rLMyCFAnSfwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<2b0bcba8-b5d3-b588-1f39-d7238a164567@dcrocker.net>
	<CABf5zvJw0hroRB7AsLhph-RRGTikiGmiR8kVskxgdKboP12ODQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<81616882-12a8-b7f5-7543-08ef7eab1d5f@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <CABf5zv+ziE3ujK+sLufTDkmGd--8V3O8+w+pa9fOyYsLzS0RSg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks.

On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 12:44 PM Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:

>
> > Perhaps you can fill in some missing pieces for me.  Larry Roberts did
> > indeed write RD, a set of TECO macros that implemented a mail user
> > agent.  What I'm not clear about is where it fit in the chronology of
> > mail software.
>
>
> In the earliest days of Arpanet Mail -- ie, after Tomlinson's work
> connected Tenex systems and as FTP deployed to allow other hosts to
> exchange mail -- the tools for reading mail really just dumped it out.
>
> On Tenex, there was Sndmsg for sending a message to a set of recipients
> and it's Readmail was arguably sophisticated because it would dump out
> all of the 'new' mail, ie, mail received since the last time mail was
> dumped.  Dumped means display en masse.
>
> Apparently Steve Lukasik was the first email user overwhelmed by the
> scale of messages he received, and he asked Larry to find a way for the
> message flow to be more manageable.  RD was the result.  I believe it
> was the first MUA that allowed per-message manipulation for reading,
> filing and deleting.  Vittal's MSG notably added forwarding and
> replying.  (I quickly viewed the presence of the reply function as
> seminal and subjectively assessed email flow as increasing exponentially
> within months of its availability.)
>
> There are a number of histories that chronicle the timeline.  I've got a
> site that lists quite a few:
>
>     http://emailhistory.net/
>
> Probably the most diligent and detailed chronicle is Craig Patridge's
> 2008 effort:
>
>     The Technical Development of Internet Email
>
>
> https://www.computer.org/csdl/magazine/an/2008/02/man2008020003/13rRUx0xPuR
>
> d/
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190706/83b17d23/attachment.htm>

From jack at 3kitty.org  Sat Jul  6 10:52:08 2019
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 10:52:08 -0700
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggdtJV4oWx3n5mncpOC1g_Y4m0qmUBJchfB5-3p9P1fb7Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
	<C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
	<DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggdtJV4oWx3n5mncpOC1g_Y4m0qmUBJchfB5-3p9P1fb7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <79799592-ae05-0057-c69a-f09b8efbd630@3kitty.org>

IIRC, there were often many reasons expressed for doing some project.?
In particular, the project had to be attractive enough to the people
with the $s for them to send $s your way.?? So a project was pitched to
each funding source with emphasis on the aspects of the project that
would appeal to them.

In my experience, it was common to get a project going by getting
multiple sources of funding.?? E.g., for ARPA, an emphasis on the
researchy aspects, and for DCA an emphasis on operational stability or
cost.? It was even possible to get some $s from corporate clients, who
were willing to pay to get the results of all that government-funded
work into their own networks.?? A project team would have its members
funded by different sources, all working on the same thing (e.g., "the
Internet")

I was never involved in the government politics, but I suspect ARPA,
DCA, et al did similar things when they went to the Army/Navy/Congress,
etc for funding.? One body might be interested in funding basic
research; another might be interested in cutting expenses, nailing down
a pork barrel project in his/her realm, etc.

/Jack Haverty

?

On 7/5/19 10:09 PM, Vint Cerf wrote:
> John, i had the same impression - that there was demand for new
> computing equipment and ARPA wanted the research groups to be able to
> share resources?as well as sharing code and research results freely.
>
> vint
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 10:50 PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net
> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>
>     Okay, thanks for that clarification. Somewhere I had been told
>     that the reason for resource sharing was so ARPA didn?t have to
>     buy lots of computing equipment for multiple sites, but they could
>     share it.? And of course that included collaboration as well.?
>
>     If collaboration of people was one of the main goals, why was
>     USING turned off? That seemed to be a hot bed of collaboration
>     with great potential.
>
>     Take care,
>     John
>
>>     On Jul 5, 2019, at 20:48, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com
>>     <mailto:steve at shinkuro.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Your characterization of the Arpanet as focused on lowering the
>>     cost of research is off the mark.? It was motivated by the desire
>>     to increase the collaboration and sharing of resources.
>>     ??Resources? included people resources as well as computational
>>     resources.
>>
>>     Steve
>>
>>     Steve
>>
>>     Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>     On Jul 5, 2019, at 8:37 PM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net
>>     <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>
>>>     Thanks Steve for that. Just to add.
>>>
>>>     Keep in mind computing was still very small (there was only one
>>>     or two computer conferences a year, when did NCC split into Fall
>>>     and Spring Joint?) The networking field was even smaller.
>>>     Publishing a paper was considerably more work and the criteria
>>>     considerably higher than they are now. A lot of work and a lot
>>>     of discussing went on that never appeared in publications or
>>>     even in RFCs or other samizdat circulations. (I have all sorts
>>>     of papers from this period that were not part of any even
>>>     informal publication series.
>>>
>>>     In 1968, Dykstra published his paper on THE and layered OSs. And
>>>     it was all the buzz.? Most, if not all, of the NWG were OS guys.
>>>     You needed OS guys to figure out how to introduce the IMP-Host
>>>     protocol and then the Host-Host on top of that in the OS. By
>>>     1970, layer diagrams of IMP-Host, Host-Host(NCP), (Telnet, DTP),
>>>     FTP, RJE were common. (DTP was Data Transfer Protocol, the part
>>>     of FTP that did the actual transfer.)
>>>
>>>     By 72/3, the layers of Physical, Data Link, Network, Transport
>>>     from CYCLADES were pretty common as well as a general
>>>     characterization that wasn?t specific to a given network. INWG
>>>     began in 72 after ICCC ?72 and these layers were common by then.
>>>     There is also strong evidence that because CYCLADES was building
>>>     a network to do research on networks (very different from what
>>>     the ARPNET was)*, they had figured out a lot more about layers
>>>     than most of us knew at the time.
>>>
>>>     John
>>>
>>>     *Remember the ARPANET was built to lower the cost of research
>>>     but not really to do research on networks. That could be a side
>>>     benefit and a lot of us thought there was a lot to do, but it
>>>     wasn?t ARPAs main focus for the ARPANET. Once it was built, ARPA
>>>     considered the network part done! (At least for awhile they
>>>     did.) BBN couldn?t take the net whenever they wanted to do some
>>>     experiment. The ARPANET was in a fairly real sense, a production
>>>     network to support ARPA research.
>>>
>>>>     On Jul 5, 2019, at 17:35, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com
>>>>     <mailto:steve at shinkuro.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Layering was part of the earliest discussions we had in 1968-69.
>>>>
>>>>     On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 5:34 PM Craig Partridge
>>>>     <craig at tereschau.net <mailto:craig at tereschau.net>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         Related but not quite on target.
>>>>
>>>>         The hourglass/margarita glass is a representation of
>>>>         layering.? And back in 1988 I tried to figure out the
>>>>         origins of the layered model for a collection of networking
>>>>         papers I edited.? At the time, the best answer I found was
>>>>         that layering, from a networking perspective, originated
>>>>         with a paper by Davidson et al. on the ARPANET TELNET
>>>>         protocol from the DATACOM conference in 1977.? It portrays
>>>>         layering as a fan, in which different protocols layer on
>>>>         each other as needed.? But it clearly articulates the
>>>>         notion of layering and how layers interact. ?(And there's a
>>>>         narrow window between the 1977 paper and the Cerf/Kahn 1974
>>>>         paper on TCP/IP, which presumably would have mentioned
>>>>         layering if the concept was in wide use).
>>>>
>>>>         Craig
>>>>
>>>>         On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:10 AM Andrew Russell
>>>>         <arussell at arussell.org <mailto:arussell at arussell.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>             Hi everyone -?
>>>>
>>>>             You might have seen the CACM featured an article in the
>>>>             most recent issue ?On the Hourglass Model?
>>>>             -?https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/7/237714-on-the-hourglass-model/fulltext.?
>>>>
>>>>             It?s not a history paper, but it raised a
>>>>             history-related question for me.? As far as I know the
>>>>             visual representation in question started with a
>>>>             drawing of a margarita glass in 1979, in the context of
>>>>             an OSI committee meeting and the 7-layer model. I
>>>>             reproduced the image on page 214 of my book ?Open
>>>>             Standards and the Digital Age? - it?s visible to me here:?
>>>>             https://books.google.com/books?id=jqroAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214.
>>>>
>>>>             My question for the list has 2 parts:
>>>>             1) when/where did the margarita glass turn into an
>>>>             hourglass?
>>>>             2) when/where did the TCP/IP community borrow it from
>>>>             the OSI community? ?(I?m assuming this is how it
>>>>             happened, would be very interested in evidence or
>>>>             recollections to the contrary)
>>>>
>>>>             My hunch, without doing a fresh round of research, is
>>>>             that I should look first to papers by David Clark and
>>>>             co-authors in the 1980s to answer a third question,
>>>>             which is how this illustrated concept morphed into a
>>>>             ?Theorem? (as the CACM essay puts it).? But that?s just
>>>>             a hunch, and I?d really appreciate pointers or
>>>>             recollections.
>>>>
>>>>             Thank you!
>>>>
>>>>             Andy
>>>>             _______
>>>>             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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         -- 
>>>>         *****
>>>>         Craig Partridge's email account for professional society
>>>>         activities and mailing lists.
>>>>         _______
>>>>         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.
>>>>
>>>>     _______
>>>>     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.
>>>
>
>     _______
>     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.
>
>
>
> -- 
> New postal address:
> Google
> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> _______
> 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/20190706/de069f7e/attachment.htm>

From johnl at iecc.com  Sat Jul  6 12:05:29 2019
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 6 Jul 2019 15:05:29 -0400
Subject: [ih] editors for real men, not Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <65c4abf8-0e78-8487-47ad-14e3f74bf335@meetinghouse.net>
Message-ID: <20190706190529.9D8C8434C87@ary.local>

In article <65c4abf8-0e78-8487-47ad-14e3f74bf335 at meetinghouse.net> you write:
>REAL programmers use Butterflies!? (https://xkcd.com/378/)
>
>(Though, in fairness, that doesn't work as well if you're writing a 
>paper in Tex).

The editor I actually use is Epsilon, a commercial Emacs clone from
Lugaru Software in Pittsburgh.  They released version 13 in 2006,
had 15 minor updates mostly to adapt to new operating systems, and
it remains very usable.



From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net  Sat Jul  6 13:51:11 2019
From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman)
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 16:51:11 -0400
Subject: [ih] editors for real men, not Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <7C5EB824-50EC-4DED-9F03-5EE0C960DC1C@pileated.org>
References: <20190706133228.A0793424957@ary.local>
	<65c4abf8-0e78-8487-47ad-14e3f74bf335@meetinghouse.net>
	<7C5EB824-50EC-4DED-9F03-5EE0C960DC1C@pileated.org>
Message-ID: <cc35a2e4-214c-2951-c871-84238717796a@meetinghouse.net>

Well.. I was referring to BUTTERFLIES not working so well for Tex.? 
Emacs works just fine.? :-)

Miles

On 7/6/19 12:42 PM, John Lowry wrote:
> LaTeX works fine on my iPad.  Craig caught me using it to work on my chapter of the F6 architecture at a PI conference.  Most people seemed to assume I was surfing.
>
> John
>
>
>> On Jul 6, 2019, at 10:17 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 7/6/19 9:32 AM, John Levine wrote:
>>> In article <16bc73f1e78.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5 at fantasyfarm.com> you write:
>>>> unless still hidden in emacs, i doubt TECO still exists these days
>>> Oh, humph.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/blakemcbride/TECOC
>>>
>>> It builds painlessly on my Mac laptop, and it's in the usual ports collections
>>> for linux and BSD.
>>> _______
>> Oh pish tosh.
>>
>> REAL programmers use Butterflies!  (https://xkcd.com/378/)
>>
>> (Though, in fairness, that doesn't work as well if you're writing a
>> paper in Tex).
>>
>> Miles Fidelman
>>
>> -- 
>> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>> In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra
>>
>> Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
>> Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
>> In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
>> nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown
>>
>> _______
>> 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

Theory is when you know everything but nothing works.
Practice is when everything works but no one knows why.
In our lab, theory and practice are combined:
nothing works and no one knows why.  ... unknown



From lars at nocrew.org  Sun Jul  7 00:10:27 2019
From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff)
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2019 07:10:27 +0000
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <81616882-12a8-b7f5-7543-08ef7eab1d5f@dcrocker.net> (Dave
	Crocker's message of "Sat, 6 Jul 2019 09:44:33 -0700")
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
	<C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
	<DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
	<CABf5zvLucEKOFn_EKdG8gHRe0JHxk-zX2ZxM4xXjQR1r8QqnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<453e59a3-b921-a94e-0917-ac44e4399108@dcrocker.net>
	<CABf5zvL8Gk9OHj_s1OBU-_jo0=zKirvU530uJ+Lcd08+NpDn_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<ECF9F49E-96C2-444A-AF4D-0E1ECCAF29DB@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggcZCdzswH2T483Nonz7=sJkKq42-ei31_rLMyCFAnSfwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<2b0bcba8-b5d3-b588-1f39-d7238a164567@dcrocker.net>
	<CABf5zvJw0hroRB7AsLhph-RRGTikiGmiR8kVskxgdKboP12ODQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<81616882-12a8-b7f5-7543-08ef7eab1d5f@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <7wlfxa721o.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>

Dave Crocker wrote:
> Apparently Steve Lukasik was the first email user overwhelmed by the
> scale of messages he received, and he asked Larry to find a way for
> the message flow to be more manageable.  RD was the result.  I believe
> it was the first MUA that allowed per-message manipulation for
> reading, filing and deleting.

Have those TECO macros been preserved?


From steve at shinkuro.com  Sun Jul  7 00:46:58 2019
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2019 03:46:58 -0400
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <7wlfxa721o.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
	<C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
	<DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
	<CABf5zvLucEKOFn_EKdG8gHRe0JHxk-zX2ZxM4xXjQR1r8QqnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<453e59a3-b921-a94e-0917-ac44e4399108@dcrocker.net>
	<CABf5zvL8Gk9OHj_s1OBU-_jo0=zKirvU530uJ+Lcd08+NpDn_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<ECF9F49E-96C2-444A-AF4D-0E1ECCAF29DB@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggcZCdzswH2T483Nonz7=sJkKq42-ei31_rLMyCFAnSfwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<2b0bcba8-b5d3-b588-1f39-d7238a164567@dcrocker.net>
	<CABf5zvJw0hroRB7AsLhph-RRGTikiGmiR8kVskxgdKboP12ODQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<81616882-12a8-b7f5-7543-08ef7eab1d5f@dcrocker.net>
	<7wlfxa721o.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>
Message-ID: <CABf5zvL8Nqtk7=Lpx9d1SLFT4pCFSp=gjq3w2Smp6js-CasFFQ@mail.gmail.com>

Not to my knowledge.

On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 3:10 AM Lars Brinkhoff <lars at nocrew.org> wrote:

> Dave Crocker wrote:
> > Apparently Steve Lukasik was the first email user overwhelmed by the
> > scale of messages he received, and he asked Larry to find a way for
> > the message flow to be more manageable.  RD was the result.  I believe
> > it was the first MUA that allowed per-message manipulation for
> > reading, filing and deleting.
>
> Have those TECO macros been preserved?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190707/6e883333/attachment.htm>

From craig at tereschau.net  Sun Jul  7 13:32:46 2019
From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge)
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2019 14:32:46 -0600
Subject: [ih] Hourglass model question
In-Reply-To: <7wlfxa721o.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>
References: <DC08FCFA-C266-44CD-B346-78C5936118FE@arussell.org>
	<CAHQj4CeV8rejDw3853KsoduM21X=dw-i6rNhqVSTwqeMXJvp-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABf5zvLjB4h=YCHXie5Ryq5ddYsAgbO_raq0EXeU1DqK4Libmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<44A7A003-8DAE-4D02-9239-C73901BF14B6@comcast.net>
	<C699224C-6354-4AF8-BE99-77BC2525678D@shinkuro.com>
	<DF3D3493-C3D7-4C2A-A40E-5B5FDF868551@comcast.net>
	<CABf5zvLucEKOFn_EKdG8gHRe0JHxk-zX2ZxM4xXjQR1r8QqnqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<453e59a3-b921-a94e-0917-ac44e4399108@dcrocker.net>
	<CABf5zvL8Gk9OHj_s1OBU-_jo0=zKirvU530uJ+Lcd08+NpDn_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<ECF9F49E-96C2-444A-AF4D-0E1ECCAF29DB@comcast.net>
	<CAHxHggcZCdzswH2T483Nonz7=sJkKq42-ei31_rLMyCFAnSfwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<2b0bcba8-b5d3-b588-1f39-d7238a164567@dcrocker.net>
	<CABf5zvJw0hroRB7AsLhph-RRGTikiGmiR8kVskxgdKboP12ODQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<81616882-12a8-b7f5-7543-08ef7eab1d5f@dcrocker.net>
	<7wlfxa721o.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>
Message-ID: <CAHQj4CdJrcPWq1+oDv3naqeET68kqUHehsevyHy8OWu6wtRmJA@mail.gmail.com>

I couldn't find them when I was writing a history of Internet email paper
for IEEE.  But from discussions with various implementers, I was able to
determine roughly what features the macros supported (most notably they did
not support reply).

Craig

On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 1:29 AM Lars Brinkhoff <lars at nocrew.org> wrote:

> Dave Crocker wrote:
> > Apparently Steve Lukasik was the first email user overwhelmed by the
> > scale of messages he received, and he asked Larry to find a way for
> > the message flow to be more manageable.  RD was the result.  I believe
> > it was the first MUA that allowed per-message manipulation for
> > reading, filing and deleting.
>
> Have those TECO macros been preserved?
> _______
> 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.
>


-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190707/13e31799/attachment.htm>

From darius.kazemi at gmail.com  Mon Jul 22 12:18:01 2019
From: darius.kazemi at gmail.com (Darius Kazemi)
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:18:01 -0700
Subject: [ih] IMP Installation Schedule / SDC IMP
Message-ID: <CADHc3QEaOary4HY-U4eyLPBuXPc0V14xnOKaxcTH5U8HJ75eWw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I've been reading the list archives for a while (it helps for the early RFC
blog project
<https://write.as/365-rfcs/365-ietf-rfcs-a-50th-anniversary-dive> I'm
doing), but I didn't have a reason to join and post until today.

I saw Karl Auerbach's message from back in March asking about the SDC IMP,
along with Alex McKenzie's answer.

Karl Auerbach's question:
http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-March/005175.html
Alex McKenzie's answer:
http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-March/005174.html

I spent four days at the Charles Babbage Institute last month and among the
records I was looking at were the library's collection of Alex McKenzie's
documents. In this collection I found a folder called "Installation History
of first ARPANET Interface Message Processor (IMP) and Terminal Interface
Message Processor (TIP) 1969 - 1976" (CBI record
<https://archives.lib.umn.edu/repositories/3/archival_objects/49539>).

The document is a four-page document dated October 1977 that lists every
known IMP/TIP at the time, when it was installed, and its history of moving
between sites (if any).

What the document says is that the SDC IMP was installed on April 20th,
1970. A footnote says that it was there until 1976, when it was moved to a
site called ISI, which I assume is the USC Information Science Institute.
It appears that by 1977 it had been reassigned a Network ID Number of 52.

I have photographs of the IMP installation schedule and if anyone is
interested I can send them along. I don't know what the etiquette of
posting them to this list is; I currently only have clearance from CBI for
private usage but it's unclear to me whether this (private) list counts as
private usage.

-Darius
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190722/5feb1155/attachment.htm>

From steve at shinkuro.com  Mon Jul 22 12:46:34 2019
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 15:46:34 -0400
Subject: [ih] IMP Installation Schedule / SDC IMP
In-Reply-To: <CADHc3QEaOary4HY-U4eyLPBuXPc0V14xnOKaxcTH5U8HJ75eWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADHc3QEaOary4HY-U4eyLPBuXPc0V14xnOKaxcTH5U8HJ75eWw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B699E7B7-CC10-443E-B35C-E18E3E5A70B4@shinkuro.com>

Darius,

Interesting!  Might you also have data on when IMPs were installed and removed at Tinker AFB near Oklahoma City and McClellan AFB near Sacramento?

Thanks,

Steve

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 3:18 PM, Darius Kazemi <darius.kazemi at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I've been reading the list archives for a while (it helps for the early RFC blog project I'm doing), but I didn't have a reason to join and post until today.
> 
> I saw Karl Auerbach's message from back in March asking about the SDC IMP, along with Alex McKenzie's answer.
> 
> Karl Auerbach's question: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-March/005175.html
> Alex McKenzie's answer: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-March/005174.html
> 
> I spent four days at the Charles Babbage Institute last month and among the records I was looking at were the library's collection of Alex McKenzie's documents. In this collection I found a folder called "Installation History of first ARPANET Interface Message Processor (IMP) and Terminal Interface Message Processor (TIP) 1969 - 1976" (CBI record).
> 
> The document is a four-page document dated October 1977 that lists every known IMP/TIP at the time, when it was installed, and its history of moving between sites (if any).
> 
> What the document says is that the SDC IMP was installed on April 20th, 1970. A footnote says that it was there until 1976, when it was moved to a site called ISI, which I assume is the USC Information Science Institute. It appears that by 1977 it had been reassigned a Network ID Number of 52.
> 
> I have photographs of the IMP installation schedule and if anyone is interested I can send them along. I don't know what the etiquette of posting them to this list is; I currently only have clearance from CBI for private usage but it's unclear to me whether this (private) list counts as private usage.
> 
> -Darius
> _______
> 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/20190722/e5d771bb/attachment.htm>

From darius.kazemi at gmail.com  Mon Jul 22 13:19:41 2019
From: darius.kazemi at gmail.com (Darius Kazemi)
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 13:19:41 -0700
Subject: [ih] IMP Installation Schedule / SDC IMP
In-Reply-To: <B699E7B7-CC10-443E-B35C-E18E3E5A70B4@shinkuro.com>
References: <CADHc3QEaOary4HY-U4eyLPBuXPc0V14xnOKaxcTH5U8HJ75eWw@mail.gmail.com>
	<B699E7B7-CC10-443E-B35C-E18E3E5A70B4@shinkuro.com>
Message-ID: <CADHc3QEmLfJCaJMZHhNPd+apb7LERJ-VsyK6_MMVtjGdQObDiQ@mail.gmail.com>

Yes I do!

An IMP was installed at Tinker on Feb 16, 1972. The note for that IMP says:

"Originally shipped to Tinker; removed to BB&N on 02/02/73; changed to a
TIP and shipped to UTAH on 8/31/73."

An IMP was installed at ETAC on November 30th, 1971. The note says:

"Originally shipped to ETAC; moved to Mc Clellan 3/10/72; moved again to
Xerox 9/26/72."

RFC-1000 names ETAC as the USAF Environmental Technical Application Center,
which in 1971 began "providing weather data for the ARPA Network".

So it looks like an IMP spent a year at Tinker and six months at McClellan.

-Darius

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:46 PM Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:

> Darius,
>
> Interesting!  Might you also have data on when IMPs were installed and
> removed at Tinker AFB near Oklahoma City and McClellan AFB near Sacramento?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 22, 2019, at 3:18 PM, Darius Kazemi <darius.kazemi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've been reading the list archives for a while (it helps for the early
> RFC blog project
> <https://write.as/365-rfcs/365-ietf-rfcs-a-50th-anniversary-dive> I'm
> doing), but I didn't have a reason to join and post until today.
>
> I saw Karl Auerbach's message from back in March asking about the SDC IMP,
> along with Alex McKenzie's answer.
>
> Karl Auerbach's question:
> http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-March/005175.html
> Alex McKenzie's answer:
> http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-March/005174.html
>
> I spent four days at the Charles Babbage Institute last month and among
> the records I was looking at were the library's collection of Alex
> McKenzie's documents. In this collection I found a folder called
> "Installation History of first ARPANET Interface Message Processor (IMP)
> and Terminal Interface Message Processor (TIP) 1969 - 1976" (CBI record
> <https://archives.lib.umn.edu/repositories/3/archival_objects/49539>).
>
> The document is a four-page document dated October 1977 that lists every
> known IMP/TIP at the time, when it was installed, and its history of moving
> between sites (if any).
>
> What the document says is that the SDC IMP was installed on April 20th,
> 1970. A footnote says that it was there until 1976, when it was moved to a
> site called ISI, which I assume is the USC Information Science Institute.
> It appears that by 1977 it had been reassigned a Network ID Number of 52.
>
> I have photographs of the IMP installation schedule and if anyone is
> interested I can send them along. I don't know what the etiquette of
> posting them to this list is; I currently only have clearance from CBI for
> private usage but it's unclear to me whether this (private) list counts as
> private usage.
>
> -Darius
>
> _______
> 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/20190722/ccdf2e00/attachment.htm>

From steve at shinkuro.com  Mon Jul 22 13:24:35 2019
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 16:24:35 -0400
Subject: [ih] IMP Installation Schedule / SDC IMP
In-Reply-To: <CADHc3QEmLfJCaJMZHhNPd+apb7LERJ-VsyK6_MMVtjGdQObDiQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADHc3QEaOary4HY-U4eyLPBuXPc0V14xnOKaxcTH5U8HJ75eWw@mail.gmail.com>
	<B699E7B7-CC10-443E-B35C-E18E3E5A70B4@shinkuro.com>
	<CADHc3QEmLfJCaJMZHhNPd+apb7LERJ-VsyK6_MMVtjGdQObDiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABf5zv+YWBC6mR99W8QatHiat8E8ULyR6NVfdhY6YvnNKNdDFA@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks!

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:20 PM Darius Kazemi <darius.kazemi at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Yes I do!
>
> An IMP was installed at Tinker on Feb 16, 1972. The note for that IMP says:
>
> "Originally shipped to Tinker; removed to BB&N on 02/02/73; changed to a
> TIP and shipped to UTAH on 8/31/73."
>
> An IMP was installed at ETAC on November 30th, 1971. The note says:
>
> "Originally shipped to ETAC; moved to Mc Clellan 3/10/72; moved again to
> Xerox 9/26/72."
>
> RFC-1000 names ETAC as the USAF Environmental Technical Application
> Center, which in 1971 began "providing weather data for the ARPA Network".
>
> So it looks like an IMP spent a year at Tinker and six months at McClellan.
>
>
> -Darius
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:46 PM Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
>
>> Darius,
>>
>> Interesting!  Might you also have data on when IMPs were installed and
>> removed at Tinker AFB near Oklahoma City and McClellan AFB near Sacramento?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jul 22, 2019, at 3:18 PM, Darius Kazemi <darius.kazemi at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've been reading the list archives for a while (it helps for the early
>> RFC blog project
>> <https://write.as/365-rfcs/365-ietf-rfcs-a-50th-anniversary-dive> I'm
>> doing), but I didn't have a reason to join and post until today.
>>
>> I saw Karl Auerbach's message from back in March asking about the SDC
>> IMP, along with Alex McKenzie's answer.
>>
>> Karl Auerbach's question:
>> http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-March/005175.html
>> Alex McKenzie's answer:
>> http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-March/005174.html
>>
>> I spent four days at the Charles Babbage Institute last month and among
>> the records I was looking at were the library's collection of Alex
>> McKenzie's documents. In this collection I found a folder called
>> "Installation History of first ARPANET Interface Message Processor (IMP)
>> and Terminal Interface Message Processor (TIP) 1969 - 1976" (CBI record
>> <https://archives.lib.umn.edu/repositories/3/archival_objects/49539>).
>>
>> The document is a four-page document dated October 1977 that lists every
>> known IMP/TIP at the time, when it was installed, and its history of moving
>> between sites (if any).
>>
>> What the document says is that the SDC IMP was installed on April 20th,
>> 1970. A footnote says that it was there until 1976, when it was moved to a
>> site called ISI, which I assume is the USC Information Science Institute.
>> It appears that by 1977 it had been reassigned a Network ID Number of 52.
>>
>> I have photographs of the IMP installation schedule and if anyone is
>> interested I can send them along. I don't know what the etiquette of
>> posting them to this list is; I currently only have clearance from CBI for
>> private usage but it's unclear to me whether this (private) list counts as
>> private usage.
>>
>> -Darius
>>
>> _______
>> 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/20190722/2cf8411e/attachment.htm>

From karl at cavebear.com  Mon Jul 22 23:42:24 2019
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 23:42:24 -0700
Subject: [ih] IMP Installation Schedule / SDC IMP
In-Reply-To: <CADHc3QEaOary4HY-U4eyLPBuXPc0V14xnOKaxcTH5U8HJ75eWw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADHc3QEaOary4HY-U4eyLPBuXPc0V14xnOKaxcTH5U8HJ75eWw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <009cf689-b8f3-9aa7-7dd6-99974f56564d@cavebear.com>

I would be very interested in any information about where at SDC the IMP 
was.

I know that our group (Clark Weissman, Gerry Cole, Dave Kaufman, Frank 
Heinrich, ... me) were very much wanting to get an IMP on site during 
the 1972-<several years later>.?? (Dave Kaufman and I were particularly 
vocal about it - we had already conspired with Mark Kampe at UCLA about 
various [hypothetical] scenarios in which we would make good use of the 
lifting bolts on the top of IMP #1 at UCLA.? ;-)

We did have a Santa Barbara Box - an IBM 360 to IMP channel adapter 
built by ACC in Santa Barbara (and run by Le Mo (sp?) at our end - but 
as far as I know it was never hooked up to anything - it kinda sat in a 
corner of my lab upstairs in the Q7 building. (I usually lived in the 
2500 building - just across the bridge from Q7.)

 ??? ??? ??? ??? --karl--