From clemc at ccc.com Thu Apr 2 11:59:01 2020 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 14:59:01 -0400 Subject: [ih] Deep dive into the C/30 microcode In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:07 AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > One of the more droll discrepancies were the implementations of the Set > Overflow Bit and Reset Overflow Bit instructions. We found their > implementations were reversed. However, when we consulted with BBN, they > said they had found the error but instead of changing the microcode, they > changed the output of the assembler. > i.e. they fixed it in software.? From Kees.Teszelszky at KB.nl Fri Apr 3 03:41:36 2020 From: Kees.Teszelszky at KB.nl (Kees Teszelszky) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 10:41:36 +0000 Subject: [ih] call for papers: digital humanities and web archives Message-ID: **Apologies for cross-posting** Call for papers Digital humanities and web archives A special issue of International Journal of Digital Humanities Although history is written mainly online in our time, web archives, as the treasure chests of primary sources of our digital-born culture are still relatively unknown and certainly underused by researchers of social studies and humanities, even by digital humanities scholars. We invite proposals from scholars and heritage professionals on any topic related to the use of web archives and curating born-digital data, among others websites, social media, etc. Proposals on all aspects of digital humanities research using and curating web archives are invited. Topics can be related but are not limited to language, politics, sociology, aesthetics of web archiving; more technical aspects are also welcome, like data analysis, statistics, etc. About the Journal The International Journal of Digital Humanities is a peer-reviewed academic journal with a focus on digital media and the development, application and reflection of digital research methodology in the humanities. It is concerned with the history, current practice and theory of digital humanities. Further details on this journal are available on the Springer website of IJDH. All proposals must be written in English and submitted via e-mail to the following address: ijdh.journal at gmail.com. Proposals for articles must be submitted as an abstract of between 300 and 500 words. All submissions are due by May 1st 2020. The program committee will review all submissions and send out notifications of acceptance/rejection by June 1st. For questions, please send an email to ijdh.journal at gmail.com. The articles should be submitted to the Editorial Manager: https://www.editorialmanager.com/ijdh/. Kees Teszelszky, Guest editor G?bor Palk?, Editor-in-Chief Dr. Kees Teszelszky Conservator digitale collecties / Curator digital collections Afdeling Collecties / Collections Department ..................................................................................... https://twitter.com/keesone http://lab.kb.nl/person/dr-kees-teszelszky [cid:KB-logo_c621834e-0adf-480a-988a-262e16fbad06.png] Prins Willem-Alexanderhof 5 | 2595 BE Den Haag Postbus 90407 | 2509 LK Den Haag www.kb.nl [cid:facebook-logo_b6214bc8-7f1d-4143-b6d4-e6c2c98e245d.png] [cid:instagram-logo_701b2edf-ccdf-4d38-9e4d-e61fa0a69be1.png] [cid:linkedin-logo_0035728c-750a-4113-b960-b5344dd8767c.png] [cid:twitter-logo_82e449d8-549f-4e41-9517-893ae26251ef.png] English version | Disclaimer From gnu at toad.com Fri Apr 3 15:27:02 2020 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2020 15:27:02 -0700 Subject: [ih] call for cash: digital humanities and web archives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1730.1585952822@hop.toad.com> Kees Teszelszky via Internet-history wrote: > The International Journal of Digital Humanities is a peer-reviewed academic journal... It is also a money-making scam. Kees, why are you volunteering your time to suck authors into this scam? You can write your own article and submit it, and it'll be reviewed by an unpaid group of volunteer peer reviewers, and you can even publish it under a CC license -- if you pay the Springer corporation thousands of dollars in "Article Processing Charges" for the privilege. You won't find out how many thousands until you do all the work and submit your article; they don't publish their price list for open access contributions, probably because it would shock too many people. If you can't or won't pay, then they will copyright your article by themselves, and overcharge librarians and the public for it, with the result that few people will read it. And if you don't agree to either option, then they won't publish your article at all. Here's a paper about this, published by the Springer journal Scientometrics: Published: 29 February 2020 Market power of publishers in setting article processing charges for open access journals https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-020-03402-y Unfortunately, you can't read the paper -- it costs $40 to download it. But they published a nice abstract. Far better to write something and publish it as an RFC, or on your own website, or in a real open-access journal that doesn't feed your own money to a very profitable academic publishing oligopoly. John From vint at google.com Fri Apr 3 15:30:09 2020 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 18:30:09 -0400 Subject: [ih] call for cash: digital humanities and web archives In-Reply-To: <1730.1585952822@hop.toad.com> References: <1730.1585952822@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: wow - that's news - thanks for the heads-up, John. v On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 6:27 PM John Gilmore via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Kees Teszelszky via Internet-history > wrote: > > The International Journal of Digital Humanities is a peer-reviewed > academic journal... > > It is also a money-making scam. Kees, why are you volunteering your > time to suck authors into this scam? > > You can write your own article and submit it, and it'll be reviewed by > an unpaid group of volunteer peer reviewers, and you can even publish it > under a CC license -- if you pay the Springer corporation thousands of > dollars in "Article Processing Charges" for the privilege. You won't > find out how many thousands until you do all the work and submit your > article; they don't publish their price list for open access > contributions, probably because it would shock too many people. > > If you can't or won't pay, then they will copyright your article by > themselves, and overcharge librarians and the public for it, with the > result that few people will read it. And if you don't agree to either > option, then they won't publish your article at all. > > Here's a paper about this, published by the Springer journal > Scientometrics: > > Published: 29 February 2020 > Market power of publishers in setting article processing charges for > open access journals > https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-020-03402-y > > Unfortunately, you can't read the paper -- it costs $40 to download it. > But they published a nice abstract. > > Far better to write something and publish it as an RFC, or on your own > website, or in a real open-access journal that doesn't feed your own > money to a very profitable academic publishing oligopoly. > > John > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 From sob at sobco.com Fri Apr 3 16:42:25 2020 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 19:42:25 -0400 Subject: [ih] This has been asked before but - when & how did the us government define the Internet Message-ID: I recall that some part of the us government defined the Internet as interconnected networks running tcp/ip - maybe the NRC? Anyway - it would help me in a paper I?m writing to be able to reference a document where that is stated Thanks Scott From vgcerf at gmail.com Fri Apr 3 17:14:27 2020 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 20:14:27 -0400 Subject: [ih] This has been asked before but - when & how did the us government define the Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I believe it was the Federal Networking Council that issued the definition v On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 7:43 PM Scott O. Bradner via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > I recall that some part of the us government defined the Internet as > interconnected networks running tcp/ip - maybe the NRC? > > Anyway - it would help me in a paper I?m writing to be able to reference a > document where that is stated > > Thanks > > Scott > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From sghuter at nsrc.org Fri Apr 3 17:19:29 2020 From: sghuter at nsrc.org (Steven G. Huter) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 17:19:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ih] This has been asked before but - when & how did the us government define the Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://www.nitrd.gov/fnc/internet_res.pdf steve On Fri, 3 Apr 2020, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: > I believe it was the Federal Networking Council that issued the definition > v > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 7:43 PM Scott O. Bradner via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> I recall that some part of the us government defined the Internet as >> interconnected networks running tcp/ip - maybe the NRC? >> >> Anyway - it would help me in a paper I?m writing to be able to reference a >> document where that is stated >> >> Thanks >> >> Scott >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From sob at sobco.com Fri Apr 3 17:19:54 2020 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 20:19:54 -0400 Subject: [ih] This has been asked before but - when & how did the us government define the Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <78307413-182D-4438-936B-F8B594553BD6@sobco.com> Thanks (I meant that even if I wrote ?NRC? :-) ) Do you happen to have a reference? thanks Scott > On Apr 3, 2020, at 8:14 PM, vinton cerf wrote: > > I believe it was the Federal Networking Council that issued the definition > v > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 7:43 PM Scott O. Bradner via Internet-history wrote: > I recall that some part of the us government defined the Internet as interconnected networks running tcp/ip - maybe the NRC? > > Anyway - it would help me in a paper I?m writing to be able to reference a document where that is stated > > Thanks > > Scott > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From sob at sobco.com Fri Apr 3 17:20:16 2020 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 20:20:16 -0400 Subject: [ih] This has been asked before but - when & how did the us government define the Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Great! - thanks! Scott > On Apr 3, 2020, at 8:19 PM, Steven G. Huter wrote: > > https://www.nitrd.gov/fnc/internet_res.pdf > > steve > > On Fri, 3 Apr 2020, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: > >> I believe it was the Federal Networking Council that issued the definition >> v >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 7:43 PM Scott O. Bradner via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >>> I recall that some part of the us government defined the Internet as >>> interconnected networks running tcp/ip - maybe the NRC? >>> >>> Anyway - it would help me in a paper I?m writing to be able to reference a >>> document where that is stated >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Scott >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From sghuter at nsrc.org Fri Apr 3 17:23:04 2020 From: sghuter at nsrc.org (Steven G. Huter) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 17:23:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ih] This has been asked before but - when & how did the us government define the Internet In-Reply-To: <78307413-182D-4438-936B-F8B594553BD6@sobco.com> References: <78307413-182D-4438-936B-F8B594553BD6@sobco.com> Message-ID: https://www.nitrd.gov/fnc/internet_res.pdf is a link on the longer page of archived FNC info https://www.nitrd.gov/historical/fnc-material.aspx On Fri, 3 Apr 2020, Scott O. Bradner via Internet-history wrote: > Thanks (I meant that even if I wrote ?NRC? :-) ) > > Do you happen to have a reference? > > thanks > > Scott > >> On Apr 3, 2020, at 8:14 PM, vinton cerf wrote: >> >> I believe it was the Federal Networking Council that issued the definition >> v >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 7:43 PM Scott O. Bradner via Internet-history wrote: >> I recall that some part of the us government defined the Internet as interconnected networks running tcp/ip - maybe the NRC? >> >> Anyway - it would help me in a paper I?m writing to be able to reference a document where that is stated >> >> Thanks >> >> Scott >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Fri Apr 3 17:23:59 2020 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2020 13:23:59 +1300 Subject: [ih] This has been asked before but - when & how did the us government define the Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <306aed15-bed2-cd70-e9fb-5a13f8c41a20@gmail.com> Try looking at https://www.nitrd.gov/historical/fnc-material.aspx and specifically https://www.nitrd.gov/fnc/internet_res.pdf Regards Brian Carpenter On 04-Apr-20 13:14, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: > I believe it was the Federal Networking Council that issued the definition > v > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 7:43 PM Scott O. Bradner via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> I recall that some part of the us government defined the Internet as >> interconnected networks running tcp/ip - maybe the NRC? >> >> Anyway - it would help me in a paper I?m writing to be able to reference a >> document where that is stated >> >> Thanks >> >> Scott >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> From jack at 3kitty.org Fri Apr 3 18:28:40 2020 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 18:28:40 -0700 Subject: [ih] This has been asked before but - when & how did the us government define the Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1f2efc7d-73b2-899b-5dd0-ac071ba910e5@3kitty.org> Interesting...? By that definition, requiring a "globally unique address space", I wonder what fraction of the thing-that-we-call-Internet is actually part of The Internet. E.g., I have quite a few devices in my house, all using TCP/IP, with addresses 192.168.xx.xx, and you probably have some too.?? My address space is not globally unique, so I guess all of my stuff isn't part of The Internet? Similarly, back in the 90s I was involved in running a large corporate intranet, and we used the whole IP address space to structure our addresses inside, with only a few machines that allowed certain traffic (Email, Web, etc.) to pass to and from the rest of The Internet.? I suspect a lot of other organizations did the same, so they don't fit into a globally unique address space either. I wonder how many such situations exist today - e.g., how server farms, end-user ISPs, etc. approach the address space issue, and if they're really part of the unique global address space of the Internet by that definition. /Jack Haverty On 4/3/20 5:19 PM, Steven G. Huter via Internet-history wrote: > https://www.nitrd.gov/fnc/internet_res.pdf > > steve > > On Fri, 3 Apr 2020, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: > >> I believe it was the Federal Networking Council that issued the >> definition >> v >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 7:43 PM Scott O. Bradner via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >>> I recall that some part of the us government defined the Internet as >>> interconnected networks running tcp/ip - maybe the NRC? >>> >>> Anyway - it would help me in a paper I?m writing to be able to >>> reference a >>> document where that is stated >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Scott >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> --? >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From joly at punkcast.com Fri Apr 3 18:46:34 2020 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 21:46:34 -0400 Subject: [ih] This has been asked before but - when & how did the us government define the Internet In-Reply-To: <1f2efc7d-73b2-899b-5dd0-ac071ba910e5@3kitty.org> References: <1f2efc7d-73b2-899b-5dd0-ac071ba910e5@3kitty.org> Message-ID: To me, by definition, anything that is not addressable end to end across the Internet is not "on" the Internet. NAT or no NAT. joly On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:28 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Interesting... By that definition, requiring a "globally unique address > space", I wonder what fraction of the thing-that-we-call-Internet is > actually part of The Internet. > > E.g., I have quite a few devices in my house, all using TCP/IP, with > addresses 192.168.xx.xx, and you probably have some too. My address > space is not globally unique, so I guess all of my stuff isn't part of > The Internet? > > Similarly, back in the 90s I was involved in running a large corporate > intranet, and we used the whole IP address space to structure our > addresses inside, with only a few machines that allowed certain traffic > (Email, Web, etc.) to pass to and from the rest of The Internet. I > suspect a lot of other organizations did the same, so they don't fit > into a globally unique address space either. > > I wonder how many such situations exist today - e.g., how server farms, > end-user ISPs, etc. approach the address space issue, and if they're > really part of the unique global address space of the Internet by that > definition. > > /Jack Haverty > > On 4/3/20 5:19 PM, Steven G. Huter via Internet-history wrote: > > https://www.nitrd.gov/fnc/internet_res.pdf > > > > steve > > > > On Fri, 3 Apr 2020, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: > > > >> I believe it was the Federal Networking Council that issued the > >> definition > >> v > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 7:43 PM Scott O. Bradner via Internet-history < > >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> > >>> I recall that some part of the us government defined the Internet as > >>> interconnected networks running tcp/ip - maybe the NRC? > >>> > >>> Anyway - it would help me in a paper I?m writing to be able to > >>> reference a > >>> document where that is stated > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> > >>> Scott > >>> -- > >>> Internet-history mailing list > >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >>> > >> -- > >> Internet-history mailing list > >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +2185659365 -------------------------------------- - From touch at strayalpha.com Fri Apr 3 18:57:31 2020 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joseph Touch) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 18:57:31 -0700 Subject: [ih] This has been asked before but - when & how did the us government define the Internet In-Reply-To: <1f2efc7d-73b2-899b-5dd0-ac071ba910e5@3kitty.org> References: <1f2efc7d-73b2-899b-5dd0-ac071ba910e5@3kitty.org> Message-ID: > On Apr 3, 2020, at 6:28 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > > Interesting... By that definition, requiring a "globally unique address > space", I wonder what fraction of the thing-that-we-call-Internet is > actually part of The Internet. Indeed. I had posed some of this question a while back, setting what I thought were requirements for ?being ON the Internet?, rather than merely ?Internet content access? (e.g., behind a NAT or at a kiosk; it?s all accessing Internet content but not a full-fledged member): https://www.strayalpha.com/internet-rights It?s definitely more than just running IP or having an address, though. Joe From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Fri Apr 3 19:47:54 2020 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2020 15:47:54 +1300 Subject: [ih] This has been asked before but - when & how did the us government define the Internet In-Reply-To: References: <1f2efc7d-73b2-899b-5dd0-ac071ba910e5@3kitty.org> Message-ID: It's definitely multi-dimemsional. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4084 Regards Brian Carpenter On 04-Apr-20 14:57, Joseph Touch via Internet-history wrote: > > >> On Apr 3, 2020, at 6:28 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >> >> Interesting... By that definition, requiring a "globally unique address >> space", I wonder what fraction of the thing-that-we-call-Internet is >> actually part of The Internet. > > Indeed. I had posed some of this question a while back, setting what I thought were requirements for ?being ON the Internet?, rather than merely ?Internet content access? (e.g., behind a NAT or at a kiosk; it?s all accessing Internet content but not a full-fledged member): > > https://www.strayalpha.com/internet-rights > > It?s definitely more than just running IP or having an address, though. > > Joe > From vgcerf at gmail.com Sat Apr 4 03:55:21 2020 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2020 06:55:21 -0400 Subject: [ih] This has been asked before but - when & how did the us government define the Internet In-Reply-To: <1f2efc7d-73b2-899b-5dd0-ac071ba910e5@3kitty.org> References: <1f2efc7d-73b2-899b-5dd0-ac071ba910e5@3kitty.org> Message-ID: well, yeah, that's RFC 1918 but the NAT does assign a unique address on the outside... v On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:29 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Interesting... By that definition, requiring a "globally unique address > space", I wonder what fraction of the thing-that-we-call-Internet is > actually part of The Internet. > > E.g., I have quite a few devices in my house, all using TCP/IP, with > addresses 192.168.xx.xx, and you probably have some too. My address > space is not globally unique, so I guess all of my stuff isn't part of > The Internet? > > Similarly, back in the 90s I was involved in running a large corporate > intranet, and we used the whole IP address space to structure our > addresses inside, with only a few machines that allowed certain traffic > (Email, Web, etc.) to pass to and from the rest of The Internet. I > suspect a lot of other organizations did the same, so they don't fit > into a globally unique address space either. > > I wonder how many such situations exist today - e.g., how server farms, > end-user ISPs, etc. approach the address space issue, and if they're > really part of the unique global address space of the Internet by that > definition. > > /Jack Haverty > > On 4/3/20 5:19 PM, Steven G. Huter via Internet-history wrote: > > https://www.nitrd.gov/fnc/internet_res.pdf > > > > steve > > > > On Fri, 3 Apr 2020, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: > > > >> I believe it was the Federal Networking Council that issued the > >> definition > >> v > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 7:43 PM Scott O. Bradner via Internet-history < > >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> > >>> I recall that some part of the us government defined the Internet as > >>> interconnected networks running tcp/ip - maybe the NRC? > >>> > >>> Anyway - it would help me in a paper I?m writing to be able to > >>> reference a > >>> document where that is stated > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> > >>> Scott > >>> -- > >>> Internet-history mailing list > >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >>> > >> -- > >> Internet-history mailing list > >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From johnl at iecc.com Sat Apr 4 08:24:23 2020 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 4 Apr 2020 11:24:23 -0400 Subject: [ih] This has been asked before but - when & how did the us government define the Internet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20200404152424.60DAA1707216@ary.qy> In article you write: >It's definitely multi-dimemsional. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4084 I don't find rehashing NAT fights to be very interesting. I have an old laptop on my desk that sometimes runs the bitcoin program (tracking the blockchain, not mining.) On IPv4 it's behind a NAT but the router does port forwarding so it can accept incoming connections. On IPv6 it has a routable global address. Is it "on the Internet?" I cannot tell you how little I care about the answer to that question. R's, John From touch at strayalpha.com Sat Apr 4 09:05:26 2020 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joseph Touch) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2020 09:05:26 -0700 Subject: [ih] This has been asked before but - when & how did the us government define the Internet In-Reply-To: <20200404152424.60DAA1707216@ary.qy> References: <20200404152424.60DAA1707216@ary.qy> Message-ID: <0D28158A-4964-4417-8D03-EDF3CE525980@strayalpha.com> > On Apr 4, 2020, at 8:24 AM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: > > In article you write: >> It's definitely multi-dimemsional. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4084 > > I don't find rehashing NAT fights to be very interesting. > > I have an old laptop on my desk that sometimes runs the bitcoin > program (tracking the blockchain, not mining.) On IPv4 it's behind a > NAT but the router does port forwarding so it can accept incoming > connections. On IPv6 it has a routable global address. > > Is it "on the Internet?" I cannot tell you how little I care about > the answer to that question. You will when you try to run that program (a server) on two or more machines over IPv4. Or if you ever try to run that server as persistently advertised in the DNS (e.g., running a web server from home). A single computer isn?t a good test of whether a NAT interferes with what you want to do. So you are ?on the Internet? like ?I can fly?. I jump up in the air and fly for about 0.5 seconds, but that?s only flying to someone who?s never been on a plane. Joe From dhc at dcrocker.net Tue Apr 7 08:12:42 2020 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 08:12:42 -0700 Subject: [ih] This has been asked before but - when & how did the us government define the Internet In-Reply-To: References: <1f2efc7d-73b2-899b-5dd0-ac071ba910e5@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <21bcdfff-8041-343f-db8e-98a448291a5f@dcrocker.net> On 4/3/2020 6:46 PM, Joly MacFie via Internet-history wrote: > To me, by definition, anything that is not addressable end to end across > the Internet is not "on" the Internet. NAT or no NAT. That's one view. However... To Be "On" the Internet https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1775.html d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From geoff at iconia.com Tue Apr 7 20:58:23 2020 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 17:58:23 -1000 Subject: [ih] Internet working because Cold War-era pioneers designed it to handle almost anything In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Coronavirus knocked down - at least for a time - internet pioneer Vinton Cerf, who offers this reflection on the experience: "I don't recommend it. . . It's very debilitating." But Cerf, 76 and now recovering in his northern Virginia home, has better news to report about the computer network he and others spent much of their lives creating. Despite some problems, the Internet overall is handling unprecedented surges of demand as it helps keep a fractured world connected at a time of global catastrophe. "This basic architecture is 50 years old, and everyone is online," Cerf noted in a video interview over Google Hangouts, with a mix of triumph and wonder in his voice. "And the thing is not collapsing." The internet, born as a Pentagon project during some of the chillier years of the Cold War, has taken such a central role in 21st Century civilian society, culture and business that few pause any longer to appreciate its wonders - except perhaps, as in the past few weeks, when it becomes even more central to our lives. Many facets of human life -- work, school, banking, shopping, flirting, live music, government services, chats with friends, calls to aging parents -- have moved online in this era of social distancing, all without breaking the network. It has groaned here and there, as anyone who has struggled through a glitchy video conference knows, but it has not failed. "Resiliency and redundancy are very much a part of the Internet design," explained Cerf, whose passion for touting the wonders of computer networking prompted Google in 2005 to name him its "Chief Internet Evangelist," a title he still holds. Comcast, the nation's largest source of residential internet, serving more than 26 million homes, reports that peak traffic was up by nearly one third in March, with some areas reaching as high as 60% above normal. Demand for online voice, video and VPN connections -- all staples of remote work - have surged, and peak usage hours have shifted from evenings, when people typically stream video for entertainment, to daytime work hours. Concerns about such shifting demands prompted European officials to request downgrades in video streaming quality from major services such as Netflix and YouTube, and there have been some localized internet outages and other problems, including the breakage of a key transmission cable running down the West coast of Africa -- an incident with no connection to the coronavirus pandemic. Heavier use of home WiFi also has revealed frustrating limits to those networks. But so far internet industry officials report that they've been able to manage the shifting loads and surges. To a substantial extent, the network has managed them automatically because its underlying protocols adapt to shifting conditions, working around trouble spots to find more efficient routes for data transmissions and managing glitches in a way that doesn't break connections entirely. Some credit goes to Comcast, Google and the other giant, well-resourced corporations essential to the internet's operation today. But perhaps even more goes to the seminal engineers and scientists like Cerf, who for decades worked to create a particular kind of global network -- open, efficient, resilient and highly interoperable so anyone could join and nobody needed to be in charge. "They're deservedly taking a bit of a moment for a high five right now," said Jason Livingood, a Comcast vice president who has briefed some members of the internet's founding generation about how the company has been handling increased demands. Cerf was a driving force in developing key internet protocols in the 1970s, while working for Stanford University and, later, the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which provided key early research funding but ultimately relinquished control of the network it spawned. He also was among a gang of self-described "Netheads" who led an insurgency against the dominant forces in telecommunications at the time, dubbed the "Bellheads" for their loyalty to the Bell Telephone Company and its legacy technologies. Bell, which dominated U.S. telephone service until it was broken up in the 1980s, and the similar monopolies in other countries wanted to connect computers through a system much like their lucrative telephone systems, with fixed networks of connections run by central entities that could make all of the major technological decisions, control access and charge whatever the market - or government regulators - would allow. The vision of the Netheads was comparatively anarchic, relying on a few key technological insights and a lot of faith in collaboration. The result was a network - or really, a network of networks - with no chief executive, no police, no taxman and no laws. In their place were technical protocols, arrived at through a process for developing expert consensus, that offered anyone access to the digital world, from any properly configured device. Their numbers, once measured in the dozens, now rank in the tens of billions, including phones, televisions, cars, dams, drones, satellites, thermometers, garbage cans, refrigerators, watches and so much more. This Netheads' idea of a globe-spanning network that no single company or government controlled goes a long way toward explaining why an Indonesian shopkeeper with a phone made in China can log onto an American social network to chat -- face to face and almost instantaneously -- with her friend in Nigeria. That capability still exists, even as much of the world has banned or restricted international travel. "You're seeing a success story right now," said David Clark, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology computer scientist who worked on early internet protocols, speaking by the videoconferencing service Zoom. "If we didn't have the internet, we'd be in an incredibly different place right now. What if this had happened in the 1980s?" Such a system carries a notable cost in terms of security and privacy, a fact the world rediscovers every time there's a major data breach, ransomware attack or controversy over the amount of information governments and private companies collect about anyone who's online - a category that includes more than half of the world's almost 8 billion people. But the lack of a central authority is key to why the Internet works as well as it does, especially at times of unforeseen demands. Some of the early internet architects -- Cerf among them, from his position at the Pentagon -- were determined to design a system that could continue operating through almost anything, including a nuclear attack from the Soviets. That's one reason the system doesn't have any preferred path from Point A to Point B. It continuously calculates and recalculates the best route, and if something in the middle fails, the computers that calculate transmission paths find new routes - without having to ask anyone's permission to do so. Steve Crocker, a networking pioneer like Cerf, compared this quality to that of a sponge, an organism whose functions are so widely distributed that breaking one part does not typically cause the entire organism to die. "You can do damage to a portion of it, and the rest of it just lumbers forward," Crocker said, also speaking by Zoom. Even more elementally, the Netheads believed in an innovation called "packet-switching," which broke from the telephone company's traditional model, called "circuit switching," that dedicated a line to a single conversation and left it open until the participants hung up. The Netheads considered that terribly wasteful given that any conversation includes pauses or gaps that could be used to transmit data. Instead, they embraced a model in which all communications were broken into chunks, called packets, that continuously shuttled back and forth over shared lines, without pauses. The computers at either end of these connections reassembled the packets into whatever they started as - emails, photos, articles or video - but the network itself didn't know or care what it was carrying. It just moved the packets around and let the recipient devices figure out what to do. That simplicity, almost an intentional brainlessness at the Internet's most fundamental level, is a key to its adaptability. As many others have said, it's just a web of highways that everyone can use for almost any purpose they desire. Many of the internet's founding generation have memories of trying to convince various Bellheads that packet-switching was the inevitable future of telecommunications - cheaper, faster, easier to scale and vastly more efficient and adaptable. Those anecdotes all end the same way, with the telephone company titans of the day essentially treating the Netheads as precocious but fundamentally misguided children who, some day, might understand how telecommunications technology really worked. And several acknowledged they celebrated just a bit when the telephone companies gradually abandoned old-fashioned circuit-switching for what was called "Voice Over IP" or VoIP. It was essentially transmitting voice calls over the internet - using the same technical protocols that Cerf and others had developed decades earlier. Leonard Kleinrock, one of three scientists credited with inventing the concept of packet switching in the 1960s, also was present for the first transmission on the rudimentary network that would, years later, become the Internet. That was Oct. 29, 1969, and Kleinrock was a computer scientist at the University of California at Los Angeles. A student programmer tried to send the message "login" to a computer more than 300 miles away, at the Stanford Research Institute, but only got as far as the first two letters - "L" and "O" - before the connection crashed. Retelling the story by phone, over a line using the internet's packet-switching technology instead of the one long preferred by the "Bellheads," he recalled his own experience in trying to convince some phone company executives that he had discovered a technology that would change the world. "They said, 'Little boy, go away,'" Kleinrock said. "So we went away." And now, Kleinrock, 85 and staying home to minimize the risk of catching the coronavirus, and enjoying that his home internet connection is 2,000 times faster than the phone-booth sized communications device that internet pioneers used in 1969. "The network," he said, "has been able to adapt in a beautiful way." https://www.nationthailand.com/edandtech/30385513 -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True http://geoff.livejournal.com From geoff at iconia.com Tue Apr 7 21:02:18 2020 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 18:02:18 -1000 Subject: [ih] ETSI group sets out to define alternative to TCP/IP for 5G Message-ID: ETSI created a new Industry Specification Group (ISG) designed to find alternative technologies to the 1970s-era TCP/IP-based networking protocols deemed inadequate for today?s 5G networks. The group intends to develop standards that, when all is said and done, should lead to more efficient use of spectrum, better security and lower latency. Asked about implications for current remote work and learning triggered by the COVID-19 crisis, ISG Chair John Grant said via email that it will provide a better service for applications such as video conferencing and remote medicine, avoiding delays and drop-outs. According to ETSI, with the increasing challenges placed on modern networks to support new use cases and greater connectivity, service providers are looking for candidate technologies that may serve their needs better than the TCP/IP-based networking used in current systems. In 2015, several mobile operators identified problems with the TCP/IP-based technology used in 4G. These included the complex and inefficient use of spectrum resulting from adding mobility, security, quality-of-service, and other features to a protocol that was never designed for them, ETSI explained in a press release . *TCP/IP-based technology was originally designed for communication between mainframe computers and to allow people with teletype and similar terminals to run programs on them, according to Grant.* ?Computers were identified by their point of attachment to the network, which never changed, whereas mobile devices move from cell to cell; this means packets have to carry one set of addressing that identifies the device and another that identifies its point of attachment,? he said. ?Security wasn't an issue, because only trusted people had access to the terminals. Quality-of-service is mainly an issue for traffic such as audio and video, which the communication links (and the computers) were too slow to carry.? ETSI expects the work of the new group will be applicable initially to private mobile networks such as factory automation and then expanded to public systems, both in the core network and eventually, end-to-end, including the radio elements. First on the group?s agenda will be a report detailing the shortcomings of TCP/IP and how the new alternative system would overcome those shortcomings. The group also plans to work on specifying how the new technologies will form the basis of the new protocols, as well as creating a framework for testing the efficiency and effectiveness of the new protocols, including over radio. https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/etsi-group-sets-out-to-define-alternative-to-tcp-ip-for-5g -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True http://geoff.livejournal.com From cabo at tzi.org Tue Apr 7 21:55:29 2020 From: cabo at tzi.org (Carsten Bormann) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 06:55:29 +0200 Subject: [ih] ETSI group sets out to define alternative to TCP/IP for 5G In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5500D984-0B8E-4B3F-9141-730AB78E92E1@tzi.org> ? and you can find one thoughtful piece of discussion from the IETF chair at the unlikely place of https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1677/ Somehow I don?t think we will talk about this effort in 50 years... Gr??e, Carsten From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Thu Apr 9 13:36:09 2020 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 16:36:09 -0400 Subject: [ih] ETSI group sets out to define alternative to TCP/IP for 5G In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ah yes.. promising a return to a world of closed telco networks & walled gardens.? Like that's a good idea. Miles Fidelman On 4/8/20 12:02 AM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history wrote: > ETSI created a new Industry Specification Group (ISG) designed to find > alternative technologies to the 1970s-era TCP/IP-based networking protocols > deemed inadequate for today?s 5G networks. > > The group intends to develop standards that, when all is said and done, > should lead to more efficient use of spectrum, better security and lower > latency. > > Asked about implications for current remote work and learning triggered by > the COVID-19 crisis, ISG Chair John Grant said via email that it will > provide a better service for applications such as video conferencing and > remote medicine, avoiding delays and drop-outs. > > According to ETSI, with the increasing challenges placed on modern networks > to support new use cases and greater connectivity, service providers are > looking for candidate technologies that may serve their needs better than > the TCP/IP-based networking used in current systems. > > In 2015, several mobile operators identified problems with the TCP/IP-based > technology used in 4G. These included the complex and inefficient use of > spectrum resulting from adding mobility, security, quality-of-service, and > other features to a protocol that was never designed for them, ETSI > explained in a press release > > . > > *TCP/IP-based technology was originally designed for communication between > mainframe computers and to allow people with teletype and similar terminals > to run programs on them, according to Grant.* > > ?Computers were identified by their point of attachment to the network, > which never changed, whereas mobile devices move from cell to cell; this > means packets have to carry one set of addressing that identifies the > device and another that identifies its point of attachment,? he said. > ?Security wasn't an issue, because only trusted people had access to the > terminals. Quality-of-service is mainly an issue for traffic such as audio > and video, which the communication links (and the computers) were too slow > to carry.? > > ETSI expects the work of the new group will be applicable initially to > private mobile networks such as factory automation and then expanded to > public systems, both in the core network and eventually, end-to-end, > including the radio elements. > > First on the group?s agenda will be a report detailing the shortcomings of > TCP/IP and how the new alternative system would overcome those > shortcomings. The group also plans to work on specifying how the new > technologies will form the basis of the new protocols, as well as creating > a framework for testing the efficiency and effectiveness of the new > protocols, including over radio. > > https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/etsi-group-sets-out-to-define-alternative-to-tcp-ip-for-5g > -- 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 vgcerf at gmail.com Sun Apr 12 09:41:05 2020 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 12:41:05 -0400 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" Message-ID: I asked Jeff Rulifson if he could help us figure out when "hyperlink" entered into usage. Jeff was the principal programmer for Douglas Engelbart's NLS editing system in which such links were introduced. Ted Nelson coined terms like "hypertext" in his Xanadu concept - the two were contemporary in the 1960s. Here is Jeff's response: Vannevar Bush, (Atlantic Monthly, July 1945, p 107) introduces the idea of "associative indexing, the basic idea of which is a provision whereby any item may be caused at will to select immediately and automatically another." Bush goes on to discuss the idea of a named trail of such associations. Engelbart's contemporaneous handwritten marginal notes in his copy of the magazine call such a trail "links". The Computer History Museum has a photocopy of Doug's personal copy with his handwritten marginal notes. (I have a TIFF of their copy.) By the time of the 1968 demo, I had fully implemented links. I used a very general implementation. A link had two parts: the name of a document and a search command. The named document could be the current document or any other document available for searching. The search command was a regular expression. Users could make their links very simple or extremely sophisticated. As far as I know, this was the first general implementation. In 1965, Ted Nelson had coined the term hypertext but never had an implementation. I believe he used the term links but I cannot find the paper for verification. By 1967, not knowing about Nelson or Engelbart, Andy van Dam had built a system called HES. Andy's system had the notion of links and they were called "links". (See http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/4/1/000081/000081.html) Bush published the idea in 1945. Engelbart named the idea "links" about 1945 but did not tell anyone. Andy used links in a line editor in 1967 and I implemented a general version in 1968. Up till then, they were called links. When was "hyper" added as a prefix? The article at https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/seeing-what-others-dont/201801/the-invention-hyperlinks claims Ben Shneiderman invented them in 1988 and implies Shneiderman coined the term. You can see more of Shneiderman's claims at http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/hyperties/. Shneiderman added the prefix "hyper" 43 years after Doug named associative indexing "links" and 20 years after my implementation. The article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink#History attributes the term hyperlinks to Nelson in 1965. But, to my knowledge, Nelson used the term "links" at that time. My bet would be that hyper was added between 1980 and 1987. Maybe it was a journalist and we will never know. Jeff ------- Also: [image: Bush with Engelbart Annotation.png] From touch at strayalpha.com Sun Apr 12 09:50:06 2020 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joseph Touch) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 09:50:06 -0700 Subject: [ih] Reminder about list post size Message-ID: Hi, all, Please note that this list is currently limited to 400KB posts. The size is intended to support most typed and included posts but is NOT intended as a way to post archival material. That info should be posted elsewhere and cited if possible. We unfortunately don?t have the space for arbitrary large posts and do not currently have a repository archive. Joe (as list admin) From steve at shinkuro.com Sun Apr 12 09:54:06 2020 From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 12:54:06 -0400 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jeff and Vint, Thanks for this very informative dialog. One small question about a date: > Bush published the idea in 1945. Engelbart named the idea "links" about > 1945 but did not tell anyone. Was it really 1945 when Engelbart names the idea ?links?? I?m guessing this was an unintended typo. Steve Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 12, 2020, at 12:45 PM, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: > > ?I asked Jeff Rulifson if he could help us figure out when "hyperlink" > entered into usage. Jeff was the principal programmer for Douglas > Engelbart's NLS editing system in which such links were introduced. Ted > Nelson coined terms like "hypertext" in his Xanadu concept - the two were > contemporary in the 1960s. > > Here is Jeff's response: > > Vannevar Bush, (Atlantic Monthly, July 1945, p 107) introduces the idea of > "associative indexing, the basic idea of which is a provision whereby any > item may be caused at will to select immediately and automatically > another." Bush goes on to discuss the idea of a named trail of such > associations. Engelbart's contemporaneous handwritten marginal notes in his > copy of the magazine call such a trail "links". The Computer History Museum > has a photocopy of Doug's personal copy with his handwritten marginal > notes. (I have a TIFF of their copy.) > > By the time of the 1968 demo, I had fully implemented links. I used a very > general implementation. A link had two parts: the name of a document and a > search command. The named document could be the current document or any > other document available for searching. The search command was a regular > expression. Users could make their links very simple or extremely > sophisticated. As far as I know, this was the first general implementation. > > In 1965, Ted Nelson had coined the term hypertext but never had an > implementation. I believe he used the term links but I cannot find the > paper for verification. > > By 1967, not knowing about Nelson or Engelbart, Andy van Dam had built a > system called HES. Andy's system had the notion of links and they were > called "links". (See > http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/4/1/000081/000081.html) > > Bush published the idea in 1945. Engelbart named the idea "links" about > 1945 but did not tell anyone. Andy used links in a line editor in 1967 and > I implemented a general version in 1968. Up till then, they were called > links. > > When was "hyper" added as a prefix? > > The article at > https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/seeing-what-others-dont/201801/the-invention-hyperlinks > claims Ben Shneiderman invented them in 1988 and implies Shneiderman coined > the term. You can see more of Shneiderman's claims at > http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/hyperties/. Shneiderman added the prefix "hyper" > 43 years after Doug named associative indexing "links" and 20 years after > my implementation. > > The article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink#History attributes > the term hyperlinks to Nelson in 1965. But, to my knowledge, Nelson used > the term "links" at that time. > > My bet would be that hyper was added between 1980 and 1987. Maybe it was a > journalist and we will never know. > > Jeff > > > ------- > > Also: > [image: Bush with Engelbart Annotation.png] > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From ehs at pobox.com Sun Apr 12 11:04:27 2020 From: ehs at pobox.com (Edward Summers) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 14:04:27 -0400 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <72DDCAD4-5C3E-4335-8481-CE3B444D04B3@pobox.com> > On Apr 12, 2020, at 12:41 PM, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: > > Here is Jeff's response: > > Vannevar Bush, (Atlantic Monthly, July 1945, p 107) introduces the idea of > "associative indexing, the basic idea of which is a provision whereby any > item may be caused at will to select immediately and automatically > another." Bush goes on to discuss the idea of a named trail of such > associations. Engelbart's contemporaneous handwritten marginal notes in his > copy of the magazine call such a trail "links". The Computer History Museum > has a photocopy of Doug's personal copy with his handwritten marginal > notes. (I have a TIFF of their copy.) It's more than just a bit poetic that a Google Image search for "vannevar engelbart as we may think scan" leads to Engelbart's own website, that has a scan as well: https://www.dougengelbart.org/archives/artifacts/annotated-As-We-May-Think-withcredits.pdf The resolution unfortunately isn't the best. But it is good enough to see Engelbart's annotations. I tried to find one mentioning "link" when trails were being discussed. The best candidate I could find was in the second paragraph on the right side of p. 107. But he uses the "list" instead of "link". If Jeff or anyone can make a higher resolution copy of it available it be amazing to see it! //Ed From darius.kazemi at gmail.com Sun Apr 12 11:20:04 2020 From: darius.kazemi at gmail.com (Darius Kazemi) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 11:20:04 -0700 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I got curious and started with a google books ngram search, then started combing through individual records provided with their context. I made sure to filter for noise -- there are a lot of books indexed that are 1990+ editions of earlier books that contain the term "hyperlink" in the additional notes. This DTIC report on on a hypertext project from 1987 does NOT use the term "hyperlink", only "link": https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA188179/page/n3/mode/2up/search/%22knowledge+garden%22?q=%22knowledge+garden%22 The earliest *published* mentions I can find are from 1988. "PC AI" trade publication mentions hyperlinks and linked documents. https://books.google.com/books?id=dKYdAQAAIAAJ&q=%22hyperlink%22&dq=%22hyperlink%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib6Omgt-PoAhXUFjQIHSPKDucQ6AEwAnoECAIQAg PC Magazine in December 1988 mentions a linked document product suite called PC-Hypertext from a company called MaxThink, which had an entire program called HyperLink: https://archive.org/details/PC-Mag-1988-12-13/page/n151/mode/2up/search/maxthink THE FINAL LINK HyperLink is not so > much a single product as it is a combina- > tion of related utilities. This $89 module > has programs that let you move MaxThink > and Houdini networks into hypertext net- > works. Since the PC-Hypertext system is > designed to connect separate files, Hyper- > Link has a utility that automatically divides > a large text file into many smaller ones. > Another program creates cross-reference > lists for each file and then combines them > into one long list. > > HyperLink also includes an ENCODE > program, which compiles text files into a > hypertext system that can be used with PC- > Hypertext. All jumps ate established by > placing a filename between the left and > right angle brackets. The files used by EN- > CODE can be created with any editor ca- > pable of writing ASCII files. HyperLink > even includes a utility designed to make a > mini-expert system out of a hypertext net- > work. > > Possible asides and dead ends: There is a concept in graph theory called a "hypergraph" and I found a 1977 paper that uses the term "hyperlink" in a discussion of a data structure for a database system built around the hypergraph. I'm unsure if there is a direct connection with the hypertext terminology but since it's a computer science paper I thought I'd include it. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-48908-2_3 HyperLink magazine was a publication dedicated to HyperCard development, which is far as I can tell began publication in 1987 around the same time as HyperCard was released. Whether this was an intentional play on an already-established concept of a hyperlink or if it merely was for "linking up" HyperCard developers, I can't say. I'm also finding some commercial product naming, like "hyperlink" referring to a special kind of networking interface here: https://books.google.com/books?id=Cc4EAQAAIAAJ&q=%22hyperlink%22&dq=%22hyperlink%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib6Omgt-PoAhXUFjQIHSPKDucQ6AEwBnoECAcQAg My conclusion: It seems that in 1987-1988, "hyper" was a popular prefix to attach to anything to make it seem more "techie", like "cyber-" was for some years in the 1990s. There was a general flowering of things called hyper-[noun] in those two years. This of course matches up roughly with the invention of the WWW in 1989. The idea that "hyperlink" was coined by Ben Shneidermanin 1988 seems wholly plausible to me! At least I can find nothing to contradict the claim. My guess is that multiple people independently coined "hyperlink" in 1988, including whoever was working at MaxThink on their HyperLink product in 1988. -Darius On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 9:54 AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Jeff and Vint, > > Thanks for this very informative dialog. One small question about a date: > > > Bush published the idea in 1945. Engelbart named the idea "links" about > > 1945 but did not tell anyone. > > Was it really 1945 when Engelbart names the idea ?links?? I?m guessing > this was an unintended typo. > > Steve > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Apr 12, 2020, at 12:45 PM, vinton cerf via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > ?I asked Jeff Rulifson if he could help us figure out when "hyperlink" > > entered into usage. Jeff was the principal programmer for Douglas > > Engelbart's NLS editing system in which such links were introduced. Ted > > Nelson coined terms like "hypertext" in his Xanadu concept - the two were > > contemporary in the 1960s. > > > > Here is Jeff's response: > > > > Vannevar Bush, (Atlantic Monthly, July 1945, p 107) introduces the idea > of > > "associative indexing, the basic idea of which is a provision whereby any > > item may be caused at will to select immediately and automatically > > another." Bush goes on to discuss the idea of a named trail of such > > associations. Engelbart's contemporaneous handwritten marginal notes in > his > > copy of the magazine call such a trail "links". The Computer History > Museum > > has a photocopy of Doug's personal copy with his handwritten marginal > > notes. (I have a TIFF of their copy.) > > > > By the time of the 1968 demo, I had fully implemented links. I used a > very > > general implementation. A link had two parts: the name of a document and > a > > search command. The named document could be the current document or any > > other document available for searching. The search command was a regular > > expression. Users could make their links very simple or extremely > > sophisticated. As far as I know, this was the first general > implementation. > > > > In 1965, Ted Nelson had coined the term hypertext but never had an > > implementation. I believe he used the term links but I cannot find the > > paper for verification. > > > > By 1967, not knowing about Nelson or Engelbart, Andy van Dam had built a > > system called HES. Andy's system had the notion of links and they were > > called "links". (See > > http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/4/1/000081/000081.html) > > > > Bush published the idea in 1945. Engelbart named the idea "links" about > > 1945 but did not tell anyone. Andy used links in a line editor in 1967 > and > > I implemented a general version in 1968. Up till then, they were called > > links. > > > > When was "hyper" added as a prefix? > > > > The article at > > > https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/seeing-what-others-dont/201801/the-invention-hyperlinks > > claims Ben Shneiderman invented them in 1988 and implies Shneiderman > coined > > the term. You can see more of Shneiderman's claims at > > http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/hyperties/. Shneiderman added the prefix > "hyper" > > 43 years after Doug named associative indexing "links" and 20 years after > > my implementation. > > > > The article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink#History > attributes > > the term hyperlinks to Nelson in 1965. But, to my knowledge, Nelson used > > the term "links" at that time. > > > > My bet would be that hyper was added between 1980 and 1987. Maybe it was > a > > journalist and we will never know. > > > > Jeff > > > > > > ------- > > > > Also: > > [image: Bush with Engelbart Annotation.png] > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Sun Apr 12 13:59:13 2020 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 08:59:13 +1200 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ac9450e-a93b-32ad-f644-0bd02aff7836@gmail.com> fwiw, Tim Berners-Lee's original WWW proposal in 1989 used "hypertext" and used the word "link" extensively, but did not use "hyperlink". Tim knew the literature; you can see his references at the end of his original proposal. The 1990 version: https://cds.cern.ch/record/369245/files/dd-89-001.pdf The original 1989 version with scribbled comments by Mike Sendall: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1405411/files/ARCH-WWW-4-010.pdf So assuming the term was indeed coined in 1988, it wasn't widely known by 1989. Regards Brian Carpenter On 13-Apr-20 06:20, Darius Kazemi via Internet-history wrote: > I got curious and started with a google books ngram search, then started > combing through individual records provided with their context. I made sure > to filter for noise -- there are a lot of books indexed that are 1990+ > editions of earlier books that contain the term "hyperlink" in the > additional notes. > > This DTIC report on on a hypertext project from 1987 does NOT use the term > "hyperlink", only "link": > https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA188179/page/n3/mode/2up/search/%22knowledge+garden%22?q=%22knowledge+garden%22 > > The earliest *published* mentions I can find are from 1988. > > "PC AI" trade publication mentions hyperlinks and linked documents. > https://books.google.com/books?id=dKYdAQAAIAAJ&q=%22hyperlink%22&dq=%22hyperlink%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib6Omgt-PoAhXUFjQIHSPKDucQ6AEwAnoECAIQAg > > PC Magazine in December 1988 mentions a linked document product suite > called PC-Hypertext from a company called MaxThink, which had an entire > program called HyperLink: > https://archive.org/details/PC-Mag-1988-12-13/page/n151/mode/2up/search/maxthink > > THE FINAL LINK HyperLink is not so >> much a single product as it is a combina- >> tion of related utilities. This $89 module >> has programs that let you move MaxThink >> and Houdini networks into hypertext net- >> works. Since the PC-Hypertext system is >> designed to connect separate files, Hyper- >> Link has a utility that automatically divides >> a large text file into many smaller ones. >> Another program creates cross-reference >> lists for each file and then combines them >> into one long list. >> >> HyperLink also includes an ENCODE >> program, which compiles text files into a >> hypertext system that can be used with PC- >> Hypertext. All jumps ate established by >> placing a filename between the left and >> right angle brackets. The files used by EN- >> CODE can be created with any editor ca- >> pable of writing ASCII files. HyperLink >> even includes a utility designed to make a >> mini-expert system out of a hypertext net- >> work. >> >> > Possible asides and dead ends: > > There is a concept in graph theory called a "hypergraph" and I found a 1977 > paper that uses the term "hyperlink" in a discussion of a data structure > for a database system built around the hypergraph. I'm unsure if there is a > direct connection with the hypertext terminology but since it's a computer > science paper I thought I'd include it. > https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-48908-2_3 > > HyperLink magazine was a publication dedicated to HyperCard development, > which is far as I can tell began publication in 1987 around the same time > as HyperCard was released. Whether this was an intentional play on an > already-established concept of a hyperlink or if it merely was for "linking > up" HyperCard developers, I can't say. > > I'm also finding some commercial product naming, like "hyperlink" referring > to a special kind of networking interface here: > https://books.google.com/books?id=Cc4EAQAAIAAJ&q=%22hyperlink%22&dq=%22hyperlink%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib6Omgt-PoAhXUFjQIHSPKDucQ6AEwBnoECAcQAg > > My conclusion: > > It seems that in 1987-1988, "hyper" was a popular prefix to attach to > anything to make it seem more "techie", like "cyber-" was for some years in > the 1990s. There was a general flowering of things called hyper-[noun] in > those two years. This of course matches up roughly with the invention of > the WWW in 1989. The idea that "hyperlink" was coined by Ben Shneidermanin > 1988 seems wholly plausible to me! At least I can find nothing to > contradict the claim. My guess is that multiple people independently coined > "hyperlink" in 1988, including whoever was working at MaxThink on their > HyperLink product in 1988. > > -Darius > > On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 9:54 AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> Jeff and Vint, >> >> Thanks for this very informative dialog. One small question about a date: >> >>> Bush published the idea in 1945. Engelbart named the idea "links" about >>> 1945 but did not tell anyone. >> >> Was it really 1945 when Engelbart names the idea ?links?? I?m guessing >> this was an unintended typo. >> >> Steve >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Apr 12, 2020, at 12:45 PM, vinton cerf via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>> >>> ?I asked Jeff Rulifson if he could help us figure out when "hyperlink" >>> entered into usage. Jeff was the principal programmer for Douglas >>> Engelbart's NLS editing system in which such links were introduced. Ted >>> Nelson coined terms like "hypertext" in his Xanadu concept - the two were >>> contemporary in the 1960s. >>> >>> Here is Jeff's response: >>> >>> Vannevar Bush, (Atlantic Monthly, July 1945, p 107) introduces the idea >> of >>> "associative indexing, the basic idea of which is a provision whereby any >>> item may be caused at will to select immediately and automatically >>> another." Bush goes on to discuss the idea of a named trail of such >>> associations. Engelbart's contemporaneous handwritten marginal notes in >> his >>> copy of the magazine call such a trail "links". The Computer History >> Museum >>> has a photocopy of Doug's personal copy with his handwritten marginal >>> notes. (I have a TIFF of their copy.) >>> >>> By the time of the 1968 demo, I had fully implemented links. I used a >> very >>> general implementation. A link had two parts: the name of a document and >> a >>> search command. The named document could be the current document or any >>> other document available for searching. The search command was a regular >>> expression. Users could make their links very simple or extremely >>> sophisticated. As far as I know, this was the first general >> implementation. >>> >>> In 1965, Ted Nelson had coined the term hypertext but never had an >>> implementation. I believe he used the term links but I cannot find the >>> paper for verification. >>> >>> By 1967, not knowing about Nelson or Engelbart, Andy van Dam had built a >>> system called HES. Andy's system had the notion of links and they were >>> called "links". (See >>> http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/4/1/000081/000081.html) >>> >>> Bush published the idea in 1945. Engelbart named the idea "links" about >>> 1945 but did not tell anyone. Andy used links in a line editor in 1967 >> and >>> I implemented a general version in 1968. Up till then, they were called >>> links. >>> >>> When was "hyper" added as a prefix? >>> >>> The article at >>> >> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/seeing-what-others-dont/201801/the-invention-hyperlinks >>> claims Ben Shneiderman invented them in 1988 and implies Shneiderman >> coined >>> the term. You can see more of Shneiderman's claims at >>> http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/hyperties/. Shneiderman added the prefix >> "hyper" >>> 43 years after Doug named associative indexing "links" and 20 years after >>> my implementation. >>> >>> The article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink#History >> attributes >>> the term hyperlinks to Nelson in 1965. But, to my knowledge, Nelson used >>> the term "links" at that time. >>> >>> My bet would be that hyper was added between 1980 and 1987. Maybe it was >> a >>> journalist and we will never know. >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> >>> ------- >>> >>> Also: >>> [image: Bush with Engelbart Annotation.png] >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> From touch at strayalpha.com Sun Apr 12 16:32:03 2020 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joseph Touch) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 16:32:03 -0700 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" In-Reply-To: <7ac9450e-a93b-32ad-f644-0bd02aff7836@gmail.com> References: <7ac9450e-a93b-32ad-f644-0bd02aff7836@gmail.com> Message-ID: <55D37F65-DB61-456D-93AE-FE6487F86564@strayalpha.com> Hi all, Is there any ref back to Apple?s Hypercard (1985) or the CD-ROM navigation links? Joe From sob at sobco.com Sun Apr 12 16:39:54 2020 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 19:39:54 -0400 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" In-Reply-To: <55D37F65-DB61-456D-93AE-FE6487F86564@strayalpha.com> References: <7ac9450e-a93b-32ad-f644-0bd02aff7836@gmail.com> <55D37F65-DB61-456D-93AE-FE6487F86564@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: Danny Goodman's 1987 book - The Complete Hypercard Handbook - does not list "hyperlink" in its index so I would guess not Scott > On Apr 12, 2020, at 7:32 PM, Joseph Touch via Internet-history wrote: > > Hi all, > > Is there any ref back to Apple?s Hypercard (1985) or the CD-ROM navigation links? > > Joe > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From darius.kazemi at gmail.com Sun Apr 12 16:41:15 2020 From: darius.kazemi at gmail.com (Darius Kazemi) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 16:41:15 -0700 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" In-Reply-To: References: <7ac9450e-a93b-32ad-f644-0bd02aff7836@gmail.com> <55D37F65-DB61-456D-93AE-FE6487F86564@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: Correct. I still make things in HyperCard and it's not part of the official lexicon of HyperCard or the HyperTalk programming language. On Sun, Apr 12, 2020, 4:40 PM Scott O. Bradner via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Danny Goodman's 1987 book - The Complete Hypercard Handbook - does not > list "hyperlink" in its index > > so I would guess not > > Scott > > > On Apr 12, 2020, at 7:32 PM, Joseph Touch via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Is there any ref back to Apple?s Hypercard (1985) or the CD-ROM > navigation links? > > > > Joe > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From ocl at gih.com Sun Apr 12 23:51:39 2020 From: ocl at gih.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=c3=a9pin-Leblond?=) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 08:51:39 +0200 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" In-Reply-To: References: <7ac9450e-a93b-32ad-f644-0bd02aff7836@gmail.com> <55D37F65-DB61-456D-93AE-FE6487F86564@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: <97a00289-c72d-1526-c506-bcce67fe056c@gih.com> The Wikipedia page for HyperCard contains interesting, if surprising information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperCard As usual with Wikipedia articles, Caveat Emptor. Kindest regards, Olivier On 13/04/2020 01:39, Scott O. Bradner via Internet-history wrote: > Danny Goodman's 1987 book - The Complete Hypercard Handbook - does not list "hyperlink" in its index > > so I would guess not > > Scott > >> On Apr 12, 2020, at 7:32 PM, Joseph Touch via Internet-history wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Is there any ref back to Apple?s Hypercard (1985) or the CD-ROM navigation links? >> >> Joe >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html From joly at punkcast.com Mon Apr 13 01:40:22 2020 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 04:40:22 -0400 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" In-Reply-To: <97a00289-c72d-1526-c506-bcce67fe056c@gih.com> References: <7ac9450e-a93b-32ad-f644-0bd02aff7836@gmail.com> <55D37F65-DB61-456D-93AE-FE6487F86564@strayalpha.com> <97a00289-c72d-1526-c506-bcce67fe056c@gih.com> Message-ID: Following up on Olivier's Wikipedia, um, hyperlink, one reaches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink#History If anything contrary is discovered here hopefully that might be updated according joly On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 2:51 AM Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond via Internet-history wrote: > The Wikipedia page for HyperCard contains interesting, if surprising > information. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperCard > > As usual with Wikipedia articles, Caveat Emptor. > Kindest regards, > > Olivier > > On 13/04/2020 01:39, Scott O. Bradner via Internet-history wrote: > > Danny Goodman's 1987 book - The Complete Hypercard Handbook - does not > list "hyperlink" in its index > > > > so I would guess not > > > > Scott > > > >> On Apr 12, 2020, at 7:32 PM, Joseph Touch via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Is there any ref back to Apple?s Hypercard (1985) or the CD-ROM > navigation links? > >> > >> Joe > >> -- > >> Internet-history mailing list > >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +2185659365 -------------------------------------- - From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Mon Apr 13 02:03:02 2020 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian Carpenter) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 21:03:02 +1200 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" In-Reply-To: References: <7ac9450e-a93b-32ad-f644-0bd02aff7836@gmail.com> <55D37F65-DB61-456D-93AE-FE6487F86564@strayalpha.com> <97a00289-c72d-1526-c506-bcce67fe056c@gih.com> Message-ID: That Wikipedia entry doesn't persuade me that the literal string "hyperlink" dates back to the 1960s. And it's otherwise sloppy: "HyperTIES was used to produce the world's first electronic journal, the July 1988 Communications of ACM, which was cited as the source for the link concept in Tim Berners-Lee 's Spring 1989 manifesto for the Web." No, Tim knew all about (hyper)links in 1980 - I was there & used the original Enquire. Regards Brian (via tiny screen & keyboard) On Mon, 13 Apr 2020, 20:42 Joly MacFie via Internet-history, < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Following up on Olivier's Wikipedia, um, hyperlink, one reaches > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink#History > > If anything contrary is discovered here hopefully that might be updated > according > > joly > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 2:51 AM Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond via > Internet-history wrote: > > > The Wikipedia page for HyperCard contains interesting, if surprising > > information. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperCard > > > > As usual with Wikipedia articles, Caveat Emptor. > > Kindest regards, > > > > Olivier > > > > On 13/04/2020 01:39, Scott O. Bradner via Internet-history wrote: > > > Danny Goodman's 1987 book - The Complete Hypercard Handbook - does not > > list "hyperlink" in its index > > > > > > so I would guess not > > > > > > Scott > > > > > >> On Apr 12, 2020, at 7:32 PM, Joseph Touch via Internet-history < > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > >> Is there any ref back to Apple?s Hypercard (1985) or the CD-ROM > > navigation links? > > >> > > >> Joe > > >> -- > > >> Internet-history mailing list > > >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > -- > > Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD > > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > > -- > -------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie +2185659365 > -------------------------------------- > - > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From j at shoch.com Mon Apr 13 10:33:48 2020 From: j at shoch.com (John Shoch) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 10:33:48 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 7, Issue 9 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 1. As with the battle over "email" there will be lots of different questions to dis-entangle here: --What exactly is a hyper-link? [Is a cross reference between 4000-year-old Egyptian tablets a non-clickable hyper-link? An early example of a hyper-link, or a pre-cursor to a hyper-link?] --Who "invented" the "idea" of hyper-links? --Who first published a description of hyper-links? --Who first used the word "hyper-links" in any other context? --Who first used the word "hyper-links" in our context? --Who first implemented the idea of hyper-links (by any name)? --Who first implemented the idea of hyper-links, and used that name? --Who actually deployed the most systems with hyper-links, and won the market share or PR battle? --etc. --etc. 2. My friends at the Computer History Museum have taught me that one needs to be very precise in choosing the question. I have taken the liberty of asking folks at the CHN to weigh in.....hope to hear from them..... John Shoch On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 11:20 AM wrote: > Send Internet-history mailing list submissions to > internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > internet-history-owner at elists.isoc.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Internet-history digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. origins of the term "hyperlink" (vinton cerf) > 2. Reminder about list post size (Joseph Touch) > 3. Re: origins of the term "hyperlink" (Steve Crocker) > 4. Re: origins of the term "hyperlink" (Edward Summers) > 5. Re: origins of the term "hyperlink" (Darius Kazemi) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 12:41:05 -0400 > From: vinton cerf > To: internet-history > Cc: Jeff Rulifson > Subject: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" > Message-ID: > < > CAAFtm_WGbcPUVC53NsKLE0q51ih_4++unJgBaT3LgMBOMjTN7A at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > I asked Jeff Rulifson if he could help us figure out when "hyperlink" > entered into usage. Jeff was the principal programmer for Douglas > Engelbart's NLS editing system in which such links were introduced. Ted > Nelson coined terms like "hypertext" in his Xanadu concept - the two were > contemporary in the 1960s. > > Here is Jeff's response: > > Vannevar Bush, (Atlantic Monthly, July 1945, p 107) introduces the idea of > "associative indexing, the basic idea of which is a provision whereby any > item may be caused at will to select immediately and automatically > another." Bush goes on to discuss the idea of a named trail of such > associations. Engelbart's contemporaneous handwritten marginal notes in his > copy of the magazine call such a trail "links". The Computer History Museum > has a photocopy of Doug's personal copy with his handwritten marginal > notes. (I have a TIFF of their copy.) > > By the time of the 1968 demo, I had fully implemented links. I used a very > general implementation. A link had two parts: the name of a document and a > search command. The named document could be the current document or any > other document available for searching. The search command was a regular > expression. Users could make their links very simple or extremely > sophisticated. As far as I know, this was the first general implementation. > > In 1965, Ted Nelson had coined the term hypertext but never had an > implementation. I believe he used the term links but I cannot find the > paper for verification. > > By 1967, not knowing about Nelson or Engelbart, Andy van Dam had built a > system called HES. Andy's system had the notion of links and they were > called "links". (See > http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/4/1/000081/000081.html) > > Bush published the idea in 1945. Engelbart named the idea "links" about > 1945 but did not tell anyone. Andy used links in a line editor in 1967 and > I implemented a general version in 1968. Up till then, they were called > links. > > When was "hyper" added as a prefix? > > The article at > > https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/seeing-what-others-dont/201801/the-invention-hyperlinks > claims Ben Shneiderman invented them in 1988 and implies Shneiderman coined > the term. You can see more of Shneiderman's claims at > http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/hyperties/. Shneiderman added the prefix > "hyper" > 43 years after Doug named associative indexing "links" and 20 years after > my implementation. > > The article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink#History attributes > the term hyperlinks to Nelson in 1965. But, to my knowledge, Nelson used > the term "links" at that time. > > My bet would be that hyper was added between 1980 and 1987. Maybe it was a > journalist and we will never know. > > Jeff > > > ------- > > Also: > [image: Bush with Engelbart Annotation.png] > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 09:50:06 -0700 > From: Joseph Touch > To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org > Subject: [ih] Reminder about list post size > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hi, all, > > Please note that this list is currently limited to 400KB posts. The size > is intended to support most typed and included posts but is NOT intended as > a way to post archival material. That info should be posted elsewhere and > cited if possible. We unfortunately don?t have the space for arbitrary > large posts and do not currently have a repository archive. > > Joe (as list admin) > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 12:54:06 -0400 > From: Steve Crocker > To: vinton cerf , Jeff Rulifson > > Cc: internet-history , David Grier > , Stephen Crocker > Subject: Re: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Jeff and Vint, > > Thanks for this very informative dialog. One small question about a date: > > > Bush published the idea in 1945. Engelbart named the idea "links" about > > 1945 but did not tell anyone. > > Was it really 1945 when Engelbart names the idea ?links?? I?m guessing > this was an unintended typo. > > Steve > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Apr 12, 2020, at 12:45 PM, vinton cerf via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > ?I asked Jeff Rulifson if he could help us figure out when "hyperlink" > > entered into usage. Jeff was the principal programmer for Douglas > > Engelbart's NLS editing system in which such links were introduced. Ted > > Nelson coined terms like "hypertext" in his Xanadu concept - the two were > > contemporary in the 1960s. > > > > Here is Jeff's response: > > > > Vannevar Bush, (Atlantic Monthly, July 1945, p 107) introduces the idea > of > > "associative indexing, the basic idea of which is a provision whereby any > > item may be caused at will to select immediately and automatically > > another." Bush goes on to discuss the idea of a named trail of such > > associations. Engelbart's contemporaneous handwritten marginal notes in > his > > copy of the magazine call such a trail "links". The Computer History > Museum > > has a photocopy of Doug's personal copy with his handwritten marginal > > notes. (I have a TIFF of their copy.) > > > > By the time of the 1968 demo, I had fully implemented links. I used a > very > > general implementation. A link had two parts: the name of a document and > a > > search command. The named document could be the current document or any > > other document available for searching. The search command was a regular > > expression. Users could make their links very simple or extremely > > sophisticated. As far as I know, this was the first general > implementation. > > > > In 1965, Ted Nelson had coined the term hypertext but never had an > > implementation. I believe he used the term links but I cannot find the > > paper for verification. > > > > By 1967, not knowing about Nelson or Engelbart, Andy van Dam had built a > > system called HES. Andy's system had the notion of links and they were > > called "links". (See > > http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/4/1/000081/000081.html) > > > > Bush published the idea in 1945. Engelbart named the idea "links" about > > 1945 but did not tell anyone. Andy used links in a line editor in 1967 > and > > I implemented a general version in 1968. Up till then, they were called > > links. > > > > When was "hyper" added as a prefix? > > > > The article at > > > https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/seeing-what-others-dont/201801/the-invention-hyperlinks > > claims Ben Shneiderman invented them in 1988 and implies Shneiderman > coined > > the term. You can see more of Shneiderman's claims at > > http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/hyperties/. Shneiderman added the prefix > "hyper" > > 43 years after Doug named associative indexing "links" and 20 years after > > my implementation. > > > > The article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink#History > attributes > > the term hyperlinks to Nelson in 1965. But, to my knowledge, Nelson used > > the term "links" at that time. > > > > My bet would be that hyper was added between 1980 and 1987. Maybe it was > a > > journalist and we will never know. > > > > Jeff > > > > > > ------- > > > > Also: > > [image: Bush with Engelbart Annotation.png] > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 14:04:27 -0400 > From: Edward Summers > To: vinton cerf > Cc: internet-history , Jeff Rulifson > > Subject: Re: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" > Message-ID: <72DDCAD4-5C3E-4335-8481-CE3B444D04B3 at pobox.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > On Apr 12, 2020, at 12:41 PM, vinton cerf via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > Here is Jeff's response: > > > > Vannevar Bush, (Atlantic Monthly, July 1945, p 107) introduces the idea > of > > "associative indexing, the basic idea of which is a provision whereby any > > item may be caused at will to select immediately and automatically > > another." Bush goes on to discuss the idea of a named trail of such > > associations. Engelbart's contemporaneous handwritten marginal notes in > his > > copy of the magazine call such a trail "links". The Computer History > Museum > > has a photocopy of Doug's personal copy with his handwritten marginal > > notes. (I have a TIFF of their copy.) > > It's more than just a bit poetic that a Google Image search for "vannevar > engelbart as we may think scan" leads to Engelbart's own website, that has > a scan as well: > > > https://www.dougengelbart.org/archives/artifacts/annotated-As-We-May-Think-withcredits.pdf > > The resolution unfortunately isn't the best. But it is good enough to see > Engelbart's annotations. I tried to find one mentioning "link" when trails > were being discussed. The best candidate I could find was in the second > paragraph on the right side of p. 107. But he uses the "list" instead of > "link". If Jeff or anyone can make a higher resolution copy of it available > it be amazing to see it! > > //Ed > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 11:20:04 -0700 > From: Darius Kazemi > To: Steve Crocker > Cc: vinton cerf , Jeff Rulifson > , David Grier , > internet-history > Subject: Re: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" > Message-ID: > UdmC-0Kw at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > I got curious and started with a google books ngram search, then started > combing through individual records provided with their context. I made sure > to filter for noise -- there are a lot of books indexed that are 1990+ > editions of earlier books that contain the term "hyperlink" in the > additional notes. > > This DTIC report on on a hypertext project from 1987 does NOT use the term > "hyperlink", only "link": > > https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA188179/page/n3/mode/2up/search/%22knowledge+garden%22?q=%22knowledge+garden%22 > > The earliest *published* mentions I can find are from 1988. > > "PC AI" trade publication mentions hyperlinks and linked documents. > > https://books.google.com/books?id=dKYdAQAAIAAJ&q=%22hyperlink%22&dq=%22hyperlink%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib6Omgt-PoAhXUFjQIHSPKDucQ6AEwAnoECAIQAg > > PC Magazine in December 1988 mentions a linked document product suite > called PC-Hypertext from a company called MaxThink, which had an entire > program called HyperLink: > > https://archive.org/details/PC-Mag-1988-12-13/page/n151/mode/2up/search/maxthink > > THE FINAL LINK HyperLink is not so > > much a single product as it is a combina- > > tion of related utilities. This $89 module > > has programs that let you move MaxThink > > and Houdini networks into hypertext net- > > works. Since the PC-Hypertext system is > > designed to connect separate files, Hyper- > > Link has a utility that automatically divides > > a large text file into many smaller ones. > > Another program creates cross-reference > > lists for each file and then combines them > > into one long list. > > > > HyperLink also includes an ENCODE > > program, which compiles text files into a > > hypertext system that can be used with PC- > > Hypertext. All jumps ate established by > > placing a filename between the left and > > right angle brackets. The files used by EN- > > CODE can be created with any editor ca- > > pable of writing ASCII files. HyperLink > > even includes a utility designed to make a > > mini-expert system out of a hypertext net- > > work. > > > > > Possible asides and dead ends: > > There is a concept in graph theory called a "hypergraph" and I found a 1977 > paper that uses the term "hyperlink" in a discussion of a data structure > for a database system built around the hypergraph. I'm unsure if there is a > direct connection with the hypertext terminology but since it's a computer > science paper I thought I'd include it. > https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-48908-2_3 > > HyperLink magazine was a publication dedicated to HyperCard development, > which is far as I can tell began publication in 1987 around the same time > as HyperCard was released. Whether this was an intentional play on an > already-established concept of a hyperlink or if it merely was for "linking > up" HyperCard developers, I can't say. > > I'm also finding some commercial product naming, like "hyperlink" referring > to a special kind of networking interface here: > > https://books.google.com/books?id=Cc4EAQAAIAAJ&q=%22hyperlink%22&dq=%22hyperlink%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib6Omgt-PoAhXUFjQIHSPKDucQ6AEwBnoECAcQAg > > My conclusion: > > It seems that in 1987-1988, "hyper" was a popular prefix to attach to > anything to make it seem more "techie", like "cyber-" was for some years in > the 1990s. There was a general flowering of things called hyper-[noun] in > those two years. This of course matches up roughly with the invention of > the WWW in 1989. The idea that "hyperlink" was coined by Ben Shneidermanin > 1988 seems wholly plausible to me! At least I can find nothing to > contradict the claim. My guess is that multiple people independently coined > "hyperlink" in 1988, including whoever was working at MaxThink on their > HyperLink product in 1988. > > -Darius > > On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 9:54 AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > Jeff and Vint, > > > > Thanks for this very informative dialog. One small question about a > date: > > > > > Bush published the idea in 1945. Engelbart named the idea "links" about > > > 1945 but did not tell anyone. > > > > Was it really 1945 when Engelbart names the idea ?links?? I?m guessing > > this was an unintended typo. > > > > Steve > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On Apr 12, 2020, at 12:45 PM, vinton cerf via Internet-history < > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > > > ?I asked Jeff Rulifson if he could help us figure out when "hyperlink" > > > entered into usage. Jeff was the principal programmer for Douglas > > > Engelbart's NLS editing system in which such links were introduced. Ted > > > Nelson coined terms like "hypertext" in his Xanadu concept - the two > were > > > contemporary in the 1960s. > > > > > > Here is Jeff's response: > > > > > > Vannevar Bush, (Atlantic Monthly, July 1945, p 107) introduces the idea > > of > > > "associative indexing, the basic idea of which is a provision whereby > any > > > item may be caused at will to select immediately and automatically > > > another." Bush goes on to discuss the idea of a named trail of such > > > associations. Engelbart's contemporaneous handwritten marginal notes in > > his > > > copy of the magazine call such a trail "links". The Computer History > > Museum > > > has a photocopy of Doug's personal copy with his handwritten marginal > > > notes. (I have a TIFF of their copy.) > > > > > > By the time of the 1968 demo, I had fully implemented links. I used a > > very > > > general implementation. A link had two parts: the name of a document > and > > a > > > search command. The named document could be the current document or any > > > other document available for searching. The search command was a > regular > > > expression. Users could make their links very simple or extremely > > > sophisticated. As far as I know, this was the first general > > implementation. > > > > > > In 1965, Ted Nelson had coined the term hypertext but never had an > > > implementation. I believe he used the term links but I cannot find the > > > paper for verification. > > > > > > By 1967, not knowing about Nelson or Engelbart, Andy van Dam had built > a > > > system called HES. Andy's system had the notion of links and they were > > > called "links". (See > > > http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/4/1/000081/000081.html) > > > > > > Bush published the idea in 1945. Engelbart named the idea "links" about > > > 1945 but did not tell anyone. Andy used links in a line editor in 1967 > > and > > > I implemented a general version in 1968. Up till then, they were called > > > links. > > > > > > When was "hyper" added as a prefix? > > > > > > The article at > > > > > > https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/seeing-what-others-dont/201801/the-invention-hyperlinks > > > claims Ben Shneiderman invented them in 1988 and implies Shneiderman > > coined > > > the term. You can see more of Shneiderman's claims at > > > http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/hyperties/. Shneiderman added the prefix > > "hyper" > > > 43 years after Doug named associative indexing "links" and 20 years > after > > > my implementation. > > > > > > The article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink#History > > attributes > > > the term hyperlinks to Nelson in 1965. But, to my knowledge, Nelson > used > > > the term "links" at that time. > > > > > > My bet would be that hyper was added between 1980 and 1987. Maybe it > was > > a > > > journalist and we will never know. > > > > > > Jeff > > > > > > > > > ------- > > > > > > Also: > > > [image: Bush with Engelbart Annotation.png] > > > -- > > > Internet-history mailing list > > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 7, Issue 9 > ********************************************** > From johnl at iecc.com Mon Apr 13 12:32:31 2020 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 13 Apr 2020 15:32:31 -0400 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20200413193231.BD87C178883E@ary.qy> In article you write: >Following up on Olivier's Wikipedia, um, hyperlink, one reaches > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink#History > >If anything contrary is discovered here hopefully that might be updated >according The Wikipedia article is wrong. I asked Ted yesterday and he said he didn't use the term hyperlink. I realize that direct knowledge of a situation doesn't count for Wikipedia. R's, John From jericho at attrition.org Mon Apr 13 12:43:01 2020 From: jericho at attrition.org (jericho) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 14:43:01 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" In-Reply-To: <20200413193231.BD87C178883E@ary.qy> References: <20200413193231.BD87C178883E@ary.qy> Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Apr 2020, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: : In article you write: : >Following up on Olivier's Wikipedia, um, hyperlink, one reaches : > : >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlink#History : > : >If anything contrary is discovered here hopefully that might be updated : >according : : The Wikipedia article is wrong. I asked Ted yesterday and he said he : didn't use the term hyperlink. : : I realize that direct knowledge of a situation doesn't count for Wikipedia. Linking to your email in the archives of this list becomes a reference that is acceptable I believe. .b From ehs at pobox.com Mon Apr 13 13:56:56 2020 From: ehs at pobox.com (Edward Summers) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 16:56:56 -0400 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" In-Reply-To: <72DDCAD4-5C3E-4335-8481-CE3B444D04B3@pobox.com> References: <72DDCAD4-5C3E-4335-8481-CE3B444D04B3@pobox.com> Message-ID: > On Apr 12, 2020, at 2:04 PM, Edward Summers via Internet-history wrote: > > The resolution unfortunately isn't the best. But it is good enough to see Engelbart's annotations. I tried to find one mentioning "link" when trails were being discussed. The best candidate I could find was in the second paragraph on the right side of p. 107. But he uses the "list" instead of "link". If Jeff or anyone can make a higher resolution copy of it available it be amazing to see it! Just in case anyone else was curious: the "LINKS" mention is indeed barely legible on p. 107 of Engelbart's copy of As We May Think, but not in the margin (see attached screenshot). Many thanks for the off-list help. I'd still love to see a higher resolution scan if anyone has access to one. What a historical treasure! //Ed From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Mon Apr 13 14:05:45 2020 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 09:05:45 +1200 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" In-Reply-To: References: <72DDCAD4-5C3E-4335-8481-CE3B444D04B3@pobox.com> Message-ID: I thought to check the on-line OED and here are its lists of citations: As a noun: [1982 Computerworld 29 Nov. 76/3 The software, called Hyper-Link, is made up of connection-oriented, end-to-end communications software modules designed to provide and fit into a layered hierarchy of protocols supporting multinetwork applications.] 1988 Jan. (title) HyperLink magazine. 1989 Computers in Libraries (Nexis) Apr. 28 A command for more advanced users called Hyper, which allows us to create a hyperlink between records. For example, to find ?silkworm?, it is possible to create a hyperlink to ?mulberry?, since they live on the leaves of that tree. 1994 Sci. Amer. Nov. 96/2 Browsing easily by hyperlinks (the underlined or shaded/colored words that, when clicked, lead to the next documents). 1996 Internet World Apr. 20/2 Users enter the system via a hyperlink to search the maps for locations and information. 1999 N.Y. Rev. Bks. 18 Mar. 7/1 Start-up costs are high, because publishers need to design search engines and hyperlinks. As a verb: 1988 MacUser (Nexis) July 19 Product compendiums (possibly hyperlinked to reviews). 1994 Internet World July 60/3 Digital claims to have hyperlinked more than 30 percent of the press releases, technical white papers, and systems catalogs available in its ftp archives. 2000 Guardian (Electronic ed.) 2 Dec. 20 Graphics, sound and video bring dry texts to life and students can choose to spend more time going into depth on particular subjects which they find difficult to grasp by hyperlinking to other pages on the CD-Rom or website. Regards Brian Carpenter From gnu at toad.com Mon Apr 13 14:55:48 2020 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 14:55:48 -0700 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" In-Reply-To: References: <72DDCAD4-5C3E-4335-8481-CE3B444D04B3@pobox.com> Message-ID: <31921.1586814948@hop.toad.com> I forwarded this question to my friend Don Hopkins, who was a student of Ben Shneiderman back in the day. Ben ultimately responded: From: Ben Shneiderman To: Don Hopkins CC: John Gilmore , Ben Shneiderman Subject: RE: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" X-ASG-Orig-Subj: RE: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 15:15:52 +0000 HI Don (and Jack Gilmore), Thanks for including me in this conversation. I do not have a claim for the term ?hyperlinks? and don?t know when it came into use. My claim is for the visual interface for showing highlighted selectable links embedded in paragraphs. This is what we called embedded menu items in that I think is an influential paper on the topic, which was peer-reviewed and published in the CACM in April 1986. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/5684.5687 http://www.cs.umd.edu/~ben/papers/Koved1986Embedded.pdf While Engelbart had shown a list that could be selected by pointing and clicking in 1968, I claim the idea of embedded highlighted selectable text in paragraphs. This was implemented by grad student Daniel Ostroff and described in: Ewing J, Mehrabanzad S, Sheck S, Ostroff D and Shneiderman B (1986), "An experimental comparison of a mouse and arrow-jump keys for an interactive encyclopedia", International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Jan., 1986, Vol 24, pp. 29-45. [Abstract] [BibTeX] [DOI] Ostroff D and Shneiderman B (1988), "Selection devices for users of an electronic encyclopedia: an empirical comparison of four possibilities", Information Processing and Management, Nov., 1988, Vol 24(6), pp. 665-680. [Abstract] [BibTeX] [DOI] I think the 1988 paper was the earlier study, but the publication took a while. My students conducted more than a dozen experiments (unpublished) on different ways of highlighting and selection using current screens, e.g. green screens only permitted, bold, underscore, blinking, and I think italic(???). When we had a color screen we tried different color highlighted links. While red made the links easier to spot, user comprehension and recollection of the content declined. We chose the light blue, which Tim adopted. His systems with embedded menus (or hot spots), where a significant user interface improvement over early systems such as Gopher. But Tim told me at the time that he was influenced by our design as he saw it in the Hypertext on Hypertext project that we used Hyperties to build for the July 1988 CACM that held the articles from the July 1987 Hypertext conference at the University of North Carolina. The ACM sold 4000 copies of our Hypertext on Hypertext disks. Our history is here: https://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/hyperties/ and the video is very helpful in showing the design we used, which is what I think Tim built on for his WWW prototypes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29b4O2xxeqg So in summary, I don?t know who coined hypertext, but I do think our work visual and interaction design was influential. Our Hyperties system was picked up by Cognetics Corporation (around 1987) who made a modestly successful commercial run with it, doing dozens of corporate projects, most notably the Hewlett-Packard user manual for their Laserjet 4 was distributed as a Hyperties disk. Hyperties was the name we shifted to after we got a stop and desist order from a lawyer because our TIES (The Interactive Encyclopedia System) conflicted with an existing product. By then ?hyper? was a growing term. Let me know if this helps, and what other questions you have?. Ben From ats at offog.org Tue Apr 14 05:22:35 2020 From: ats at offog.org (Adam Sampson) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:22:35 +0100 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" In-Reply-To: (vinton cerf via Internet-history's message of "Sun, 12 Apr 2020 12:41:05 -0400") References: Message-ID: vinton cerf via Internet-history writes: > I asked Jeff Rulifson if he could help us figure out when "hyperlink" > entered into usage. [...] > My bet would be that hyper was added between 1980 and 1987. Maybe it was a > journalist and we will never know. In the utzoo Usenet archive, the earliest use of "hyperlink" in the sense you're after is by Dennis Hamilton on 4th February 1988 in a bibliography of articles about hypertext. The entry in question is: ---- %A Keith Ferrell %A Selby Bateman %T Out to Change the World: A Conversation with John Sculley %J Compute! %V 9 %N 12 %D December, 1987 %P 18-22 %O Interview %K Apple Hypercard Hypertext Odyssey literacy education Knowledge Navigator %X "Compute!: ... Hypercard has attracted a lot of attention as an example of the sort of interactive software that will ultimately make the Knowledge Navigator possible. Underlying it are echoes of hypertext -- the linkage of all information into an easily accessible database. "Sculley: [Current technologies have their roots in the 1960s.] The one fundamental idea that didn't make it across from the sixties was hypertext. I felt very strongly that hypertext had to be in the roots of future technology. "Compute!: Do we run the risk of hypertexting changing in fundamental ways the nature of knowledge? Will the continuous flow of knowledge and culture be transformed into a collection of *snippets*, hypertexted together by key phrases rather than concepts. "Sculley: No, I think that what *Hypercard* will do is rather let us avoid the problem of information doubling every three to four years. ... Hypercard makes the process of organizing information completely natural and intuitive. ... I think hypertext and the zoom-trace view of being able to explore information databases vy hyperlinks has natural appeal to computer technologists. I also sense a non-sequiter in how this is going to help abate the information-explosion and overload "problem." Note that the Knowledge Navigator is the name that Sculley gives to a vision of an *active* hypertext-like system suitable for education. Sculley sees the Knowledge Navigator as a way of *engaging* students in ways in which the educational system/process fails to do so today. [dh:88-01-30] ---- Here's the article he's discussing: https://archive.org/details/1987-12-compute-magazine/page/n19/mode/2up There are also several mentions around that time of a magazine for Hypercard users called HyperLink (or Hyper-Link or Hyperlink...), the earliest by murray at topaz.rutgers.edu on 16th November 1987. -- Adam Sampson From fenwick.mckelvey at concordia.ca Tue Apr 14 15:22:26 2020 From: fenwick.mckelvey at concordia.ca (Fenwick Mckelvey) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 22:22:26 +0000 Subject: [ih] POLIS Simulations on ARPANET? Message-ID: <1586902946797.36751@concordia.ca> Hi all, I came across a reference to the POLIS simulations conducted at UCSB by a Robert C. Noel. I've only been able to find a paper, but little else about this project. Is anyone familar with POLIS and point me in the right direction? More broadly, please mention if you know any other early computer experiments in social or political simulations running on ARPANET. Any help is appreciated. "The earliest trials of this type of simulation exercise were performed by Robert C. Noel of the University of California at Santa Barbara beginning in the early 1970s. His aim in the early POLIS simulations was to see if the game would retain its essential elements if the participants were physically removed from one another. Early POLIS exercises involved students at various campuses of the University of California system, linked by virtue of their access to ARPANET. Later in the 1970s, universities in other parts of the country with access to ARPANET joined the simulation exercises." Source: Wilkenfeld, J., & Kaufman, J. (1993). Political Science: Network Simulation in International Politics. Social Science Computer Review, 11(4), 464-476. https://doi.org/10.1177/089443939301100405 Take care in these times! Hope you're all healthy and well. Be good, Fenwick McKelvey http://www.fenwickmckelvey.com Associate Professor, Communication Studies, Concordia University Director of the Algorithmic Media Observatory http://www.amo-oma.ca/en/ Member of the Center for the Study of Democratic Citizenship http://csdc-cecd.ca/ From geoff at iconia.com Tue Apr 14 15:42:00 2020 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 12:42:00 -1000 Subject: [ih] POLIS Simulations on ARPANET? In-Reply-To: <1586902946797.36751@concordia.ca> References: <1586902946797.36751@concordia.ca> Message-ID: perhaps tangential there was Peter Langston's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_(1972_video_game) and also Walter Bright's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_(1977_video_game) On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 12:23 PM Fenwick Mckelvey via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > I came across a reference to the POLIS simulations conducted at UCSB by a > Robert C. Noel. I've only been able to find a paper, but little else about > this project. Is anyone familar with POLIS and point me in the right > direction? > > > More broadly, please mention if you know any other early computer > experiments in social or political simulations running on ARPANET. Any help > is appreciated. > > > "The earliest trials of this type of simulation exercise were performed by > Robert C. Noel of the University of California at Santa Barbara beginning > in the early 1970s. His aim in the early POLIS simulations was to see if > the game would retain its essential elements if the participants were > physically removed from one another. Early POLIS exercises involved > students at various campuses of the University of California system, linked > by virtue of their access to ARPANET. Later in the 1970s, universities in > other parts of the country with access to ARPANET joined the simulation > exercises." > > > Source: Wilkenfeld, J., & Kaufman, J. (1993). Political Science: Network > Simulation in International Politics. Social Science Computer Review, > 11(4), 464-476. https://doi.org/10.1177/089443939301100405 > > > Take care in these times! Hope you're all healthy and well. > > Be good, > Fenwick McKelvey > http://www.fenwickmckelvey.com > > Associate Professor, Communication Studies, Concordia University > > Director of the Algorithmic Media Observatory > http://www.amo-oma.ca/en/ > > Member of the Center for the Study of Democratic Citizenship > http://csdc-cecd.ca/ > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True http://geoff.livejournal.com From don at DonHopkins.com Wed Apr 15 00:25:18 2020 From: don at DonHopkins.com (Don Hopkins) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:25:18 +0200 Subject: [ih] POLIS Simulations on ARPANET? -- Micropolis => SimCity In-Reply-To: References: <1586902946797.36751@concordia.ca> Message-ID: <7B7A2BE8-7E80-45F6-8E6E-CCE5F86CA43F@gmail.com> The original name that Will Wright used for SimCity was ?Micropolis?, but he changed it to ?SimCity" before releasing it, because ?Micropolis" was the name of a disk drive manufacturer at the time. When we talked Maxis/EA into releasing the original SimCity source code under GPLv3 (thanks to John Gilmore and Eban Moglen and SJ Klein), the licensing agreement stipulated that modified versions couldn?t use the name SimCity unless the code had undergone and passed QA testing and was approved by EA. So we went through that long arduous process once, to make a release of GPL SimCity for the OLPC, and we then did all further development under the original name, ?Micropolis?. https://github.com/SimHacker/micropolis Press release: EA DONATES ORIGINAL CITY-BUILDING GAME, SIMCITY, TO ?ONE LAPTOP PER CHILD? INITIATIVE https://donhopkins.com/home/micropolis/EA%20Gifts%20SimCity_11_5.pdf SimCity EA/OLPC Contract: https://donhopkins.com/home/micropolis/olpc-ea-contract.pdf -Don From: Don Hopkins To: Will Wright Date: November 7, 2007 Hi, Will! The contract between EA and OLPC says EA QA has to approve the version that goes on the OLPC and uses the name SimCity, which is fine and going well. And it also says that the GPL source code release should not use the trademarked term SimCity. So we need a new name to call it, that's not hopelessly taken or goofy sounding or gimicky, and reflects the purpose of releasing it under the GPL for the benefit of education, but is still close enough to SimCity to remind people it's based on the same code and not just a third party knock-off. Do you have any ideas or suggestions, please? The best thing I've come up with is "ScriptCity", which sounds similar but is different enough, and implies two important things: 1) the fact that the current version is scriptable in TCL, the next version will be scriptable in Python, and later versions will be scriptable with visual programming languages (so kids can learn to program, plug in extensions, use the code as a starting point for their own games, etc). 2) scripting as in writing stories: the goal of applying ideas from The Sims Exchange for taking pictures of the game, writing text about what's happening in the city, and publishing a newspaper / blog / geocoded timestamped articles / save file snapshots that you can share like the Sims stories and families on The Sims Exchange. I like ScriptCity because it fits in will with two of the major goals of the OLPC project: 1) programming and 2) literacy. And "scripting" is nicely ambiguous in the way it refers to both. What do you think? John's already registered the host name, which was not yet taken, and it satisfies one of the other more difficult constraints, that the name not be used for a game yet and the address be available. -Don From: Will Wright To: Don Hopkins Date: November 7, 2007 Don, That sounds good. Here's another idea. How about the first name I used for SimCity; Micropolis? We didn't use it at the time because there was a hard drive company with that name but now I don't think there's any risk of market confusion over it. -Will From: Don Hopkins To: Will Wright Date: November 7, 2007 Wow, that is a great name! That could be just the thing. I'll suggest it to John and SJ. The name reminds me of a spoof game I threw together as a joke years ago:https://web.archive.org/web/20020125210914/http://www.micropoly.com/ -Don Micropoly: Microsoft Monopoly Game Web Site https://web.archive.org/web/20020125210914/http://www.micropoly.com/ Micropoly is the Microsoft Monopoly Game! It's a parody of Microsoft that's fun to play, a free board game based the rules of Anti-Monopoly, and a political statement protected under the First Amendment. From Samuel Klein Micropolis is a pretty cool name... down to the root. which something truly derivative such as 'scriptcity' (which wouldnt' make sense on its own if simcity hadn't come about, perhaps) isn't. though I like the focus on scripting :-) we've been discussing in the office what this name should be as well; it would be awesome to have the name ready so that as soon as we launch the public source code tree that tree can have a suitable name without worrying EA. Chris Ball, our cleverest generalist, is especially keen on getting the gpl project off to a good start. SJ From: Don Hopkins Micropolis has a great ring to it, and a nice back story. Here are some references: Will Wright Chat Transcript http://simcity.ea.com/community/events/will_wright_01_08_04.php SimsStash (Jan 8, 2004 6:45:07 PM) Were there any other names that were considered before you came up with "SimCity"? MaxisWill (Jan 8, 2004 6:45:07 PM) Yes, first it was City Planner 1.0, then later it was Micropolis (but a HD company already had that name) Sim City - HOL Amiga database http://hol.abime.net/1928 TRIVIA: The pre-release title, MICROPOLIS, had to be discarded because of the existence of a HD manufacturer at the time that went by the same name. SimCity - Moby Games http://www.mobygames.com/game/simcity Alternate Titles * "????" -- Chinese Title (traditional) * "????" -- Chinese Title (Simplified) * "Micropolis" -- Working title * "?????" -- Japanese Spelling Closer Look: The Sims http://www.allcube.com/gamewatcher/closerlook/sims.asp In 1984, a brilliant young designer named Will Wright had his first game published, Raid on Bungeling Bay. While the Terminator-esque game wasn't quite a classic, it did set Wright on the path to creating a game he originally called Micropolis. You might know it better as SimCity. -Don From don at DonHopkins.com Wed Apr 15 00:43:45 2020 From: don at DonHopkins.com (Don Hopkins) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:43:45 +0200 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" Message-ID: <5C672CBD-6844-4DB1-8D98-E17273EEBD6D@gmail.com> > From: Ben Shneiderman > > Subject: FW: Hyperties - authoring tool > Date: 14 April 2020 at 22:38:16 CEST > To: Don Hopkins > > Cc: Mark Anderson >, Claus Atzenbeck >, Catherine Plaisant >, Ben Shneiderman > > > HI Don, > > I contacted Mark Anderson who provided some useful information ? he agrees to passing this on, so you can share with others. See below and attachments. Claus Atzenbeck also works on hypertext history, but he could not provide further information. > > So we don?t know who coined hyperlinks, but I think the claim that my idea (some time in 1984) and the work of UMd grad students (especially Ostroff and Koved) defined, implemented, and validated the visual design of highlighted selectable hyperlinks within a paragraph (what TBL called hot spots) remains intact. A strong piece of evidence is the April 1986 CACM paper with Koved. For those checking exact dates, the paper says ?Received 9/85: accepted 11/85?. The Ewing et al paper from 1986 says ?Received 6 March 1985? ?both are attached. > > Ewing J, Mehrabanzad S, Sheck S, Ostroff D and Shneiderman B (1986), "An experimental comparison of a mouse and arrow-jump keys for an interactive encyclopedia", International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Jan., 1986, Vol 24, pp. 29-45. > [Abstract <>] [BibTeX <>] [DOI ] > > Ostroff D and Shneiderman B (1988), "Selection devices for users of an electronic encyclopedia: an empirical comparison of four possibilities", Information Processing and Management, Nov., 1988, Vol 24(6), pp. 665-680. > [Abstract <>] [BibTeX <>] [DOI ] > > The 4000 copies of the PC-based Hypertext on Hypertext disks, using Hyperties from Cognetics Corp, published by ACM appears to have been widely influential in gaining adoption. That is what TBL cites in his Spring 1989 manifesto for the web, and his choice of light blue highlighting comes from our work?. As he told me at some conference. > The video made around 2015 by me, shows it in operation: https://youtu.be/29b4O2xxeqg > > Our web page is > http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/hyperties/ > > You are welcome to pass this around and/or post to the discussion boards that are debating this issue. > Comments or clarifications are welcome. > --Ben > > Ben Shneiderman ben at cs.umd.edu > Dept of Computer Science www.cs.umd.edu/~ben > Iribe Building 2162 > University of Maryland > College Park, MD 20814 > > Distinguished University Professor Emeritus > Founding Director (1982-2000) Human-Computer Interaction Lab > Member, National Academy of Engineering > Fellow, AAAS, ACM, IEEE, NAI, SIGCHI Academy, VIS Academy > > > From: Mark Anderson > > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 10:17 AM > To: Ben Shneiderman > > Cc: Claus Atzenbeck >; Catherine Plaisant >; Mark Bernstein > > Subject: Re: Hyerties - authoring tool > > Ben, > > [cc-ing in Mark Bernstein who often seems to recall erly hypertext-related facts. Mark: this is discussion on first use of the term ?hyperlink?, as well as use of coloured links. You might also add a useful reference on first use of the history (i.e. nodes traversed i-session) , booksmark and breadcrumbs ("Bookmark & Compass" perhaps?)] > > Oh yes, please do. I do think early hypertext history likes this needs collecting, while we can. Straddling the start of the digitised print age, much of the early stuff is now on paper and hard to find. My bookshelf is now growing with publisher proceedings. They are bought second-hand and mostly come with (cancelled) university library. Thus for subjects that would have been niche at outset, the scope for loss if knowledge is high. > > I have also know skim-read the ECHT?90 Proceedings (uot of print and no ebook available [sic]) and not found any mention of ?hyperlinks?. > > Anyway, here is the first mention, in context. The ABC paper (links as per my last email) in HYPERTEXT?91 Proceedings, page 185, original authors'styling of text: > > Referring, once again, to level 1 of the data model: the server differentiates between structural links and hyperlinks. Constraints on structural links determine the type of the subgraph; ?e.g., no node in a tree subgraph may have more than one incoming link. Hyperlinks, however, may join any two nodes in the same subgraph or in different subgraphs. ? Thus, the first level of the data model actually consists of nodes, structural links, hyperlinks, subgraphs, and hypergraphs, all with associated contents and attributes. > > I attach an RTF file with a number of hypertext-related proceeding (some only available in paper form). Both DL.ACM and IEEE proved incapable turning results for the term ?hypertext? in the full text of documents. In the case of DL.ACM it couldn?t even find the above which suggests OCR-recovered texts aren?t being indexed/searched properly. Oh dear! DL.ACM looking at the 1960-90 window did find 4 instance of the word hyperlink in 1991?none in hypertext papers. > > The word is not indexed [sic] in my 1992 edition of O?Reilly?s ?The Whole Internet? and I can?t find the term in the brief 36 pp chapter (#13) on the Web. I?ve also checked Nelson?s Literary Machines (I have a digitised copy of the c.1991 edition) as well of some of his early (late 60s) papers I?m helping archive at present. Nothing there. > > Here is the file: [I have uploaded the PDF attachments and linked to them here (and inlined the text one), since the internet-history mailing list email size is limited. -Don] Embedded menus: Selecting Items in Context Larry Koved and Ben Shneiderman Communications of the ACM, Computing Practices, April 1986, Volume 29, Number 4, p. 312-318 https://donhopkins.com/home/documents/Koved-Embedded%20Menues-CACM-4-1986.pdf An experimental comparison of a mouse and arrow-jump keys for an interactive encyclopedia John Ewing, Simin Mehrabanzad, Scott Sheck, Dan Ostroff and Ben Shneiderman International Journal of Man Machine Studies (1986) 24, p. 29-45 https://donhopkins.com/home/documents/Ewing-Ostroff-mouse-arrowkeys-IJMMS-1986-01-published.pdf Origin-hyperlink: HYPERTEXT?87 Proceedings - nothing Hypertext I Proceedings (1988) - nothing (book source only) HYPERTEXT?89 Proceedings - nothing ECHT?90 Proceedings - nothing (book source only) Hypertext II Proceedings (1990) - nothing (book source only) HYPERTEXT?91 Proceedings (1 paper) Smith & Donaldson ABC: a hypermedia system for artifact-based collaboration pp.179?192 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/122974.122992 p.185 Referring, once again, to level 1 of the data model: the server differentiates between structural links and hyperlinks. Constraints on structural links determine the type of the subgraph; ?e.g., no node in a tree subgraph may have more than one incoming link. Hyperlinks, however, may join any two nodes in the same subgraph or in different subgraphs. ? Thus, the first level of the data model actually consists of nodes, structural links, hyperlinks, subgraphs, and hypergraphs, all with associated contents and attributes. ECHT?92 Proceedings - nothing HYPERTEXT?93 Proceedings - nothing ECHT?94 Proceedings (5 papers) Davis, Knight & Hall Light hypermedia link services: a study of third party application integration pp.41?50 https://doi.org/10.1145/192757.192767 1 use of hyperlink Anderson, Tayloer & Whitehead Chimera: hypertext for heterogeneous software environments pp.94?107 https://doi.org/10.1145/192757.192783 3 uses of hyperlink Christophides & Rizk Querying structured documents with hypertext links using OODBMS pp.186?197 https://doi.org/10.1145/192757.192799 3 uses of hyperlink Ossenbruggen & Eli?ns Music in Time-Based Hypermedia pp.224?227 https://doi.org/10.1145/192757.376055 1 use of hyperlink Brailsford Experience with the use of Acrobat in the CAJUN publishing project pp.228?232 https://doi.org/10.1145/192757.376057 3 uses of hyperlink HYPERTEXT?96 Proceedings (5 papers) HyperCafe: Narrative and Aesthetic Properties of Hypervideo pp1?10 https://doi.org/10.1145/234828.234829 p.7 Fig. 8 Caption: A portion of the HyperCafe script organized and hyperlinked using Storyspace Moulthrop, Stuart. Dreamtime, A hypertext with time-constrained hyperlinks,1992. Ut pictura hyperpoesis: spatial form, visuality, and the digital word pp.66?73 https://doi.org/10.1145/234828.234835 3 uses of hyperlink Evaluating HyTime: an examination and implementation experience pp.105?115 https://doi.org/10.1145/234828.234839 12 uses of hyperlink HyPursuit: a hierarchical network search engine that exploits content-link hypertext clustering pp.180?193 https://doi.org/10.1145/234828.234846 23 uses of hyperlink Logic programming with the World-Wide Web pp.235?245 https://doi.org/10.1145/234828.234851 18 uses of hyperlink From tjc.ietf at gmail.com Wed Apr 15 01:24:36 2020 From: tjc.ietf at gmail.com (Tim Chown) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:24:36 +0100 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I?d always assumed the term came from Ted Nelson, from his work in the mid 60?s, but looking back at papers such as https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/800197.806036 he uses ?hypertext?, ?hyperfilm? and ?hypermedia? and discusses linking them, but doesn?t use ?hyperlink? as a specific term, at least as far as I can see. It?s implicit though :) Tim > On 14 Apr 2020, at 13:22, Adam Sampson via Internet-history wrote: > > vinton cerf via Internet-history > writes: > >> I asked Jeff Rulifson if he could help us figure out when "hyperlink" >> entered into usage. > [...] >> My bet would be that hyper was added between 1980 and 1987. Maybe it was a >> journalist and we will never know. > > In the utzoo Usenet archive, the earliest use of "hyperlink" in the > sense you're after is by Dennis Hamilton on 4th > February 1988 in a bibliography of articles about hypertext. The entry > in question is: > > ---- > > %A Keith Ferrell > %A Selby Bateman > %T Out to Change the World: A Conversation with John Sculley > %J Compute! > %V 9 > %N 12 > %D December, 1987 > %P 18-22 > %O Interview > %K Apple Hypercard Hypertext Odyssey literacy education Knowledge > Navigator > %X "Compute!: ... Hypercard has attracted a lot of attention as an > example of the sort of interactive software that will ultimately > make the Knowledge Navigator possible. Underlying it are echoes > of hypertext -- the linkage of all information into an easily > accessible database. > "Sculley: [Current technologies have their roots in the 1960s.] > The one fundamental idea that didn't make it across from the > sixties was hypertext. I felt very strongly that hypertext had to > be in the roots of future technology. > "Compute!: Do we run the risk of hypertexting changing in > fundamental ways the nature of knowledge? Will the continuous > flow of knowledge and culture be transformed into a collection > of *snippets*, hypertexted together by key phrases rather than > concepts. > "Sculley: No, I think that what *Hypercard* will do is rather > let us avoid the problem of information doubling every three to > four years. ... Hypercard makes the process of organizing > information completely natural and intuitive. ... > I think hypertext and the zoom-trace view of being able to explore > information databases vy hyperlinks has natural appeal to computer > technologists. I also sense a non-sequiter in how this is going to > help abate the information-explosion and overload "problem." Note that > the Knowledge Navigator is the name that Sculley gives to a vision of > an *active* hypertext-like system suitable for education. Sculley sees > the Knowledge Navigator as a way of *engaging* students in ways in which > the educational system/process fails to do so today. [dh:88-01-30] > > ---- > > Here's the article he's discussing: https://archive.org/details/1987-12-compute-magazine/page/n19/mode/2up > > There are also several mentions around that time of a magazine for > Hypercard users called HyperLink (or Hyper-Link or Hyperlink...), the > earliest by murray at topaz.rutgers.edu on 16th November 1987. > > -- > Adam Sampson > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From johnl at iecc.com Wed Apr 15 09:53:34 2020 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 15 Apr 2020 12:53:34 -0400 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20200415165335.23B4F17A925E@ary.qy> In article , Tim Chown via Internet-history wrote: >Hi, > >I?d always assumed the term came from Ted Nelson, from his work in the mid 60?s, I asked him last week and he said he didn't use that term. From marc at webhistory.org Sat Apr 18 10:47:34 2020 From: marc at webhistory.org (Marc Weber) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 10:47:34 -0700 Subject: [ih] origins of the term "hyperlink" In-Reply-To: References: <72DDCAD4-5C3E-4335-8481-CE3B444D04B3@pobox.com> Message-ID: Ted Nelson?s 1965 paper ?A File Structure for the Complex, the Changing, and the Indeterminate? mentions hypertext and hyperfiles, and uses the word link in its modern sense. I did not check carefully whether he used the actual composite term ?hyperlink.? The New Media Reader by Wardrip-Fruin and Montfort collects a lot of key early essays related to hypertext and multimedia including this one. Note that Andy van Dam did not create HES (Hypertext Editing System) in the late 1960s without being aware of Ted Nelson?s work, as somebody wrote earlier in this thread. In fact Andy and Ted developed the program together before going their separate ways; the paper they co-published is available online and is also in The New Media Reader. We interviewed a number of the folks involved in hypertext at Brown; Norm Meyrowitz and Andy van Dam put on a wonderful all-day seminar last spring on ?A Half Century of Hypertext at Brown ." It is true that Andy was not aware of the work of Doug Engelbart until later. Jake Feinler gave me a scan of ?As We May Think? annotated by Doug, likely the same scan people are referring to. We may have the paper original in the NIC collection at the Computer History Museum. BTW around the year 2000, British Telecom tried unsuccessfully to make a legal claim they had invented the hyperlink. Best, Marc Marc Weber | marc at webhistory.org | +1 415 282 6868 Internet History Program Curatorial Director, Computer History Museum 1401 N Shoreline Blvd., Mountain View CA 94043 computerhistory.org/nethistory Co-founder, Web History Center and Project, webhistory.org > On Apr 13, 2020, at 13:56, Edward Summers via Internet-history wrote: > > > >> On Apr 12, 2020, at 2:04 PM, Edward Summers via Internet-history wrote: >> >> The resolution unfortunately isn't the best. But it is good enough to see Engelbart's annotations. I tried to find one mentioning "link" when trails were being discussed. The best candidate I could find was in the second paragraph on the right side of p. 107. But he uses the "list" instead of "link". If Jeff or anyone can make a higher resolution copy of it available it be amazing to see it! > > Just in case anyone else was curious: the "LINKS" mention is indeed barely legible on p. 107 of Engelbart's copy of As We May Think, but not in the margin (see attached screenshot). Many thanks for the off-list help. I'd still love to see a higher resolution scan if anyone has access to one. What a historical treasure! > > //Ed > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Sat Apr 18 15:19:35 2020 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 10:19:35 +1200 Subject: [ih] BT patent claim [origins of the term "hyperlink"] In-Reply-To: References: <72DDCAD4-5C3E-4335-8481-CE3B444D04B3@pobox.com> Message-ID: <1692f6a6-e321-0242-8bb5-220508dad140@gmail.com> On 19-Apr-20 05:47, Marc Weber via Internet-history wrote: > BTW around the year 2000, British Telecom tried unsuccessfully to make a legal claim they had invented the hyperlink. Yes, that was hilarious, but deeply embarrassing for Brits who knew better. It was based on US Patent #4873662 (1977) and British patent 1389314 (1976). (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4873662.pdf) As far as I know the claim fizzled out. I seem to remember that the Engelbart video was used to show prior art, but in any case the claims in the patent had a very tenuous relationship to hyper-anything. Brian -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: BT Patent? Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:07:18 -0400 From: Don Heath To: Brian E Carpenter CC: IAB , iesg at ietf.org At 11:40 AM 6/20/00 -0500, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >For those of us who are not WSJ subscribers can you send the article? > >Note that if it's a UK patent, the prior art rule doesn't apply; >European patents go to the first to file. British Telecom Seeks License Fees From a U.S. Patent for Hyperlinks A WSJ.com News Roundup LONDON -- British Telecommunications PLC plans to seek licensing fees under a longstanding U.S. patent covering hyperlink technology - the widely used tool for linking Web sites on the Internet. BT first realized in 1997 that the patent, which expires in 2006, might have commercial value, and the United Kingdom telecoms group has been preparing to exploit it for the past three years, a company spokesman said. U.S. Internet-service providers will be BT's first targets for the licensing fees, but it may also look to other U.S. companies as well, the spokesman said. BT said it doesn't own similar patents in Europe or elsewhere. It filed the U.S. patent in 1976. BT would not give any indication of how much it might charge for a license, but it said it will not attempt to apply it retroactively. "We are not being specific about the financial proceeds - it will depend on the U.S. ISPs' reaction. But we are looking for a reasonable royalty," the spokesman said. BT is focusing on ISPs because it believes it would be impractical to extend the action to every U.S. Web site using hyperlinks. But the spokesman added that BT may also look to charge a license fee to U.S. companies that use hyperlink technology in their corporate intranets. QED, a U.K. company that specializes in the exploitation of intellectual-property rights, will help BT enforce the patent. QED is owned by Scipher PLC, a U.K. technology group. Hyperlinks allow Internet users to move between pages by clicking on pictures or text. Nigel Hawkins, an analyst at Williams de Broe, said the patent question is likely to be overshadowed by more important matters for investors, such as BT's involvement in the third-generation mobile licenses auctions in Germany. "This is a desperately complex legal issue," he said. "It's difficult to see an immediate impact on the share price in the short term." -- WSJ.com staff reporter David Pringle contributed to this article From johnl at iecc.com Tue Apr 21 19:04:20 2020 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 21 Apr 2020 22:04:20 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? Message-ID: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> The IETF Trust, of which I am a current trustee, is finally getting around to updating its dusty old web site. I have to job of figuring out what we can say about rights in very old RFCs, which I realize is a longstanding can of worms. Here's what I think I have figured out, corrections welcome. RFC 1602 said that all contributions after 1 April 1994 granted a copyright license to ISOC. In October 1996, RFC 2026 made the grant of rights much clearer, and also specified a copyright notice to put on standards track RFCs, although first RFC with the notice wasn't until 2156 in 1998. In December 2005 the trust was set up, and the Article V of the trust agreement says that the grantors CNRI and ISOC contribute IPR to the trust. Schedule A lists the IPR including: All of its rights in, and copies of, each of the following materials that is currently used (as of the Effective Date) in the administrative, financial and/or other operation of the IETF: ... current Internet Drafts and Request for Comments. I don't know what "current" means here but since I am an optimist I hope it means the rights they may have to all RFCs published up to that point rather than ones that were standards at the time. We have a Confirmatory Assignment of trademarks and service marks, nothing more for copyright licenses. The trust agreement sec 5.2 encourages other parties to contribute rights relevant to the IETF, which I assume means copyrights in older RFCs or I-D's or licenses to them. I have found no documentation that anyone ever did, but it's possible there's something lurking in an old archive. There are a few early RFCs with specific copyright notices from MIT, U of Michigan and Dan Bernstein, and there's RFC 20 which is a photocopy of most of ANSI X3.4-1968 with nothing suggesting that ANSI's predecessor granted a license. I conclude that we have rights to RFCs published since 1 April 1994 which would be 1605, 1606, 1607 (dated 1 April 1994) and everything since 1610, which was dated May 1994. Earlier than that, find the authors if you can. Anything I've missed here? R's, John From steve at shinkuro.com Tue Apr 21 19:34:23 2020 From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 22:34:23 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> Message-ID: FWIW, the ground rule for the earliest RFCs was unlimited distribution. Steve On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:04 PM John Levine via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > The IETF Trust, of which I am a current trustee, is finally getting > around to updating its dusty old web site. > > I have to job of figuring out what we can say about rights in very old > RFCs, which I realize is a longstanding can of worms. Here's what I > think I have figured out, corrections welcome. > > RFC 1602 said that all contributions after 1 April 1994 granted a > copyright license to ISOC. In October 1996, RFC 2026 made the grant > of rights much clearer, and also specified a copyright notice to put > on standards track RFCs, although first RFC with the notice wasn't > until 2156 in 1998. > > In December 2005 the trust was set up, and the Article V of the trust > agreement says that the grantors CNRI and ISOC contribute IPR to the > trust. Schedule A lists the IPR including: > > All of its rights in, and copies of, each of the following > materials that is currently used (as of the Effective Date) in the > administrative, financial and/or other operation of the IETF: ... > > current Internet Drafts and Request for Comments. > > I don't know what "current" means here but since I am an optimist I > hope it means the rights they may have to all RFCs published up to > that point rather than ones that were standards at the time. > > We have a Confirmatory Assignment of trademarks and service marks, > nothing more for copyright licenses. > > The trust agreement sec 5.2 encourages other parties to contribute > rights relevant to the IETF, which I assume means copyrights in older > RFCs or I-D's or licenses to them. I have found no documentation that > anyone ever did, but it's possible there's something lurking in an old > archive. > > There are a few early RFCs with specific copyright notices from MIT, U > of Michigan and Dan Bernstein, and there's RFC 20 which is a photocopy > of most of ANSI X3.4-1968 with nothing suggesting that ANSI's > predecessor granted a license. > > I conclude that we have rights to RFCs published since 1 April 1994 > which would be 1605, 1606, 1607 (dated 1 April 1994) and everything > since 1610, which was dated May 1994. Earlier than that, find the > authors if you can. > > Anything I've missed here? > > R's, > John > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Tue Apr 21 20:36:05 2020 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 15:36:05 +1200 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> Message-ID: On 22-Apr-20 14:34, Steve Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > FWIW, the ground rule for the earliest RFCs was unlimited distribution. Fair enough, and that led to a pioneering open access policy, but those don't affect copyright, which I've always assumed for the early RFCs belonged to their authors, or - if their conditions of employment so stipulated - to their employers. BTW, after a certain time all RFCs said "Distribution of this memo|document is unlimited". However, this was not included in the early ones, e.g. RFC768/791/792/793 make no such statement. John, there were definitely some confirmatory assignments of rights to the Trust, but there was never a public push to obtain them retroactively for the older RFCs, afaik. Brian > > Steve > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:04 PM John Levine via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> The IETF Trust, of which I am a current trustee, is finally getting >> around to updating its dusty old web site. >> >> I have to job of figuring out what we can say about rights in very old >> RFCs, which I realize is a longstanding can of worms. Here's what I >> think I have figured out, corrections welcome. >> >> RFC 1602 said that all contributions after 1 April 1994 granted a >> copyright license to ISOC. In October 1996, RFC 2026 made the grant >> of rights much clearer, and also specified a copyright notice to put >> on standards track RFCs, although first RFC with the notice wasn't >> until 2156 in 1998. >> >> In December 2005 the trust was set up, and the Article V of the trust >> agreement says that the grantors CNRI and ISOC contribute IPR to the >> trust. Schedule A lists the IPR including: >> >> All of its rights in, and copies of, each of the following >> materials that is currently used (as of the Effective Date) in the >> administrative, financial and/or other operation of the IETF: ... >> >> current Internet Drafts and Request for Comments. >> >> I don't know what "current" means here but since I am an optimist I >> hope it means the rights they may have to all RFCs published up to >> that point rather than ones that were standards at the time. >> >> We have a Confirmatory Assignment of trademarks and service marks, >> nothing more for copyright licenses. >> >> The trust agreement sec 5.2 encourages other parties to contribute >> rights relevant to the IETF, which I assume means copyrights in older >> RFCs or I-D's or licenses to them. I have found no documentation that >> anyone ever did, but it's possible there's something lurking in an old >> archive. >> >> There are a few early RFCs with specific copyright notices from MIT, U >> of Michigan and Dan Bernstein, and there's RFC 20 which is a photocopy >> of most of ANSI X3.4-1968 with nothing suggesting that ANSI's >> predecessor granted a license. >> >> I conclude that we have rights to RFCs published since 1 April 1994 >> which would be 1605, 1606, 1607 (dated 1 April 1994) and everything >> since 1610, which was dated May 1994. Earlier than that, find the >> authors if you can. >> >> Anything I've missed here? >> >> R's, >> John >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> From touch at strayalpha.com Tue Apr 21 20:49:04 2020 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joseph Touch) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 20:49:04 -0700 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> Message-ID: > On Apr 21, 2020, at 8:36 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > > On 22-Apr-20 14:34, Steve Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >> FWIW, the ground rule for the earliest RFCs was unlimited distribution. > > Fair enough, and that led to a pioneering open access policy, but > those don't affect copyright, which I've always assumed for the early > RFCs belonged to their authors, or - if their conditions of employment > so stipulated - to their employers. The changed happened sometime between 1997 and 2000. > BTW, after a certain time all RFCs said "Distribution of this > memo|document is unlimited". However, this was not included in > the early ones, e.g. RFC768/791/792/793 make no such statement. Unlimited distribution seems like it relaxes only part of a copyright. I.e., rights to derivative works, translations, etc. aren?t the same as ?unlimited distribution? AFAICT. The latter appears to imply ?in total, unchanged?, again AFAICT. Joe From gnu at toad.com Tue Apr 21 21:15:35 2020 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 21:15:35 -0700 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> Message-ID: <23292.1587528935@hop.toad.com> It's unclear what the question means: "Who owns a document that explicitly allows unlimited distribution for any purpose". Normally the "owner" is the copyright owner, the one who can sue people who violate the document's conditions on copying. But if there are no conditions, then there are no targets for lawsuits, so no need for someone with the power to sue. Many of the old RFCs were written by the federal government or under government contracts. The law of copyright is that the government itself can't own original copyright on its own work. So, for example, for anyone who was a DARPA employee at the time they wrote an RFC, that RFC is in the public domain. The rules for contractors are more complicated. A government contractor CAN claim copyright on work that they did for the government; you can see how beltway bandits have bent the above simple rule about the public domain, for their own benefit. But it depends on what the contract says about who owns the resulting intellectual property. I don't know where we could find copies of the contracts between DARPA (or other agencies like NSF later) and the universities, BBN, etc who wrote early RFCs. See details of the law here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_the_federal_government_of_the_United_States As a separate matter, under US copyright law, if a document was published in the United States without a copyright notice before January 1, 1978, it permanently entered the public domain. If it was published without a copyright notice between then and February 28, 1989, it would have lost its copyright protection (entered the public domain) unless specific steps were taken shortly thereafter. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice As has been pointed out numerous times, part of the reason the Internet protocols succeeded was that they were freely copyable by anyone interested in the topic, unlike the national and international standards committee output that the Internet standards were competing with. I recommend that the IETF Trust assert that nobody owns the RFCs published before March 1989, and designate a period for anyone who claims a copyright in an RFC published between then and 1994 to approach the Trust to negotiate the claim, otherwise the Trust will treat their RFCs as estopped from claiming copyright protection, due to the owners authorizing broad distribution without limitation when they were created. John PS: I am not a lawyer. EFF's copyright lawyers might be happy to consult with the Trust, though, to help work this out. Or you might ask Pam Samuelson's law clinic at UC Berkeley. From casner at acm.org Tue Apr 21 21:39:34 2020 From: casner at acm.org (Stephen Casner) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 21:39:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> Message-ID: On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: > The trust agreement sec 5.2 encourages other parties to contribute > rights relevant to the IETF, which I assume means copyrights in older > RFCs or I-D's or licenses to them. I have found no documentation that > anyone ever did, but it's possible there's something lurking in an old > archive. I remember an effort many years ago to have early RFC authors sign a hardcopy declaration releasing copyright or some such. My faded mental image of the place where I did this was Seattle or Vancouver. -- Steve From touch at strayalpha.com Tue Apr 21 21:43:07 2020 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joseph Touch) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 21:43:07 -0700 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <23292.1587528935@hop.toad.com> References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> <23292.1587528935@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: <28886C20-F442-4E81-A09B-D47083F39DC2@strayalpha.com> > On Apr 21, 2020, at 9:15 PM, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote: > > I recommend that the IETF Trust assert that nobody owns the RFCs > published before March 1989, and designate a period for anyone who > claims a copyright in an RFC published between then and 1994 to approach > the Trust to negotiate the claim,? There?s still the period between 1994 and Oct 1998 (see below) to deal with, though. I recall the ISOC asking transfer of copyright for those works at some point, but not all were granted. Also, note that not all DARPA contracts for work that generated RFCs explicitly indicated RFCs as a deliverable. NSF grants have no deliverables. There is some information available at the RFC pages here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/old/copyright.17Feb04.html Note that this page links to a story about facts claimed to date back to 1988 that is not accurate; it implies that RFCs included an ISOC copyright statement before RFC2220 (Oct 1997), but they do not. Notably, that was exactly one year (to the month) before Jon?s passing. Joe From cabo at tzi.org Tue Apr 21 22:06:56 2020 From: cabo at tzi.org (Carsten Bormann) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 07:06:56 +0200 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <23292.1587528935@hop.toad.com> References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> <23292.1587528935@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: <29491F22-618E-4A52-B100-E06865F4D78D@tzi.org> I believe the answer to the question in the subject is rather easy: humanity. > On 2020-04-22, at 06:15, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote: > > It's unclear what the question means: "Who owns a document that > explicitly allows unlimited distribution for any purpose". Normally > the "owner" is the copyright owner, the one who can sue people who > violate the document's conditions on copying. Equating ?owner? with ?copyright holder? only works if you subscribe to the fiction of ?intellectual property?. Now, if the question really was ?who is the holder of the copyright to old RFCs?, that of course is modulated by the question ?is there copyright in old RFCs?. Answering this question is only possible in a specific jurisdiction. I?m pretty sure that many of the early RFCs would not have made the ?threshold of originality? (Sch?pfungsh?he) that was common sense in the 1960s, 1970s, and at least the early 1980s; I remember having long discussions about this in the early 1980s with copyright lawyers who had just started to appropriate copyright law for generating interest in technical artifacts. Of course, finding the documents to be in a grey area of copyright (Urheberrecht, droit d?auteur, ?) may be even worse for the owner (humanity) than a well-defined copyright holder that has no interest in creating legal proceedings. The area may already be grey for works published before 1978-01-01 in the US. Gr??e, Carsten [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Tue Apr 21 22:40:40 2020 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:40:40 +1200 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <28886C20-F442-4E81-A09B-D47083F39DC2@strayalpha.com> References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> <23292.1587528935@hop.toad.com> <28886C20-F442-4E81-A09B-D47083F39DC2@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: <9218329a-2700-1f76-24a2-4bd462a42dbb@gmail.com> Joe, The inclusion of the ISOC copyright was mandated by RFC2026 (October 1996) for "all ISOC standards-related documentation" (remembering that the IETF looked to ISOC for legal backing), but I forget why it took a year to implement. Possibly ISI lawyers? Regards Brian Carpenter On 22-Apr-20 16:43, Joseph Touch via Internet-history wrote: > > >> On Apr 21, 2020, at 9:15 PM, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote: >> >> I recommend that the IETF Trust assert that nobody owns the RFCs >> published before March 1989, and designate a period for anyone who >> claims a copyright in an RFC published between then and 1994 to approach >> the Trust to negotiate the claim,? > > > There?s still the period between 1994 and Oct 1998 (see below) to deal with, though. I recall the ISOC asking transfer of copyright for those works at some point, but not all were granted. > > Also, note that not all DARPA contracts for work that generated RFCs explicitly indicated RFCs as a deliverable. NSF grants have no deliverables. > > There is some information available at the RFC pages here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/old/copyright.17Feb04.html > > Note that this page links to a story about facts claimed to date back to 1988 that is not accurate; it implies that RFCs included an ISOC copyright statement before RFC2220 (Oct 1997), but they do not. Notably, that was exactly one year (to the month) before Jon?s passing. > > Joe > From sob at sobco.com Wed Apr 22 03:40:56 2020 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 06:40:56 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <9218329a-2700-1f76-24a2-4bd462a42dbb@gmail.com> References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> <23292.1587528935@hop.toad.com> <28886C20-F442-4E81-A09B-D47083F39DC2@strayalpha.com> <9218329a-2700-1f76-24a2-4bd462a42dbb@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2E32DD28-672C-48C8-8952-5D5059AB0570@sobco.com> I do not recall any deliberate delay - it just worked out that way yes, there was a short lived effort to get the authors/editors of old RFCs to sign their copyright over - Ray had forms he would let you sign if you wanted to but he never pushed it and I have no idea if the signed forms can be found - he also had a list of the people who had signed at one point the primary reason, as I recall, was to ensure the ability for the IETF to make derivative works based on old RFCs Scott > On Apr 22, 2020, at 1:40 AM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > > Joe, > > The inclusion of the ISOC copyright was mandated by RFC2026 (October 1996) > for "all ISOC standards-related documentation" (remembering that the IETF > looked to ISOC for legal backing), but I forget why it took a year to > implement. Possibly ISI lawyers? > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 22-Apr-20 16:43, Joseph Touch via Internet-history wrote: >> >> >>> On Apr 21, 2020, at 9:15 PM, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote: >>> >>> I recommend that the IETF Trust assert that nobody owns the RFCs >>> published before March 1989, and designate a period for anyone who >>> claims a copyright in an RFC published between then and 1994 to approach >>> the Trust to negotiate the claim,? >> >> >> There?s still the period between 1994 and Oct 1998 (see below) to deal with, though. I recall the ISOC asking transfer of copyright for those works at some point, but not all were granted. >> >> Also, note that not all DARPA contracts for work that generated RFCs explicitly indicated RFCs as a deliverable. NSF grants have no deliverables. >> >> There is some information available at the RFC pages here: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/old/copyright.17Feb04.html >> >> Note that this page links to a story about facts claimed to date back to 1988 that is not accurate; it implies that RFCs included an ISOC copyright statement before RFC2220 (Oct 1997), but they do not. Notably, that was exactly one year (to the month) before Jon?s passing. >> >> Joe >> > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From vgcerf at gmail.com Wed Apr 22 04:29:10 2020 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 07:29:10 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <23292.1587528935@hop.toad.com> References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> <23292.1587528935@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: John may not be a lawyer, but I think he gets the milestones and their implications right. After the adoption of the Berne Convention on March 1, 1989 by the US, copyright was implicitly held by the author without need of registration. Regarding the Copyright Act of 1976, it was signed into law on October 19, 1976 but went into effect on 1 January 1978: On *October 19, 1976*, President Gerald Ford signed the Copyright Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-553), the first major revision of the copyright law since 1909. The law, with certain exceptions, went into effect on January 1, 1978, and superseded the 1909 act. The 1976 act extended federal copyright protection to all works, both published and unpublished, once they are fixed in a tangible form. On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 12:15 AM John Gilmore via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > It's unclear what the question means: "Who owns a document that > explicitly allows unlimited distribution for any purpose". Normally > the "owner" is the copyright owner, the one who can sue people who > violate the document's conditions on copying. But if there are no > conditions, then there are no targets for lawsuits, so no need for > someone with the power to sue. > > Many of the old RFCs were written by the federal government or under > government contracts. The law of copyright is that the government > itself can't own original copyright on its own work. So, for example, > for anyone who was a DARPA employee at the time they wrote an RFC, > that RFC is in the public domain. The rules for contractors are more > complicated. A government contractor CAN claim copyright on work that > they did for the government; you can see how beltway bandits have bent > the above simple rule about the public domain, for their own benefit. > But it depends on what the contract says about who owns the resulting > intellectual property. I don't know where we could find copies of the > contracts between DARPA (or other agencies like NSF later) and the > universities, BBN, etc who wrote early RFCs. See details of the law > here: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_the_federal_government_of_the_United_States > > As a separate matter, under US copyright law, if a document was > published in the United States without a copyright notice before > January 1, 1978, it permanently entered the public domain. If it was > published without a copyright notice between then and February 28, > 1989, it would have lost its copyright protection (entered the public > domain) unless specific steps were taken shortly thereafter. See: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice > > As has been pointed out numerous times, part of the reason the > Internet protocols succeeded was that they were freely copyable by > anyone interested in the topic, unlike the national and international > standards committee output that the Internet standards were competing > with. > > I recommend that the IETF Trust assert that nobody owns the RFCs > published before March 1989, and designate a period for anyone who > claims a copyright in an RFC published between then and 1994 to approach > the Trust to negotiate the claim, otherwise the Trust will treat their > RFCs as estopped from claiming copyright protection, due to the owners > authorizing broad distribution without limitation when they were created. > > John > > PS: I am not a lawyer. EFF's copyright lawyers might be happy to > consult with the Trust, though, to help work this out. Or you > might ask Pam Samuelson's law clinic at UC Berkeley. > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From amckenzie3 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 22 07:14:29 2020 From: amckenzie3 at yahoo.com (Alex McKenzie) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 14:14:29 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> Message-ID: <1309019778.881045.1587564869030@mail.yahoo.com> I am not a lawyer and I never read the early BBN contracts from ARPA.? However, I was told by BBN management that documents produced by BBN employees under the ARPA contracts were in the public domain.? This included network maps, RFCs, conference papers, and so on.? As I recall we had to explicitly assert to the publishers of conference proceedings that papers we submitted could not be copyrighted.? Surely this also applies to any RFCs written by BBN employees. As a side note, BBN did not want to make the IMP code publicly available.? The fear in the early days was that graduate students with access to IMPs might decide to tinker with the code.? A bit later, when some BBN employees started a company called Packet Communications Inc (PCI) to go into the public packet switching business they wanted to take the IMP code with them, and BBN (which was thinking about entering the public packet switching business itself) did not want to make it easy for PCI and refused.? PCI appealed to ARPA to declare that the code was in the public domain, and after a short struggle BBN consented to make the code available to PCI and anyone else who wanted it. [BBN provided the code on mag tape, and charged a $100 shipping and handling fee which was accepted as reasonable.] So I think ISOC can state that any RFCs produced by BBN before 1 April 1994 are in the public domain. Cheers,Alex McKenzie On Tuesday, April 21, 2020, 10:04:52 PM EDT, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: The IETF Trust, of which I am a current trustee, is finally getting around to updating its dusty old web site. I have to job of figuring out what we can say about rights in very old RFCs, which I realize is a longstanding can of worms.? Here's what I think I have figured out, corrections welcome. RFC 1602 said that all contributions after 1 April 1994 granted a copyright license to ISOC.? In October 1996, RFC 2026 made the grant of rights much clearer, and also specified a copyright notice to put on standards track RFCs, although first RFC with the notice wasn't until 2156 in 1998. In December 2005 the trust was set up, and the Article V of the trust agreement says that the grantors CNRI and ISOC contribute IPR to the trust.? Schedule A lists the IPR including: ? All of its rights in, and copies of, each of the following ? materials that is currently used (as of the Effective Date) in the ? administrative, financial and/or other operation of the IETF: ... ? current Internet Drafts and Request for Comments. I don't know what "current" means here but since I am an optimist I hope it means the rights they may have to all RFCs published up to that point rather than ones that were standards at the time. We have a Confirmatory Assignment of trademarks and service marks, nothing more for copyright licenses. The trust agreement sec 5.2 encourages other parties to contribute rights relevant to the IETF, which I assume means copyrights in older RFCs or I-D's or licenses to them.? I have found no documentation that anyone ever did, but it's possible there's something lurking in an old archive. There are a few early RFCs with specific copyright notices from MIT, U of Michigan and Dan Bernstein, and there's RFC 20 which is a photocopy of most of ANSI X3.4-1968 with nothing suggesting that ANSI's predecessor granted a license. I conclude that we have rights to RFCs published since 1 April 1994 which would be 1605, 1606, 1607 (dated 1 April 1994) and everything since 1610, which was dated May 1994.? Earlier than that, find the authors if you can. Anything I've missed here? R's, John -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From agmalis at gmail.com Wed Apr 22 07:58:10 2020 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 10:58:10 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> Message-ID: John, I'm an author of some of these early RFCs, and as I recall, at some point I was asked to assign copyrights for these to the Trust, which I did. Cheers, Andy On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:04 PM John Levine via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > The IETF Trust, of which I am a current trustee, is finally getting > around to updating its dusty old web site. > > I have to job of figuring out what we can say about rights in very old > RFCs, which I realize is a longstanding can of worms. Here's what I > think I have figured out, corrections welcome. > > RFC 1602 said that all contributions after 1 April 1994 granted a > copyright license to ISOC. In October 1996, RFC 2026 made the grant > of rights much clearer, and also specified a copyright notice to put > on standards track RFCs, although first RFC with the notice wasn't > until 2156 in 1998. > > In December 2005 the trust was set up, and the Article V of the trust > agreement says that the grantors CNRI and ISOC contribute IPR to the > trust. Schedule A lists the IPR including: > > All of its rights in, and copies of, each of the following > materials that is currently used (as of the Effective Date) in the > administrative, financial and/or other operation of the IETF: ... > > current Internet Drafts and Request for Comments. > > I don't know what "current" means here but since I am an optimist I > hope it means the rights they may have to all RFCs published up to > that point rather than ones that were standards at the time. > > We have a Confirmatory Assignment of trademarks and service marks, > nothing more for copyright licenses. > > The trust agreement sec 5.2 encourages other parties to contribute > rights relevant to the IETF, which I assume means copyrights in older > RFCs or I-D's or licenses to them. I have found no documentation that > anyone ever did, but it's possible there's something lurking in an old > archive. > > There are a few early RFCs with specific copyright notices from MIT, U > of Michigan and Dan Bernstein, and there's RFC 20 which is a photocopy > of most of ANSI X3.4-1968 with nothing suggesting that ANSI's > predecessor granted a license. > > I conclude that we have rights to RFCs published since 1 April 1994 > which would be 1605, 1606, 1607 (dated 1 April 1994) and everything > since 1610, which was dated May 1994. Earlier than that, find the > authors if you can. > > Anything I've missed here? > > R's, > John > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From geoff at iconia.com Wed Apr 22 11:01:09 2020 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:01:09 -1000 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <1309019778.881045.1587564869030@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> <1309019778.881045.1587564869030@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: alex (and/or anyone else), some curiosities vis-a-vis the publicly available IMP code: any idea's how many eventual takers there were of the publicly available IMP code? did the publicly available IMP code also include the PDP-1 and/or Tenex network management tools? are you aware of any products (or networks) that resulted from the publicly available IMP code? would specifically be curious to know if the Larry Roberts commercial Telenet (X.25) efforts benefited/used the publicly available IMP code? geoff On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 4:14 AM Alex McKenzie via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > I am not a lawyer and I never read the early BBN contracts from ARPA. > However, I was told by BBN management that documents produced by BBN > employees under the ARPA contracts were in the public domain. This > included network maps, RFCs, conference papers, and so on. As I recall we > had to explicitly assert to the publishers of conference proceedings that > papers we submitted could not be copyrighted. Surely this also applies to > any RFCs written by BBN employees. > As a side note, BBN did not want to make the IMP code publicly available. > The fear in the early days was that graduate students with access to IMPs > might decide to tinker with the code. A bit later, when some BBN employees > started a company called Packet Communications Inc (PCI) to go into the > public packet switching business they wanted to take the IMP code with > them, and BBN (which was thinking about entering the public packet > switching business itself) did not want to make it easy for PCI and > refused. PCI appealed to ARPA to declare that the code was in the public > domain, and after a short struggle BBN consented to make the code available > to PCI and anyone else who wanted it. [BBN provided the code on mag tape, > and charged a $100 shipping and handling fee which was accepted as > reasonable.] > So I think ISOC can state that any RFCs produced by BBN before 1 April > 1994 are in the public domain. > Cheers,Alex McKenzie > > On Tuesday, April 21, 2020, 10:04:52 PM EDT, John Levine via > Internet-history wrote: > > The IETF Trust, of which I am a current trustee, is finally getting > around to updating its dusty old web site. > > I have to job of figuring out what we can say about rights in very old > RFCs, which I realize is a longstanding can of worms. Here's what I > think I have figured out, corrections welcome. > > RFC 1602 said that all contributions after 1 April 1994 granted a > copyright license to ISOC. In October 1996, RFC 2026 made the grant > of rights much clearer, and also specified a copyright notice to put > on standards track RFCs, although first RFC with the notice wasn't > until 2156 in 1998. > > In December 2005 the trust was set up, and the Article V of the trust > agreement says that the grantors CNRI and ISOC contribute IPR to the > trust. Schedule A lists the IPR including: > > All of its rights in, and copies of, each of the following > materials that is currently used (as of the Effective Date) in the > administrative, financial and/or other operation of the IETF: ... > > current Internet Drafts and Request for Comments. > > I don't know what "current" means here but since I am an optimist I > hope it means the rights they may have to all RFCs published up to > that point rather than ones that were standards at the time. > > We have a Confirmatory Assignment of trademarks and service marks, > nothing more for copyright licenses. > > The trust agreement sec 5.2 encourages other parties to contribute > rights relevant to the IETF, which I assume means copyrights in older > RFCs or I-D's or licenses to them. I have found no documentation that > anyone ever did, but it's possible there's something lurking in an old > archive. > > There are a few early RFCs with specific copyright notices from MIT, U > of Michigan and Dan Bernstein, and there's RFC 20 which is a photocopy > of most of ANSI X3.4-1968 with nothing suggesting that ANSI's > predecessor granted a license. > > I conclude that we have rights to RFCs published since 1 April 1994 > which would be 1605, 1606, 1607 (dated 1 April 1994) and everything > since 1610, which was dated May 1994. Earlier than that, find the > authors if you can. > > Anything I've missed here? > > R's, > John > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True http://geoff.livejournal.com From touch at strayalpha.com Wed Apr 22 11:08:29 2020 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joseph Touch) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 11:08:29 -0700 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <9218329a-2700-1f76-24a2-4bd462a42dbb@gmail.com> References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> <23292.1587528935@hop.toad.com> <28886C20-F442-4E81-A09B-D47083F39DC2@strayalpha.com> <9218329a-2700-1f76-24a2-4bd462a42dbb@gmail.com> Message-ID: > On Apr 21, 2020, at 10:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > Joe, > > The inclusion of the ISOC copyright was mandated by RFC2026 (October 1996) > for "all ISOC standards-related documentation" (remembering that the IETF > looked to ISOC for legal backing), but I forget why it took a year to > implement. Possibly ISI lawyers? I?m not aware of a reason; the people involved have largely passed, so it?s not clear an answer would be possible. It would not be ISI lawyers; ISI was not (and is not) a separate legal entity; USC was/is. Joe From vint at google.com Wed Apr 22 11:17:11 2020 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 14:17:11 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> <1309019778.881045.1587564869030@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Telenet developed X.25 standards in CCITT with Canada, UK and France - no IMP code involved. v On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 2:02 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history wrote: > alex (and/or anyone else), some curiosities vis-a-vis the publicly > available IMP code: > > any idea's how many eventual takers there were of the publicly available > IMP code? > > did the publicly available IMP code also include the PDP-1 and/or Tenex > network management tools? > > are you aware of any products (or networks) that resulted from the publicly > available IMP code? > > would specifically be curious to know if the Larry Roberts commercial > Telenet (X.25) efforts benefited/used the publicly available IMP code? > > geoff > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 4:14 AM Alex McKenzie via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > I am not a lawyer and I never read the early BBN contracts from ARPA. > > However, I was told by BBN management that documents produced by BBN > > employees under the ARPA contracts were in the public domain. This > > included network maps, RFCs, conference papers, and so on. As I recall > we > > had to explicitly assert to the publishers of conference proceedings that > > papers we submitted could not be copyrighted. Surely this also applies > to > > any RFCs written by BBN employees. > > As a side note, BBN did not want to make the IMP code publicly available. > > The fear in the early days was that graduate students with access to IMPs > > might decide to tinker with the code. A bit later, when some BBN > employees > > started a company called Packet Communications Inc (PCI) to go into the > > public packet switching business they wanted to take the IMP code with > > them, and BBN (which was thinking about entering the public packet > > switching business itself) did not want to make it easy for PCI and > > refused. PCI appealed to ARPA to declare that the code was in the public > > domain, and after a short struggle BBN consented to make the code > available > > to PCI and anyone else who wanted it. [BBN provided the code on mag tape, > > and charged a $100 shipping and handling fee which was accepted as > > reasonable.] > > So I think ISOC can state that any RFCs produced by BBN before 1 April > > 1994 are in the public domain. > > Cheers,Alex McKenzie > > > > On Tuesday, April 21, 2020, 10:04:52 PM EDT, John Levine via > > Internet-history wrote: > > > > The IETF Trust, of which I am a current trustee, is finally getting > > around to updating its dusty old web site. > > > > I have to job of figuring out what we can say about rights in very old > > RFCs, which I realize is a longstanding can of worms. Here's what I > > think I have figured out, corrections welcome. > > > > RFC 1602 said that all contributions after 1 April 1994 granted a > > copyright license to ISOC. In October 1996, RFC 2026 made the grant > > of rights much clearer, and also specified a copyright notice to put > > on standards track RFCs, although first RFC with the notice wasn't > > until 2156 in 1998. > > > > In December 2005 the trust was set up, and the Article V of the trust > > agreement says that the grantors CNRI and ISOC contribute IPR to the > > trust. Schedule A lists the IPR including: > > > > All of its rights in, and copies of, each of the following > > materials that is currently used (as of the Effective Date) in the > > administrative, financial and/or other operation of the IETF: ... > > > > current Internet Drafts and Request for Comments. > > > > I don't know what "current" means here but since I am an optimist I > > hope it means the rights they may have to all RFCs published up to > > that point rather than ones that were standards at the time. > > > > We have a Confirmatory Assignment of trademarks and service marks, > > nothing more for copyright licenses. > > > > The trust agreement sec 5.2 encourages other parties to contribute > > rights relevant to the IETF, which I assume means copyrights in older > > RFCs or I-D's or licenses to them. I have found no documentation that > > anyone ever did, but it's possible there's something lurking in an old > > archive. > > > > There are a few early RFCs with specific copyright notices from MIT, U > > of Michigan and Dan Bernstein, and there's RFC 20 which is a photocopy > > of most of ANSI X3.4-1968 with nothing suggesting that ANSI's > > predecessor granted a license. > > > > I conclude that we have rights to RFCs published since 1 April 1994 > > which would be 1605, 1606, 1607 (dated 1 April 1994) and everything > > since 1610, which was dated May 1994. Earlier than that, find the > > authors if you can. > > > > Anything I've missed here? > > > > R's, > > John > > > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > http://geoff.livejournal.com > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 From jack at 3kitty.org Wed Apr 22 12:02:43 2020 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 12:02:43 -0700 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> <1309019778.881045.1587564869030@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <703a95a0-8d41-4d4e-a1ab-3d340a1d1c6d@3kitty.org> IIRC, X.25 was primarily a specification of the interface between a computer and the network switch.?? It didn't say anything about algorithms and mechanisms used within the network switches, e.g., for routing, flow control, error control, buffer management, software maintenance, etc.? IMHO, that would likely have been the most valuable technology for someone getting the code.?? When BBN started selling X.25 packet switches, it essentially took the existing ARPANET IMP code and added the X.25 host interface hardware and software - much like other companies might have done after receiving a copy of the software. In my time at BBN (1977-1990), in the part of the company responsible for ARPANET, I recall only two or three times that the IMP code was sent somewhere.? Can't remember where though.? In at least one case, the scuttlebutt was that the code did get sent out as required by the contract, but only after all white-space, comments, and formatting was stripped out (TECO was/is good at such stuff), so that the delivered code was still acceptable to the assembler, but really unpalatable for human consumption. I don't think that any of the "tools" were shipped out.? Most likely they were not contract deliverables, but rather were considered an ancillary part of the work involved in "operations and maintenance" of the ARPANET (which was a DCA contract rather than ARPA; at some point, in the 70s IIRC, ARPA turned over the ARPANET to DCA and it stopped being a DARPA research project). I managed a lot of ARPA and other government contracts through the 80s at BBN.? IIRC, for many of them the Terms and Conditions stated that the work product (code, papers, etc.) could be used by the government for any government purpose, as well as by BBN for any BBN purpose.?? It was of course much wordier than that. The lawyer-types said that meant that such deliverable were therefore not public domain unless the government took the appropriate steps to put it there as a "government purpose".?? I think that's why you'll see in a lot of material available from DTIC a stamp on the cover that says something like "Approved For Public Release".?? It may also explain why many old reports are not available in DTIC, if no one in the government ever took the steps to get that stamp on the report. I'm not sure how that applies to RFCs, which AFAIK are not in DTIC but are readily available elsewhere.? My suggestion would be to try to find the old SRI-NIC contract and see what it says about documents in regard to public domain.? There may, for example, be some verbiage that made all documents sent to the NIC automatically granted "Public Release" status. /Jack Haverty (who actually had to read a lot of that fine print and boilerplate....) On 4/22/20 11:17 AM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: > Telenet developed X.25 standards in CCITT with Canada, UK and France - no > IMP code involved. > > v > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 2:02 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via > Internet-history wrote: > >> alex (and/or anyone else), some curiosities vis-a-vis the publicly >> available IMP code: >> >> any idea's how many eventual takers there were of the publicly available >> IMP code? >> >> did the publicly available IMP code also include the PDP-1 and/or Tenex >> network management tools? >> >> are you aware of any products (or networks) that resulted from the publicly >> available IMP code? >> >> would specifically be curious to know if the Larry Roberts commercial >> Telenet (X.25) efforts benefited/used the publicly available IMP code? >> >> geoff >> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 4:14 AM Alex McKenzie via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >>> I am not a lawyer and I never read the early BBN contracts from ARPA. >>> However, I was told by BBN management that documents produced by BBN >>> employees under the ARPA contracts were in the public domain. This >>> included network maps, RFCs, conference papers, and so on. As I recall >> we >>> had to explicitly assert to the publishers of conference proceedings that >>> papers we submitted could not be copyrighted. Surely this also applies >> to >>> any RFCs written by BBN employees. >>> As a side note, BBN did not want to make the IMP code publicly available. >>> The fear in the early days was that graduate students with access to IMPs >>> might decide to tinker with the code. A bit later, when some BBN >> employees >>> started a company called Packet Communications Inc (PCI) to go into the >>> public packet switching business they wanted to take the IMP code with >>> them, and BBN (which was thinking about entering the public packet >>> switching business itself) did not want to make it easy for PCI and >>> refused. PCI appealed to ARPA to declare that the code was in the public >>> domain, and after a short struggle BBN consented to make the code >> available >>> to PCI and anyone else who wanted it. [BBN provided the code on mag tape, >>> and charged a $100 shipping and handling fee which was accepted as >>> reasonable.] >>> So I think ISOC can state that any RFCs produced by BBN before 1 April >>> 1994 are in the public domain. >>> Cheers,Alex McKenzie >>> >>> On Tuesday, April 21, 2020, 10:04:52 PM EDT, John Levine via >>> Internet-history wrote: >>> >>> The IETF Trust, of which I am a current trustee, is finally getting >>> around to updating its dusty old web site. >>> >>> I have to job of figuring out what we can say about rights in very old >>> RFCs, which I realize is a longstanding can of worms. Here's what I >>> think I have figured out, corrections welcome. >>> >>> RFC 1602 said that all contributions after 1 April 1994 granted a >>> copyright license to ISOC. In October 1996, RFC 2026 made the grant >>> of rights much clearer, and also specified a copyright notice to put >>> on standards track RFCs, although first RFC with the notice wasn't >>> until 2156 in 1998. >>> >>> In December 2005 the trust was set up, and the Article V of the trust >>> agreement says that the grantors CNRI and ISOC contribute IPR to the >>> trust. Schedule A lists the IPR including: >>> >>> All of its rights in, and copies of, each of the following >>> materials that is currently used (as of the Effective Date) in the >>> administrative, financial and/or other operation of the IETF: ... >>> >>> current Internet Drafts and Request for Comments. >>> >>> I don't know what "current" means here but since I am an optimist I >>> hope it means the rights they may have to all RFCs published up to >>> that point rather than ones that were standards at the time. >>> >>> We have a Confirmatory Assignment of trademarks and service marks, >>> nothing more for copyright licenses. >>> >>> The trust agreement sec 5.2 encourages other parties to contribute >>> rights relevant to the IETF, which I assume means copyrights in older >>> RFCs or I-D's or licenses to them. I have found no documentation that >>> anyone ever did, but it's possible there's something lurking in an old >>> archive. >>> >>> There are a few early RFCs with specific copyright notices from MIT, U >>> of Michigan and Dan Bernstein, and there's RFC 20 which is a photocopy >>> of most of ANSI X3.4-1968 with nothing suggesting that ANSI's >>> predecessor granted a license. >>> >>> I conclude that we have rights to RFCs published since 1 April 1994 >>> which would be 1605, 1606, 1607 (dated 1 April 1994) and everything >>> since 1610, which was dated May 1994. Earlier than that, find the >>> authors if you can. >>> >>> Anything I've missed here? >>> >>> R's, >>> John >>> >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >>> >> -- >> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com >> living as The Truth is True >> http://geoff.livejournal.com >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > > From amckenzie3 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 22 12:08:18 2020 From: amckenzie3 at yahoo.com (Alex McKenzie) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 19:08:18 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] IMP code In-Reply-To: References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> <1309019778.881045.1587564869030@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1610520827.1102799.1587582498469@mail.yahoo.com> There were not many takers, maybe a couple of dozen. I do not remember for sure whether any net management tools were provided, but I'm inclined to guess none were.? Actually, at that time I think BBN would have been happy to give those things away.? Later network management tools were developed by BBN with internal funding and they were sold. I do not think the IMP code was used by anyone.? Maybe PCI. Telenet started out with the ARPAnet IMP code but rapidly developed their own system. Cheers,Alex On Wednesday, April 22, 2020, 2:01:58 PM EDT, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow wrote: alex (and/or anyone else), some curiosities vis-a-vis the publicly available IMP code: any idea's?how?many eventual takers there were of the publicly available IMP code? did the publicly available IMP code also include the PDP-1 and/or Tenex network management tools? are you aware of any products (or networks) that resulted from?the publicly available IMP code? would specifically be curious to know if the Larry Roberts commercial Telenet (X.25) efforts benefited/used?the publicly available IMP code? geoff On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 4:14 AM Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: ?I am not a lawyer and I never read the early BBN contracts from ARPA.? However, I was told by BBN management that documents produced by BBN employees under the ARPA contracts were in the public domain.? This included network maps, RFCs, conference papers, and so on.? As I recall we had to explicitly assert to the publishers of conference proceedings that papers we submitted could not be copyrighted.? Surely this also applies to any RFCs written by BBN employees. As a side note, BBN did not want to make the IMP code publicly available.? The fear in the early days was that graduate students with access to IMPs might decide to tinker with the code.? A bit later, when some BBN employees started a company called Packet Communications Inc (PCI) to go into the public packet switching business they wanted to take the IMP code with them, and BBN (which was thinking about entering the public packet switching business itself) did not want to make it easy for PCI and refused.? PCI appealed to ARPA to declare that the code was in the public domain, and after a short struggle BBN consented to make the code available to PCI and anyone else who wanted it. [BBN provided the code on mag tape, and charged a $100 shipping and handling fee which was accepted as reasonable.] So I think ISOC can state that any RFCs produced by BBN before 1 April 1994 are in the public domain. Cheers,Alex McKenzie ? ? On Tuesday, April 21, 2020, 10:04:52 PM EDT, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:? ?The IETF Trust, of which I am a current trustee, is finally getting around to updating its dusty old web site. I have to job of figuring out what we can say about rights in very old RFCs, which I realize is a longstanding can of worms.? Here's what I think I have figured out, corrections welcome. RFC 1602 said that all contributions after 1 April 1994 granted a copyright license to ISOC.? In October 1996, RFC 2026 made the grant of rights much clearer, and also specified a copyright notice to put on standards track RFCs, although first RFC with the notice wasn't until 2156 in 1998. In December 2005 the trust was set up, and the Article V of the trust agreement says that the grantors CNRI and ISOC contribute IPR to the trust.? Schedule A lists the IPR including: ? All of its rights in, and copies of, each of the following ? materials that is currently used (as of the Effective Date) in the ? administrative, financial and/or other operation of the IETF: ... ? current Internet Drafts and Request for Comments. I don't know what "current" means here but since I am an optimist I hope it means the rights they may have to all RFCs published up to that point rather than ones that were standards at the time. We have a Confirmatory Assignment of trademarks and service marks, nothing more for copyright licenses. The trust agreement sec 5.2 encourages other parties to contribute rights relevant to the IETF, which I assume means copyrights in older RFCs or I-D's or licenses to them.? I have found no documentation that anyone ever did, but it's possible there's something lurking in an old archive. There are a few early RFCs with specific copyright notices from MIT, U of Michigan and Dan Bernstein, and there's RFC 20 which is a photocopy of most of ANSI X3.4-1968 with nothing suggesting that ANSI's predecessor granted a license. I conclude that we have rights to RFCs published since 1 April 1994 which would be 1605, 1606, 1607 (dated 1 April 1994) and everything since 1610, which was dated May 1994.? Earlier than that, find the authors if you can. Anything I've missed here? R's, John -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.comliving as The Truth is True http://geoff.livejournal.com?? From amckenzie3 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 22 12:15:17 2020 From: amckenzie3 at yahoo.com (Alex McKenzie) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 19:15:17 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> <1309019778.881045.1587564869030@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <489544319.1111015.1587582917932@mail.yahoo.com> Vint, Yes and no, The Telenet packet switches provided X.25 customer interfaces, but internally the Telenet network started out quite similar to the internals of the ARPAnet.? It may have stayed pretty close for quite a while, but Telenet wanted and needed to be independent of BBN.? Steve Butterfield was an IMP programmer from BBN who moved to Telenet and worked on their system.? Holger Opderbeck, one of Len Kleinrock's students who became intimately familiar with the IMP software while at UCLA also went to Telenet and I believed he was their engineering manager. Cheers,Alex On Wednesday, April 22, 2020, 2:17:24 PM EDT, Vint Cerf wrote: Telenet developed X.25 standards in CCITT with Canada, UK and France - no IMP code involved. v On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 2:02 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history wrote: alex (and/or anyone else), some curiosities vis-a-vis the publicly available IMP code: any idea's how many eventual takers there were of the publicly available IMP code? did the publicly available IMP code also include the PDP-1 and/or Tenex network management tools? are you aware of any products (or networks) that resulted from the publicly available IMP code? would specifically be curious to know if the Larry Roberts commercial Telenet (X.25) efforts benefited/used the publicly available IMP code? geoff On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 4:14 AM Alex McKenzie via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >? I am not a lawyer and I never read the early BBN contracts from ARPA. > However, I was told by BBN management that documents produced by BBN > employees under the ARPA contracts were in the public domain.? This > included network maps, RFCs, conference papers, and so on.? As I recall we > had to explicitly assert to the publishers of conference proceedings that > papers we submitted could not be copyrighted.? Surely this also applies to > any RFCs written by BBN employees. > As a side note, BBN did not want to make the IMP code publicly available. > The fear in the early days was that graduate students with access to IMPs > might decide to tinker with the code.? A bit later, when some BBN employees > started a company called Packet Communications Inc (PCI) to go into the > public packet switching business they wanted to take the IMP code with > them, and BBN (which was thinking about entering the public packet > switching business itself) did not want to make it easy for PCI and > refused.? PCI appealed to ARPA to declare that the code was in the public > domain, and after a short struggle BBN consented to make the code available > to PCI and anyone else who wanted it. [BBN provided the code on mag tape, > and charged a $100 shipping and handling fee which was accepted as > reasonable.] > So I think ISOC can state that any RFCs produced by BBN before 1 April > 1994 are in the public domain. > Cheers,Alex McKenzie > >? ? ?On Tuesday, April 21, 2020, 10:04:52 PM EDT, John Levine via > Internet-history wrote: > >? The IETF Trust, of which I am a current trustee, is finally getting > around to updating its dusty old web site. > > I have to job of figuring out what we can say about rights in very old > RFCs, which I realize is a longstanding can of worms.? Here's what I > think I have figured out, corrections welcome. > > RFC 1602 said that all contributions after 1 April 1994 granted a > copyright license to ISOC.? In October 1996, RFC 2026 made the grant > of rights much clearer, and also specified a copyright notice to put > on standards track RFCs, although first RFC with the notice wasn't > until 2156 in 1998. > > In December 2005 the trust was set up, and the Article V of the trust > agreement says that the grantors CNRI and ISOC contribute IPR to the > trust.? Schedule A lists the IPR including: > >? ?All of its rights in, and copies of, each of the following >? ?materials that is currently used (as of the Effective Date) in the >? ?administrative, financial and/or other operation of the IETF: ... > >? ?current Internet Drafts and Request for Comments. > > I don't know what "current" means here but since I am an optimist I > hope it means the rights they may have to all RFCs published up to > that point rather than ones that were standards at the time. > > We have a Confirmatory Assignment of trademarks and service marks, > nothing more for copyright licenses. > > The trust agreement sec 5.2 encourages other parties to contribute > rights relevant to the IETF, which I assume means copyrights in older > RFCs or I-D's or licenses to them.? I have found no documentation that > anyone ever did, but it's possible there's something lurking in an old > archive. > > There are a few early RFCs with specific copyright notices from MIT, U > of Michigan and Dan Bernstein, and there's RFC 20 which is a photocopy > of most of ANSI X3.4-1968 with nothing suggesting that ANSI's > predecessor granted a license. > > I conclude that we have rights to RFCs published since 1 April 1994 > which would be 1605, 1606, 1607 (dated 1 April 1994) and everything > since 1610, which was dated May 1994.? Earlier than that, find the > authors if you can. > > Anything I've missed here? > > R's, > John > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True http://geoff.livejournal.com -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- New postal address:Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th FloorReston, VA 20190 From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Wed Apr 22 14:02:37 2020 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 09:02:37 +1200 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> <23292.1587528935@hop.toad.com> <28886C20-F442-4E81-A09B-D47083F39DC2@strayalpha.com> <9218329a-2700-1f76-24a2-4bd462a42dbb@gmail.com> Message-ID: <579dabec-523c-432c-1fa1-6db007b4c71f@gmail.com> On 23-Apr-20 06:08, Joseph Touch wrote: > >> On Apr 21, 2020, at 10:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> >> Joe, >> >> The inclusion of the ISOC copyright was mandated by RFC2026 (October 1996) >> for "all ISOC standards-related documentation" (remembering that the IETF >> looked to ISOC for legal backing), but I forget why it took a year to >> implement. Possibly ISI lawyers? > > I?m not aware of a reason; the people involved have largely passed, so it?s not clear an answer would be possible. > > It would not be ISI lawyers; ISI was not (and is not) a separate legal entity; USC was/is. Yes, I knew that, sorry for insulting the wrong lawyers ;-). Brian From vgcerf at gmail.com Wed Apr 22 15:54:28 2020 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 18:54:28 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <489544319.1111015.1587582917932@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> <1309019778.881045.1587564869030@mail.yahoo.com> <489544319.1111015.1587582917932@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Alex, Jack, 1. Jack is correct that X.25 is an interface spec (ditto X.75) 2. Although Telenet was a BBN spinout, I did not have the impression that they used the DDPX16 processors. So did they use the C30/C50 product line and start with ARPANET IMP code? Or did they use some other processor? I guess the C30's ran IMP code by emulating Honeywell X16 processors - is that correct? It is certainly true that by the time I was using C/30s for MCI Mail they were exhibiting X.25 interfaces (and X.28, X.29, X.3....). I don't think MCI Mail ever used X.75 but I won't swear to that. We did offer an X.25 service but that was from the acquisition of Tymnet which used its internal "colored ball" protocols with an X.25 facade. That system did interconnect with other X.25 systems via the X.75 interface. v On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 3:15 PM Alex McKenzie via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Vint, > Yes and no, > The Telenet packet switches provided X.25 customer interfaces, but > internally the Telenet network started out quite similar to the internals > of the ARPAnet. It may have stayed pretty close for quite a while, but > Telenet wanted and needed to be independent of BBN. Steve Butterfield was > an IMP programmer from BBN who moved to Telenet and worked on their > system. Holger Opderbeck, one of Len Kleinrock's students who became > intimately familiar with the IMP software while at UCLA also went to > Telenet and I believed he was their engineering manager. > > Cheers,Alex > > On Wednesday, April 22, 2020, 2:17:24 PM EDT, Vint Cerf < > vint at google.com> wrote: > > Telenet developed X.25 standards in CCITT with Canada, UK and France - no > IMP code involved. > v > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 2:02 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via > Internet-history wrote: > > alex (and/or anyone else), some curiosities vis-a-vis the publicly > available IMP code: > > any idea's how many eventual takers there were of the publicly available > IMP code? > > did the publicly available IMP code also include the PDP-1 and/or Tenex > network management tools? > > are you aware of any products (or networks) that resulted from the publicly > available IMP code? > > would specifically be curious to know if the Larry Roberts commercial > Telenet (X.25) efforts benefited/used the publicly available IMP code? > > geoff > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 4:14 AM Alex McKenzie via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > I am not a lawyer and I never read the early BBN contracts from ARPA. > > However, I was told by BBN management that documents produced by BBN > > employees under the ARPA contracts were in the public domain. This > > included network maps, RFCs, conference papers, and so on. As I recall > we > > had to explicitly assert to the publishers of conference proceedings that > > papers we submitted could not be copyrighted. Surely this also applies > to > > any RFCs written by BBN employees. > > As a side note, BBN did not want to make the IMP code publicly available. > > The fear in the early days was that graduate students with access to IMPs > > might decide to tinker with the code. A bit later, when some BBN > employees > > started a company called Packet Communications Inc (PCI) to go into the > > public packet switching business they wanted to take the IMP code with > > them, and BBN (which was thinking about entering the public packet > > switching business itself) did not want to make it easy for PCI and > > refused. PCI appealed to ARPA to declare that the code was in the public > > domain, and after a short struggle BBN consented to make the code > available > > to PCI and anyone else who wanted it. [BBN provided the code on mag tape, > > and charged a $100 shipping and handling fee which was accepted as > > reasonable.] > > So I think ISOC can state that any RFCs produced by BBN before 1 April > > 1994 are in the public domain. > > Cheers,Alex McKenzie > > > > On Tuesday, April 21, 2020, 10:04:52 PM EDT, John Levine via > > Internet-history wrote: > > > > The IETF Trust, of which I am a current trustee, is finally getting > > around to updating its dusty old web site. > > > > I have to job of figuring out what we can say about rights in very old > > RFCs, which I realize is a longstanding can of worms. Here's what I > > think I have figured out, corrections welcome. > > > > RFC 1602 said that all contributions after 1 April 1994 granted a > > copyright license to ISOC. In October 1996, RFC 2026 made the grant > > of rights much clearer, and also specified a copyright notice to put > > on standards track RFCs, although first RFC with the notice wasn't > > until 2156 in 1998. > > > > In December 2005 the trust was set up, and the Article V of the trust > > agreement says that the grantors CNRI and ISOC contribute IPR to the > > trust. Schedule A lists the IPR including: > > > > All of its rights in, and copies of, each of the following > > materials that is currently used (as of the Effective Date) in the > > administrative, financial and/or other operation of the IETF: ... > > > > current Internet Drafts and Request for Comments. > > > > I don't know what "current" means here but since I am an optimist I > > hope it means the rights they may have to all RFCs published up to > > that point rather than ones that were standards at the time. > > > > We have a Confirmatory Assignment of trademarks and service marks, > > nothing more for copyright licenses. > > > > The trust agreement sec 5.2 encourages other parties to contribute > > rights relevant to the IETF, which I assume means copyrights in older > > RFCs or I-D's or licenses to them. I have found no documentation that > > anyone ever did, but it's possible there's something lurking in an old > > archive. > > > > There are a few early RFCs with specific copyright notices from MIT, U > > of Michigan and Dan Bernstein, and there's RFC 20 which is a photocopy > > of most of ANSI X3.4-1968 with nothing suggesting that ANSI's > > predecessor granted a license. > > > > I conclude that we have rights to RFCs published since 1 April 1994 > > which would be 1605, 1606, 1607 (dated 1 April 1994) and everything > > since 1610, which was dated May 1994. Earlier than that, find the > > authors if you can. > > > > Anything I've missed here? > > > > R's, > > John > > > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > http://geoff.livejournal.com > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > -- > New postal address:Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th FloorReston, VA 20190 > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From dave.walden.family at gmail.com Wed Apr 22 16:03:44 2020 From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (David Walden) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 19:03:44 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? Message-ID: Telenet started with using Hx16 computers -- I think the Honeywell 716 to which I guess they added X.25. That's why Butterfield who knew the 316 IMP code went there. Then Holger designed their own computer and I guess they switched to that and I think I remember Butterfield came back to Cambridge. On April 22, 2020, at 6:54 PM, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: Alex, Jack, 1. Jack is correct that X.25 is an interface spec (ditto X.75) 2. Although Telenet was a BBN spinout, I did not have the impression that they used the DDPX16 processors. So did they use the C30/C50 product line and start with ARPANET IMP code? Or did they use some other processor? I guess the C30's ran IMP code by emulating Honeywell X16 processors - is that correct? It is certainly true that by the time I was using C/30s for MCI Mail they were exhibiting X.25 interfaces (and X.28, X.29, X.3....). I don't think MCI Mail ever used X.75 but I won't swear to that. We did offer an X.25 service but that was from the acquisition of Tymnet which used its internal "colored ball" protocols with an X.25 facade. That system did interconnect with other X.25 systems via the X.75 interface. v On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 3:15 PM Alex McKenzie via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Vint, > Yes and no, > The Telenet packet switches provided X.25 customer interfaces, but > internally the Telenet network started out quite similar to the internals > of the ARPAnet. It may have stayed pretty close for quite a while, but > Telenet wanted and needed to be independent of BBN. Steve Butterfield was > an IMP programmer from BBN who moved to Telenet and worked on their > system. Holger Opderbeck, one of Len Kleinrock's students who became > intimately familiar with the IMP software while at UCLA also went to > Telenet and I believed he was their engineering manager. > > Cheers,Alex > > On Wednesday, April 22, 2020, 2:17:24 PM EDT, Vint Cerf < > vint at google.com> wrote: > > Telenet developed X.25 standards in CCITT with Canada, UK and France - no > IMP code involved. > v > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 2:02 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via > Internet-history wrote: > > alex (and/or anyone else), some curiosities vis-a-vis the publicly > available IMP code: > > any idea's how many eventual takers there were of the publicly available > IMP code? > > did the publicly available IMP code also include the PDP-1 and/or Tenex > network management tools? > > are you aware of any products (or networks) that resulted from the publicly > available IMP code? > > would specifically be curious to know if the Larry Roberts commercial > Telenet (X.25) efforts benefited/used the publicly available IMP code? > > geoff > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 4:14 AM Alex McKenzie via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > I am not a lawyer and I never read the early BBN contracts from ARPA. > > However, I was told by BBN management that documents produced by BBN > > employees under the ARPA contracts were in the public domain. This > > included network maps, RFCs, conference papers, and so on. As I recall > we > > had to explicitly assert to the publishers of conference proceedings that > > papers we submitted could not be copyrighted. Surely this also applies > to > > any RFCs written by BBN employees. > > As a side note, BBN did not want to make the IMP code publicly available. > > The fear in the early days was that graduate students with access to IMPs > > might decide to tinker with the code. A bit later, when some BBN > employees > > started a company called Packet Communications Inc (PCI) to go into the > > public packet switching business they wanted to take the IMP code with > > them, and BBN (which was thinking about entering the public packet > > switching business itself) did not want to make it easy for PCI and > > refused. PCI appealed to ARPA to declare that the code was in the public > > domain, and after a short struggle BBN consented to make the code > available > > to PCI and anyone else who wanted it. [BBN provided the code on mag tape, > > and charged a $100 shipping and handling fee which was accepted as > > reasonable.] > > So I think ISOC can state that any RFCs produced by BBN before 1 April > > 1994 are in the public domain. > > Cheers,Alex McKenzie > > > > On Tuesday, April 21, 2020, 10:04:52 PM EDT, John Levine via > > Internet-history wrote: > > > > The IETF Trust, of which I am a current trustee, is finally getting > > around to updating its dusty old web site. > > > > I have to job of figuring out what we can say about rights in very old > > RFCs, which I realize is a longstanding can of worms. Here's what I > > think I have figured out, corrections welcome. > > > > RFC 1602 said that all contributions after 1 April 1994 granted a > > copyright license to ISOC. In October 1996, RFC 2026 made the grant > > of rights much clearer, and also specified a copyright notice to put > > on standards track RFCs, although first RFC with the notice wasn't > > until 2156 in 1998. > > > > In December 2005 the trust was set up, and the Article V of the trust > > agreement says that the grantors CNRI and ISOC contribute IPR to the > > trust. Schedule A lists the IPR including: > > > > All of its rights in, and copies of, each of the following > > materials that is currently used (as of the Effective Date) in the > > administrative, financial and/or other operation of the IETF: ... > > > > current Internet Drafts and Request for Comments. > > > > I don't know what "current" means here but since I am an optimist I > > hope it means the rights they may have to all RFCs published up to > > that point rather than ones that were standards at the time. > > > > We have a Confirmatory Assignment of trademarks and service marks, > > nothing more for copyright licenses. > > > > The trust agreement sec 5.2 encourages other parties to contribute > > rights relevant to the IETF, which I assume means copyrights in older > > RFCs or I-D's or licenses to them. I have found no documentation that > > anyone ever did, but it's possible there's something lurking in an old > > archive. > > > > There are a few early RFCs with specific copyright notices from MIT, U > > of Michigan and Dan Bernstein, and there's RFC 20 which is a photocopy > > of most of ANSI X3.4-1968 with nothing suggesting that ANSI's > > predecessor granted a license. > > > > I conclude that we have rights to RFCs published since 1 April 1994 > > which would be 1605, 1606, 1607 (dated 1 April 1994) and everything > > since 1610, which was dated May 1994. Earlier than that, find the > > authors if you can. > > > > Anything I've missed here? > > > > R's, > > John > > > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > http://geoff.livejournal.com > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > -- > New postal address:Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th FloorReston, VA 20190 > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From dave.walden.family at gmail.com Wed Apr 22 16:07:59 2020 From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (David Walden) Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 19:07:59 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? Message-ID: Maybe something at https://walden-family.com/am254/vol3-2-telenet.pdf is relevant to the X16 question. On April 22, 2020, at 6:54 PM, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: Alex, Jack, 1. Jack is correct that X.25 is an interface spec (ditto X.75) 2. Although Telenet was a BBN spinout, I did not have the impression that they used the DDPX16 processors. So did they use the C30/C50 product line and start with ARPANET IMP code? Or did they use some other processor? I guess the C30's ran IMP code by emulating Honeywell X16 processors - is that correct? It is certainly true that by the time I was using C/30s for MCI Mail they were exhibiting X.25 interfaces (and X.28, X.29, X.3....). I don't think MCI Mail ever used X.75 but I won't swear to that. We did offer an X.25 service but that was from the acquisition of Tymnet which used its internal "colored ball" protocols with an X.25 facade. That system did interconnect with other X.25 systems via the X.75 interface. v On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 3:15 PM Alex McKenzie via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Vint, > Yes and no, > The Telenet packet switches provided X.25 customer interfaces, but > internally the Telenet network started out quite similar to the internals > of the ARPAnet. It may have stayed pretty close for quite a while, but > Telenet wanted and needed to be independent of BBN. Steve Butterfield was > an IMP programmer from BBN who moved to Telenet and worked on their > system. Holger Opderbeck, one of Len Kleinrock's students who became > intimately familiar with the IMP software while at UCLA also went to > Telenet and I believed he was their engineering manager. > > Cheers,Alex > > On Wednesday, April 22, 2020, 2:17:24 PM EDT, Vint Cerf < > vint at google.com> wrote: > > Telenet developed X.25 standards in CCITT with Canada, UK and France - no > IMP code involved. > v > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 2:02 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via > Internet-history wrote: > > alex (and/or anyone else), some curiosities vis-a-vis the publicly > available IMP code: > > any idea's how many eventual takers there were of the publicly available > IMP code? > > did the publicly available IMP code also include the PDP-1 and/or Tenex > network management tools? > > are you aware of any products (or networks) that resulted from the publicly > available IMP code? > > would specifically be curious to know if the Larry Roberts commercial > Telenet (X.25) efforts benefited/used the publicly available IMP code? > > geoff > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 4:14 AM Alex McKenzie via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > I am not a lawyer and I never read the early BBN contracts from ARPA. > > However, I was told by BBN management that documents produced by BBN > > employees under the ARPA contracts were in the public domain. This > > included network maps, RFCs, conference papers, and so on. As I recall > we > > had to explicitly assert to the publishers of conference proceedings that > > papers we submitted could not be copyrighted. Surely this also applies > to > > any RFCs written by BBN employees. > > As a side note, BBN did not want to make the IMP code publicly available. > > The fear in the early days was that graduate students with access to IMPs > > might decide to tinker with the code. A bit later, when some BBN > employees > > started a company called Packet Communications Inc (PCI) to go into the > > public packet switching business they wanted to take the IMP code with > > them, and BBN (which was thinking about entering the public packet > > switching business itself) did not want to make it easy for PCI and > > refused. PCI appealed to ARPA to declare that the code was in the public > > domain, and after a short struggle BBN consented to make the code > available > > to PCI and anyone else who wanted it. [BBN provided the code on mag tape, > > and charged a $100 shipping and handling fee which was accepted as > > reasonable.] > > So I think ISOC can state that any RFCs produced by BBN before 1 April > > 1994 are in the public domain. > > Cheers,Alex McKenzie > > > > On Tuesday, April 21, 2020, 10:04:52 PM EDT, John Levine via > > Internet-history wrote: > > > > The IETF Trust, of which I am a current trustee, is finally getting > > around to updating its dusty old web site. > > > > I have to job of figuring out what we can say about rights in very old > > RFCs, which I realize is a longstanding can of worms. Here's what I > > think I have figured out, corrections welcome. > > > > RFC 1602 said that all contributions after 1 April 1994 granted a > > copyright license to ISOC. In October 1996, RFC 2026 made the grant > > of rights much clearer, and also specified a copyright notice to put > > on standards track RFCs, although first RFC with the notice wasn't > > until 2156 in 1998. > > > > In December 2005 the trust was set up, and the Article V of the trust > > agreement says that the grantors CNRI and ISOC contribute IPR to the > > trust. Schedule A lists the IPR including: > > > > All of its rights in, and copies of, each of the following > > materials that is currently used (as of the Effective Date) in the > > administrative, financial and/or other operation of the IETF: ... > > > > current Internet Drafts and Request for Comments. > > > > I don't know what "current" means here but since I am an optimist I > > hope it means the rights they may have to all RFCs published up to > > that point rather than ones that were standards at the time. > > > > We have a Confirmatory Assignment of trademarks and service marks, > > nothing more for copyright licenses. > > > > The trust agreement sec 5.2 encourages other parties to contribute > > rights relevant to the IETF, which I assume means copyrights in older > > RFCs or I-D's or licenses to them. I have found no documentation that > > anyone ever did, but it's possible there's something lurking in an old > > archive. > > > > There are a few early RFCs with specific copyright notices from MIT, U > > of Michigan and Dan Bernstein, and there's RFC 20 which is a photocopy > > of most of ANSI X3.4-1968 with nothing suggesting that ANSI's > > predecessor granted a license. > > > > I conclude that we have rights to RFCs published since 1 April 1994 > > which would be 1605, 1606, 1607 (dated 1 April 1994) and everything > > since 1610, which was dated May 1994. Earlier than that, find the > > authors if you can. > > > > Anything I've missed here? > > > > R's, > > John > > > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > http://geoff.livejournal.com > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > -- > New postal address:Google > 1875 Explorer Street, 10th FloorReston, VA 20190 > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From karl at cavebear.com Thu Apr 23 00:19:13 2020 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 00:19:13 -0700 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> Message-ID: <60702663-6999-a3f4-2abb-e6bd2c504024@cavebear.com> I am really glad that you asked this question. First off, I would be willing and happy to sign some sort of copyright quitclaim of any copyright rights I might have in any RFC (or other IETF material). If we can't resurrect the one that we previously used, I think that the Free Software folks may have a baseline document for doing this kind of thing. Second - someone ought to look at the rules that apply in places other then the US. Some of the older RFCs may be slipping into the public domain or need some sort of renewal process. This stuff is far from simple; there are flow charts floating around the US copyright lawyer community - and they are surprisingly complicated and filled with dates and odd distinctions. (Good thing we are dealing with textual materials and not music - the distinctions there are mind bending.) Personally I like having IETF or someone hold a copyright right rather than the RFCs falling into the public domain. This is not that there would be restrictions or controls, but rather that there would be some potential (even if largely conjectural) lever should deviant versions be published or wrong claims of authorship made. As John Gilmore mentions, we might not be able to fully pull the rights together. But even a partial gathering would be better than nothing. I like John G's suggestion of asserting "nobody owns it", but I've seen too many good ideas get hosed in the copyright area to trust that boldly asserting would be a safe or sufficient course of action. (If anybody want's an example, look at the mess about the Java API's in the Google vs Oracle lawsuit.) (And, there is, of course, the fairly recent decision in the US that makes it clear that before any enforcement action can begin, the copyright has to be registered - by the ones who hold the copyright. Because of the legal goodies that registration provides, it could be advisable that the IETF Trust follow the path being taken by some of the open/free source groups: formally acquire the copyright rights from the authors and then register each RFC - last time I checked it was a fairly simply form (for each RFC) plus a fee (if I remember correctly it is still about $35 each.) Better to have the power to protect the integrity of the RFCs and not ever use it than to someday need the power and not have it. --karl-- From vint at google.com Thu Apr 23 04:45:37 2020 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 07:45:37 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <60702663-6999-a3f4-2abb-e6bd2c504024@cavebear.com> References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> <60702663-6999-a3f4-2abb-e6bd2c504024@cavebear.com> Message-ID: The idea behind copyright is a finite time for control by the author and then entry into public domain for the benefit of all. While the ability to control the text ad infinitum might be attractive for standards purposes, I am not sure copyright is the right means. A different tactic might be to use a form of trademark which can be protected forever (I think). The text would not be trademarked but the indicator that something is an IETF-controlled item might be subject to trademark. Would that protect against someone producing a fake RFC or altered RFC? v On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 3:19 AM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > I am really glad that you asked this question. > > First off, I would be willing and happy to sign some sort of copyright > quitclaim of any copyright rights I might have in any RFC (or other IETF > material). If we can't resurrect the one that we previously used, I > think that the Free Software folks may have a baseline document for > doing this kind of thing. > > Second - someone ought to look at the rules that apply in places other > then the US. Some of the older RFCs may be slipping into the public > domain or need some sort of renewal process. > > This stuff is far from simple; there are flow charts floating around the > US copyright lawyer community - and they are surprisingly complicated > and filled with dates and odd distinctions. (Good thing we are dealing > with textual materials and not music - the distinctions there are mind > bending.) > > Personally I like having IETF or someone hold a copyright right rather > than the RFCs falling into the public domain. This is not that there > would be restrictions or controls, but rather that there would be some > potential (even if largely conjectural) lever should deviant versions be > published or wrong claims of authorship made. > > As John Gilmore mentions, we might not be able to fully pull the rights > together. But even a partial gathering would be better than nothing. I > like John G's suggestion of asserting "nobody owns it", but I've seen > too many good ideas get hosed in the copyright area to trust that boldly > asserting would be a safe or sufficient course of action. (If anybody > want's an example, look at the mess about the Java API's in the Google > vs Oracle lawsuit.) > > (And, there is, of course, the fairly recent decision in the US that > makes it clear that before any enforcement action can begin, the > copyright has to be registered - by the ones who hold the copyright. > Because of the legal goodies that registration provides, it could be > advisable that the IETF Trust follow the path being taken by some of the > open/free source groups: formally acquire the copyright rights from the > authors and then register each RFC - last time I checked it was a fairly > simply form (for each RFC) plus a fee (if I remember correctly it is > still about $35 each.) > > Better to have the power to protect the integrity of the RFCs and not > ever use it than to someday need the power and not have it. > > --karl-- > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 From clemc at ccc.com Thu Apr 23 06:59:16 2020 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 09:59:16 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> <60702663-6999-a3f4-2abb-e6bd2c504024@cavebear.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 7:46 AM Vint Cerf via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > The idea behind copyright is a finite time for control by the author and > then entry into public domain for the benefit of all. > While the ability to control the text ad infinitum might be attractive for > standards purposes, I am not sure copyright is the right means. > I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure of the subtle differences and I don't think we have many, if any, reading or commenting on this list. Sadly, a few years ago the world lost Arthur Kahn (the attorney that represented Franklin Computer against Apple in the original copyright case of WRT to SW in the late 70s). While he lost the case, his ideas gave us the 'clean room' concept that is pretty much standard in the industry and accepted in legal circles. We need someone with Arthur intellect and knowledge of the law, come up with a similarly creative solution. I'd be curious to hear what someone like Larry Lessing thinks we have as tools here. IMO, while protecting against fake RFCs is probably a good idea too, I believe that what we really need is a way to protect the >>ideas<< contained within the RFCs in a manner that anyone can use them, but when using/applying them in practice, any new ideas or new 'gadget' must be defined as a "derivative work" of those ideas. That said, because since they have been published opening already, someone that tried to make a claim is going to have to prove how they did it without the information contained within (*i.e.* they are 'mentally contaminated' by the RFC or any textbook/course that used the RFC as source material). But having some sort of front and center stamp reminding people, these ideas are owned by someone like ISOC seems appropriate. > A different tactic might be to use a form of trademark which can be > protected forever (I think). The text would not be trademarked but the > indicator that something is an IETF-controlled item might be subject to > trademark. Would that protect against someone producing a fake RFC or > altered RFC? > Again, not a lawyer, so I'm not in a position to suggest it is good enough or not. I >>suspect<< that it's not strong enough because what you describe might or might protect against a new document, the ideas contained within are what we really need to protect. Simply, it still does not protect against derivative works and claims of what is the base of idea(s) which your new one(s) is(are) building upon. Look at all the confusion with some members of Linux community claiming it's not 'UNIX' because they are equating the source code (i*.e.* the implementation of the ideas) with the intellectual property (*i.e.* the ideas themselves); even though the US Courts at least (in the USL vs UCB/BSDi case), have already ruled and made it clear -- Idris, Coherent, Mach, Chorus, *et al and Linux*... are new *implementations* (with some new ideas of their own too), but are implementations and extensions of the original AT&T owned ideas. But AT&T could not claim not 'trade secrets' and thus anyone could use the ideas. To me, it is the content of the RFCs that need to be protected. They can be used by anyone, like Ken and Dennis's as they published them in the open; just as the RFCs have been over time. But any *implementation* of ideas in those RFC's are still based on the published idea, and an implementor of those ideas needs to point back to the RFCs. Nor can the implementor make any claim for anything but the new implementation itself. Clem From dhc at dcrocker.net Thu Apr 23 08:25:40 2020 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 08:25:40 -0700 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> <60702663-6999-a3f4-2abb-e6bd2c504024@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <9e83071a-5d0d-8042-19dc-bc778330350c@dcrocker.net> On 4/23/2020 6:59 AM, Clem Cole via Internet-history wrote: > IMO, while protecting against fake RFCs is probably a good idea too, I > believe that what we really need is a way to protect the >>ideas<< Indeed it might be helpful to clarify what problems or threats are of interest and also establish how serious a concern they are. For example, there is a long-standing fear that a non-standards track IETF RFC will be promoted as if it were a standard. And indeed, some folk have done this. But after 40+ years, there is little evidence that this abuse has been a significant problem to the industry. Vint's trademark suggestion has the nice combination of simplicity and clarity. It's a well-established mechanism, with known benefits and limitations, and it's use is straightforward. (Small concern about the faction that the construct is national rather than international, of course.) Internauts Creed: "This is the IETF's RFC. There are many like it, but this one is the IETF's." Not sure how to affix the IETF logo as a trademark to an ASCII RFC, though. (Small aside about trademark: The American Red Cross relatively recently moved from a simple red cross as its symbol to a red cross inside a shaded 'badge', since the former couldn't be trademarked; not distinctive enough.) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Thu Apr 23 09:00:11 2020 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 12:00:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? Message-ID: <20200423160011.48DD318C0D8@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Vint Cerf > The idea behind copyright is a finite time for control by the author and > then entry into public domain for the benefit of all. That's the theory - but we all know about theory and practise. The 'Mickey Mouse' extension to copyright duration ('Mickey Mouse' in both senses) has made the 'finite' very lengthy indeed - and the rationale which the US Supreme Court used in upholding it (basically 'anything not indefinits is limited' - talk about ignoring the basic point, in favour of a tortured reading of the fine print) would allow further extensions. (My old intellectual propery law guy at Hale and Dorr, also a prof at Harvard Law, was one of the leading lights in the group that appealed the extension law to the Supreme Court; I discussed it with him at the time,and we were both totally disgusted at the SC's rationale.) Noel From vgcerf at gmail.com Thu Apr 23 09:29:43 2020 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 12:29:43 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <20200423160011.48DD318C0D8@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20200423160011.48DD318C0D8@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: full agreement with Noel about the grotesque way in which copyright law has been distorted. v On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:00 PM Noel Chiappa via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > From: Vint Cerf > > > The idea behind copyright is a finite time for control by the author > and > > then entry into public domain for the benefit of all. > > That's the theory - but we all know about theory and practise. The 'Mickey > Mouse' extension to copyright duration ('Mickey Mouse' in both senses) has > made the 'finite' very lengthy indeed - and the rationale which the US > Supreme > Court used in upholding it (basically 'anything not indefinits is limited' > - > talk about ignoring the basic point, in favour of a tortured reading of the > fine print) would allow further extensions. > > (My old intellectual propery law guy at Hale and Dorr, also a prof at > Harvard > Law, was one of the leading lights in the group that appealed the extension > law to the Supreme Court; I discussed it with him at the time,and we were > both > totally disgusted at the SC's rationale.) > > Noel > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From johnl at iecc.com Thu Apr 23 12:00:58 2020 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 23 Apr 2020 15:00:58 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20200423190059.CBC741823439@ary.qy> In article you write: >IMO, while protecting against fake RFCs is probably a good idea too, I >believe that what we really need is a way to protect the >>ideas<< >contained within the RFCs in a manner that anyone can use them, but when >using/applying them in practice, any new ideas or new 'gadget' must be >defined as a "derivative work" of those ideas. ... That would have been a patent, and we all know what a rathole that is. Once again, I'm not trying to invent anything new here. I'm trying to figure out what the actual status of old RFCs is so the Trust can tell people who ask. R's, John From sob at sobco.com Thu Apr 23 12:25:22 2020 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 15:25:22 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <20200423190059.CBC741823439@ary.qy> References: <20200423190059.CBC741823439@ary.qy> Message-ID: <311D98C8-4D5B-4F54-BE95-C3668A2C32EC@sobco.com> I exchanged mail with Ray Ray collected some signed forms that signed over rights (but I am not sure exactly what rights) to the Trust - he does not have copies of the forms with I'm but he might have some at a location in NC which he will check sometime in May when he visits there - but he thinks he likely left the forms with ISOC when he left Scott > On Apr 23, 2020, at 3:00 PM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: > > In article you write: >> IMO, while protecting against fake RFCs is probably a good idea too, I >> believe that what we really need is a way to protect the >>ideas<< >> contained within the RFCs in a manner that anyone can use them, but when >> using/applying them in practice, any new ideas or new 'gadget' must be >> defined as a "derivative work" of those ideas. ... > > That would have been a patent, and we all know what a rathole that is. > > Once again, I'm not trying to invent anything new here. I'm trying to > figure out what the actual status of old RFCs is so the Trust can tell > people who ask. > > R's, > John > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From johnl at iecc.com Thu Apr 23 13:52:11 2020 From: johnl at iecc.com (John R. Levine) Date: 23 Apr 2020 16:52:11 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <311D98C8-4D5B-4F54-BE95-C3668A2C32EC@sobco.com> References: <20200423190059.CBC741823439@ary.qy> <311D98C8-4D5B-4F54-BE95-C3668A2C32EC@sobco.com> Message-ID: > Ray collected some signed forms that signed over rights (but I am not sure exactly what rights) to the Trust - he > does not have copies of the forms with I'm but he might have some at a location in NC which he will check > sometime in May when he visits there - but he thinks he likely left the forms with ISOC when he left We have a copy of Ray's hard drive which has a few signed scans of the form that Brian sent. I'll tell ISOC that if anyone is ever in the office (not likely any time soon) they might see if they can figure out where Ray's stuff ended up. Regards, John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Thu Apr 23 14:05:56 2020 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 09:05:56 +1200 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: References: <20200423190059.CBC741823439@ary.qy> <311D98C8-4D5B-4F54-BE95-C3668A2C32EC@sobco.com> Message-ID: Just to close the loop, many recent RFCs which are updates of older ones include this lawyer-approved legend: This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English. Regards Brian Carpenter On 24-Apr-20 08:52, John R. Levine via Internet-history wrote: >> Ray collected some signed forms that signed over rights (but I am not sure exactly what rights) to the Trust - he >> does not have copies of the forms with I'm but he might have some at a location in NC which he will check >> sometime in May when he visits there - but he thinks he likely left the forms with ISOC when he left > > We have a copy of Ray's hard drive which has a few signed scans of the > form that Brian sent. I'll tell ISOC that if anyone is ever in the office > (not likely any time soon) they might see if they can figure out where > Ray's stuff ended up. > > Regards, > John Levine, johnl at taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly > From karl at cavebear.com Thu Apr 23 16:35:14 2020 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 16:35:14 -0700 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> <60702663-6999-a3f4-2abb-e6bd2c504024@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <1aef4cb9-4087-1379-da7b-c02ffe83cbd1@cavebear.com> I do like Vint's idea of an IETF trademark.? Other standards groups require that those who wish to place their mark on products conform to a list of specified requirements. (For example, we have all seen the USB trademark on a myrid of cables and devices.? The trademark owner of the USB mark imposes all kinds of conditions, such as the colors of the connectors, which side is "up", and conformance to the technical requirements.) So, if there were an IETF trademark logo - something that a lot of makers would like to show on their products - it could come with obligations regarding adherence to RFCs and other such stuff.? (It could also become a nice revenue stream for the IETF.)? Setting this up could be a long, hard, and probably expensive project requiring a permanent administrative staff. But that's a long, long way from protecting the integrity of the RFC's themselves.? But it sure would be fun to have a contest to come up with an "IETF Approved" kind of trademark/logo. In this era of "fake news" (and self-signed TLS certificates and tampered pseudo-random number generators) there may be people who want to be assured that they have a correct copy of an RFC or Internet standard. John Levine did mention that a lot of stuff may have already slipped into the public domain - at least in the US.? That's quite true. (But we always need to remember that the US is just one of nearly 200 countries - so it's an open question elsewhere). The US law has been changing and shifting and jiggling a lot over recent years and some stuff that was once outside US copyright protection (e.g. had fallen into public domain) has been recaptured back into copyright.? I am far from knowledgeable about that morass and do not know whether it might apply to RFC texts. (In the music area over the last coupe of years there was a herd of decisions about the copyright status of the old Turtle's tune "Happy Together" - that wasn't exactly a public domain case, but it suggests that things can slide around in very non-obvious ways.) This stuff is enough to make one's hair (and, if present, beard) turn grey. ??? ??? --karl-- From touch at strayalpha.com Thu Apr 23 16:54:04 2020 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joseph Touch) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 16:54:04 -0700 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <1aef4cb9-4087-1379-da7b-c02ffe83cbd1@cavebear.com> References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> <60702663-6999-a3f4-2abb-e6bd2c504024@cavebear.com> <1aef4cb9-4087-1379-da7b-c02ffe83cbd1@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <7DD8A6AD-D48C-410E-9101-54A4A8369170@strayalpha.com> > On Apr 23, 2020, at 4:35 PM, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote: > > I do like Vint's idea of an IETF trademark. Other standards groups require that those who wish to place their mark on products conform to a list of specified requirements. That would require a compliance process, i.e., which other orgs (USB, IEEE, etc.) have and we lack. That?s why our requirements are frequently ignored in deployments. Joe From dhc at dcrocker.net Thu Apr 23 17:21:19 2020 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 17:21:19 -0700 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <7DD8A6AD-D48C-410E-9101-54A4A8369170@strayalpha.com> References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> <60702663-6999-a3f4-2abb-e6bd2c504024@cavebear.com> <1aef4cb9-4087-1379-da7b-c02ffe83cbd1@cavebear.com> <7DD8A6AD-D48C-410E-9101-54A4A8369170@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: <99c691aa-dfc3-7351-1513-f9bb27641fd0@dcrocker.net> On 4/23/2020 4:54 PM, Joseph Touch via Internet-history wrote: > > >> On Apr 23, 2020, at 4:35 PM, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote: >> >> I do like Vint's idea of an IETF trademark. Other standards groups require that those who wish to place their mark on products conform to a list of specified requirements. > > That would require a compliance process, i.e., which other orgs (USB, IEEE, etc.) have and we lack. That?s why our requirements are frequently ignored in deployments. A milder approach might be post-hoc, ad hoc challenges. A product is advertised as conforming but someone (not the IETF) claims it doesn't and demonstrates that it doesn't. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From touch at strayalpha.com Thu Apr 23 18:30:38 2020 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joseph Touch) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 18:30:38 -0700 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <99c691aa-dfc3-7351-1513-f9bb27641fd0@dcrocker.net> References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> <60702663-6999-a3f4-2abb-e6bd2c504024@cavebear.com> <1aef4cb9-4087-1379-da7b-c02ffe83cbd1@cavebear.com> <7DD8A6AD-D48C-410E-9101-54A4A8369170@strayalpha.com> <99c691aa-dfc3-7351-1513-f9bb27641fd0@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <008E6C43-5137-41ED-8646-8CCC01FF9E68@strayalpha.com> > On Apr 23, 2020, at 5:21 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > On 4/23/2020 4:54 PM, Joseph Touch via Internet-history wrote: >>> On Apr 23, 2020, at 4:35 PM, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote: >>> >>> I do like Vint's idea of an IETF trademark. Other standards groups require that those who wish to place their mark on products conform to a list of specified requirements. >> That would require a compliance process, i.e., which other orgs (USB, IEEE, etc.) have and we lack. That?s why our requirements are frequently ignored in deployments. > > > A milder approach might be post-hoc, ad hoc challenges. A product is advertised as conforming but someone (not the IETF) claims it doesn't and demonstrates that it doesn't. Paid for - like everything else in the IETF - the goodness in people?s hearts? Note that the majority of large-timesink roles in the IETF are performed by people paid by vendors. The carrot of true compliance is the fee charged for compliance verification. There?s no way to pay for a stick. Joe From dhc at dcrocker.net Thu Apr 23 18:37:48 2020 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 18:37:48 -0700 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <008E6C43-5137-41ED-8646-8CCC01FF9E68@strayalpha.com> References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> <60702663-6999-a3f4-2abb-e6bd2c504024@cavebear.com> <1aef4cb9-4087-1379-da7b-c02ffe83cbd1@cavebear.com> <7DD8A6AD-D48C-410E-9101-54A4A8369170@strayalpha.com> <99c691aa-dfc3-7351-1513-f9bb27641fd0@dcrocker.net> <008E6C43-5137-41ED-8646-8CCC01FF9E68@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: On 4/23/2020 6:30 PM, Joseph Touch via Internet-history wrote: > Paid for - like everything else in the IETF - the goodness in people?s hearts? > > Note that the majority of large-timesink roles in the IETF are performed by people paid by vendors. The carrot of true compliance is the fee charged for compliance verification. Just by way of example, when someone buys a product that advertises a set of features and discover it doesn't have some of them, it's not uncommon for them to demand a refund. With enough customers deceived in that fashion, it is not uncommon for a government agency to take action. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From touch at strayalpha.com Thu Apr 23 18:48:26 2020 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 18:48:26 -0700 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38BAF703-42C9-43D5-8E2A-42DA89BB0A49@strayalpha.com> > On Apr 23, 2020, at 6:37 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > ?On 4/23/2020 6:30 PM, Joseph Touch via Internet-history wrote: >> Paid for - like everything else in the IETF - the goodness in people?s hearts? >> Note that the majority of large-timesink roles in the IETF are performed by people paid by vendors. The carrot of true compliance is the fee charged for compliance verification. > > > Just by way of example, when someone buys a product that advertises a set of features and discover it doesn't have some of them, it's not uncommon for them to demand a refund. With enough customers deceived in that fashion, it is not uncommon for a government agency to take action. Perhaps the same FCC that doesn?t think the Internet is a communications service? Again, though, we?re back to compliance. We have nothing that asserts what that requires, so it?s impossible to claim a device fails that test. Joe From agmalis at gmail.com Fri Apr 24 04:43:48 2020 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 07:43:48 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <38BAF703-42C9-43D5-8E2A-42DA89BB0A49@strayalpha.com> References: <38BAF703-42C9-43D5-8E2A-42DA89BB0A49@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: Some other SDOs and industry fora create consensus conformance test plans and then work out a deal with one or more test labs to run the tests for a fee. The vendors pay for the testing, and if they don't pass, the test labs work with them so that they can bring the product into compliance. Once they pass, they get a report and certificate showing compliance, and in some cases a joint press release with the sponsoring SDO/forum. Cheers, Andy On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 9:49 PM Joe Touch via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > On Apr 23, 2020, at 6:37 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > > ?On 4/23/2020 6:30 PM, Joseph Touch via Internet-history wrote: > >> Paid for - like everything else in the IETF - the goodness in people?s > hearts? > >> Note that the majority of large-timesink roles in the IETF are > performed by people paid by vendors. The carrot of true compliance is the > fee charged for compliance verification. > > > > > > Just by way of example, when someone buys a product that advertises a > set of features and discover it doesn't have some of them, it's not > uncommon for them to demand a refund. With enough customers deceived in > that fashion, it is not uncommon for a government agency to take action. > > Perhaps the same FCC that doesn?t think the Internet is a communications > service? > > Again, though, we?re back to compliance. We have nothing that asserts > what that requires, so it?s impossible to claim a device fails that test. > > Joe > > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From johnl at iecc.com Fri Apr 24 12:14:31 2020 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 24 Apr 2020 15:14:31 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20200424191432.84E8018520BA@ary.qy> In article you write: >Some other SDOs and industry fora create consensus conformance test plans >and then work out a deal with one or more test labs to run the tests for a >fee. The vendors pay for the testing, and if they don't pass, the test labs >work with them so that they can bring the product into compliance. Once >they pass, they get a report and certificate showing compliance, and in >some cases a joint press release with the sponsoring SDO/forum. I was going to suggest much the same thing, certification as a carrot, since we don't have any sticks. From dhc at dcrocker.net Fri Apr 24 12:46:12 2020 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 12:46:12 -0700 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: References: <38BAF703-42C9-43D5-8E2A-42DA89BB0A49@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: On 4/24/2020 4:43 AM, Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history wrote: > Some other SDOs and industry fora create consensus conformance test plans Historically, the fact that there has NOT been formal 'certification' for Internet implementations has been a major feature. Interoperability testing demonstrates that the implementation actually works. Comformance testing doesn't. With the usual caveats about poor memory, I'll add... There was a wonderful panel, around 1990, including Vint and a very vocal OSI advocate from Boeing. Vint commented about our doing interops rather than conformance testing and the benefit of demonstrating actual ability to... interoperate. The Boeing advocate was a few speakers down the line, so it was some minutes before she spoke. Her comments included the firm declaration that interoperability wasn't possible without formal conformance testing. In perhaps the most overt public act I've ever seen Vint make, he slowly leaned slightly forward and slowly turned his head to look at her. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From vint at google.com Fri Apr 24 12:48:37 2020 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 15:48:37 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: References: <38BAF703-42C9-43D5-8E2A-42DA89BB0A49@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: I resisted mouthing "what have you been smoking?" v On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 3:46 PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > On 4/24/2020 4:43 AM, Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history wrote: > > Some other SDOs and industry fora create consensus conformance test plans > > > Historically, the fact that there has NOT been formal 'certification' > for Internet implementations has been a major feature. Interoperability > testing demonstrates that the implementation actually works. > Comformance testing doesn't. > > With the usual caveats about poor memory, I'll add... > > There was a wonderful panel, around 1990, including Vint and a very > vocal OSI advocate from Boeing. Vint commented about our doing interops > rather than conformance testing and the benefit of demonstrating actual > ability to... interoperate. The Boeing advocate was a few speakers down > the line, so it was some minutes before she spoke. > > Her comments included the firm declaration that interoperability wasn't > possible without formal conformance testing. In perhaps the most overt > public act I've ever seen Vint make, he slowly leaned slightly forward > and slowly turned his head to look at her. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- New postal address: Google 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor Reston, VA 20190 From dan at lynch.com Fri Apr 24 12:54:43 2020 From: dan at lynch.com (Dan Lynch) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 12:54:43 -0700 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <20200424191432.84E8018520BA@ary.qy> References: <20200424191432.84E8018520BA@ary.qy> Message-ID: <1ABA9F93-F796-4671-A9B5-9DB49AAC046D@lynch.com> Back in the 80s I created Interop so vendors could demonstrate compliance with the IETF RFC standards. The idea of a testing institute to ensure compliance was floated and found too burdensome by everyone so public demonstrations became the efficient way. Our motto became ?I know it works. I saw it at Interop!? Of course there was months of voluntary testing at my lab in Sunnyvale that preceded the public demonstrations at Interop. Self interest motivated every one. Dan Cell 650-776-7313 > On Apr 24, 2020, at 12:14 PM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: > > ?In article you write: >> Some other SDOs and industry fora create consensus conformance test plans >> and then work out a deal with one or more test labs to run the tests for a >> fee. The vendors pay for the testing, and if they don't pass, the test labs >> work with them so that they can bring the product into compliance. Once >> they pass, they get a report and certificate showing compliance, and in >> some cases a joint press release with the sponsoring SDO/forum. > > I was going to suggest much the same thing, certification as a carrot, > since we don't have any sticks. > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From dhc at dcrocker.net Fri Apr 24 12:58:46 2020 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 12:58:46 -0700 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <1ABA9F93-F796-4671-A9B5-9DB49AAC046D@lynch.com> References: <20200424191432.84E8018520BA@ary.qy> <1ABA9F93-F796-4671-A9B5-9DB49AAC046D@lynch.com> Message-ID: On 4/24/2020 12:54 PM, Dan Lynch via Internet-history wrote: > Our motto became ?I know it works. I saw it at Interop!? Of course there was months of voluntary testing at my lab in Sunnyvale that preceded the public demonstrations at Interop. Self interest motivated every one. As I recall, you required demonstrated interoperability before they were allowed to connect to the show network. Given the nature of the products, it's rather bizarre that this was such a revolutionary requirement. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From touch at strayalpha.com Fri Apr 24 12:59:33 2020 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joseph Touch) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 12:59:33 -0700 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <1ABA9F93-F796-4671-A9B5-9DB49AAC046D@lynch.com> References: <20200424191432.84E8018520BA@ary.qy> <1ABA9F93-F796-4671-A9B5-9DB49AAC046D@lynch.com> Message-ID: <001E0AF9-BDD1-4730-A1CC-A9A91564BDCA@strayalpha.com> Dan (et al.), Sure - interoperability testing is a kind of group compliance; I understand how it aligns better with the Internet model of ?nobody?s in charge?. But as you note below, testing at that event gained its own imprimatur. Seeing something interoperate elsewhere didn?t have the same perceived value. So call it what you want and run it how you want, we need this sort of positive ?label?, otherwise the lack of a label doesn?t mean anything. AFAICT, it?s gone now, though. Maybe the ISOC could bring it back somehow, but I doubt it? Joe > On Apr 24, 2020, at 12:54 PM, Dan Lynch via Internet-history wrote: > > Back in the 80s I created Interop so vendors could demonstrate compliance with the IETF RFC standards. The idea of a testing institute to ensure compliance was floated and found too burdensome by everyone so public demonstrations became the efficient way. Our motto became ?I know it works. I saw it at Interop!? Of course there was months of voluntary testing at my lab in Sunnyvale that preceded the public demonstrations at Interop. Self interest motivated every one. > > Dan > > Cell 650-776-7313 > >> On Apr 24, 2020, at 12:14 PM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: >> >> ?In article you write: >>> Some other SDOs and industry fora create consensus conformance test plans >>> and then work out a deal with one or more test labs to run the tests for a >>> fee. The vendors pay for the testing, and if they don't pass, the test labs >>> work with them so that they can bring the product into compliance. Once >>> they pass, they get a report and certificate showing compliance, and in >>> some cases a joint press release with the sponsoring SDO/forum. >> >> I was going to suggest much the same thing, certification as a carrot, >> since we don't have any sticks. >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From dan at lynch.com Fri Apr 24 13:04:12 2020 From: dan at lynch.com (Dan Lynch) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 13:04:12 -0700 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6569FF3F-CAB0-4CC4-BA91-0D3B7B8D6A27@lynch.com> Correct. Dan Cell 650-776-7313 > On Apr 24, 2020, at 12:58 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > ?On 4/24/2020 12:54 PM, Dan Lynch via Internet-history wrote: >> Our motto became ?I know it works. I saw it at Interop!? Of course there was months of voluntary testing at my lab in Sunnyvale that preceded the public demonstrations at Interop. Self interest motivated every one. > > > As I recall, you required demonstrated interoperability before they were allowed to connect to the show network. > > Given the nature of the products, it's rather bizarre that this was such a revolutionary requirement. > > d/ > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net From jeanjour at comcast.net Fri Apr 24 13:06:58 2020 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 16:06:58 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <001E0AF9-BDD1-4730-A1CC-A9A91564BDCA@strayalpha.com> References: <20200424191432.84E8018520BA@ary.qy> <1ABA9F93-F796-4671-A9B5-9DB49AAC046D@lynch.com> <001E0AF9-BDD1-4730-A1CC-A9A91564BDCA@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: Be careful. ;-) There is a difference between interoperability and conformance. One can have interoperability without conformance. In fact, that is probably what is happening now. John > On Apr 24, 2020, at 15:59, Joseph Touch via Internet-history wrote: > > Dan (et al.), > > Sure - interoperability testing is a kind of group compliance; I understand how it aligns better with the Internet model of ?nobody?s in charge?. > > But as you note below, testing at that event gained its own imprimatur. Seeing something interoperate elsewhere didn?t have the same perceived value. > > So call it what you want and run it how you want, we need this sort of positive ?label?, otherwise the lack of a label doesn?t mean anything. > > AFAICT, it?s gone now, though. Maybe the ISOC could bring it back somehow, but I doubt it? > > Joe > >> On Apr 24, 2020, at 12:54 PM, Dan Lynch via Internet-history wrote: >> >> Back in the 80s I created Interop so vendors could demonstrate compliance with the IETF RFC standards. The idea of a testing institute to ensure compliance was floated and found too burdensome by everyone so public demonstrations became the efficient way. Our motto became ?I know it works. I saw it at Interop!? Of course there was months of voluntary testing at my lab in Sunnyvale that preceded the public demonstrations at Interop. Self interest motivated every one. >> >> Dan >> >> Cell 650-776-7313 >> >>> On Apr 24, 2020, at 12:14 PM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: >>> >>> ?In article you write: >>>> Some other SDOs and industry fora create consensus conformance test plans >>>> and then work out a deal with one or more test labs to run the tests for a >>>> fee. The vendors pay for the testing, and if they don't pass, the test labs >>>> work with them so that they can bring the product into compliance. Once >>>> they pass, they get a report and certificate showing compliance, and in >>>> some cases a joint press release with the sponsoring SDO/forum. >>> >>> I was going to suggest much the same thing, certification as a carrot, >>> since we don't have any sticks. >>> >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From sob at sobco.com Fri Apr 24 13:13:47 2020 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 16:13:47 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: References: <20200423190059.CBC741823439@ary.qy> <311D98C8-4D5B-4F54-BE95-C3668A2C32EC@sobco.com> Message-ID: <0C6BEB3F-A26C-40B1-B6D5-FFF4A9EDE954@sobco.com> Ray was able to find a few of the old signed forms - most of them never made it to pdf and should be at ISOC here are the two he sent me Scott From sob at sobco.com Fri Apr 24 13:19:38 2020 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 16:19:38 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <0C6BEB3F-A26C-40B1-B6D5-FFF4A9EDE954@sobco.com> References: <20200423190059.CBC741823439@ary.qy> <311D98C8-4D5B-4F54-BE95-C3668A2C32EC@sobco.com> <0C6BEB3F-A26C-40B1-B6D5-FFF4A9EDE954@sobco.com> Message-ID: <1EAE4735-36A1-4594-9A28-F2F71579BE28@sobco.com> oops the list seems to strip attachments - if anyone wants a copy please let me know Scott > On Apr 24, 2020, at 4:13 PM, Scott O. Bradner via Internet-history wrote: > > Ray was able to find a few of the old signed forms - most of them never made it to pdf and should be at ISOC > > here are the two he sent me > > Scott > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From sob at sobco.com Fri Apr 24 13:23:26 2020 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 16:23:26 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <1EAE4735-36A1-4594-9A28-F2F71579BE28@sobco.com> References: <20200423190059.CBC741823439@ary.qy> <311D98C8-4D5B-4F54-BE95-C3668A2C32EC@sobco.com> <0C6BEB3F-A26C-40B1-B6D5-FFF4A9EDE954@sobco.com> <1EAE4735-36A1-4594-9A28-F2F71579BE28@sobco.com> Message-ID: <080B528B-77B8-452E-94C2-D77BE427097F@sobco.com> I extracted the text - here it is ?? RFC DOCUMENTS NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENSE WHEREAS, the undersigned ("Licensor"), alone or jointly with others, is the author of all or portions of one or more documents in the Request for Comments (RFC) Series beginning with RFC 1 dated 7 April 1969, which includes the permanent publications of the IETF, (the "Documents"), and/or the assignee of certain rights therein, and WHEREAS, Licensor hereby wishes to grant to the IETF Trust, a Virginia Trust ("Licensee"), without warranty of any kind, a license under any and all copyrights that it may have in and to such Documents ("Licensor's Rights"); NOW THEREFORE, without limiting the effect of any prior license, assignment or transfer, Licensor hereby grants to Licensee, under all Licensor's Rights, without warranty of any kind, and Licensee accepts, a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, paid-up, royalty-free right and license retroactive to the date of creation of the documents, including the right to sublicense, to reproduce, publish, distribute, modify, translate, excerpt, combine and create derivative works of the Documents and any portions thereof in any and all media, and otherwise to exploit Licensor's Rights in and to the Documents and any portions thereof in any manner whatsoever. From bernie at fantasyfarm.com Fri Apr 24 13:49:10 2020 From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 16:49:10 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <1ABA9F93-F796-4671-A9B5-9DB49AAC046D@lynch.com> References: <20200424191432.84E8018520BA@ary.qy> <1ABA9F93-F796-4671-A9B5-9DB49AAC046D@lynch.com> Message-ID: <171adf38570.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> On April 24, 2020 15:55:04 Dan Lynch via Internet-history wrote: > Back in the 80s I created Interop so vendors could demonstrate compliance > with the IETF RFC standards. The idea of a testing institute to ensure > compliance was floated and found too burdensome by everyone so public > demonstrations became the efficient way. Our motto became ?I know it works. > I saw it at Interop!? Of course there was months of voluntary testing at > my lab in Sunnyvale that preceded the public demonstrations at Interop. > Self interest motivated every one. doesn't that run into the n? problem? if you had an effective compliance test it would be an o(n) problem, but for interoperability testing it is an o{n?) matter. if you have, say, 12 vendors you'd have to 12 compliance tests but 66 interop tests. /Bernie\ Bernie Cosell bernie at fantasyfarm. com ? Too many people, too few sheep ? From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Fri Apr 24 13:56:24 2020 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 08:56:24 +1200 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <0C6BEB3F-A26C-40B1-B6D5-FFF4A9EDE954@sobco.com> References: <20200423190059.CBC741823439@ary.qy> <311D98C8-4D5B-4F54-BE95-C3668A2C32EC@sobco.com> <0C6BEB3F-A26C-40B1-B6D5-FFF4A9EDE954@sobco.com> Message-ID: <4e0a3508-181c-55f4-4181-07e70e9e7a94@gmail.com> That's what I signed, indeed. Regards Brian Carpenter On 25-Apr-20 08:13, Scott O. Bradner wrote: > Ray was able to find a few of the old signed forms - most of them never made it to pdf and should be at ISOC > > here are the two he sent me > > Scott > From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Fri Apr 24 14:02:37 2020 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 09:02:37 +1200 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <20200424191432.84E8018520BA@ary.qy> References: <20200424191432.84E8018520BA@ary.qy> Message-ID: <18ba7062-18c6-17c7-6fb4-13851ce410a6@gmail.com> On 25-Apr-20 07:14, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: > In article you write: >> Some other SDOs and industry fora create consensus conformance test plans >> and then work out a deal with one or more test labs to run the tests for a >> fee. The vendors pay for the testing, and if they don't pass, the test labs >> work with them so that they can bring the product into compliance. Once >> they pass, they get a report and certificate showing compliance, and in >> some cases a joint press release with the sponsoring SDO/forum. > > I was going to suggest much the same thing, certification as a carrot, > since we don't have any sticks. This has been going on for IPv6 for many years - the "IPv6 Ready" logo (https://www.ipv6ready.org/) and the first-class interop lab at UNH (https://www.iol.unh.edu/testing/ip/ipv6) among others. Whether this is a successful proof of concept is a matter of judgment. Also, some would say that Scott Bradner pioneered this approach back in the 20th century. Brian From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Fri Apr 24 14:14:31 2020 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 09:14:31 +1200 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <171adf38570.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> References: <20200424191432.84E8018520BA@ary.qy> <1ABA9F93-F796-4671-A9B5-9DB49AAC046D@lynch.com> <171adf38570.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: <7e09ccc0-22df-f4fc-c4f7-635682d71509@gmail.com> On 25-Apr-20 08:49, Bernie Cosell via Internet-history wrote: > On April 24, 2020 15:55:04 Dan Lynch via Internet-history > wrote: > >> Back in the 80s I created Interop so vendors could demonstrate compliance >> with the IETF RFC standards. The idea of a testing institute to ensure >> compliance was floated and found too burdensome by everyone so public >> demonstrations became the efficient way. Our motto became ?I know it works. >> I saw it at Interop!? Of course there was months of voluntary testing at >> my lab in Sunnyvale that preceded the public demonstrations at Interop. >> Self interest motivated every one. > > doesn't that run into the n? problem? if you had an effective compliance > test it would be an o(n) problem, but for interoperability testing it is > an o{n?) matter. if you have, say, 12 vendors you'd have to 12 compliance > tests > but 66 interop tests. > Correct. But that's exactly what Interop did - all 66 tests just happened on the show net, and the bugs that mattered popped up, without any need for systematic procedures. On 25-Apr-20 08:06, John Day via Internet-history wrote: > Be careful. ;-) There is a difference between interoperability and conformance. One can have interoperability without conformance. In fact, that is probably what is happening now. True. But bugs that don't matter for interop probably don't matter anyway. Also, it seems to me that truly obnoxious bugs such as race conditions are more likely to be found in random n? testing than in planned 1-on-1 conformance testing. Brian From sob at sobco.com Fri Apr 24 14:23:00 2020 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 17:23:00 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <7e09ccc0-22df-f4fc-c4f7-635682d71509@gmail.com> References: <20200424191432.84E8018520BA@ary.qy> <1ABA9F93-F796-4671-A9B5-9DB49AAC046D@lynch.com> <171adf38570.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> <7e09ccc0-22df-f4fc-c4f7-635682d71509@gmail.com> Message-ID: I recall that the IETF had a BOF on the topic of conformance testing - (I do not remember when _ the idea was pushed by some company that did that sort of thing as well as some people in one of the telecom SDOs - the concluding was quite clear that interior texting fixed the issues that needed to be fixed to make things work and conformance tested different interpretations of a standards document (X.400 being the poster kid) Scott > On Apr 24, 2020, at 5:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > > On 25-Apr-20 08:49, Bernie Cosell via Internet-history wrote: >> On April 24, 2020 15:55:04 Dan Lynch via Internet-history >> wrote: >> >>> Back in the 80s I created Interop so vendors could demonstrate compliance >>> with the IETF RFC standards. The idea of a testing institute to ensure >>> compliance was floated and found too burdensome by everyone so public >>> demonstrations became the efficient way. Our motto became ?I know it works. >>> I saw it at Interop!? Of course there was months of voluntary testing at >>> my lab in Sunnyvale that preceded the public demonstrations at Interop. >>> Self interest motivated every one. >> >> doesn't that run into the n? problem? if you had an effective compliance >> test it would be an o(n) problem, but for interoperability testing it is >> an o{n?) matter. if you have, say, 12 vendors you'd have to 12 compliance >> tests >> but 66 interop tests. >> > > Correct. But that's exactly what Interop did - all 66 tests just happened > on the show net, and the bugs that mattered popped up, without any need > for systematic procedures. > > On 25-Apr-20 08:06, John Day via Internet-history wrote: > >> Be careful. ;-) There is a difference between interoperability and conformance. One can have interoperability without conformance. In fact, that is probably what is happening now. > > True. But bugs that don't matter for interop probably don't matter anyway. > > Also, it seems to me that truly obnoxious bugs such as race conditions > are more likely to be found in random n? testing than in planned > 1-on-1 conformance testing. > > Brian > > > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From sob at sobco.com Fri Apr 24 14:43:35 2020 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 17:43:35 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: References: <20200424191432.84E8018520BA@ary.qy> <1ABA9F93-F796-4671-A9B5-9DB49AAC046D@lynch.com> <171adf38570.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> <7e09ccc0-22df-f4fc-c4f7-635682d71509@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0368EAE1-5A2B-40F7-ADE3-1E0B92AC9A9D@sobco.com> please take into account that Apple?s Mail.app try to help by correcting typos to random words Scott > On Apr 24, 2020, at 5:23 PM, Scott O. Bradner via Internet-history wrote: > > I recall that the IETF had a BOF on the topic of conformance testing - (I do not remember when _ the idea was pushed > by some company that did that sort of thing as well as some people in one of the telecom SDOs - the > concluding was quite clear that interior texting fixed the issues that needed to be fixed to make things work > and conformance tested different interpretations of a standards document (X.400 being the poster kid) > > Scott > >> On Apr 24, 2020, at 5:14 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >> >> On 25-Apr-20 08:49, Bernie Cosell via Internet-history wrote: >>> On April 24, 2020 15:55:04 Dan Lynch via Internet-history >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Back in the 80s I created Interop so vendors could demonstrate compliance >>>> with the IETF RFC standards. The idea of a testing institute to ensure >>>> compliance was floated and found too burdensome by everyone so public >>>> demonstrations became the efficient way. Our motto became ?I know it works. >>>> I saw it at Interop!? Of course there was months of voluntary testing at >>>> my lab in Sunnyvale that preceded the public demonstrations at Interop. >>>> Self interest motivated every one. >>> >>> doesn't that run into the n? problem? if you had an effective compliance >>> test it would be an o(n) problem, but for interoperability testing it is >>> an o{n?) matter. if you have, say, 12 vendors you'd have to 12 compliance >>> tests >>> but 66 interop tests. >>> >> >> Correct. But that's exactly what Interop did - all 66 tests just happened >> on the show net, and the bugs that mattered popped up, without any need >> for systematic procedures. >> >> On 25-Apr-20 08:06, John Day via Internet-history wrote: >> >>> Be careful. ;-) There is a difference between interoperability and conformance. One can have interoperability without conformance. In fact, that is probably what is happening now. >> >> True. But bugs that don't matter for interop probably don't matter anyway. >> >> Also, it seems to me that truly obnoxious bugs such as race conditions >> are more likely to be found in random n? testing than in planned >> 1-on-1 conformance testing. >> >> Brian >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From don at DonHopkins.com Fri Apr 24 15:17:50 2020 From: don at DonHopkins.com (Don Hopkins) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:17:50 +0200 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: References: <38BAF703-42C9-43D5-8E2A-42DA89BB0A49@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: <9CA8589D-EEE7-4218-B37D-DF6B59BA0317@gmail.com> There's a wonderful Doctor Dobb?s Journal interview with James Clark (the groff/sgml/xml guy, not to be confused with Jim Clark of SGI or James "Oklahoma Jack? Clark the depression-era bank robber) called "A Triumph of Simplicity: James Clark on Markup Languages and XML" where he explains how a standard has failed if everyone just uses the reference implementation, because the point of a standard is to be crisp and simple enough that many different implementations can interoperate perfectly. -Don A Triumph of Simplicity: James Clark on Markup Languages and XML http://www.drdobbs.com/a-triumph-of-simplicity-james-clark-on-m/184404686 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clark_(programmer) Excerpts from the DDJ interview (it's fascinating -- read the whole thing!): >DDJ: You're well known for writing very good reference implementations for SGML and XML Standards. How important is it for these reference implementations to be good implementations as opposed to just something that works? >JC: Having a reference implementation that's too good can actually be a negative in some ways. >DDJ: Why is that? >JC: Well, because it discourages other people from implementing it. If you've got a standard, and you have only one real implementation, then you might as well not have bothered having a standard. You could have just defined the language by its implementation. The point of standards is that you can have multiple implementations, and they can all interoperate. >You want to make the standard sufficiently easy to implement so that it's not so much work to do an implementation that people are discouraged by the presence of a good reference implementation from doing their own implementation. >DDJ: Is that necessarily a bad thing? If you have a single implementation that's good enough so that other people don't feel like they have to write another implementation, don't you achieve what you want with a standard in that all implementations ? in this case, there's only one of them ? work the same? >JC: For any standard that's really useful, there are different kinds of usage scenarios and different classes of users, and you can't have one implementation that fits all. Take SGML, for example. Sometimes you want a really heavy-weight implementation that does validation and provides lots of information about a document. Sometimes you'd like a much lighter weight implementation that just runs as fast as possible, doesn't validate, and doesn't provide much information about a document apart from elements and attributes and data. But because it's so much work to write an SGML parser, you end up having one SGML parser that supports everything needed for a huge variety of applications, which makes it a lot more complicated. It would be much nicer if you had one SGML parser that is perfect for this application, and another SGML parser that is perfect for this other application. To make that possible, the standard has to be sufficiently simple that it makes sense to have multiple implementations. >DDJ: Is there any markup software out there that you like to use and that you haven't written yourself? >JC: The software I probably use most often that I haven't written myself is Microsoft's XML parser and XSLT implementation. Their current version does a pretty credible job of doing both XML and XSLT. It's remarkable, really. If you said, back when I was doing SGML and DSSSL, that one day, you'd find as a standard part of Windows this DLL that did pretty much the same thing as SGML and DSSSL, I'd think you were dreaming. That's one thing I feel very happy about, that this formerly niche thing is now available to everybody. From dan at lynch.com Fri Apr 24 15:20:16 2020 From: dan at lynch.com (Dan Lynch) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 15:20:16 -0700 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <171adf38570.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> References: <171adf38570.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: N was not very big. Started at 50 and was at 200 a few years later. Still only took a day or so. Dan Cell 650-776-7313 > On Apr 24, 2020, at 1:49 PM, Bernie Cosell via Internet-history wrote: > > ?On April 24, 2020 15:55:04 Dan Lynch via Internet-history wrote: > >> Back in the 80s I created Interop so vendors could demonstrate compliance with the IETF RFC standards. The idea of a testing institute to ensure compliance was floated and found too burdensome by everyone so public demonstrations became the efficient way. Our motto became ?I know it works. I saw it at Interop!? Of course there was months of voluntary testing at my lab in Sunnyvale that preceded the public demonstrations at Interop. Self interest motivated every one. > > doesn't that run into the n? problem? if you had an effective compliance > test it would be an o(n) problem, but for interoperability testing it is > an o{n?) matter. if you have, say, 12 vendors you'd have to 12 compliance tests > but 66 interop tests. > > > /Bernie\ > > > > Bernie Cosell > bernie at fantasyfarm. com > ? Too many people, too few sheep ? > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From steve at shinkuro.com Fri Apr 24 15:32:30 2020 From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 18:32:30 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: References: <171adf38570.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: If the interactions are serial, N = 50 is a very big number for interoperability testing. 50*49/2 interactions. But, of course, in the Interop environment, many interactions could take place in parallel. Further, it's not really necessary for everyone to interact with everyone else. After the first several interactions, most of the issues will have surfaced. A few of the 50 will have become primary players. I imagine it all converges fairly rapidly. Steve On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 6:20 PM Dan Lynch via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > N was not very big. Started at 50 and was at 200 a few years later. Still > only took a day or so. > > Dan > > Cell 650-776-7313 > > > On Apr 24, 2020, at 1:49 PM, Bernie Cosell via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > ?On April 24, 2020 15:55:04 Dan Lynch via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > >> Back in the 80s I created Interop so vendors could demonstrate > compliance with the IETF RFC standards. The idea of a testing institute to > ensure compliance was floated and found too burdensome by everyone so > public demonstrations became the efficient way. Our motto became ?I know it > works. I saw it at Interop!? Of course there was months of voluntary > testing at my lab in Sunnyvale that preceded the public demonstrations at > Interop. Self interest motivated every one. > > > > doesn't that run into the n? problem? if you had an effective compliance > > test it would be an o(n) problem, but for interoperability testing it is > > an o{n?) matter. if you have, say, 12 vendors you'd have to 12 > compliance tests > > but 66 interop tests. > > > > > > /Bernie\ > > > > > > > > Bernie Cosell > > bernie at fantasyfarm. com > > ? Too many people, too few sheep ? > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From karl at cavebear.com Fri Apr 24 18:34:54 2020 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 18:34:54 -0700 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <1ABA9F93-F796-4671-A9B5-9DB49AAC046D@lynch.com> References: <20200424191432.84E8018520BA@ary.qy> <1ABA9F93-F796-4671-A9B5-9DB49AAC046D@lynch.com> Message-ID: <79489723-157f-8389-d779-db13bc50b3b1@cavebear.com> On 4/24/20 12:54 PM, Dan Lynch via Internet-history wrote: > Back in the 80s I created Interop so vendors could demonstrate compliance with the IETF RFC standards. The idea of a testing institute to ensure compliance was floated and found too burdensome by everyone so public demonstrations became the efficient way. Our motto became ?I know it works. I saw it at Interop!? Of course there was months of voluntary testing at my lab in Sunnyvale that preceded the public demonstrations at Interop. Self interest motivated every one. We certainly broke a lot of stuff on the Interop Shownet, but that was the intent. [Although igniting the lobby of the Las Vegas Convention center was more of an accident.? ;-) The Interop shows created a mighty metronome - everybody had to get their act together once or twice a year and show that their stuff played nicely with others. And don't forget the TCP/IP Bakeoffs.? Those were a lot of fun - but those were the days when everybody brought their source code and wasn't shy about saying "look, this is how we did it".? We even did 'em without cover of an NDA, just good manners. We did similar things at the SIPit events.? I remember one person proudly saying "My SIP implementation is invulnerable because it is written in Python."? It was written in Python but it was not invulnerable. For a couple of years we had trouble getting certain companies to interoperate - most notably HP - because they insisted on using all of that SNAP and other gunk that IEEE had specified on top of DIX (Digital, Intel, Xerox) Ethernet that the rest of everybody was using.? They insisted that they were "conformant" - but they certainly did not interoperate. One forgotten hammer that drove interoperability was the Air Force's ULANA contract - it was a very large procurement effort for its era.? I was part of the TRW team (led by David Kaufman and Geoff Baehr) and we had to create a body of off-the-shelf products, from routers to PC NICs, that all worked together. In our own testing stuff at IWL we have an allergy to the word "conformance".? Our approach is interoperability, with a big heaping helping of "will it still work if the other side isn't playing by the rules or, if the other side is playing by part of the rules that few others use?" We'd still be in the dark ages if we had to have full "conformance".? For instance I know of no IPv4 stack that is fully capable of reassembling all possible variations of IP fragmentation.? But nobody really needs to do that in real life. ??? --karl-- From jack at 3kitty.org Fri Apr 24 23:18:42 2020 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 23:18:42 -0700 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: References: <38BAF703-42C9-43D5-8E2A-42DA89BB0A49@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: <2334ccb7-edb9-3618-c77d-a85656d4ea70@3kitty.org> Actually, there *was* a formal certification process for the TCP/IP protocols.? It was established by NIST (formerly NBS) in the early 80s, when the TCP protocols were being established as DoD Standards. I know this from personal experience, since I set up at BBN one of the official labs accredited by NIST to perform the conformance tests.? There weren't more than a few such labs; it wasn't exactly a growth business opportunity so it didn't attract much interest.? Probably the usual players in that world had never heard of TCP and didn't have a clue how to go about testing it. The market for the testing service was established when the government made TCP/IP a DoD standard, and required it as part of many procurement contracts for military systems.? So the big defense contractors had to get their systems certified as part of their contract deliverable.?? We did quite a few such tests for various big-gun contractors, and often sold additional engineering time to help them understand exactly what TCP was all about. There were a few interesting glitches in the overall testing scheme.?? For example, all military systems being procured were required to implement TCP, and demonstrate it as certified.? But that didn't mean that TCP actually had to be used as part of their product operation.?? It reminded me of the mid-50s when as a kid I got my very own 12-transistor radio -- only to later learn as I got into electronics that only 2 of the transistors were actually wired in to the circuitry.?? Similarly, TCP was in the software, but might not be used at all. Anyway, there *was* formal conformance testing, managed by NBS/NIST, in the early 80s timeframe.? I've always wondered how that happened and who pushed it through the NBS/NIST machinery. I suspect the IETF, and NBS/NIST, never knew or never cared to continue including testing as part of future work on Internet technology. /Jack On 4/24/20 12:46 PM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > On 4/24/2020 4:43 AM, Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history wrote: >> Some other SDOs and industry fora create consensus conformance test >> plans > > > Historically, the fact that there has NOT been formal 'certification' > for Internet implementations has been a major feature.? > Interoperability testing demonstrates that the implementation actually > works. Comformance testing doesn't. > > With the usual caveats about poor memory, I'll add... > > There was a wonderful panel, around 1990, including Vint and a very > vocal OSI advocate from Boeing.? Vint commented about our doing > interops rather than conformance testing and the benefit of > demonstrating actual ability to... interoperate.? The Boeing advocate > was a few speakers down the line, so it was some minutes before she > spoke. > > Her comments included the firm declaration that interoperability > wasn't possible without formal conformance testing.? In perhaps the > most overt public act I've ever seen Vint make, he slowly leaned > slightly forward and slowly turned his head to look at her. > > d/ > From sob at sobco.com Sat Apr 25 03:22:12 2020 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 06:22:12 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <2334ccb7-edb9-3618-c77d-a85656d4ea70@3kitty.org> References: <38BAF703-42C9-43D5-8E2A-42DA89BB0A49@strayalpha.com> <2334ccb7-edb9-3618-c77d-a85656d4ea70@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <114BBE28-0AFE-48CA-94E7-7A4117AA8EF2@sobco.com> > On Apr 25, 2020, at 2:18 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > > There were a few interesting glitches in the overall testing scheme. > For example, all military systems being procured were required to > implement TCP, and demonstrate it as certified. But that didn't mean > that TCP actually had to be used as part of their product operation. just like what happened with GOSSIP a few years later > I suspect the IETF, and NBS/NIST, never knew or never cared to continue > including testing as part of future work on Internet technology. as I implied in a previous message - the IETF knew about the testing and specifically decided that such testing was not the way to go - specific interoperability testing, such as that done by UNH and real world interoperability testing such as was done at Interop were preferred and more likely to produce an operating Internet (my performance testing was implied interoperability testing - and I found some issues in some products - but UNH & Interop were focused on the topic) Scott From harald at alvestrand.no Wed Apr 29 03:56:58 2020 From: harald at alvestrand.no (Harald Alvestrand) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 12:56:58 +0200 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> Message-ID: <80faf81c-27fa-b084-259d-6f81d31515b2@alvestrand.no> History note.... On 4/22/20 4:04 AM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: > In December 2005 the trust was set up, and the Article V of the trust > agreement says that the grantors CNRI and ISOC contribute IPR to the > trust. Schedule A lists the IPR including: > > All of its rights in, and copies of, each of the following > materials that is currently used (as of the Effective Date) in the > administrative, financial and/or other operation of the IETF: ... > > current Internet Drafts and Request for Comments. > > I don't know what "current" means here but since I am an optimist I > hope it means the rights they may have to all RFCs published up to > that point rather than ones that were standards at the time. I seem to remember that discussion ... I think we (on the IETF side) concluded that "all of its rights" sidestepped the question of who actually owned the rights, and whether there were any actual rights that could be owned; figuring out rights (particularly to expired internet-drafts) was deemed too hard to be worth digging into, and a distraction from the main focus of divorcing from CNRI. From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Wed Apr 29 13:12:16 2020 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 08:12:16 +1200 Subject: [ih] Who owns old RFCs ? In-Reply-To: <80faf81c-27fa-b084-259d-6f81d31515b2@alvestrand.no> References: <20200422020421.108E71814B8E@ary.qy> <80faf81c-27fa-b084-259d-6f81d31515b2@alvestrand.no> Message-ID: On 29-Apr-20 22:56, Harald Alvestrand via Internet-history wrote: > History note.... > > On 4/22/20 4:04 AM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: >> In December 2005 the trust was set up, and the Article V of the trust >> agreement says that the grantors CNRI and ISOC contribute IPR to the >> trust. Schedule A lists the IPR including: >> >> All of its rights in, and copies of, each of the following >> materials that is currently used (as of the Effective Date) in the >> administrative, financial and/or other operation of the IETF: ... >> >> current Internet Drafts and Request for Comments. >> >> I don't know what "current" means here but since I am an optimist I >> hope it means the rights they may have to all RFCs published up to >> that point rather than ones that were standards at the time. > > I seem to remember that discussion ... I think we (on the IETF side) > concluded that "all of its rights" sidestepped the question of who > actually owned the rights, and whether there were any actual rights that > could be owned; figuring out rights (particularly to expired > internet-drafts) was deemed too hard to be worth digging into, and a > distraction from the main focus of divorcing from CNRI. s/sidestepped/intentionally sidestepped/ We really (including our legal advisors) didn't know who really owned what rights and we really hoped we'd never need to find out in court, so that formulation was chosen in the knowledge that it wasn't in any sense a claim over rights that third parties might have. The intention was to ensure that neither ISOC nor CNRI had any future claims. (Not that either of them had any evil intentions; quite the opposite, which is presumably why they both signed.) Brian (one of the original Trustees) From joly at punkcast.com Thu Apr 30 14:13:04 2020 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 17:13:04 -0400 Subject: [ih] WEBCAST TODAY: Internet Independence Day marking 25th anniversary of NSFNET decommissioning Message-ID: An auspicious day, and an illustrious line up of speakers! Under way. ISOC Live posted: "On April 30 2020, at 5pm EDT (21:00 UTC) Internet elders will gather to mark the 25th anniversary of the 1995 decommissioning of the NSFNET backbone, following the passage of Al Gore's High Performance Computing Act of 1991. This was the moment that the I" *ISOC LIVE NOTICEBOARD* [image: livestream] On *April 30 2020*, at *5pm EDT* (21:00 UTC) Internet elders will gather to mark the 25th anniversary of the 1995 decommissioning of the *NSFNET backbone *, following the passage of *Al Gore*'s *High Performance Computing Act of 1991 *. This was the moment that the Internet fully transitioned from a government to a private enterprise. A select group of the elders including *Jeff Jarvis* (American journalist); *Esther Dyson* (first CEO of ICANN); *James Lewis* (SVP CSIS); *Tom Evslin* (founder ITXC); *Andrew Odlyzko* (former Bell Labs and Prof U MN), *Gary Shapiro*, President, Consumer Technology Association, and *Scott McNealy* (co-founder Sun Microsystems) will discuss how the Internet has developed since the *last such celebration *, 5 years ago. The event will be hosted by *Daniel Berninger* of VCXC, and webcast via a partnership with the *Internet Society Washington DC Chapter *(ISOC-DC) *LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/iid25 * *TWITTER: #internetindependenceday | #iid25 * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/12014/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +2185659365 -------------------------------------- -