From dave.walden.family at gmail.com Fri Aug 7 04:53:02 2020 From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (Dave Walden) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 07:53:02 -0400 Subject: [ih] Test Message-ID: Sorry. From geoff at iconia.com Fri Aug 7 14:52:56 2020 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:52:56 -1000 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?Today=E2=80=99s_Internet_Still_Relies_on_an_ARPAN?= =?utf-8?q?ET-Era_Protocol=3A_The_Request_for_Comments_=28Steve_Cro?= =?utf-8?q?cker=29?= Message-ID: *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* EXCERPT: Each March, July, and November, we are reminded that the Internet is not quite the mature, stable technology that it seems to be. We rely on the Internet as an essential tool for our economic, social, educational, and political lives. But when the Internet Engineering Task Force meets every four months at an open conference that bounces from continent to continent, more than 1,000 people from around the world gather with change on their minds. Their vision of the global network that all humanity shares is dynamic, evolving, and continuously improving. Their efforts combine with the contributions of myriad others to ensure that the Internet always works but is never done, never complete. The rapid yet orderly evolution of the Internet is all the more remarkable considering the highly unusual way it happens: without a company, a government, or a board of directors in charge. Nothing about digital communications technology suggests that it should be self-organizing or, for that matter, fundamentally reliable. We enjoy an Internet that is both of those at once because multiple generations of network developers have embraced a principle and a process that have been quite rare in the history of technology. The principle is that the protocols that govern how Internet-connected devices communicate should be open, expandable, and robust. And the process that invents and refines those protocols demands collaboration and a large degree of consensus among all who care to participate. As someone who was part of the small team that very deliberately adopted a collaborative, consensus-based process to develop protocols for the ARPANET ?predecessor to the Internet?I have been pleasantly surprised by how those ideas have persisted and succeeded, even as the physical network has evolved from 50-kilobit-per-second telephone lines in the mid-1960s to the fiber-optic, 5G, and satellite links we enjoy today. Though our team certainly never envisioned unforgeable ?privacy passes ? or unique identifiers for Internet-connected drones ?two proposed protocols discussed at the task force meeting this past March?we did circulate our ideas for the ARPANET as technical memos among a far-flung group of computer scientists, collecting feedback and settling on solutions in much the same way as today, albeit at a much smaller scale. We called each of those early memos a ?Request for Comments? or RFC. Whatever networked device you use today, it almost certainly follows rules laid down in ARPANET RFCs written decades ago, probably including protocols for sending plain ASCII text (RFC 20 , issued in 1969), audio or video data streams (RFC 768 , 1980), and Post Office Protocol, or POP, email (RFC 918 , 1984). *Anatomy of an RFC*... [...] https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True From jack at 3kitty.org Fri Aug 7 15:12:35 2020 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:12:35 -0700 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?Today=E2=80=99s_Internet_Still_Relies_on_an_ARPAN?= =?utf-8?q?ET-Era_Protocol=3A_The_Request_for_Comments_=28Steve_Crocker=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2599cd97-c21a-11c6-49d3-cf874fefdaaa@3kitty.org> Thanks, Geoff, interesting article... While the RFC has been enduring, I've always wondered -- where are all the Comments in response to those thousands of RFCs that Requested them??? Is there some "form" site somewhere where each RFC appears when published and has a "Comments" section to collect and preserve the Comments.?? That kind of thing is pervasive today on all sorts of news sites, blogs, etc.?? But IMHO the RFCs have somehow always been ignoring the Cs they Request. I recall writing only several RFCs, but comments typically came back via email discussions. ? Sometimes for years.? I fear most of that aspect of Internet History, the comments and discussions, has been lost. ? I wonder if the long-standing "technology" of RFCs needs a Version 2, which captures and preserves the Comments just as it has done for decades with the Requests. I guess I should write an RFC about that........ /Jack On 8/7/20 2:52 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history wrote: > *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* > EXCERPT: > > Each March, July, and November, we are reminded that the Internet is not > quite the mature, stable technology that it seems to be. We rely on the > Internet as an essential tool for our economic, social, educational, and > political lives. But when the Internet Engineering Task Force > meets every four months at an open conference that > bounces from continent to continent, more than 1,000 people from around the > world gather with change on their minds. Their vision of the global network > that all humanity shares is dynamic, evolving, and continuously improving. > Their efforts combine with the contributions of myriad others to ensure > that the Internet always works but is never done, never complete. > > The rapid yet orderly evolution of the Internet is all the more remarkable > considering the highly unusual way it happens: without a company, a > government, or a board of directors in charge. Nothing about digital > communications technology suggests that it should be self-organizing or, > for that matter, fundamentally reliable. We enjoy an Internet that is both > of those at once because multiple generations of network developers have > embraced a principle and a process that have been quite rare in the history > of technology. The principle is that the protocols that govern how > Internet-connected devices communicate should be open, expandable, and > robust. And the process that invents and refines those protocols demands > collaboration and a large degree of consensus among all who care to > participate. > > As someone who was part of the small team that very deliberately adopted a > collaborative, consensus-based process to develop protocols for the ARPANET > ?predecessor to the Internet?I have > been pleasantly surprised by how those ideas have persisted and succeeded, > even as the physical network has evolved from 50-kilobit-per-second > telephone lines in the mid-1960s to the fiber-optic, 5G, and satellite > links we enjoy today. Though our team certainly never envisioned > unforgeable ?privacy passes > ? or unique identifiers > for Internet-connected drones > ?two proposed protocols > discussed at the task force meeting this past March?we did circulate our > ideas for the ARPANET as technical memos among a far-flung group of > computer scientists, collecting feedback and settling on solutions in much > the same way as today, albeit at a much smaller scale. > > We called each of those early memos a ?Request for Comments? or RFC. > Whatever networked device you use today, it almost certainly follows rules > laid down in ARPANET RFCs written decades ago, probably including protocols > for sending plain ASCII text (RFC 20 > , issued in 1969), audio or video > data streams (RFC 768 , 1980), and > Post Office Protocol, or POP, email (RFC 918 > , 1984). > > *Anatomy of an RFC*... > > [...] > https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments > From vint at google.com Fri Aug 7 15:16:03 2020 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 18:16:03 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?Today=E2=80=99s_Internet_Still_Relies_on_an_ARPAN?= =?utf-8?q?ET-Era_Protocol=3A_The_Request_for_Comments_=28Steve_Cro?= =?utf-8?q?cker=29?= In-Reply-To: <2599cd97-c21a-11c6-49d3-cf874fefdaaa@3kitty.org> References: <2599cd97-c21a-11c6-49d3-cf874fefdaaa@3kitty.org> Message-ID: early on, the comments came back as RFCs. Then came email so less of the conversation was captured in RFCs. then came Internet Drafts which highlighted conversation again. v On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:12 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Thanks, Geoff, interesting article... > > While the RFC has been enduring, I've always wondered -- where are all > the Comments in response to those thousands of RFCs that Requested them? > > Is there some "form" site somewhere where each RFC appears when > published and has a "Comments" section to collect and preserve the > Comments. That kind of thing is pervasive today on all sorts of news > sites, blogs, etc. But IMHO the RFCs have somehow always been ignoring > the Cs they Request. > > I recall writing only several RFCs, but comments typically came back via > email discussions. Sometimes for years. I fear most of that aspect of > Internet History, the comments and discussions, has been lost. I > wonder if the long-standing "technology" of RFCs needs a Version 2, > which captures and preserves the Comments just as it has done for > decades with the Requests. > > I guess I should write an RFC about that........ > > /Jack > > On 8/7/20 2:52 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history > wrote: > > *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* > > EXCERPT: > > > > Each March, July, and November, we are reminded that the Internet is not > > quite the mature, stable technology that it seems to be. We rely on the > > Internet as an essential tool for our economic, social, educational, and > > political lives. But when the Internet Engineering Task Force > > meets every four months at an open conference that > > bounces from continent to continent, more than 1,000 people from around > the > > world gather with change on their minds. Their vision of the global > network > > that all humanity shares is dynamic, evolving, and continuously > improving. > > Their efforts combine with the contributions of myriad others to ensure > > that the Internet always works but is never done, never complete. > > > > The rapid yet orderly evolution of the Internet is all the more > remarkable > > considering the highly unusual way it happens: without a company, a > > government, or a board of directors in charge. Nothing about digital > > communications technology suggests that it should be self-organizing or, > > for that matter, fundamentally reliable. We enjoy an Internet that is > both > > of those at once because multiple generations of network developers have > > embraced a principle and a process that have been quite rare in the > history > > of technology. The principle is that the protocols that govern how > > Internet-connected devices communicate should be open, expandable, and > > robust. And the process that invents and refines those protocols demands > > collaboration and a large degree of consensus among all who care to > > participate. > > > > As someone who was part of the small team that very deliberately adopted > a > > collaborative, consensus-based process to develop protocols for the > ARPANET > > ?predecessor to the Internet?I > have > > been pleasantly surprised by how those ideas have persisted and > succeeded, > > even as the physical network has evolved from 50-kilobit-per-second > > telephone lines in the mid-1960s to the fiber-optic, 5G, and satellite > > links we enjoy today. Though our team certainly never envisioned > > unforgeable ?privacy passes > > ? or unique > identifiers > > for Internet-connected drones > > ?two proposed protocols > > discussed at the task force meeting this past March?we did circulate our > > ideas for the ARPANET as technical memos among a far-flung group of > > computer scientists, collecting feedback and settling on solutions in > much > > the same way as today, albeit at a much smaller scale. > > > > We called each of those early memos a ?Request for Comments? or RFC. > > Whatever networked device you use today, it almost certainly follows > rules > > laid down in ARPANET RFCs written decades ago, probably including > protocols > > for sending plain ASCII text (RFC 20 > > , issued in 1969), audio or > video > > data streams (RFC 768 , 1980), > and > > Post Office Protocol, or POP, email (RFC 918 > > , 1984). > > > > *Anatomy of an RFC*... > > > > [...] > > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments > > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- new postal address: Google, LLC 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, Suite 1400 Reston, VA 20190 From dhc at dcrocker.net Fri Aug 7 15:40:17 2020 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:40:17 -0700 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?Today=E2=80=99s_Internet_Still_Relies_on_an_ARPAN?= =?utf-8?q?ET-Era_Protocol=3A_The_Request_for_Comments_=28Steve_Crocker=29?= In-Reply-To: <2599cd97-c21a-11c6-49d3-cf874fefdaaa@3kitty.org> References: <2599cd97-c21a-11c6-49d3-cf874fefdaaa@3kitty.org> Message-ID: On 8/7/2020 3:12 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > While the RFC has been enduring, I've always wondered -- where are all > the Comments in response to those thousands of RFCs that Requested them? > > Is there some "form" site somewhere where each RFC appears when > published and has a "Comments" section to collect and preserve the > Comments.?? That kind of thing is pervasive today on all sorts of news > sites, blogs, etc.?? But IMHO the RFCs have somehow always been ignoring > the Cs they Request. emails, internet-drafts, web pages, meeting presentations and recordings, etc. There is excellent archiving of the RFCs, but there has been no interest historical retention of of the surrounding mass of supporting work product. It seems that folk think the usual 'backups' are sufficient... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From dhc at dcrocker.net Fri Aug 7 15:49:39 2020 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:49:39 -0700 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?Today=E2=80=99s_Internet_Still_Relies_on_an_ARPAN?= =?utf-8?q?ET-Era_Protocol=3A_The_Request_for_Comments_=28Steve_Crocker=29?= In-Reply-To: References: <2599cd97-c21a-11c6-49d3-cf874fefdaaa@3kitty.org> Message-ID: On 8/7/2020 3:16 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: > then came Internet Drafts which highlighted conversation again. Even I-Ds tend to be used in a more formal way, now, making them more representative of RFC development snapshots than of comment indicators, which are handled in email and meetings. There is, occasionally, an I-D done as a comment on other work -- with no intent for RFC publication -- but that's extremely rare. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From bernie at fantasyfarm.com Fri Aug 7 16:11:06 2020 From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell) Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 19:11:06 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?Today=E2=80=99s_Internet_Still_Relies_on_an_ARPAN?= =?utf-8?q?ET-Era_Protocol=3A_The_Request_for_Comments_=28Steve_Crocker=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5F2DDF8A.21404.21681A70@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> On 7 Aug 2020 at 11:52, the keyboard of geoff goodfel wrote: > *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* > EXCERPT: On FB I opined that SMTP might be a contender [and mentioned that I'm told that FTP and TELNET are still used, but I barely believe it :o)] /Bernie\ Bernie Cosell bernie at fantasyfarm.com -- Too many people; too few sheep -- From sghuter at nsrc.org Fri Aug 7 16:17:37 2020 From: sghuter at nsrc.org (Steven G. Huter) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 16:17:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ih] =?iso8859-7?q?Today=A2s_Internet_Still_Relies_on_an_ARPANET?= =?iso8859-7?q?-Era_Protocol=3A_The_Request_for_Comments_=28Steve_Crocker?= =?iso8859-7?q?=29?= In-Reply-To: <5F2DDF8A.21404.21681A70@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> References: <5F2DDF8A.21404.21681A70@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: > On FB I opined that SMTP might be a contender [and mentioned that I'm told > that FTP and TELNET are still used, but I barely believe it :o)] Why is access to the RouteViews collector using telnet and not ssh? http://www.routeviews.org/routeviews/index.php/faq/ Steve H. From dhc at dcrocker.net Fri Aug 7 16:20:39 2020 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 16:20:39 -0700 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?Today=E2=80=99s_Internet_Still_Relies_on_an_ARPAN?= =?utf-8?q?ET-Era_Protocol=3A_The_Request_for_Comments_=28Steve_Crocker=29?= In-Reply-To: <5F2DDF8A.21404.21681A70@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> References: <5F2DDF8A.21404.21681A70@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: <2611a894-77a2-91fb-f854-8d1b7b8ca57b@dcrocker.net> On 8/7/2020 4:11 PM, Bernie Cosell via Internet-history wrote: > On 7 Aug 2020 at 11:52, the keyboard of geoff goodfel wrote: > >> *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* >> EXCERPT: > > On FB I opined that SMTP might be a contender [and mentioned that I'm told > that FTP and TELNET are still used, but I barely believe it :o)] An email message from the mid-1970s is nearly compatible with today's Internet Mail. The most essential difference, of course, is hostnames vs. domain names. But I believe nothing else. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From leo at vegoda.org Fri Aug 7 16:20:58 2020 From: leo at vegoda.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 16:20:58 -0700 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?Today=E2=80=99s_Internet_Still_Relies_on_an_ARPAN?= =?utf-8?q?ET-Era_Protocol=3A_The_Request_for_Comments_=28Steve_Cro?= =?utf-8?q?cker=29?= In-Reply-To: References: <2599cd97-c21a-11c6-49d3-cf874fefdaaa@3kitty.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:40 PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: [...] > There is excellent archiving of the RFCs, but there has been no interest > historical retention of of the surrounding mass of supporting work > product. It seems that folk think the usual 'backups' are sufficient... The IETF has shown no interest or there has been no interest from historians and their institutions? From sob at sobco.com Fri Aug 7 16:45:26 2020 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 19:45:26 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?Today=E2=80=99s_Internet_Still_Relies_on_an_ARPAN?= =?utf-8?q?ET-Era_Protocol=3A_The_Request_for_Comments_=28Steve_Crocker=29?= In-Reply-To: <5F2DDF8A.21404.21681A70@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> References: <5F2DDF8A.21404.21681A70@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: <1D24EA0C-363C-490B-A32B-DD33AED06632@sobco.com> telnet seems to be used (or at least implemented) by most makers of Internet of Things devices (security cameras etc) and shows up with default passwords in a security bulletin every few months Scott > On Aug 7, 2020, at 7:11 PM, Bernie Cosell via Internet-history wrote: > > On 7 Aug 2020 at 11:52, the keyboard of geoff goodfel wrote: > >> *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* >> EXCERPT: > > On FB I opined that SMTP might be a contender [and mentioned that I'm told > that FTP and TELNET are still used, but I barely believe it :o)] > > /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 sob at sobco.com Fri Aug 7 16:47:46 2020 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 19:47:46 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?Today=E2=80=99s_Internet_Still_Relies_on_an_ARPAN?= =?utf-8?q?ET-Era_Protocol=3A_The_Request_for_Comments_=28Steve_Crocker=29?= In-Reply-To: References: <2599cd97-c21a-11c6-49d3-cf874fefdaaa@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <30DBBA8C-7793-4239-8657-15C44EDB7483@sobco.com> Internet Drafts are now archived by the IETF as are IETF main lists - in part because of interest by researchers but also interest by intellectual property lawyers Scott > On Aug 7, 2020, at 7:20 PM, Leo Vegoda via Internet-history wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:40 PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history > wrote: > > [...] > >> There is excellent archiving of the RFCs, but there has been no interest >> historical retention of of the surrounding mass of supporting work >> product. It seems that folk think the usual 'backups' are sufficient... > > The IETF has shown no interest or there has been no interest from > historians and their institutions? > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jack at 3kitty.org Fri Aug 7 17:25:52 2020 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 17:25:52 -0700 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?Today=E2=80=99s_Internet_Still_Relies_on_an_ARPAN?= =?utf-8?q?ET-Era_Protocol=3A_The_Request_for_Comments_=28Steve_Crocker=29?= In-Reply-To: <5F2DDF8A.21404.21681A70@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> References: <5F2DDF8A.21404.21681A70@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: <018ec9f0-964f-818e-962c-e3c353b6ed50@3kitty.org> Believe it.? I just logged? into the ITS system MIT-DM (Arpanet host 0, IMP 6), from my Ubuntu desktop Well, OK its running today on a simulated PDP-10, in Sweden rather than MIT, and the ITS code was resurrected from ancient backup tapes.?? The network address is a little different.? But Telnet and FTP still work fine.?? Just like in 1972.?? A nice historical reconstruction by the ITS-HACKERS crew. ? Try it.? /Jack ------------------------ $ telnet its.pdp10.se 1972 Trying 88.99.191.74... Connected to pdp10.se. Escape character is '^]'. Connected to the KA-10 simulator DPK device, line 1 sys^F DSK? SYS?? FREE BLOCKS U0 #0 6026 U1 #1 6462 U2 #2 6462 ? 0?? ATSIGN DRAGON 3 !4/20/72 12:35:03 ? 0?? ATSIGN HACTRN 14 !8/1/71 06:08:48 ? 0?? TS???? DMP??? 4 !8/1/71 16:38:50 ? 0?? TS???? DUMP?? 5 !- ? 0?? TS???? LOCK?? 2 !4/20/72 12:35:11 ? 0?? TS???? MIDAS? 15 !- ? 0?? TS???? NTECO? 14 !4/20/72 12:35:38 ? 0?? TS???? PDSET? 2 !- ? 0?? TS???? PEEK?? 6 !4/20/72 12:35:24 ? 0?? TS???? PRUFD? 1 !- ---------- On 8/7/20 4:11 PM, Bernie Cosell via Internet-history wrote: > that FTP and TELNET are still used, but I barely believe it :o)] > > /Bernie\ > Bernie Cosell > bernie at fantasyfarm.com > -- Too many people; too few sheep -- > > > > From hauben at columbia.edu Fri Aug 7 18:45:19 2020 From: hauben at columbia.edu (Jay Hauben) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 21:45:19 -0400 Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments Might you want to send this link to Sage? Jay On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:50 PM 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. Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era Protocol: The > Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) > (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) > 2. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Jack Haverty) > 3. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Vint Cerf) > 4. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Dave Crocker) > 5. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Dave Crocker) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:52:56 -1000 > From: the keyboard of geoff goodfellow > To: Internet-history > Subject: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) > Message-ID: > < > CAEf-zrix+kVN-0OEPEqLZJbKLqLSH97rhZDSSNYMpTCxVXJBZg at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* > EXCERPT: > > Each March, July, and November, we are reminded that the Internet is not > quite the mature, stable technology that it seems to be. We rely on the > Internet as an essential tool for our economic, social, educational, and > political lives. But when the Internet Engineering Task Force > meets every four months at an open conference that > bounces from continent to continent, more than 1,000 people from around the > world gather with change on their minds. Their vision of the global network > that all humanity shares is dynamic, evolving, and continuously improving. > Their efforts combine with the contributions of myriad others to ensure > that the Internet always works but is never done, never complete. > > The rapid yet orderly evolution of the Internet is all the more remarkable > considering the highly unusual way it happens: without a company, a > government, or a board of directors in charge. Nothing about digital > communications technology suggests that it should be self-organizing or, > for that matter, fundamentally reliable. We enjoy an Internet that is both > of those at once because multiple generations of network developers have > embraced a principle and a process that have been quite rare in the history > of technology. The principle is that the protocols that govern how > Internet-connected devices communicate should be open, expandable, and > robust. And the process that invents and refines those protocols demands > collaboration and a large degree of consensus among all who care to > participate. > > As someone who was part of the small team that very deliberately adopted a > collaborative, consensus-based process to develop protocols for the ARPANET > ?predecessor to the Internet?I have > been pleasantly surprised by how those ideas have persisted and succeeded, > even as the physical network has evolved from 50-kilobit-per-second > telephone lines in the mid-1960s to the fiber-optic, 5G, and satellite > links we enjoy today. Though our team certainly never envisioned > unforgeable ?privacy passes > ? or unique > identifiers > for Internet-connected drones > ?two proposed protocols > discussed at the task force meeting this past March?we did circulate our > ideas for the ARPANET as technical memos among a far-flung group of > computer scientists, collecting feedback and settling on solutions in much > the same way as today, albeit at a much smaller scale. > > We called each of those early memos a ?Request for Comments? or RFC. > Whatever networked device you use today, it almost certainly follows rules > laid down in ARPANET RFCs written decades ago, probably including protocols > for sending plain ASCII text (RFC 20 > , issued in 1969), audio or video > data streams (RFC 768 , 1980), > and > Post Office Protocol, or POP, email (RFC 918 > , 1984). > > *Anatomy of an RFC*... > > [...] > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:12:35 -0700 > From: Jack Haverty > To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org > Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) > Message-ID: <2599cd97-c21a-11c6-49d3-cf874fefdaaa at 3kitty.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Thanks, Geoff, interesting article... > > While the RFC has been enduring, I've always wondered -- where are all > the Comments in response to those thousands of RFCs that Requested them??? > > Is there some "form" site somewhere where each RFC appears when > published and has a "Comments" section to collect and preserve the > Comments.?? That kind of thing is pervasive today on all sorts of news > sites, blogs, etc.?? But IMHO the RFCs have somehow always been ignoring > the Cs they Request. > > I recall writing only several RFCs, but comments typically came back via > email discussions. ? Sometimes for years.? I fear most of that aspect of > Internet History, the comments and discussions, has been lost. ? I > wonder if the long-standing "technology" of RFCs needs a Version 2, > which captures and preserves the Comments just as it has done for > decades with the Requests. > > I guess I should write an RFC about that........ > > /Jack > > On 8/7/20 2:52 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history > wrote: > > *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* > > EXCERPT: > > > > Each March, July, and November, we are reminded that the Internet is not > > quite the mature, stable technology that it seems to be. We rely on the > > Internet as an essential tool for our economic, social, educational, and > > political lives. But when the Internet Engineering Task Force > > meets every four months at an open conference that > > bounces from continent to continent, more than 1,000 people from around > the > > world gather with change on their minds. Their vision of the global > network > > that all humanity shares is dynamic, evolving, and continuously > improving. > > Their efforts combine with the contributions of myriad others to ensure > > that the Internet always works but is never done, never complete. > > > > The rapid yet orderly evolution of the Internet is all the more > remarkable > > considering the highly unusual way it happens: without a company, a > > government, or a board of directors in charge. Nothing about digital > > communications technology suggests that it should be self-organizing or, > > for that matter, fundamentally reliable. We enjoy an Internet that is > both > > of those at once because multiple generations of network developers have > > embraced a principle and a process that have been quite rare in the > history > > of technology. The principle is that the protocols that govern how > > Internet-connected devices communicate should be open, expandable, and > > robust. And the process that invents and refines those protocols demands > > collaboration and a large degree of consensus among all who care to > > participate. > > > > As someone who was part of the small team that very deliberately adopted > a > > collaborative, consensus-based process to develop protocols for the > ARPANET > > ?predecessor to the Internet?I > have > > been pleasantly surprised by how those ideas have persisted and > succeeded, > > even as the physical network has evolved from 50-kilobit-per-second > > telephone lines in the mid-1960s to the fiber-optic, 5G, and satellite > > links we enjoy today. Though our team certainly never envisioned > > unforgeable ?privacy passes > > ? or unique > identifiers > > for Internet-connected drones > > ?two proposed protocols > > discussed at the task force meeting this past March?we did circulate our > > ideas for the ARPANET as technical memos among a far-flung group of > > computer scientists, collecting feedback and settling on solutions in > much > > the same way as today, albeit at a much smaller scale. > > > > We called each of those early memos a ?Request for Comments? or RFC. > > Whatever networked device you use today, it almost certainly follows > rules > > laid down in ARPANET RFCs written decades ago, probably including > protocols > > for sending plain ASCII text (RFC 20 > > , issued in 1969), audio or > video > > data streams (RFC 768 , 1980), > and > > Post Office Protocol, or POP, email (RFC 918 > > , 1984). > > > > *Anatomy of an RFC*... > > > > [...] > > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 18:16:03 -0400 > From: Vint Cerf > To: Jack Haverty > Cc: "Nelson H. F. Beebe via Internet-history" > > Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) > Message-ID: > < > CAHxHgge71u5br6S1PAngRRuM6Het9o3wGZi_GdinGcGw6itz5g at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > early on, the comments came back as RFCs. Then came email so less of the > conversation was captured in RFCs. > then came Internet Drafts which highlighted conversation again. > v > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:12 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > Thanks, Geoff, interesting article... > > > > While the RFC has been enduring, I've always wondered -- where are all > > the Comments in response to those thousands of RFCs that Requested them? > > > > Is there some "form" site somewhere where each RFC appears when > > published and has a "Comments" section to collect and preserve the > > Comments. That kind of thing is pervasive today on all sorts of news > > sites, blogs, etc. But IMHO the RFCs have somehow always been ignoring > > the Cs they Request. > > > > I recall writing only several RFCs, but comments typically came back via > > email discussions. Sometimes for years. I fear most of that aspect of > > Internet History, the comments and discussions, has been lost. I > > wonder if the long-standing "technology" of RFCs needs a Version 2, > > which captures and preserves the Comments just as it has done for > > decades with the Requests. > > > > I guess I should write an RFC about that........ > > > > /Jack > > > > On 8/7/20 2:52 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history > > wrote: > > > *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* > > > EXCERPT: > > > > > > Each March, July, and November, we are reminded that the Internet is > not > > > quite the mature, stable technology that it seems to be. We rely on the > > > Internet as an essential tool for our economic, social, educational, > and > > > political lives. But when the Internet Engineering Task Force > > > meets every four months at an open conference that > > > bounces from continent to continent, more than 1,000 people from around > > the > > > world gather with change on their minds. Their vision of the global > > network > > > that all humanity shares is dynamic, evolving, and continuously > > improving. > > > Their efforts combine with the contributions of myriad others to ensure > > > that the Internet always works but is never done, never complete. > > > > > > The rapid yet orderly evolution of the Internet is all the more > > remarkable > > > considering the highly unusual way it happens: without a company, a > > > government, or a board of directors in charge. Nothing about digital > > > communications technology suggests that it should be self-organizing > or, > > > for that matter, fundamentally reliable. We enjoy an Internet that is > > both > > > of those at once because multiple generations of network developers > have > > > embraced a principle and a process that have been quite rare in the > > history > > > of technology. The principle is that the protocols that govern how > > > Internet-connected devices communicate should be open, expandable, and > > > robust. And the process that invents and refines those protocols > demands > > > collaboration and a large degree of consensus among all who care to > > > participate. > > > > > > As someone who was part of the small team that very deliberately > adopted > > a > > > collaborative, consensus-based process to develop protocols for the > > ARPANET > > > ?predecessor to the Internet?I > > have > > > been pleasantly surprised by how those ideas have persisted and > > succeeded, > > > even as the physical network has evolved from 50-kilobit-per-second > > > telephone lines in the mid-1960s to the fiber-optic, 5G, and satellite > > > links we enjoy today. Though our team certainly never envisioned > > > unforgeable ?privacy passes > > > ? or unique > > identifiers > > > for Internet-connected drones > > > ?two proposed > protocols > > > discussed at the task force meeting this past March?we did circulate > our > > > ideas for the ARPANET as technical memos among a far-flung group of > > > computer scientists, collecting feedback and settling on solutions in > > much > > > the same way as today, albeit at a much smaller scale. > > > > > > We called each of those early memos a ?Request for Comments? or RFC. > > > Whatever networked device you use today, it almost certainly follows > > rules > > > laid down in ARPANET RFCs written decades ago, probably including > > protocols > > > for sending plain ASCII text (RFC 20 > > > , issued in 1969), audio or > > video > > > data streams (RFC 768 , > 1980), > > and > > > Post Office Protocol, or POP, email (RFC 918 > > > , 1984). > > > > > > *Anatomy of an RFC*... > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments > > > > > > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > > -- > new postal address: > Google, LLC > 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, Suite 1400 > Reston, VA 20190 > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:40:17 -0700 > From: Dave Crocker > To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org > Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > On 8/7/2020 3:12 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > > While the RFC has been enduring, I've always wondered -- where are all > > the Comments in response to those thousands of RFCs that Requested them? > > > > Is there some "form" site somewhere where each RFC appears when > > published and has a "Comments" section to collect and preserve the > > Comments.?? That kind of thing is pervasive today on all sorts of news > > sites, blogs, etc.?? But IMHO the RFCs have somehow always been ignoring > > the Cs they Request. > > > emails, internet-drafts, web pages, meeting presentations and > recordings, etc. > > There is excellent archiving of the RFCs, but there has been no interest > historical retention of of the surrounding mass of supporting work > product. It seems that folk think the usual 'backups' are sufficient... > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:49:39 -0700 > From: Dave Crocker > Cc: "Nelson H. F. Beebe via Internet-history" > > Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > On 8/7/2020 3:16 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: > > then came Internet Drafts which highlighted conversation again. > > Even I-Ds tend to be used in a more formal way, now, making them more > representative of RFC development snapshots than of comment indicators, > which are handled in email and meetings. > > There is, occasionally, an I-D done as a comment on other work -- with > no intent for RFC publication -- but that's extremely rare. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 11, Issue 2 > *********************************************** > From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Fri Aug 7 18:58:48 2020 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 21:58:48 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?Today=E2=80=99s_Internet_Still_Relies_on_an_ARPAN?= =?utf-8?q?ET-Era_Protocol=3A_The_Request_for_Comments_=28Steve_Crocker=29?= In-Reply-To: <018ec9f0-964f-818e-962c-e3c353b6ed50@3kitty.org> References: <5F2DDF8A.21404.21681A70@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> <018ec9f0-964f-818e-962c-e3c353b6ed50@3kitty.org> Message-ID: Cool! Just tried it, got to Connected to the KA-10 simulator DPK device, line And then it just froze. I expect it might be overloaded right now, by everyone trying it out, all at once. :-) Miles On 8/7/20 8:25 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > Believe it.? I just logged? into the ITS system MIT-DM (Arpanet host 0, > IMP 6), from my Ubuntu desktop > Well, OK its running today on a simulated PDP-10, in Sweden rather than > MIT, and the ITS code was resurrected from ancient backup tapes.?? The > network address is a little different.? But Telnet and FTP still work > fine.?? Just like in 1972.?? A nice historical reconstruction by the > ITS-HACKERS crew. ? Try it.? /Jack > > ------------------------ > > $ telnet its.pdp10.se 1972 > Trying 88.99.191.74... > Connected to pdp10.se. > Escape character is '^]'. > > > Connected to the KA-10 simulator DPK device, line 1 > > sys^F > DSK? SYS?? > FREE BLOCKS U0 #0 6026 U1 #1 6462 U2 #2 6462 > ? 0?? ATSIGN DRAGON 3 !4/20/72 12:35:03 > ? 0?? ATSIGN HACTRN 14 !8/1/71 06:08:48 > ? 0?? TS???? DMP??? 4 !8/1/71 16:38:50 > ? 0?? TS???? DUMP?? 5 !- > ? 0?? TS???? LOCK?? 2 !4/20/72 12:35:11 > ? 0?? TS???? MIDAS? 15 !- > ? 0?? TS???? NTECO? 14 !4/20/72 12:35:38 > ? 0?? TS???? PDSET? 2 !- > ? 0?? TS???? PEEK?? 6 !4/20/72 12:35:24 > ? 0?? TS???? PRUFD? 1 !- > > ---------- > > On 8/7/20 4:11 PM, Bernie Cosell via Internet-history wrote: >> that FTP and TELNET are still used, but I barely believe it :o)] >> >> /Bernie\ >> Bernie Cosell >> bernie at fantasyfarm.com >> -- Too many people; too few sheep -- >> >> >> >> -- 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 geoff at iconia.com Fri Aug 7 19:38:28 2020 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 16:38:28 -1000 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?Today=E2=80=99s_Internet_Still_Relies_on_an_ARPAN?= =?utf-8?q?ET-Era_Protocol=3A_The_Request_for_Comments_=28Steve_Cro?= =?utf-8?q?cker=29?= In-Reply-To: References: <5F2DDF8A.21404.21681A70@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> <018ec9f0-964f-818e-962c-e3c353b6ed50@3kitty.org> Message-ID: you'll need to ^Z (Ctrl-Z) to get ITS attention after the telnet connection opens... ^Z on ITS kinda like ^C on Tenex/TOPS-20's -- from that era when we had ASCII terminals connected to the PDP-10's line scanner. : btw, there is another ITS running over at the Living Computer Museum, but you'll need to ssh into menu at tty.LivingComputers.org to get to it. :D geoff On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 4:00 PM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Cool! > > Just tried it, got to > > Connected to the KA-10 simulator DPK device, line > > And then it just froze. > > I expect it might be overloaded right now, by everyone trying it out, > all at once. :-) > > Miles > > > > > On 8/7/20 8:25 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > > Believe it. I just logged into the ITS system MIT-DM (Arpanet host 0, > > IMP 6), from my Ubuntu desktop > > Well, OK its running today on a simulated PDP-10, in Sweden rather than > > MIT, and the ITS code was resurrected from ancient backup tapes. The > > network address is a little different. But Telnet and FTP still work > > fine. Just like in 1972. A nice historical reconstruction by the > > ITS-HACKERS crew. Try it. /Jack > > > > ------------------------ > > > > $ telnet its.pdp10.se 1972 > > Trying 88.99.191.74... > > Connected to pdp10.se. > > Escape character is '^]'. > > > > > > Connected to the KA-10 simulator DPK device, line 1 > > > > sys^F > > DSK SYS > > FREE BLOCKS U0 #0 6026 U1 #1 6462 U2 #2 6462 > > 0 ATSIGN DRAGON 3 !4/20/72 12:35:03 > > 0 ATSIGN HACTRN 14 !8/1/71 06:08:48 > > 0 TS DMP 4 !8/1/71 16:38:50 > > 0 TS DUMP 5 !- > > 0 TS LOCK 2 !4/20/72 12:35:11 > > 0 TS MIDAS 15 !- > > 0 TS NTECO 14 !4/20/72 12:35:38 > > 0 TS PDSET 2 !- > > 0 TS PEEK 6 !4/20/72 12:35:24 > > 0 TS PRUFD 1 !- > > > > ---------- > > > > On 8/7/20 4:11 PM, Bernie Cosell via Internet-history wrote: > >> that FTP and TELNET are still used, but I barely believe it :o)] > >> > >> /Bernie\ > >> Bernie Cosell > >> bernie at fantasyfarm.com > >> -- Too many people; too few sheep -- > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra > > Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. > Practice is when everything works but no one knows why. > In our lab, theory and practice are combined: > nothing works and no one knows why. ... unknown > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Fri Aug 7 19:50:56 2020 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 14:50:56 +1200 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?Today=E2=80=99s_Internet_Still_Relies_on_an_ARPAN?= =?utf-8?q?ET-Era_Protocol=3A_The_Request_for_Comments_=28Steve_Crocker=29?= In-Reply-To: <30DBBA8C-7793-4239-8657-15C44EDB7483@sobco.com> References: <2599cd97-c21a-11c6-49d3-cf874fefdaaa@3kitty.org> <30DBBA8C-7793-4239-8657-15C44EDB7483@sobco.com> Message-ID: <379aea85-a49c-2367-d04f-34f9e9124322@gmail.com> On 08-Aug-20 11:47, Scott O. Bradner via Internet-history wrote: > Internet Drafts are now archived by the IETF as are IETF main lists - in part because of > interest by researchers but also interest by intellectual property lawyers Yes. But quite a lot of older IETF mailing lists that were hosted benevolently by companies that no longer exist, or universities that have since "improved" their networks beyond recognition, are either lost or very hard to find. More urgently: if you care about the *future* of the RFC Series as well as its past, I strongly suggest joining the Rfced-future mailing list: Rfced-future at iab.org https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future Strictly speaking it's about the role of Series Editor but the unspoken scope is wider. As of today, a call for proposals is open: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/Y_IAXkSVk8RZY65Vzj00ncbXe4I (The "Brian" signing that is not me.) Regards Brian Carpenter > > Scott > >> On Aug 7, 2020, at 7:20 PM, Leo Vegoda via Internet-history wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:40 PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history >> wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>> There is excellent archiving of the RFCs, but there has been no interest >>> historical retention of of the surrounding mass of supporting work >>> product. It seems that folk think the usual 'backups' are sufficient... >> >> The IETF has shown no interest or there has been no interest from >> historians and their institutions? >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From lars at nocrew.org Fri Aug 7 21:54:47 2020 From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff) Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2020 04:54:47 +0000 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?Today=E2=80=99s_Internet_Still_Relies_on_an_ARPAN?= =?utf-8?q?ET-Era_Protocol=3A_The_Request_for_Comments_=28Steve_Crocker=29?= In-Reply-To: <018ec9f0-964f-818e-962c-e3c353b6ed50@3kitty.org> (Jack Haverty via Internet-history's message of "Fri, 7 Aug 2020 17:25:52 -0700") References: <5F2DDF8A.21404.21681A70@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> <018ec9f0-964f-818e-962c-e3c353b6ed50@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <7w7du991pk.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Jack Haverty wrote: > Believe it.? I just logged? into the ITS system MIT-DM (Arpanet host 0, > IMP 6) It's software from MIT-AI , and it doesn't have the IMP interface. Sorry, the telnet implementation is on the host machine and goes to the terminal ports. > The network address is a little different.? But Telnet and FTP still > work fine.?? Just like in 1972. It doesn't have TCP, so I think it would have been difficult to use those protocols from a modern machine. Geoff Goodfellow wrote: > btw, there is another ITS running over at the Living Computer Museum, but > you'll need to ssh into menu at tty.LivingComputers.org to get to it. :D There are a few more. SV started already around 2001: sv.svensson.org. UP is up.update.uu.se. A new addition is HX, hactrn.org. The first two has the IMP interface but only a few ports are open, like 95 for SUPDUP. From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Fri Aug 7 22:49:27 2020 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 01:49:27 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?Today=E2=80=99s_Internet_Still_Relies_on_an_ARPAN?= =?utf-8?q?ET-Era_Protocol=3A_The_Request_for_Comments_=28Steve_Crocker=29?= In-Reply-To: References: <5F2DDF8A.21404.21681A70@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> <018ec9f0-964f-818e-962c-e3c353b6ed50@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <777bede8-0d0c-d9a3-bf20-74c35f6f2d25@meetinghouse.net> I should know that, damn it.? I had an account on the MIT-AI ITS system back in 1971 (yup, just before Ray Tomlison unleashed ARPANET email on the world)! But... It doesn't work.? Probably need to fiddle with my telnet config. One of these days, I'll get around to checking out the one at the Living Computer Museum.? Or just download the emulator and build it on my laptop.? (Hmmm.... I wonder if it would compile for an Android phone!) Miles On 8/7/20 10:38 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow wrote: > you'll need to ^Z (Ctrl-Z) to get ITS attention after the telnet > connection opens... ^Z on ITS kinda like ^C on Tenex/TOPS-20's -- from > that era when we had ASCII terminals connected to the PDP-10's line > scanner. : > > btw, there is another ITS running over at the Living Computer Museum, > but you'll need to ssh into menu at tty.LivingComputers.org > ?to get to it. :D > > geoff > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 4:00 PM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history > > wrote: > > Cool! > > Just tried it, got to > > Connected to the KA-10 simulator DPK device, line > > And then it just froze. > > I expect it might be overloaded right now, by everyone trying it out, > all at once. :-) > > Miles > > > > > On 8/7/20 8:25 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > > Believe it.? I just logged? into the ITS system MIT-DM (Arpanet > host 0, > > IMP 6), from my Ubuntu desktop > > Well, OK its running today on a simulated PDP-10, in Sweden > rather than > > MIT, and the ITS code was resurrected from ancient backup > tapes.?? The > > network address is a little different.? But Telnet and FTP still > work > > fine.?? Just like in 1972.?? A nice historical reconstruction by the > > ITS-HACKERS crew. ? Try it.? /Jack > > > > ------------------------ > > > > $ telnet its.pdp10.se 1972 > > Trying 88.99.191.74... > > Connected to pdp10.se . > > Escape character is '^]'. > > > > > > Connected to the KA-10 simulator DPK device, line 1 > > > > sys^F > >? ? DSK? SYS > >? FREE BLOCKS U0 #0 6026 U1 #1 6462 U2 #2 6462 > >? ? 0?? ATSIGN DRAGON 3 !4/20/72 12:35:03 > >? ? 0?? ATSIGN HACTRN 14 !8/1/71 06:08:48 > >? ? 0?? TS???? DMP??? 4 !8/1/71 16:38:50 > >? ? 0?? TS???? DUMP?? 5 !- > >? ? 0?? TS???? LOCK?? 2 !4/20/72 12:35:11 > >? ? 0?? TS???? MIDAS? 15 !- > >? ? 0?? TS???? NTECO? 14 !4/20/72 12:35:38 > >? ? 0?? TS???? PDSET? 2 !- > >? ? 0?? TS???? PEEK?? 6 !4/20/72 12:35:24 > >? ? 0?? TS???? PRUFD? 1 !- > > > > ---------- > > > > On 8/7/20 4:11 PM, Bernie Cosell via Internet-history wrote: > >> that FTP and TELNET are still used, but I barely believe it :o)] > >> > >>? ? /Bernie\ > >>? ? ? ? ? ? ? Bernie Cosell > >> bernie at fantasyfarm.com > >> -- Too many people; too few sheep -- > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. > In practice, there is.? .... Yogi Berra > > Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. > Practice is when everything works but no one knows why. > In our lab, theory and practice are combined: > nothing works and no one knows why.? ... unknown > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > > > -- 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 tte at cs.fau.de Fri Aug 7 23:10:59 2020 From: tte at cs.fau.de (Toerless Eckert) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 08:10:59 +0200 Subject: [ih] Today???s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) In-Reply-To: References: <2599cd97-c21a-11c6-49d3-cf874fefdaaa@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <20200808061059.GB62842@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> I think that emails to IETF mailing lists are closest to the original spirit of "requests for comments" these days. Maybe we could introduce a new email message header that IETF mailman would insert, something like "RFC-ID: RFC.MSG.sender.date.serial.list" (or the like). This would give each mail to an IETF mailing list a unique "RFC" identification, and thereby elevating it to an RFC. While primarily meant as a honorary identifier to remind of the original spirit of the term, this could even be useful because those IDs could be used as references if we also come up with a URI/URL scheme for them (worst case an IETF mailman URL). [ Not sure if there are even URLs for standard Message-ID's on mailman. ] Other than that, it would be lovely if we would have better recommendations for changelogs in drafts to capture the discussion. Today this is left to authors, and WG chairs typically don't dare to ask for more if authors don't want to do it. Cheers Toerless On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 03:49:39PM -0700, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > On 8/7/2020 3:16 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: > > then came Internet Drafts which highlighted conversation again. > > Even I-Ds tend to be used in a more formal way, now, making them more > representative of RFC development snapshots than of comment indicators, > which are handled in email and meetings. > > There is, occasionally, an I-D done as a comment on other work -- with no > intent for RFC publication -- but that's extremely rare. > > 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 -- --- tte at cs.fau.de From jack at 3kitty.org Fri Aug 7 23:29:34 2020 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 23:29:34 -0700 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?Today=E2=80=99s_Internet_Still_Relies_on_an_ARPAN?= =?utf-8?q?ET-Era_Protocol=3A_The_Request_for_Comments_=28Steve_Crocker=29?= In-Reply-To: <7w7du991pk.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> References: <5F2DDF8A.21404.21681A70@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> <018ec9f0-964f-818e-962c-e3c353b6ed50@3kitty.org> <7w7du991pk.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Message-ID: <00f1a9fe-0212-c2d0-266c-a1af320fd19b@3kitty.org> Oops, my bad.?? I should have remembered that 1972 was about a decade too soon for Internet addresses!???? Still, a very impressive piece of historic reconstruction. /Jack On 8/7/20 9:54 PM, Lars Brinkhoff wrote: > It doesn't have TCP, so I think it would have been difficult to use > those protocols from a modern machine. From jack at 3kitty.org Sat Aug 8 00:00:52 2020 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 00:00:52 -0700 Subject: [ih] Today???s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) In-Reply-To: <20200808061059.GB62842@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> References: <2599cd97-c21a-11c6-49d3-cf874fefdaaa@3kitty.org> <20200808061059.GB62842@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: I just looked at a few recent RFCs, and they look amazingly like they did 50 years ago.? Like they came out of a typewriter.? I know there's been some evolution to move beyond pure ascii text, but still they look very much as they did in the 70s.? Very traditional and nostalgic, but fifty years has provided a lot of time for new approaches to mature. There are many implementations now of collaboration, but one I find interesting is github.? It is used traditionally for coding projects, but it does a pretty nice job of handling documentation too, including discussions, revisions, etc. One example of this is in the "PDP-10/ITS" area on github -- https://github.com/PDP-10/its/issues -- which contains "issues" (an "issue" is somewhat analogous to an RFC), coupled with an ongoing repository of the ensuing discussions about that issue.?? People can engage in discussions directly on github, or interface through email.??? Text, images, video, etc.? Oh, lots of code is there too.??? I can see RFCs simply being "issues" in github, which would capture and make available an evolving archive of the ensuing comments and discussions. This is only one example of what might be called modern collaboration practice on the Internet.? All the IETF would have to do is publish each new (and even old) RFC as an "issue" in a github area, and publicize how to submit your comments. But I know, it's hard to change tradition....?? Just an idea. /Jack On 8/7/20 11:10 PM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote: > I think that emails to IETF mailing lists are closest to the original spirit > of "requests for comments" these days. > > Maybe we could introduce a new email message header that IETF mailman would insert, > something like "RFC-ID: RFC.MSG.sender.date.serial.list" (or the like). > > This would give each mail to an IETF mailing list a unique "RFC" identification, > and thereby elevating it to an RFC. While primarily meant as a honorary identifier > to remind of the original spirit of the term, this could even be useful because > those IDs could be used as references if we also come up with a URI/URL scheme for > them (worst case an IETF mailman URL). [ Not sure if there are even URLs for > standard Message-ID's on mailman. ] > > Other than that, it would be lovely if we would have better recommendations > for changelogs in drafts to capture the discussion. Today this is left to > authors, and WG chairs typically don't dare to ask for more if authors don't > want to do it. > > Cheers > Toerless > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 03:49:39PM -0700, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >> On 8/7/2020 3:16 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: >>> then came Internet Drafts which highlighted conversation again. >> Even I-Ds tend to be used in a more formal way, now, making them more >> representative of RFC development snapshots than of comment indicators, >> which are handled in email and meetings. >> >> There is, occasionally, an I-D done as a comment on other work -- with no >> intent for RFC publication -- but that's extremely rare. >> >> 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 From tte at cs.fau.de Sat Aug 8 00:23:56 2020 From: tte at cs.fau.de (Toerless Eckert) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 09:23:56 +0200 Subject: [ih] Today???s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) In-Reply-To: References: <2599cd97-c21a-11c6-49d3-cf874fefdaaa@3kitty.org> <20200808061059.GB62842@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Message-ID: <20200808072356.GE62842@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 12:00:52AM -0700, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > I just looked at a few recent RFCs, and they look amazingly like they > did 50 years ago.? Like they came out of a typewriter.? I know there's > been some evolution to move beyond pure ascii text, but still they look > very much as they did in the 70s.? Very traditional and nostalgic, but > fifty years has provided a lot of time for new approaches to mature. Indeed. And the tooling RFC-editor now has for better graphics is IMHO still challenging when you try to create better graphics for e.g.: network diagrams or the like. And for some things such as showing protocol headers, ASCII graphics is IMHO ideal for human consumption. Not so much for formal verification though. > There are many implementations now of collaboration, but one I find > interesting is github.? It is used traditionally for coding projects, > but it does a pretty nice job of handling documentation too, including > discussions, revisions, etc. Except that we now (IMHO) struggle with a rift in the community: Those who breathe github and expect that all process of work has to be looked up on github and those like me who think that rfcdiff is just lightyears ahead of a diff i can get on github and would therefore rather prefer to have all versions in datatracker. Then again issue tracking is nice in github - as you also mention below. > One example of this is in the "PDP-10/ITS" area on github -- > https://github.com/PDP-10/its/issues -- which contains "issues" (an > "issue" is somewhat analogous to an RFC), coupled with an ongoing > repository of the ensuing discussions about that issue.?? People can > engage in discussions directly on github, or interface through email.??? > Text, images, video, etc.? Oh, lots of code is there too.??? I can see > RFCs simply being "issues" in github, which would capture and make > available an evolving archive of the ensuing comments and discussions. Yes. And now we've got scatter/gather storage of discussions... > This is only one example of what might be called modern collaboration > practice on the Internet.? All the IETF would have to do is publish each > new (and even old) RFC as an "issue" in a github area, and publicize how > to submit your comments. > > But I know, it's hard to change tradition....?? Just an idea. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-git-using-github-06 Cheers Toerless > /Jack > > On 8/7/20 11:10 PM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote: > > I think that emails to IETF mailing lists are closest to the original spirit > > of "requests for comments" these days. > > > > Maybe we could introduce a new email message header that IETF mailman would insert, > > something like "RFC-ID: RFC.MSG.sender.date.serial.list" (or the like). > > > > This would give each mail to an IETF mailing list a unique "RFC" identification, > > and thereby elevating it to an RFC. While primarily meant as a honorary identifier > > to remind of the original spirit of the term, this could even be useful because > > those IDs could be used as references if we also come up with a URI/URL scheme for > > them (worst case an IETF mailman URL). [ Not sure if there are even URLs for > > standard Message-ID's on mailman. ] > > > > Other than that, it would be lovely if we would have better recommendations > > for changelogs in drafts to capture the discussion. Today this is left to > > authors, and WG chairs typically don't dare to ask for more if authors don't > > want to do it. > > > > Cheers > > Toerless > > > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 03:49:39PM -0700, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > >> On 8/7/2020 3:16 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: > >>> then came Internet Drafts which highlighted conversation again. > >> Even I-Ds tend to be used in a more formal way, now, making them more > >> representative of RFC development snapshots than of comment indicators, > >> which are handled in email and meetings. > >> > >> There is, occasionally, an I-D done as a comment on other work -- with no > >> intent for RFC publication -- but that's extremely rare. > >> > >> 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 > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- --- tte at cs.fau.de From lars at nocrew.org Sat Aug 8 00:44:44 2020 From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff) Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2020 07:44:44 +0000 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?Today=E2=80=99s_Internet_Still_Relies_on_an_ARPAN?= =?utf-8?q?ET-Era_Protocol=3A_The_Request_for_Comments_=28Steve_Crocker=29?= In-Reply-To: <00f1a9fe-0212-c2d0-266c-a1af320fd19b@3kitty.org> (Jack Haverty's message of "Fri, 7 Aug 2020 23:29:34 -0700") References: <5F2DDF8A.21404.21681A70@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> <018ec9f0-964f-818e-962c-e3c353b6ed50@3kitty.org> <7w7du991pk.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <00f1a9fe-0212-c2d0-266c-a1af320fd19b@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <7wy2mp7f9v.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> > Oops, my bad.?? I should have remembered that 1972 was about a decade > too soon for Internet addresses!???? Still, a very impressive piece of > historic reconstruction. Thank you. Some new tapes have appeared, so I'll be able to downgrade from ITS 724 to 715. Still early 1972, though. I'm not sure whether these even have the NCP software. But more importantly, I have seen a dozen or so DM tapes. Most are incremental backups, but a few full also. I believe we have several snapshots of Muddle, Zork, Trivia, etc, from the late 70s and early 80s. I see about 20 files in your JFH directory, and 15 have the second filename xJFH as per the Dynamic Modeling convention. If you like, I can send you a full file list which you can then request from MIT. Best regards, Lars Brinkhoff From lars at nocrew.org Sat Aug 8 00:56:56 2020 From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff) Date: Sat, 08 Aug 2020 07:56:56 +0000 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?Today=E2=80=99s_Internet_Still_Relies_on_an_ARPAN?= =?utf-8?q?ET-Era_Protocol=3A_The_Request_for_Comments_=28Steve_Crocker=29?= In-Reply-To: <777bede8-0d0c-d9a3-bf20-74c35f6f2d25@meetinghouse.net> (Miles Fidelman via Internet-history's message of "Sat, 8 Aug 2020 01:49:27 -0400") References: <5F2DDF8A.21404.21681A70@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> <018ec9f0-964f-818e-962c-e3c353b6ed50@3kitty.org> <777bede8-0d0c-d9a3-bf20-74c35f6f2d25@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <7wtuxd7epj.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Miles Fidelman wrote: > Geoff Goodfellow wrote: >> you'll need to ^Z (Ctrl-Z) to get ITS attention > I should know that, damn it. But... It doesn't work.? Probably need > to fiddle with my telnet config. I tried it just now, and someone had left their session hanging. I typed $$U to log it off ($ is altmode). A complete minimal session should look like this: Connected to the KA-10 simulator DPK device, line 1 [Type ^Z here] ITS.724. DDT.354. 3. USERS $$u ITS 724 CONSOLE 22 FREE. 09:44:28 Display programs like PEEK will output Datapoint cursor movements. > Or just download the emulator and build it on my laptop.? (Hmmm.... I > wonder if it would compile for an Android phone!) The emulators are mostly tested on Linux, but for the most part BSD, macOS, and even Windows may work too. I suppose Android should work. Some external libraries are needed for networking, graphcis, etc. The ITS build script uses expect. From scott.brim at gmail.com Sat Aug 8 04:12:10 2020 From: scott.brim at gmail.com (Scott Brim) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 07:12:10 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?Today=E2=80=99s_Internet_Still_Relies_on_an_ARPAN?= =?utf-8?q?ET-Era_Protocol=3A_The_Request_for_Comments_=28Steve_Cro?= =?utf-8?q?cker=29?= In-Reply-To: <5F2DDF8A.21404.21681A70@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> References: <5F2DDF8A.21404.21681A70@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: Bernie, FTP gets used every day by millions who use cPanel and Plesk and even Filezilla for less-than-completely-privileged maintenance on websites. On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 7:11 PM Bernie Cosell via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > On 7 Aug 2020 at 11:52, the keyboard of geoff goodfel wrote: > > > *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* > > EXCERPT: > > On FB I opined that SMTP might be a contender [and mentioned that I'm told > that FTP and TELNET are still used, but I barely believe it :o)] > > /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 agmalis at gmail.com Sat Aug 8 06:40:41 2020 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 09:40:41 -0400 Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That article has some great photos! Cheers, Andy On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 9:46 PM Jay Hauben via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments > > Might you want to send this link to Sage? > Jay > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:50 PM > 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. Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era Protocol: The > > Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) > > (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) > > 2. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Jack Haverty) > > 3. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Vint Cerf) > > 4. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Dave Crocker) > > 5. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Dave Crocker) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:52:56 -1000 > > From: the keyboard of geoff goodfellow > > To: Internet-history > > Subject: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) > > Message-ID: > > < > > CAEf-zrix+kVN-0OEPEqLZJbKLqLSH97rhZDSSNYMpTCxVXJBZg at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* > > EXCERPT: > > > > Each March, July, and November, we are reminded that the Internet is not > > quite the mature, stable technology that it seems to be. We rely on the > > Internet as an essential tool for our economic, social, educational, and > > political lives. But when the Internet Engineering Task Force > > meets every four months at an open conference that > > bounces from continent to continent, more than 1,000 people from around > the > > world gather with change on their minds. Their vision of the global > network > > that all humanity shares is dynamic, evolving, and continuously > improving. > > Their efforts combine with the contributions of myriad others to ensure > > that the Internet always works but is never done, never complete. > > > > The rapid yet orderly evolution of the Internet is all the more > remarkable > > considering the highly unusual way it happens: without a company, a > > government, or a board of directors in charge. Nothing about digital > > communications technology suggests that it should be self-organizing or, > > for that matter, fundamentally reliable. We enjoy an Internet that is > both > > of those at once because multiple generations of network developers have > > embraced a principle and a process that have been quite rare in the > history > > of technology. The principle is that the protocols that govern how > > Internet-connected devices communicate should be open, expandable, and > > robust. And the process that invents and refines those protocols demands > > collaboration and a large degree of consensus among all who care to > > participate. > > > > As someone who was part of the small team that very deliberately adopted > a > > collaborative, consensus-based process to develop protocols for the > ARPANET > > ?predecessor to the Internet?I > have > > been pleasantly surprised by how those ideas have persisted and > succeeded, > > even as the physical network has evolved from 50-kilobit-per-second > > telephone lines in the mid-1960s to the fiber-optic, 5G, and satellite > > links we enjoy today. Though our team certainly never envisioned > > unforgeable ?privacy passes > > ? or unique > > identifiers > > for Internet-connected drones > > ?two proposed protocols > > discussed at the task force meeting this past March?we did circulate our > > ideas for the ARPANET as technical memos among a far-flung group of > > computer scientists, collecting feedback and settling on solutions in > much > > the same way as today, albeit at a much smaller scale. > > > > We called each of those early memos a ?Request for Comments? or RFC. > > Whatever networked device you use today, it almost certainly follows > rules > > laid down in ARPANET RFCs written decades ago, probably including > protocols > > for sending plain ASCII text (RFC 20 > > , issued in 1969), audio or > video > > data streams (RFC 768 , 1980), > > and > > Post Office Protocol, or POP, email (RFC 918 > > , 1984). > > > > *Anatomy of an RFC*... > > > > [...] > > > > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments > > > > -- > > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > > living as The Truth is True > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:12:35 -0700 > > From: Jack Haverty > > To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) > > Message-ID: <2599cd97-c21a-11c6-49d3-cf874fefdaaa at 3kitty.org> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > > Thanks, Geoff, interesting article... > > > > While the RFC has been enduring, I've always wondered -- where are all > > the Comments in response to those thousands of RFCs that Requested > them??? > > > > Is there some "form" site somewhere where each RFC appears when > > published and has a "Comments" section to collect and preserve the > > Comments.?? That kind of thing is pervasive today on all sorts of news > > sites, blogs, etc.?? But IMHO the RFCs have somehow always been ignoring > > the Cs they Request. > > > > I recall writing only several RFCs, but comments typically came back via > > email discussions. ? Sometimes for years.? I fear most of that aspect of > > Internet History, the comments and discussions, has been lost. ? I > > wonder if the long-standing "technology" of RFCs needs a Version 2, > > which captures and preserves the Comments just as it has done for > > decades with the Requests. > > > > I guess I should write an RFC about that........ > > > > /Jack > > > > On 8/7/20 2:52 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history > > wrote: > > > *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* > > > EXCERPT: > > > > > > Each March, July, and November, we are reminded that the Internet is > not > > > quite the mature, stable technology that it seems to be. We rely on the > > > Internet as an essential tool for our economic, social, educational, > and > > > political lives. But when the Internet Engineering Task Force > > > meets every four months at an open conference that > > > bounces from continent to continent, more than 1,000 people from around > > the > > > world gather with change on their minds. Their vision of the global > > network > > > that all humanity shares is dynamic, evolving, and continuously > > improving. > > > Their efforts combine with the contributions of myriad others to ensure > > > that the Internet always works but is never done, never complete. > > > > > > The rapid yet orderly evolution of the Internet is all the more > > remarkable > > > considering the highly unusual way it happens: without a company, a > > > government, or a board of directors in charge. Nothing about digital > > > communications technology suggests that it should be self-organizing > or, > > > for that matter, fundamentally reliable. We enjoy an Internet that is > > both > > > of those at once because multiple generations of network developers > have > > > embraced a principle and a process that have been quite rare in the > > history > > > of technology. The principle is that the protocols that govern how > > > Internet-connected devices communicate should be open, expandable, and > > > robust. And the process that invents and refines those protocols > demands > > > collaboration and a large degree of consensus among all who care to > > > participate. > > > > > > As someone who was part of the small team that very deliberately > adopted > > a > > > collaborative, consensus-based process to develop protocols for the > > ARPANET > > > ?predecessor to the Internet?I > > have > > > been pleasantly surprised by how those ideas have persisted and > > succeeded, > > > even as the physical network has evolved from 50-kilobit-per-second > > > telephone lines in the mid-1960s to the fiber-optic, 5G, and satellite > > > links we enjoy today. Though our team certainly never envisioned > > > unforgeable ?privacy passes > > > ? or unique > > identifiers > > > for Internet-connected drones > > > ?two proposed > protocols > > > discussed at the task force meeting this past March?we did circulate > our > > > ideas for the ARPANET as technical memos among a far-flung group of > > > computer scientists, collecting feedback and settling on solutions in > > much > > > the same way as today, albeit at a much smaller scale. > > > > > > We called each of those early memos a ?Request for Comments? or RFC. > > > Whatever networked device you use today, it almost certainly follows > > rules > > > laid down in ARPANET RFCs written decades ago, probably including > > protocols > > > for sending plain ASCII text (RFC 20 > > > , issued in 1969), audio or > > video > > > data streams (RFC 768 , > 1980), > > and > > > Post Office Protocol, or POP, email (RFC 918 > > > , 1984). > > > > > > *Anatomy of an RFC*... > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 18:16:03 -0400 > > From: Vint Cerf > > To: Jack Haverty > > Cc: "Nelson H. F. Beebe via Internet-history" > > > > Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) > > Message-ID: > > < > > CAHxHgge71u5br6S1PAngRRuM6Het9o3wGZi_GdinGcGw6itz5g at mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > early on, the comments came back as RFCs. Then came email so less of the > > conversation was captured in RFCs. > > then came Internet Drafts which highlighted conversation again. > > v > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:12 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > > Thanks, Geoff, interesting article... > > > > > > While the RFC has been enduring, I've always wondered -- where are all > > > the Comments in response to those thousands of RFCs that Requested > them? > > > > > > Is there some "form" site somewhere where each RFC appears when > > > published and has a "Comments" section to collect and preserve the > > > Comments. That kind of thing is pervasive today on all sorts of news > > > sites, blogs, etc. But IMHO the RFCs have somehow always been > ignoring > > > the Cs they Request. > > > > > > I recall writing only several RFCs, but comments typically came back > via > > > email discussions. Sometimes for years. I fear most of that aspect > of > > > Internet History, the comments and discussions, has been lost. I > > > wonder if the long-standing "technology" of RFCs needs a Version 2, > > > which captures and preserves the Comments just as it has done for > > > decades with the Requests. > > > > > > I guess I should write an RFC about that........ > > > > > > /Jack > > > > > > On 8/7/20 2:52 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via > Internet-history > > > wrote: > > > > *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* > > > > EXCERPT: > > > > > > > > Each March, July, and November, we are reminded that the Internet is > > not > > > > quite the mature, stable technology that it seems to be. We rely on > the > > > > Internet as an essential tool for our economic, social, educational, > > and > > > > political lives. But when the Internet Engineering Task Force > > > > meets every four months at an open conference > that > > > > bounces from continent to continent, more than 1,000 people from > around > > > the > > > > world gather with change on their minds. Their vision of the global > > > network > > > > that all humanity shares is dynamic, evolving, and continuously > > > improving. > > > > Their efforts combine with the contributions of myriad others to > ensure > > > > that the Internet always works but is never done, never complete. > > > > > > > > The rapid yet orderly evolution of the Internet is all the more > > > remarkable > > > > considering the highly unusual way it happens: without a company, a > > > > government, or a board of directors in charge. Nothing about digital > > > > communications technology suggests that it should be self-organizing > > or, > > > > for that matter, fundamentally reliable. We enjoy an Internet that is > > > both > > > > of those at once because multiple generations of network developers > > have > > > > embraced a principle and a process that have been quite rare in the > > > history > > > > of technology. The principle is that the protocols that govern how > > > > Internet-connected devices communicate should be open, expandable, > and > > > > robust. And the process that invents and refines those protocols > > demands > > > > collaboration and a large degree of consensus among all who care to > > > > participate. > > > > > > > > As someone who was part of the small team that very deliberately > > adopted > > > a > > > > collaborative, consensus-based process to develop protocols for the > > > ARPANET > > > > ?predecessor to the > Internet?I > > > have > > > > been pleasantly surprised by how those ideas have persisted and > > > succeeded, > > > > even as the physical network has evolved from 50-kilobit-per-second > > > > telephone lines in the mid-1960s to the fiber-optic, 5G, and > satellite > > > > links we enjoy today. Though our team certainly never envisioned > > > > unforgeable ?privacy passes > > > > ? or unique > > > identifiers > > > > for Internet-connected drones > > > > ?two proposed > > protocols > > > > discussed at the task force meeting this past March?we did circulate > > our > > > > ideas for the ARPANET as technical memos among a far-flung group of > > > > computer scientists, collecting feedback and settling on solutions in > > > much > > > > the same way as today, albeit at a much smaller scale. > > > > > > > > We called each of those early memos a ?Request for Comments? or RFC. > > > > Whatever networked device you use today, it almost certainly follows > > > rules > > > > laid down in ARPANET RFCs written decades ago, probably including > > > protocols > > > > for sending plain ASCII text (RFC 20 > > > > , issued in 1969), audio or > > > video > > > > data streams (RFC 768 , > > 1980), > > > and > > > > Post Office Protocol, or POP, email (RFC 918 > > > > , 1984). > > > > > > > > *Anatomy of an RFC*... > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Internet-history mailing list > > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > > > > > > -- > > new postal address: > > Google, LLC > > 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, Suite 1400 > > Reston, VA 20190 > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:40:17 -0700 > > From: Dave Crocker > > To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > > On 8/7/2020 3:12 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > > > While the RFC has been enduring, I've always wondered -- where are all > > > the Comments in response to those thousands of RFCs that Requested > them? > > > > > > Is there some "form" site somewhere where each RFC appears when > > > published and has a "Comments" section to collect and preserve the > > > Comments.?? That kind of thing is pervasive today on all sorts of news > > > sites, blogs, etc.?? But IMHO the RFCs have somehow always been > ignoring > > > the Cs they Request. > > > > > > emails, internet-drafts, web pages, meeting presentations and > > recordings, etc. > > > > There is excellent archiving of the RFCs, but there has been no interest > > historical retention of of the surrounding mass of supporting work > > product. It seems that folk think the usual 'backups' are sufficient... > > > > d/ > > > > -- > > Dave Crocker > > Brandenburg InternetWorking > > bbiw.net > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:49:39 -0700 > > From: Dave Crocker > > Cc: "Nelson H. F. Beebe via Internet-history" > > > > Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > > On 8/7/2020 3:16 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: > > > then came Internet Drafts which highlighted conversation again. > > > > Even I-Ds tend to be used in a more formal way, now, making them more > > representative of RFC development snapshots than of comment indicators, > > which are handled in email and meetings. > > > > There is, occasionally, an I-D done as a comment on other work -- with > > no intent for RFC publication -- but that's extremely rare. > > > > d/ > > > > -- > > Dave Crocker > > Brandenburg InternetWorking > > bbiw.net > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > 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 11, Issue 2 > > *********************************************** > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From johnl at iecc.com Sat Aug 8 08:35:50 2020 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 8 Aug 2020 11:35:50 -0400 Subject: [ih] Today???s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20200808153550.4CBEC1E6EB19@ary.qy> In article you write: >I just looked at a few recent RFCs, and they look amazingly like they >did 50 years ago.? Like they came out of a typewriter.? I know there's >been some evolution to move beyond pure ascii text, but still they look >very much as they did in the 70s.? Very traditional and nostalgic, but >fifty years has provided a lot of time for new approaches to mature. Since last October RFCs have beeen published in XML, with mechanically translated versions into HTML, PDF, and text. The text versions are deliberately similar to the old line printer format, but the HTML is a lot easier to read. R's, John From dhc at dcrocker.net Sat Aug 8 09:00:20 2020 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 09:00:20 -0700 Subject: [ih] Today???s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) In-Reply-To: <20200808153550.4CBEC1E6EB19@ary.qy> References: <20200808153550.4CBEC1E6EB19@ary.qy> Message-ID: <965ce25d-b5c5-609d-40dd-3edb05c70957@dcrocker.net> On 8/8/2020 8:35 AM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: > but the HTML is a > lot easier to read. The generated html is remarkably less tailored to this form that might wish. While yes, it's better than typewriter ascii, the design of the format, fonts, colors, etc. could be quite a bit better. Here's the latest RFC: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8820.html d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From cabo at tzi.org Sat Aug 8 09:52:09 2020 From: cabo at tzi.org (Carsten Bormann) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 18:52:09 +0200 Subject: [ih] Today???s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) In-Reply-To: <965ce25d-b5c5-609d-40dd-3edb05c70957@dcrocker.net> References: <20200808153550.4CBEC1E6EB19@ary.qy> <965ce25d-b5c5-609d-40dd-3edb05c70957@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <52EA2CBF-0D27-4E96-AD29-1E0E891DD90B@tzi.org> On 2020-08-08, at 18:00, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > > The generated html is remarkably less tailored to this form that might wish. While yes, it's better than typewriter ascii, the design of the format, fonts, colors, etc. could be quite a bit better. Simply setting the font family to a Serif already helps a lot. (E.g., Microsoft?s ?Book Antiqua?, or the original ?Palatino?, work for me, but that is in part a taste decision.) Unfortunately, this cannot repair the missing typographical information (dashes, quotes, ?), which was replaced by ASCII surrogates (*) before making it into the XML. This can be a bit jarring in a technical document. Gr??e, Carsten (*) Note the mixture of single hyphens and double hyphens used for dashes in this RFC. Fortunately, you cannot hear my screaming. From geoff at iconia.com Sat Aug 8 13:11:48 2020 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 10:11:48 -1000 Subject: [ih] vint's 3 piece suits (was: Internet-history Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: indeed, that article has some great photos... most notably of which was (younger) vint cerf wearing... a 3 piece suit! so yours truly intrepidly is curious to know: - did vint also sport 3 piece suits in high school? - when did vint start wearing 2 piece suits? - has anyone on this list ever seen vint NOT in a 3 piece suit? sincerely in the interest of a complete Internet History, geoff On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 3:41 AM Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > That article has some great photos! > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 9:46 PM Jay Hauben via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments > > > > Might you want to send this link to Sage? > > Jay > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:50 PM > > > 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. Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era Protocol: The > > > Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) > > > (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) > > > 2. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > > > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Jack Haverty) > > > 3. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > > > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Vint Cerf) > > > 4. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > > > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Dave Crocker) > > > 5. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > > > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Dave Crocker) > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:52:56 -1000 > > > From: the keyboard of geoff goodfellow > > > To: Internet-history > > > Subject: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > > > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) > > > Message-ID: > > > < > > > CAEf-zrix+kVN-0OEPEqLZJbKLqLSH97rhZDSSNYMpTCxVXJBZg at mail.gmail.com> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > > > *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* > > > EXCERPT: > > > > > > Each March, July, and November, we are reminded that the Internet is > not > > > quite the mature, stable technology that it seems to be. We rely on the > > > Internet as an essential tool for our economic, social, educational, > and > > > political lives. But when the Internet Engineering Task Force > > > meets every four months at an open conference that > > > bounces from continent to continent, more than 1,000 people from around > > the > > > world gather with change on their minds. Their vision of the global > > network > > > that all humanity shares is dynamic, evolving, and continuously > > improving. > > > Their efforts combine with the contributions of myriad others to ensure > > > that the Internet always works but is never done, never complete. > > > > > > The rapid yet orderly evolution of the Internet is all the more > > remarkable > > > considering the highly unusual way it happens: without a company, a > > > government, or a board of directors in charge. Nothing about digital > > > communications technology suggests that it should be self-organizing > or, > > > for that matter, fundamentally reliable. We enjoy an Internet that is > > both > > > of those at once because multiple generations of network developers > have > > > embraced a principle and a process that have been quite rare in the > > history > > > of technology. The principle is that the protocols that govern how > > > Internet-connected devices communicate should be open, expandable, and > > > robust. And the process that invents and refines those protocols > demands > > > collaboration and a large degree of consensus among all who care to > > > participate. > > > > > > As someone who was part of the small team that very deliberately > adopted > > a > > > collaborative, consensus-based process to develop protocols for the > > ARPANET > > > ?predecessor to the Internet?I > > have > > > been pleasantly surprised by how those ideas have persisted and > > succeeded, > > > even as the physical network has evolved from 50-kilobit-per-second > > > telephone lines in the mid-1960s to the fiber-optic, 5G, and satellite > > > links we enjoy today. Though our team certainly never envisioned > > > unforgeable ?privacy passes > > > ? or unique > > > identifiers > > > for Internet-connected drones > > > ?two proposed > protocols > > > discussed at the task force meeting this past March?we did circulate > our > > > ideas for the ARPANET as technical memos among a far-flung group of > > > computer scientists, collecting feedback and settling on solutions in > > much > > > the same way as today, albeit at a much smaller scale. > > > > > > We called each of those early memos a ?Request for Comments? or RFC. > > > Whatever networked device you use today, it almost certainly follows > > rules > > > laid down in ARPANET RFCs written decades ago, probably including > > protocols > > > for sending plain ASCII text (RFC 20 > > > , issued in 1969), audio or > > video > > > data streams (RFC 768 , > 1980), > > > and > > > Post Office Protocol, or POP, email (RFC 918 > > > , 1984). > > > > > > *Anatomy of an RFC*... > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments > > > > > > -- > > > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > > > living as The Truth is True > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 2 > > > Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:12:35 -0700 > > > From: Jack Haverty > > > To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > > Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > > > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) > > > Message-ID: <2599cd97-c21a-11c6-49d3-cf874fefdaaa at 3kitty.org> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > > > > Thanks, Geoff, interesting article... > > > > > > While the RFC has been enduring, I've always wondered -- where are all > > > the Comments in response to those thousands of RFCs that Requested > > them??? > > > > > > Is there some "form" site somewhere where each RFC appears when > > > published and has a "Comments" section to collect and preserve the > > > Comments.?? That kind of thing is pervasive today on all sorts of news > > > sites, blogs, etc.?? But IMHO the RFCs have somehow always been > ignoring > > > the Cs they Request. > > > > > > I recall writing only several RFCs, but comments typically came back > via > > > email discussions. ? Sometimes for years.? I fear most of that aspect > of > > > Internet History, the comments and discussions, has been lost. ? I > > > wonder if the long-standing "technology" of RFCs needs a Version 2, > > > which captures and preserves the Comments just as it has done for > > > decades with the Requests. > > > > > > I guess I should write an RFC about that........ > > > > > > /Jack > > > > > > On 8/7/20 2:52 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via > Internet-history > > > wrote: > > > > *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* > > > > EXCERPT: > > > > > > > > Each March, July, and November, we are reminded that the Internet is > > not > > > > quite the mature, stable technology that it seems to be. We rely on > the > > > > Internet as an essential tool for our economic, social, educational, > > and > > > > political lives. But when the Internet Engineering Task Force > > > > meets every four months at an open conference > that > > > > bounces from continent to continent, more than 1,000 people from > around > > > the > > > > world gather with change on their minds. Their vision of the global > > > network > > > > that all humanity shares is dynamic, evolving, and continuously > > > improving. > > > > Their efforts combine with the contributions of myriad others to > ensure > > > > that the Internet always works but is never done, never complete. > > > > > > > > The rapid yet orderly evolution of the Internet is all the more > > > remarkable > > > > considering the highly unusual way it happens: without a company, a > > > > government, or a board of directors in charge. Nothing about digital > > > > communications technology suggests that it should be self-organizing > > or, > > > > for that matter, fundamentally reliable. We enjoy an Internet that is > > > both > > > > of those at once because multiple generations of network developers > > have > > > > embraced a principle and a process that have been quite rare in the > > > history > > > > of technology. The principle is that the protocols that govern how > > > > Internet-connected devices communicate should be open, expandable, > and > > > > robust. And the process that invents and refines those protocols > > demands > > > > collaboration and a large degree of consensus among all who care to > > > > participate. > > > > > > > > As someone who was part of the small team that very deliberately > > adopted > > > a > > > > collaborative, consensus-based process to develop protocols for the > > > ARPANET > > > > ?predecessor to the > Internet?I > > > have > > > > been pleasantly surprised by how those ideas have persisted and > > > succeeded, > > > > even as the physical network has evolved from 50-kilobit-per-second > > > > telephone lines in the mid-1960s to the fiber-optic, 5G, and > satellite > > > > links we enjoy today. Though our team certainly never envisioned > > > > unforgeable ?privacy passes > > > > ? or unique > > > identifiers > > > > for Internet-connected drones > > > > ?two proposed > > protocols > > > > discussed at the task force meeting this past March?we did circulate > > our > > > > ideas for the ARPANET as technical memos among a far-flung group of > > > > computer scientists, collecting feedback and settling on solutions in > > > much > > > > the same way as today, albeit at a much smaller scale. > > > > > > > > We called each of those early memos a ?Request for Comments? or RFC. > > > > Whatever networked device you use today, it almost certainly follows > > > rules > > > > laid down in ARPANET RFCs written decades ago, probably including > > > protocols > > > > for sending plain ASCII text (RFC 20 > > > > , issued in 1969), audio or > > > video > > > > data streams (RFC 768 , > > 1980), > > > and > > > > Post Office Protocol, or POP, email (RFC 918 > > > > , 1984). > > > > > > > > *Anatomy of an RFC*... > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 3 > > > Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 18:16:03 -0400 > > > From: Vint Cerf > > > To: Jack Haverty > > > Cc: "Nelson H. F. Beebe via Internet-history" > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > > > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) > > > Message-ID: > > > < > > > CAHxHgge71u5br6S1PAngRRuM6Het9o3wGZi_GdinGcGw6itz5g at mail.gmail.com> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > > > early on, the comments came back as RFCs. Then came email so less of > the > > > conversation was captured in RFCs. > > > then came Internet Drafts which highlighted conversation again. > > > v > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:12 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < > > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks, Geoff, interesting article... > > > > > > > > While the RFC has been enduring, I've always wondered -- where are > all > > > > the Comments in response to those thousands of RFCs that Requested > > them? > > > > > > > > Is there some "form" site somewhere where each RFC appears when > > > > published and has a "Comments" section to collect and preserve the > > > > Comments. That kind of thing is pervasive today on all sorts of > news > > > > sites, blogs, etc. But IMHO the RFCs have somehow always been > > ignoring > > > > the Cs they Request. > > > > > > > > I recall writing only several RFCs, but comments typically came back > > via > > > > email discussions. Sometimes for years. I fear most of that aspect > > of > > > > Internet History, the comments and discussions, has been lost. I > > > > wonder if the long-standing "technology" of RFCs needs a Version 2, > > > > which captures and preserves the Comments just as it has done for > > > > decades with the Requests. > > > > > > > > I guess I should write an RFC about that........ > > > > > > > > /Jack > > > > > > > > On 8/7/20 2:52 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via > > Internet-history > > > > wrote: > > > > > *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* > > > > > EXCERPT: > > > > > > > > > > Each March, July, and November, we are reminded that the Internet > is > > > not > > > > > quite the mature, stable technology that it seems to be. We rely on > > the > > > > > Internet as an essential tool for our economic, social, > educational, > > > and > > > > > political lives. But when the Internet Engineering Task Force > > > > > meets every four months at an open conference > > that > > > > > bounces from continent to continent, more than 1,000 people from > > around > > > > the > > > > > world gather with change on their minds. Their vision of the global > > > > network > > > > > that all humanity shares is dynamic, evolving, and continuously > > > > improving. > > > > > Their efforts combine with the contributions of myriad others to > > ensure > > > > > that the Internet always works but is never done, never complete. > > > > > > > > > > The rapid yet orderly evolution of the Internet is all the more > > > > remarkable > > > > > considering the highly unusual way it happens: without a company, a > > > > > government, or a board of directors in charge. Nothing about > digital > > > > > communications technology suggests that it should be > self-organizing > > > or, > > > > > for that matter, fundamentally reliable. We enjoy an Internet that > is > > > > both > > > > > of those at once because multiple generations of network developers > > > have > > > > > embraced a principle and a process that have been quite rare in the > > > > history > > > > > of technology. The principle is that the protocols that govern how > > > > > Internet-connected devices communicate should be open, expandable, > > and > > > > > robust. And the process that invents and refines those protocols > > > demands > > > > > collaboration and a large degree of consensus among all who care to > > > > > participate. > > > > > > > > > > As someone who was part of the small team that very deliberately > > > adopted > > > > a > > > > > collaborative, consensus-based process to develop protocols for the > > > > ARPANET > > > > > ?predecessor to the > > Internet?I > > > > have > > > > > been pleasantly surprised by how those ideas have persisted and > > > > succeeded, > > > > > even as the physical network has evolved from 50-kilobit-per-second > > > > > telephone lines in the mid-1960s to the fiber-optic, 5G, and > > satellite > > > > > links we enjoy today. Though our team certainly never envisioned > > > > > unforgeable ?privacy passes > > > > > ? or unique > > > > identifiers > > > > > for Internet-connected drones > > > > > ?two proposed > > > protocols > > > > > discussed at the task force meeting this past March?we did > circulate > > > our > > > > > ideas for the ARPANET as technical memos among a far-flung group of > > > > > computer scientists, collecting feedback and settling on solutions > in > > > > much > > > > > the same way as today, albeit at a much smaller scale. > > > > > > > > > > We called each of those early memos a ?Request for Comments? or > RFC. > > > > > Whatever networked device you use today, it almost certainly > follows > > > > rules > > > > > laid down in ARPANET RFCs written decades ago, probably including > > > > protocols > > > > > for sending plain ASCII text (RFC 20 > > > > > , issued in 1969), audio > or > > > > video > > > > > data streams (RFC 768 , > > > 1980), > > > > and > > > > > Post Office Protocol, or POP, email (RFC 918 > > > > > , 1984). > > > > > > > > > > *Anatomy of an RFC*... > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Internet-history mailing list > > > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > new postal address: > > > Google, LLC > > > 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, Suite 1400 > > > Reston, VA 20190 > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 4 > > > Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:40:17 -0700 > > > From: Dave Crocker > > > To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > > Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > > > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) > > > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > > > > On 8/7/2020 3:12 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > > > > While the RFC has been enduring, I've always wondered -- where are > all > > > > the Comments in response to those thousands of RFCs that Requested > > them? > > > > > > > > Is there some "form" site somewhere where each RFC appears when > > > > published and has a "Comments" section to collect and preserve the > > > > Comments.?? That kind of thing is pervasive today on all sorts of > news > > > > sites, blogs, etc.?? But IMHO the RFCs have somehow always been > > ignoring > > > > the Cs they Request. > > > > > > > > > emails, internet-drafts, web pages, meeting presentations and > > > recordings, etc. > > > > > > There is excellent archiving of the RFCs, but there has been no > interest > > > historical retention of of the surrounding mass of supporting work > > > product. It seems that folk think the usual 'backups' are sufficient... > > > > > > d/ > > > > > > -- > > > Dave Crocker > > > Brandenburg InternetWorking > > > bbiw.net > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 5 > > > Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:49:39 -0700 > > > From: Dave Crocker > > > Cc: "Nelson H. F. Beebe via Internet-history" > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era > > > Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) > > > Message-ID: > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > > > > > On 8/7/2020 3:16 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: > > > > then came Internet Drafts which highlighted conversation again. > > > > > > Even I-Ds tend to be used in a more formal way, now, making them more > > > representative of RFC development snapshots than of comment indicators, > > > which are handled in email and meetings. > > > > > > There is, occasionally, an I-D done as a comment on other work -- with > > > no intent for RFC publication -- but that's extremely rare. > > > > > > d/ > > > > > > -- > > > Dave Crocker > > > Brandenburg InternetWorking > > > bbiw.net > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > 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 11, Issue 2 > > > *********************************************** > > > > > -- > > 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 From agmalis at gmail.com Sat Aug 8 13:23:32 2020 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 16:23:32 -0400 Subject: [ih] vint's 3 piece suits (was: Internet-history Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Geoff, I have seen Vint in a t-shirt! Cheers, Andy On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:12 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow < geoff at iconia.com> wrote: > indeed, that article has some great photos... most notably of which was > (younger) vint cerf wearing... a 3 piece suit! > > so yours truly intrepidly is curious to know: > > - did vint also sport 3 piece suits in high school? > - when did vint start wearing 2 piece suits? > - has anyone on this list ever seen vint NOT in a 3 piece suit? > > sincerely in the interest of a complete Internet History, > > geoff > > On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 3:41 AM Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> That article has some great photos! >> >> Cheers, >> Andy >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 9:46 PM Jay Hauben via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments >> > >> > Might you want to send this link to Sage? >> > Jay >> > >> > From dhc at dcrocker.net Sat Aug 8 13:25:28 2020 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 13:25:28 -0700 Subject: [ih] vint's 3 piece suits In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 8/8/2020 1:11 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history wrote: > - did vint also sport 3 piece suits in high school? yes. he's said that that was his form of protest. protest was popular in those days. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From vgcerf at gmail.com Sat Aug 8 13:29:43 2020 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 16:29:43 -0400 Subject: [ih] vint's 3 piece suits (was: Internet-history Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [image: Copy of aug96 - IP on everything.jpg] On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:23 PM Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Geoff, > > I have seen Vint in a t-shirt! > > Cheers, > Andy > > On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:12 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow < > geoff at iconia.com> wrote: > > > indeed, that article has some great photos... most notably of which was > > (younger) vint cerf wearing... a 3 piece suit! > > > > so yours truly intrepidly is curious to know: > > > > - did vint also sport 3 piece suits in high school? > > - when did vint start wearing 2 piece suits? > > - has anyone on this list ever seen vint NOT in a 3 piece suit? > > > > sincerely in the interest of a complete Internet History, > > > > geoff > > > > On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 3:41 AM Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history < > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > >> That article has some great photos! > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Andy > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 9:46 PM Jay Hauben via Internet-history < > >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments > >> > > >> > Might you want to send this link to Sage? > >> > Jay > >> > > >> > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From geoff at iconia.com Sat Aug 8 13:33:00 2020 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 10:33:00 -1000 Subject: [ih] vint's 3 piece suits In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: vint, could you further add to our Internet History corpus with some elucidation on that of which you were summarily protesting in high school with such "formal" haberdashery? On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 10:26 AM Dave Crocker wrote: > On 8/8/2020 1:11 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via > Internet-history wrote: > > - did vint also sport 3 piece suits in high school? > > yes. he's said that that was his form of protest. protest was popular > in those days. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True From geoff at iconia.com Sat Aug 8 13:44:40 2020 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 10:44:40 -1000 Subject: [ih] can the Internet History list be enabled for image inclusion? (was: vint's 3 piece suits) Message-ID: apparently anyone not directly getting the replies have summarily missed out on images -- Most Especially of Vint with Col. Sanders not wearing any type of suit. instead the IH listbot "replaced" the image Vint sent with: [image: vgc sanders stc 1968 copy.jpg] ERGO, can the Internet History list be enabled for image transmission? geoff -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Sat Aug 8 14:12:48 2020 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 09:12:48 +1200 Subject: [ih] can the Internet History list be enabled for image inclusion? (was: vint's 3 piece suits) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSdIpbNzvvXAaeCqKNiG38W2DMMzOYJegS7tg&usqp=CAU https://jcharles00.wordpress.com/2012/05/ Regards Brian Carpenter On 09-Aug-20 08:44, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history wrote: > apparently anyone not directly getting the replies have summarily missed > out on images -- Most Especially of Vint with Col. Sanders not wearing any > type of suit. > > instead the IH listbot "replaced" the image Vint sent with: > > [image: vgc sanders stc 1968 copy.jpg] > > > ERGO, can the Internet History list be enabled for image transmission? > > geoff > > From ocl at gih.com Sat Aug 8 14:19:10 2020 From: ocl at gih.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=c3=a9pin-Leblond?=) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 23:19:10 +0200 Subject: [ih] vint's 3 piece suits (was: Internet-history Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4d799a42-286f-f690-e7b2-edb8a96af701@gih.com> More fundamentally, when did Steve's beard migrate to Vint? :-) Best, Olivier On 08/08/2020 22:11, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history wrote: > indeed, that article has some great photos... most notably of which was > (younger) vint cerf wearing... a 3 piece suit! > > so yours truly intrepidly is curious to know: > > - did vint also sport 3 piece suits in high school? > - when did vint start wearing 2 piece suits? > - has anyone on this list ever seen vint NOT in a 3 piece suit? > > sincerely in the interest of a complete Internet History, > > geoff > > On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 3:41 AM Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> That article has some great photos! >> >> Cheers, >> Andy >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 9:46 PM Jay Hauben via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >>> >> https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments >>> Might you want to send this link to Sage? >>> Jay >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:50 PM >> >>> 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. Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era Protocol: The >>>> Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) >>>> (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) >>>> 2. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Jack Haverty) >>>> 3. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Vint Cerf) >>>> 4. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Dave Crocker) >>>> 5. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Dave Crocker) >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Message: 1 >>>> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:52:56 -1000 >>>> From: the keyboard of geoff goodfellow >>>> To: Internet-history >>>> Subject: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) >>>> Message-ID: >>>> < >>>> CAEf-zrix+kVN-0OEPEqLZJbKLqLSH97rhZDSSNYMpTCxVXJBZg at mail.gmail.com> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" >>>> >>>> *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* >>>> EXCERPT: >>>> >>>> Each March, July, and November, we are reminded that the Internet is >> not >>>> quite the mature, stable technology that it seems to be. We rely on the >>>> Internet as an essential tool for our economic, social, educational, >> and >>>> political lives. But when the Internet Engineering Task Force >>>> meets every four months at an open conference that >>>> bounces from continent to continent, more than 1,000 people from around >>> the >>>> world gather with change on their minds. Their vision of the global >>> network >>>> that all humanity shares is dynamic, evolving, and continuously >>> improving. >>>> Their efforts combine with the contributions of myriad others to ensure >>>> that the Internet always works but is never done, never complete. >>>> >>>> The rapid yet orderly evolution of the Internet is all the more >>> remarkable >>>> considering the highly unusual way it happens: without a company, a >>>> government, or a board of directors in charge. Nothing about digital >>>> communications technology suggests that it should be self-organizing >> or, >>>> for that matter, fundamentally reliable. We enjoy an Internet that is >>> both >>>> of those at once because multiple generations of network developers >> have >>>> embraced a principle and a process that have been quite rare in the >>> history >>>> of technology. The principle is that the protocols that govern how >>>> Internet-connected devices communicate should be open, expandable, and >>>> robust. And the process that invents and refines those protocols >> demands >>>> collaboration and a large degree of consensus among all who care to >>>> participate. >>>> >>>> As someone who was part of the small team that very deliberately >> adopted >>> a >>>> collaborative, consensus-based process to develop protocols for the >>> ARPANET >>>> ?predecessor to the Internet?I >>> have >>>> been pleasantly surprised by how those ideas have persisted and >>> succeeded, >>>> even as the physical network has evolved from 50-kilobit-per-second >>>> telephone lines in the mid-1960s to the fiber-optic, 5G, and satellite >>>> links we enjoy today. Though our team certainly never envisioned >>>> unforgeable ?privacy passes >>>> ? or unique >>>> identifiers >>>> for Internet-connected drones >>>> ?two proposed >> protocols >>>> discussed at the task force meeting this past March?we did circulate >> our >>>> ideas for the ARPANET as technical memos among a far-flung group of >>>> computer scientists, collecting feedback and settling on solutions in >>> much >>>> the same way as today, albeit at a much smaller scale. >>>> >>>> We called each of those early memos a ?Request for Comments? or RFC. >>>> Whatever networked device you use today, it almost certainly follows >>> rules >>>> laid down in ARPANET RFCs written decades ago, probably including >>> protocols >>>> for sending plain ASCII text (RFC 20 >>>> , issued in 1969), audio or >>> video >>>> data streams (RFC 768 , >> 1980), >>>> and >>>> Post Office Protocol, or POP, email (RFC 918 >>>> , 1984). >>>> >>>> *Anatomy of an RFC*... >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> >> https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments >>>> -- >>>> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com >>>> living as The Truth is True >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Message: 2 >>>> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:12:35 -0700 >>>> From: Jack Haverty >>>> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) >>>> Message-ID: <2599cd97-c21a-11c6-49d3-cf874fefdaaa at 3kitty.org> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >>>> >>>> Thanks, Geoff, interesting article... >>>> >>>> While the RFC has been enduring, I've always wondered -- where are all >>>> the Comments in response to those thousands of RFCs that Requested >>> them??? >>>> Is there some "form" site somewhere where each RFC appears when >>>> published and has a "Comments" section to collect and preserve the >>>> Comments.?? That kind of thing is pervasive today on all sorts of news >>>> sites, blogs, etc.?? But IMHO the RFCs have somehow always been >> ignoring >>>> the Cs they Request. >>>> >>>> I recall writing only several RFCs, but comments typically came back >> via >>>> email discussions. ? Sometimes for years.? I fear most of that aspect >> of >>>> Internet History, the comments and discussions, has been lost. ? I >>>> wonder if the long-standing "technology" of RFCs needs a Version 2, >>>> which captures and preserves the Comments just as it has done for >>>> decades with the Requests. >>>> >>>> I guess I should write an RFC about that........ >>>> >>>> /Jack >>>> >>>> On 8/7/20 2:52 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via >> Internet-history >>>> wrote: >>>>> *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* >>>>> EXCERPT: >>>>> >>>>> Each March, July, and November, we are reminded that the Internet is >>> not >>>>> quite the mature, stable technology that it seems to be. We rely on >> the >>>>> Internet as an essential tool for our economic, social, educational, >>> and >>>>> political lives. But when the Internet Engineering Task Force >>>>> meets every four months at an open conference >> that >>>>> bounces from continent to continent, more than 1,000 people from >> around >>>> the >>>>> world gather with change on their minds. Their vision of the global >>>> network >>>>> that all humanity shares is dynamic, evolving, and continuously >>>> improving. >>>>> Their efforts combine with the contributions of myriad others to >> ensure >>>>> that the Internet always works but is never done, never complete. >>>>> >>>>> The rapid yet orderly evolution of the Internet is all the more >>>> remarkable >>>>> considering the highly unusual way it happens: without a company, a >>>>> government, or a board of directors in charge. Nothing about digital >>>>> communications technology suggests that it should be self-organizing >>> or, >>>>> for that matter, fundamentally reliable. We enjoy an Internet that is >>>> both >>>>> of those at once because multiple generations of network developers >>> have >>>>> embraced a principle and a process that have been quite rare in the >>>> history >>>>> of technology. The principle is that the protocols that govern how >>>>> Internet-connected devices communicate should be open, expandable, >> and >>>>> robust. And the process that invents and refines those protocols >>> demands >>>>> collaboration and a large degree of consensus among all who care to >>>>> participate. >>>>> >>>>> As someone who was part of the small team that very deliberately >>> adopted >>>> a >>>>> collaborative, consensus-based process to develop protocols for the >>>> ARPANET >>>>> ?predecessor to the >> Internet?I >>>> have >>>>> been pleasantly surprised by how those ideas have persisted and >>>> succeeded, >>>>> even as the physical network has evolved from 50-kilobit-per-second >>>>> telephone lines in the mid-1960s to the fiber-optic, 5G, and >> satellite >>>>> links we enjoy today. Though our team certainly never envisioned >>>>> unforgeable ?privacy passes >>>>> ? or unique >>>> identifiers >>>>> for Internet-connected drones >>>>> ?two proposed >>> protocols >>>>> discussed at the task force meeting this past March?we did circulate >>> our >>>>> ideas for the ARPANET as technical memos among a far-flung group of >>>>> computer scientists, collecting feedback and settling on solutions in >>>> much >>>>> the same way as today, albeit at a much smaller scale. >>>>> >>>>> We called each of those early memos a ?Request for Comments? or RFC. >>>>> Whatever networked device you use today, it almost certainly follows >>>> rules >>>>> laid down in ARPANET RFCs written decades ago, probably including >>>> protocols >>>>> for sending plain ASCII text (RFC 20 >>>>> , issued in 1969), audio or >>>> video >>>>> data streams (RFC 768 , >>> 1980), >>>> and >>>>> Post Office Protocol, or POP, email (RFC 918 >>>>> , 1984). >>>>> >>>>> *Anatomy of an RFC*... >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >> https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Message: 3 >>>> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 18:16:03 -0400 >>>> From: Vint Cerf >>>> To: Jack Haverty >>>> Cc: "Nelson H. F. Beebe via Internet-history" >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) >>>> Message-ID: >>>> < >>>> CAHxHgge71u5br6S1PAngRRuM6Het9o3wGZi_GdinGcGw6itz5g at mail.gmail.com> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>>> >>>> early on, the comments came back as RFCs. Then came email so less of >> the >>>> conversation was captured in RFCs. >>>> then came Internet Drafts which highlighted conversation again. >>>> v >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:12 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < >>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks, Geoff, interesting article... >>>>> >>>>> While the RFC has been enduring, I've always wondered -- where are >> all >>>>> the Comments in response to those thousands of RFCs that Requested >>> them? >>>>> Is there some "form" site somewhere where each RFC appears when >>>>> published and has a "Comments" section to collect and preserve the >>>>> Comments. That kind of thing is pervasive today on all sorts of >> news >>>>> sites, blogs, etc. But IMHO the RFCs have somehow always been >>> ignoring >>>>> the Cs they Request. >>>>> >>>>> I recall writing only several RFCs, but comments typically came back >>> via >>>>> email discussions. Sometimes for years. I fear most of that aspect >>> of >>>>> Internet History, the comments and discussions, has been lost. I >>>>> wonder if the long-standing "technology" of RFCs needs a Version 2, >>>>> which captures and preserves the Comments just as it has done for >>>>> decades with the Requests. >>>>> >>>>> I guess I should write an RFC about that........ >>>>> >>>>> /Jack >>>>> >>>>> On 8/7/20 2:52 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via >>> Internet-history >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* >>>>>> EXCERPT: >>>>>> >>>>>> Each March, July, and November, we are reminded that the Internet >> is >>>> not >>>>>> quite the mature, stable technology that it seems to be. We rely on >>> the >>>>>> Internet as an essential tool for our economic, social, >> educational, >>>> and >>>>>> political lives. But when the Internet Engineering Task Force >>>>>> meets every four months at an open conference >>> that >>>>>> bounces from continent to continent, more than 1,000 people from >>> around >>>>> the >>>>>> world gather with change on their minds. Their vision of the global >>>>> network >>>>>> that all humanity shares is dynamic, evolving, and continuously >>>>> improving. >>>>>> Their efforts combine with the contributions of myriad others to >>> ensure >>>>>> that the Internet always works but is never done, never complete. >>>>>> >>>>>> The rapid yet orderly evolution of the Internet is all the more >>>>> remarkable >>>>>> considering the highly unusual way it happens: without a company, a >>>>>> government, or a board of directors in charge. Nothing about >> digital >>>>>> communications technology suggests that it should be >> self-organizing >>>> or, >>>>>> for that matter, fundamentally reliable. We enjoy an Internet that >> is >>>>> both >>>>>> of those at once because multiple generations of network developers >>>> have >>>>>> embraced a principle and a process that have been quite rare in the >>>>> history >>>>>> of technology. The principle is that the protocols that govern how >>>>>> Internet-connected devices communicate should be open, expandable, >>> and >>>>>> robust. And the process that invents and refines those protocols >>>> demands >>>>>> collaboration and a large degree of consensus among all who care to >>>>>> participate. >>>>>> >>>>>> As someone who was part of the small team that very deliberately >>>> adopted >>>>> a >>>>>> collaborative, consensus-based process to develop protocols for the >>>>> ARPANET >>>>>> ?predecessor to the >>> Internet?I >>>>> have >>>>>> been pleasantly surprised by how those ideas have persisted and >>>>> succeeded, >>>>>> even as the physical network has evolved from 50-kilobit-per-second >>>>>> telephone lines in the mid-1960s to the fiber-optic, 5G, and >>> satellite >>>>>> links we enjoy today. Though our team certainly never envisioned >>>>>> unforgeable ?privacy passes >>>>>> ? or unique >>>>> identifiers >>>>>> for Internet-connected drones >>>>>> ?two proposed >>>> protocols >>>>>> discussed at the task force meeting this past March?we did >> circulate >>>> our >>>>>> ideas for the ARPANET as technical memos among a far-flung group of >>>>>> computer scientists, collecting feedback and settling on solutions >> in >>>>> much >>>>>> the same way as today, albeit at a much smaller scale. >>>>>> >>>>>> We called each of those early memos a ?Request for Comments? or >> RFC. >>>>>> Whatever networked device you use today, it almost certainly >> follows >>>>> rules >>>>>> laid down in ARPANET RFCs written decades ago, probably including >>>>> protocols >>>>>> for sending plain ASCII text (RFC 20 >>>>>> , issued in 1969), audio >> or >>>>> video >>>>>> data streams (RFC 768 , >>>> 1980), >>>>> and >>>>>> Post Office Protocol, or POP, email (RFC 918 >>>>>> , 1984). >>>>>> >>>>>> *Anatomy of an RFC*... >>>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >> https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments >>>>> -- >>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> new postal address: >>>> Google, LLC >>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, Suite 1400 >>>> Reston, VA 20190 >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Message: 4 >>>> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:40:17 -0700 >>>> From: Dave Crocker >>>> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) >>>> Message-ID: >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed >>>> >>>> On 8/7/2020 3:12 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> While the RFC has been enduring, I've always wondered -- where are >> all >>>>> the Comments in response to those thousands of RFCs that Requested >>> them? >>>>> Is there some "form" site somewhere where each RFC appears when >>>>> published and has a "Comments" section to collect and preserve the >>>>> Comments.?? That kind of thing is pervasive today on all sorts of >> news >>>>> sites, blogs, etc.?? But IMHO the RFCs have somehow always been >>> ignoring >>>>> the Cs they Request. >>>> >>>> emails, internet-drafts, web pages, meeting presentations and >>>> recordings, etc. >>>> >>>> There is excellent archiving of the RFCs, but there has been no >> interest >>>> historical retention of of the surrounding mass of supporting work >>>> product. It seems that folk think the usual 'backups' are sufficient... >>>> >>>> d/ >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dave Crocker >>>> Brandenburg InternetWorking >>>> bbiw.net >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Message: 5 >>>> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:49:39 -0700 >>>> From: Dave Crocker >>>> Cc: "Nelson H. F. Beebe via Internet-history" >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) >>>> Message-ID: >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed >>>> >>>> On 8/7/2020 3:16 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> then came Internet Drafts which highlighted conversation again. >>>> Even I-Ds tend to be used in a more formal way, now, making them more >>>> representative of RFC development snapshots than of comment indicators, >>>> which are handled in email and meetings. >>>> >>>> There is, occasionally, an I-D done as a comment on other work -- with >>>> no intent for RFC publication -- but that's extremely rare. >>>> >>>> d/ >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dave Crocker >>>> Brandenburg InternetWorking >>>> bbiw.net >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> 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 11, Issue 2 >>>> *********************************************** >>>> >>> -- >>> 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 steve at shinkuro.com Sat Aug 8 14:21:19 2020 From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 17:21:19 -0400 Subject: [ih] vint's 3 piece suits (was: Internet-history Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2) In-Reply-To: <4d799a42-286f-f690-e7b2-edb8a96af701@gih.com> References: <4d799a42-286f-f690-e7b2-edb8a96af701@gih.com> Message-ID: <21151AED-0648-4580-9264-ED1DE8191605@shinkuro.com> We keep separate beards :) Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 8, 2020, at 5:19 PM, Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond wrote: > > ? More fundamentally, when did Steve's beard migrate to Vint? :-) > Best, > > Olivier > > On 08/08/2020 22:11, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history wrote: >> indeed, that article has some great photos... most notably of which was >> (younger) vint cerf wearing... a 3 piece suit! >> >> so yours truly intrepidly is curious to know: >> >> - did vint also sport 3 piece suits in high school? >> - when did vint start wearing 2 piece suits? >> - has anyone on this list ever seen vint NOT in a 3 piece suit? >> >> sincerely in the interest of a complete Internet History, >> >> geoff >> >> On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 3:41 AM Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >>> That article has some great photos! >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Andy >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 9:46 PM Jay Hauben via Internet-history < >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments >>>> Might you want to send this link to Sage? >>>> Jay >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:50 PM >>> >>>> 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. Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era Protocol: The >>>>> Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) >>>>> (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) >>>>> 2. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Jack Haverty) >>>>> 3. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Vint Cerf) >>>>> 4. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Dave Crocker) >>>>> 5. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Dave Crocker) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Message: 1 >>>>> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:52:56 -1000 >>>>> From: the keyboard of geoff goodfellow >>>>> To: Internet-history >>>>> Subject: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) >>>>> Message-ID: >>>>> < >>>>> CAEf-zrix+kVN-0OEPEqLZJbKLqLSH97rhZDSSNYMpTCxVXJBZg at mail.gmail.com> >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" >>>>> >>>>> *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* >>>>> EXCERPT: >>>>> >>>>> Each March, July, and November, we are reminded that the Internet is >>> not >>>>> quite the mature, stable technology that it seems to be. We rely on the >>>>> Internet as an essential tool for our economic, social, educational, >>> and >>>>> political lives. But when the Internet Engineering Task Force >>>>> meets every four months at an open conference that >>>>> bounces from continent to continent, more than 1,000 people from around >>>> the >>>>> world gather with change on their minds. Their vision of the global >>>> network >>>>> that all humanity shares is dynamic, evolving, and continuously >>>> improving. >>>>> Their efforts combine with the contributions of myriad others to ensure >>>>> that the Internet always works but is never done, never complete. >>>>> >>>>> The rapid yet orderly evolution of the Internet is all the more >>>> remarkable >>>>> considering the highly unusual way it happens: without a company, a >>>>> government, or a board of directors in charge. Nothing about digital >>>>> communications technology suggests that it should be self-organizing >>> or, >>>>> for that matter, fundamentally reliable. We enjoy an Internet that is >>>> both >>>>> of those at once because multiple generations of network developers >>> have >>>>> embraced a principle and a process that have been quite rare in the >>>> history >>>>> of technology. The principle is that the protocols that govern how >>>>> Internet-connected devices communicate should be open, expandable, and >>>>> robust. And the process that invents and refines those protocols >>> demands >>>>> collaboration and a large degree of consensus among all who care to >>>>> participate. >>>>> >>>>> As someone who was part of the small team that very deliberately >>> adopted >>>> a >>>>> collaborative, consensus-based process to develop protocols for the >>>> ARPANET >>>>> ?predecessor to the Internet?I >>>> have >>>>> been pleasantly surprised by how those ideas have persisted and >>>> succeeded, >>>>> even as the physical network has evolved from 50-kilobit-per-second >>>>> telephone lines in the mid-1960s to the fiber-optic, 5G, and satellite >>>>> links we enjoy today. Though our team certainly never envisioned >>>>> unforgeable ?privacy passes >>>>> ? or unique >>>>> identifiers >>>>> for Internet-connected drones >>>>> ?two proposed >>> protocols >>>>> discussed at the task force meeting this past March?we did circulate >>> our >>>>> ideas for the ARPANET as technical memos among a far-flung group of >>>>> computer scientists, collecting feedback and settling on solutions in >>>> much >>>>> the same way as today, albeit at a much smaller scale. >>>>> >>>>> We called each of those early memos a ?Request for Comments? or RFC. >>>>> Whatever networked device you use today, it almost certainly follows >>>> rules >>>>> laid down in ARPANET RFCs written decades ago, probably including >>>> protocols >>>>> for sending plain ASCII text (RFC 20 >>>>> , issued in 1969), audio or >>>> video >>>>> data streams (RFC 768 , >>> 1980), >>>>> and >>>>> Post Office Protocol, or POP, email (RFC 918 >>>>> , 1984). >>>>> >>>>> *Anatomy of an RFC*... >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> >>> https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments >>>>> -- >>>>> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com >>>>> living as The Truth is True >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Message: 2 >>>>> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:12:35 -0700 >>>>> From: Jack Haverty >>>>> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) >>>>> Message-ID: <2599cd97-c21a-11c6-49d3-cf874fefdaaa at 3kitty.org> >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, Geoff, interesting article... >>>>> >>>>> While the RFC has been enduring, I've always wondered -- where are all >>>>> the Comments in response to those thousands of RFCs that Requested >>>> them??? >>>>> Is there some "form" site somewhere where each RFC appears when >>>>> published and has a "Comments" section to collect and preserve the >>>>> Comments.?? That kind of thing is pervasive today on all sorts of news >>>>> sites, blogs, etc.?? But IMHO the RFCs have somehow always been >>> ignoring >>>>> the Cs they Request. >>>>> >>>>> I recall writing only several RFCs, but comments typically came back >>> via >>>>> email discussions. ? Sometimes for years.? I fear most of that aspect >>> of >>>>> Internet History, the comments and discussions, has been lost. ? I >>>>> wonder if the long-standing "technology" of RFCs needs a Version 2, >>>>> which captures and preserves the Comments just as it has done for >>>>> decades with the Requests. >>>>> >>>>> I guess I should write an RFC about that........ >>>>> >>>>> /Jack >>>>> >>>>> On 8/7/20 2:52 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via >>> Internet-history >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* >>>>>> EXCERPT: >>>>>> >>>>>> Each March, July, and November, we are reminded that the Internet is >>>> not >>>>>> quite the mature, stable technology that it seems to be. We rely on >>> the >>>>>> Internet as an essential tool for our economic, social, educational, >>>> and >>>>>> political lives. But when the Internet Engineering Task Force >>>>>> meets every four months at an open conference >>> that >>>>>> bounces from continent to continent, more than 1,000 people from >>> around >>>>> the >>>>>> world gather with change on their minds. Their vision of the global >>>>> network >>>>>> that all humanity shares is dynamic, evolving, and continuously >>>>> improving. >>>>>> Their efforts combine with the contributions of myriad others to >>> ensure >>>>>> that the Internet always works but is never done, never complete. >>>>>> >>>>>> The rapid yet orderly evolution of the Internet is all the more >>>>> remarkable >>>>>> considering the highly unusual way it happens: without a company, a >>>>>> government, or a board of directors in charge. Nothing about digital >>>>>> communications technology suggests that it should be self-organizing >>>> or, >>>>>> for that matter, fundamentally reliable. We enjoy an Internet that is >>>>> both >>>>>> of those at once because multiple generations of network developers >>>> have >>>>>> embraced a principle and a process that have been quite rare in the >>>>> history >>>>>> of technology. The principle is that the protocols that govern how >>>>>> Internet-connected devices communicate should be open, expandable, >>> and >>>>>> robust. And the process that invents and refines those protocols >>>> demands >>>>>> collaboration and a large degree of consensus among all who care to >>>>>> participate. >>>>>> >>>>>> As someone who was part of the small team that very deliberately >>>> adopted >>>>> a >>>>>> collaborative, consensus-based process to develop protocols for the >>>>> ARPANET >>>>>> ?predecessor to the >>> Internet?I >>>>> have >>>>>> been pleasantly surprised by how those ideas have persisted and >>>>> succeeded, >>>>>> even as the physical network has evolved from 50-kilobit-per-second >>>>>> telephone lines in the mid-1960s to the fiber-optic, 5G, and >>> satellite >>>>>> links we enjoy today. Though our team certainly never envisioned >>>>>> unforgeable ?privacy passes >>>>>> ? or unique >>>>> identifiers >>>>>> for Internet-connected drones >>>>>> ?two proposed >>>> protocols >>>>>> discussed at the task force meeting this past March?we did circulate >>>> our >>>>>> ideas for the ARPANET as technical memos among a far-flung group of >>>>>> computer scientists, collecting feedback and settling on solutions in >>>>> much >>>>>> the same way as today, albeit at a much smaller scale. >>>>>> >>>>>> We called each of those early memos a ?Request for Comments? or RFC. >>>>>> Whatever networked device you use today, it almost certainly follows >>>>> rules >>>>>> laid down in ARPANET RFCs written decades ago, probably including >>>>> protocols >>>>>> for sending plain ASCII text (RFC 20 >>>>>> , issued in 1969), audio or >>>>> video >>>>>> data streams (RFC 768 , >>>> 1980), >>>>> and >>>>>> Post Office Protocol, or POP, email (RFC 918 >>>>>> , 1984). >>>>>> >>>>>> *Anatomy of an RFC*... >>>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>> https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Message: 3 >>>>> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 18:16:03 -0400 >>>>> From: Vint Cerf >>>>> To: Jack Haverty >>>>> Cc: "Nelson H. F. Beebe via Internet-history" >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) >>>>> Message-ID: >>>>> < >>>>> CAHxHgge71u5br6S1PAngRRuM6Het9o3wGZi_GdinGcGw6itz5g at mail.gmail.com> >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>>>> >>>>> early on, the comments came back as RFCs. Then came email so less of >>> the >>>>> conversation was captured in RFCs. >>>>> then came Internet Drafts which highlighted conversation again. >>>>> v >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:12 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < >>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, Geoff, interesting article... >>>>>> >>>>>> While the RFC has been enduring, I've always wondered -- where are >>> all >>>>>> the Comments in response to those thousands of RFCs that Requested >>>> them? >>>>>> Is there some "form" site somewhere where each RFC appears when >>>>>> published and has a "Comments" section to collect and preserve the >>>>>> Comments. That kind of thing is pervasive today on all sorts of >>> news >>>>>> sites, blogs, etc. But IMHO the RFCs have somehow always been >>>> ignoring >>>>>> the Cs they Request. >>>>>> >>>>>> I recall writing only several RFCs, but comments typically came back >>>> via >>>>>> email discussions. Sometimes for years. I fear most of that aspect >>>> of >>>>>> Internet History, the comments and discussions, has been lost. I >>>>>> wonder if the long-standing "technology" of RFCs needs a Version 2, >>>>>> which captures and preserves the Comments just as it has done for >>>>>> decades with the Requests. >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess I should write an RFC about that........ >>>>>> >>>>>> /Jack >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8/7/20 2:52 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via >>>> Internet-history >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* >>>>>>> EXCERPT: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Each March, July, and November, we are reminded that the Internet >>> is >>>>> not >>>>>>> quite the mature, stable technology that it seems to be. We rely on >>>> the >>>>>>> Internet as an essential tool for our economic, social, >>> educational, >>>>> and >>>>>>> political lives. But when the Internet Engineering Task Force >>>>>>> meets every four months at an open conference >>>> that >>>>>>> bounces from continent to continent, more than 1,000 people from >>>> around >>>>>> the >>>>>>> world gather with change on their minds. Their vision of the global >>>>>> network >>>>>>> that all humanity shares is dynamic, evolving, and continuously >>>>>> improving. >>>>>>> Their efforts combine with the contributions of myriad others to >>>> ensure >>>>>>> that the Internet always works but is never done, never complete. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The rapid yet orderly evolution of the Internet is all the more >>>>>> remarkable >>>>>>> considering the highly unusual way it happens: without a company, a >>>>>>> government, or a board of directors in charge. Nothing about >>> digital >>>>>>> communications technology suggests that it should be >>> self-organizing >>>>> or, >>>>>>> for that matter, fundamentally reliable. We enjoy an Internet that >>> is >>>>>> both >>>>>>> of those at once because multiple generations of network developers >>>>> have >>>>>>> embraced a principle and a process that have been quite rare in the >>>>>> history >>>>>>> of technology. The principle is that the protocols that govern how >>>>>>> Internet-connected devices communicate should be open, expandable, >>>> and >>>>>>> robust. And the process that invents and refines those protocols >>>>> demands >>>>>>> collaboration and a large degree of consensus among all who care to >>>>>>> participate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As someone who was part of the small team that very deliberately >>>>> adopted >>>>>> a >>>>>>> collaborative, consensus-based process to develop protocols for the >>>>>> ARPANET >>>>>>> ?predecessor to the >>>> Internet?I >>>>>> have >>>>>>> been pleasantly surprised by how those ideas have persisted and >>>>>> succeeded, >>>>>>> even as the physical network has evolved from 50-kilobit-per-second >>>>>>> telephone lines in the mid-1960s to the fiber-optic, 5G, and >>>> satellite >>>>>>> links we enjoy today. Though our team certainly never envisioned >>>>>>> unforgeable ?privacy passes >>>>>>> ? or unique >>>>>> identifiers >>>>>>> for Internet-connected drones >>>>>>> ?two proposed >>>>> protocols >>>>>>> discussed at the task force meeting this past March?we did >>> circulate >>>>> our >>>>>>> ideas for the ARPANET as technical memos among a far-flung group of >>>>>>> computer scientists, collecting feedback and settling on solutions >>> in >>>>>> much >>>>>>> the same way as today, albeit at a much smaller scale. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We called each of those early memos a ?Request for Comments? or >>> RFC. >>>>>>> Whatever networked device you use today, it almost certainly >>> follows >>>>>> rules >>>>>>> laid down in ARPANET RFCs written decades ago, probably including >>>>>> protocols >>>>>>> for sending plain ASCII text (RFC 20 >>>>>>> , issued in 1969), audio >>> or >>>>>> video >>>>>>> data streams (RFC 768 , >>>>> 1980), >>>>>> and >>>>>>> Post Office Protocol, or POP, email (RFC 918 >>>>>>> , 1984). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Anatomy of an RFC*... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> >>> https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> new postal address: >>>>> Google, LLC >>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, Suite 1400 >>>>> Reston, VA 20190 >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Message: 4 >>>>> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:40:17 -0700 >>>>> From: Dave Crocker >>>>> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) >>>>> Message-ID: >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed >>>>> >>>>> On 8/7/2020 3:12 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> While the RFC has been enduring, I've always wondered -- where are >>> all >>>>>> the Comments in response to those thousands of RFCs that Requested >>>> them? >>>>>> Is there some "form" site somewhere where each RFC appears when >>>>>> published and has a "Comments" section to collect and preserve the >>>>>> Comments.?? That kind of thing is pervasive today on all sorts of >>> news >>>>>> sites, blogs, etc.?? But IMHO the RFCs have somehow always been >>>> ignoring >>>>>> the Cs they Request. >>>>> >>>>> emails, internet-drafts, web pages, meeting presentations and >>>>> recordings, etc. >>>>> >>>>> There is excellent archiving of the RFCs, but there has been no >>> interest >>>>> historical retention of of the surrounding mass of supporting work >>>>> product. It seems that folk think the usual 'backups' are sufficient... >>>>> >>>>> d/ >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dave Crocker >>>>> Brandenburg InternetWorking >>>>> bbiw.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> Message: 5 >>>>> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:49:39 -0700 >>>>> From: Dave Crocker >>>>> Cc: "Nelson H. F. Beebe via Internet-history" >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) >>>>> Message-ID: >>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed >>>>> >>>>> On 8/7/2020 3:16 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> then came Internet Drafts which highlighted conversation again. >>>>> Even I-Ds tend to be used in a more formal way, now, making them more >>>>> representative of RFC development snapshots than of comment indicators, >>>>> which are handled in email and meetings. >>>>> >>>>> There is, occasionally, an I-D done as a comment on other work -- with >>>>> no intent for RFC publication -- but that's extremely rare. >>>>> >>>>> d/ >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dave Crocker >>>>> Brandenburg InternetWorking >>>>> bbiw.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> 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 11, Issue 2 >>>>> *********************************************** >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 jack at 3kitty.org Sat Aug 8 15:32:36 2020 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 15:32:36 -0700 Subject: [ih] can the Internet History list be enabled for image inclusion? (was: vint's 3 piece suits) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0005553f-46ab-e1d1-86a1-c22b2fa3217e@3kitty.org> Here's another non-suit (is that a Nehru jacket?): https://assets.media-platform.com/bi/dist/images/2018/01/24/5768427791058427008ca3ae.png https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB17z8Gx.img?h=630&w=1200&m=6&q=60&o=t&l=f&f=jpg&x=732&y=101 Search engines rule! ....: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=canonical&q=vint+cerf&atb=v192-1&iax=images&ia=images /Jack On 8/8/20 2:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSdIpbNzvvXAaeCqKNiG38W2DMMzOYJegS7tg&usqp=CAU > https://jcharles00.wordpress.com/2012/05/ > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 09-Aug-20 08:44, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history wrote: >> apparently anyone not directly getting the replies have summarily missed >> out on images -- Most Especially of Vint with Col. Sanders not wearing any >> type of suit. >> >> instead the IH listbot "replaced" the image Vint sent with: >> >> [image: vgc sanders stc 1968 copy.jpg] >> >> >> ERGO, can the Internet History list be enabled for image transmission? >> >> geoff >> >> From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Sat Aug 8 16:17:41 2020 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 19:17:41 -0400 Subject: [ih] vint's 3 piece suits In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <954cfa9a-71e6-4e5a-4fe1-ac2a8e15a42b@meetinghouse.net> Even more notable - a young Vint Cerf - with no beard!? Next to a young Steve Crocker, with a very big beard.? The caption indicates it was taken at UCLA in 1968. Miles On 8/8/20 4:11 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history wrote: > indeed, that article has some great photos... most notably of which was > (younger) vint cerf wearing... a 3 piece suit! > > so yours truly intrepidly is curious to know: > > - did vint also sport 3 piece suits in high school? > - when did vint start wearing 2 piece suits? > - has anyone on this list ever seen vint NOT in a 3 piece suit? > > sincerely in the interest of a complete Internet History, > > geoff > > On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 3:41 AM Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> That article has some great photos! >> >> Cheers, >> Andy >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 9:46 PM Jay Hauben via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >>> >> https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments >>> Might you want to send this link to Sage? >>> Jay >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:50 PM >> >>> 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. Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era Protocol: The >>>> Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) >>>> (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) >>>> 2. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Jack Haverty) >>>> 3. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Vint Cerf) >>>> 4. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Dave Crocker) >>>> 5. Re: Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) (Dave Crocker) >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Message: 1 >>>> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 11:52:56 -1000 >>>> From: the keyboard of geoff goodfellow >>>> To: Internet-history >>>> Subject: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) >>>> Message-ID: >>>> < >>>> CAEf-zrix+kVN-0OEPEqLZJbKLqLSH97rhZDSSNYMpTCxVXJBZg at mail.gmail.com> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" >>>> >>>> *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* >>>> EXCERPT: >>>> >>>> Each March, July, and November, we are reminded that the Internet is >> not >>>> quite the mature, stable technology that it seems to be. We rely on the >>>> Internet as an essential tool for our economic, social, educational, >> and >>>> political lives. But when the Internet Engineering Task Force >>>> meets every four months at an open conference that >>>> bounces from continent to continent, more than 1,000 people from around >>> the >>>> world gather with change on their minds. Their vision of the global >>> network >>>> that all humanity shares is dynamic, evolving, and continuously >>> improving. >>>> Their efforts combine with the contributions of myriad others to ensure >>>> that the Internet always works but is never done, never complete. >>>> >>>> The rapid yet orderly evolution of the Internet is all the more >>> remarkable >>>> considering the highly unusual way it happens: without a company, a >>>> government, or a board of directors in charge. Nothing about digital >>>> communications technology suggests that it should be self-organizing >> or, >>>> for that matter, fundamentally reliable. We enjoy an Internet that is >>> both >>>> of those at once because multiple generations of network developers >> have >>>> embraced a principle and a process that have been quite rare in the >>> history >>>> of technology. The principle is that the protocols that govern how >>>> Internet-connected devices communicate should be open, expandable, and >>>> robust. And the process that invents and refines those protocols >> demands >>>> collaboration and a large degree of consensus among all who care to >>>> participate. >>>> >>>> As someone who was part of the small team that very deliberately >> adopted >>> a >>>> collaborative, consensus-based process to develop protocols for the >>> ARPANET >>>> ?predecessor to the Internet?I >>> have >>>> been pleasantly surprised by how those ideas have persisted and >>> succeeded, >>>> even as the physical network has evolved from 50-kilobit-per-second >>>> telephone lines in the mid-1960s to the fiber-optic, 5G, and satellite >>>> links we enjoy today. Though our team certainly never envisioned >>>> unforgeable ?privacy passes >>>> ? or unique >>>> identifiers >>>> for Internet-connected drones >>>> ?two proposed >> protocols >>>> discussed at the task force meeting this past March?we did circulate >> our >>>> ideas for the ARPANET as technical memos among a far-flung group of >>>> computer scientists, collecting feedback and settling on solutions in >>> much >>>> the same way as today, albeit at a much smaller scale. >>>> >>>> We called each of those early memos a ?Request for Comments? or RFC. >>>> Whatever networked device you use today, it almost certainly follows >>> rules >>>> laid down in ARPANET RFCs written decades ago, probably including >>> protocols >>>> for sending plain ASCII text (RFC 20 >>>> , issued in 1969), audio or >>> video >>>> data streams (RFC 768 , >> 1980), >>>> and >>>> Post Office Protocol, or POP, email (RFC 918 >>>> , 1984). >>>> >>>> *Anatomy of an RFC*... >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> >> https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments >>>> -- >>>> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com >>>> living as The Truth is True >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Message: 2 >>>> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:12:35 -0700 >>>> From: Jack Haverty >>>> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) >>>> Message-ID: <2599cd97-c21a-11c6-49d3-cf874fefdaaa at 3kitty.org> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 >>>> >>>> Thanks, Geoff, interesting article... >>>> >>>> While the RFC has been enduring, I've always wondered -- where are all >>>> the Comments in response to those thousands of RFCs that Requested >>> them??? >>>> Is there some "form" site somewhere where each RFC appears when >>>> published and has a "Comments" section to collect and preserve the >>>> Comments.?? That kind of thing is pervasive today on all sorts of news >>>> sites, blogs, etc.?? But IMHO the RFCs have somehow always been >> ignoring >>>> the Cs they Request. >>>> >>>> I recall writing only several RFCs, but comments typically came back >> via >>>> email discussions. ? Sometimes for years.? I fear most of that aspect >> of >>>> Internet History, the comments and discussions, has been lost. ? I >>>> wonder if the long-standing "technology" of RFCs needs a Version 2, >>>> which captures and preserves the Comments just as it has done for >>>> decades with the Requests. >>>> >>>> I guess I should write an RFC about that........ >>>> >>>> /Jack >>>> >>>> On 8/7/20 2:52 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via >> Internet-history >>>> wrote: >>>>> *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* >>>>> EXCERPT: >>>>> >>>>> Each March, July, and November, we are reminded that the Internet is >>> not >>>>> quite the mature, stable technology that it seems to be. We rely on >> the >>>>> Internet as an essential tool for our economic, social, educational, >>> and >>>>> political lives. But when the Internet Engineering Task Force >>>>> meets every four months at an open conference >> that >>>>> bounces from continent to continent, more than 1,000 people from >> around >>>> the >>>>> world gather with change on their minds. Their vision of the global >>>> network >>>>> that all humanity shares is dynamic, evolving, and continuously >>>> improving. >>>>> Their efforts combine with the contributions of myriad others to >> ensure >>>>> that the Internet always works but is never done, never complete. >>>>> >>>>> The rapid yet orderly evolution of the Internet is all the more >>>> remarkable >>>>> considering the highly unusual way it happens: without a company, a >>>>> government, or a board of directors in charge. Nothing about digital >>>>> communications technology suggests that it should be self-organizing >>> or, >>>>> for that matter, fundamentally reliable. We enjoy an Internet that is >>>> both >>>>> of those at once because multiple generations of network developers >>> have >>>>> embraced a principle and a process that have been quite rare in the >>>> history >>>>> of technology. The principle is that the protocols that govern how >>>>> Internet-connected devices communicate should be open, expandable, >> and >>>>> robust. And the process that invents and refines those protocols >>> demands >>>>> collaboration and a large degree of consensus among all who care to >>>>> participate. >>>>> >>>>> As someone who was part of the small team that very deliberately >>> adopted >>>> a >>>>> collaborative, consensus-based process to develop protocols for the >>>> ARPANET >>>>> ?predecessor to the >> Internet?I >>>> have >>>>> been pleasantly surprised by how those ideas have persisted and >>>> succeeded, >>>>> even as the physical network has evolved from 50-kilobit-per-second >>>>> telephone lines in the mid-1960s to the fiber-optic, 5G, and >> satellite >>>>> links we enjoy today. Though our team certainly never envisioned >>>>> unforgeable ?privacy passes >>>>> ? or unique >>>> identifiers >>>>> for Internet-connected drones >>>>> ?two proposed >>> protocols >>>>> discussed at the task force meeting this past March?we did circulate >>> our >>>>> ideas for the ARPANET as technical memos among a far-flung group of >>>>> computer scientists, collecting feedback and settling on solutions in >>>> much >>>>> the same way as today, albeit at a much smaller scale. >>>>> >>>>> We called each of those early memos a ?Request for Comments? or RFC. >>>>> Whatever networked device you use today, it almost certainly follows >>>> rules >>>>> laid down in ARPANET RFCs written decades ago, probably including >>>> protocols >>>>> for sending plain ASCII text (RFC 20 >>>>> , issued in 1969), audio or >>>> video >>>>> data streams (RFC 768 , >>> 1980), >>>> and >>>>> Post Office Protocol, or POP, email (RFC 918 >>>>> , 1984). >>>>> >>>>> *Anatomy of an RFC*... >>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >> https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Message: 3 >>>> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 18:16:03 -0400 >>>> From: Vint Cerf >>>> To: Jack Haverty >>>> Cc: "Nelson H. F. Beebe via Internet-history" >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) >>>> Message-ID: >>>> < >>>> CAHxHgge71u5br6S1PAngRRuM6Het9o3wGZi_GdinGcGw6itz5g at mail.gmail.com> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>>> >>>> early on, the comments came back as RFCs. Then came email so less of >> the >>>> conversation was captured in RFCs. >>>> then came Internet Drafts which highlighted conversation again. >>>> v >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:12 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < >>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks, Geoff, interesting article... >>>>> >>>>> While the RFC has been enduring, I've always wondered -- where are >> all >>>>> the Comments in response to those thousands of RFCs that Requested >>> them? >>>>> Is there some "form" site somewhere where each RFC appears when >>>>> published and has a "Comments" section to collect and preserve the >>>>> Comments. That kind of thing is pervasive today on all sorts of >> news >>>>> sites, blogs, etc. But IMHO the RFCs have somehow always been >>> ignoring >>>>> the Cs they Request. >>>>> >>>>> I recall writing only several RFCs, but comments typically came back >>> via >>>>> email discussions. Sometimes for years. I fear most of that aspect >>> of >>>>> Internet History, the comments and discussions, has been lost. I >>>>> wonder if the long-standing "technology" of RFCs needs a Version 2, >>>>> which captures and preserves the Comments just as it has done for >>>>> decades with the Requests. >>>>> >>>>> I guess I should write an RFC about that........ >>>>> >>>>> /Jack >>>>> >>>>> On 8/7/20 2:52 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via >>> Internet-history >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* >>>>>> EXCERPT: >>>>>> >>>>>> Each March, July, and November, we are reminded that the Internet >> is >>>> not >>>>>> quite the mature, stable technology that it seems to be. We rely on >>> the >>>>>> Internet as an essential tool for our economic, social, >> educational, >>>> and >>>>>> political lives. But when the Internet Engineering Task Force >>>>>> meets every four months at an open conference >>> that >>>>>> bounces from continent to continent, more than 1,000 people from >>> around >>>>> the >>>>>> world gather with change on their minds. Their vision of the global >>>>> network >>>>>> that all humanity shares is dynamic, evolving, and continuously >>>>> improving. >>>>>> Their efforts combine with the contributions of myriad others to >>> ensure >>>>>> that the Internet always works but is never done, never complete. >>>>>> >>>>>> The rapid yet orderly evolution of the Internet is all the more >>>>> remarkable >>>>>> considering the highly unusual way it happens: without a company, a >>>>>> government, or a board of directors in charge. Nothing about >> digital >>>>>> communications technology suggests that it should be >> self-organizing >>>> or, >>>>>> for that matter, fundamentally reliable. We enjoy an Internet that >> is >>>>> both >>>>>> of those at once because multiple generations of network developers >>>> have >>>>>> embraced a principle and a process that have been quite rare in the >>>>> history >>>>>> of technology. The principle is that the protocols that govern how >>>>>> Internet-connected devices communicate should be open, expandable, >>> and >>>>>> robust. And the process that invents and refines those protocols >>>> demands >>>>>> collaboration and a large degree of consensus among all who care to >>>>>> participate. >>>>>> >>>>>> As someone who was part of the small team that very deliberately >>>> adopted >>>>> a >>>>>> collaborative, consensus-based process to develop protocols for the >>>>> ARPANET >>>>>> ?predecessor to the >>> Internet?I >>>>> have >>>>>> been pleasantly surprised by how those ideas have persisted and >>>>> succeeded, >>>>>> even as the physical network has evolved from 50-kilobit-per-second >>>>>> telephone lines in the mid-1960s to the fiber-optic, 5G, and >>> satellite >>>>>> links we enjoy today. Though our team certainly never envisioned >>>>>> unforgeable ?privacy passes >>>>>> ? or unique >>>>> identifiers >>>>>> for Internet-connected drones >>>>>> ?two proposed >>>> protocols >>>>>> discussed at the task force meeting this past March?we did >> circulate >>>> our >>>>>> ideas for the ARPANET as technical memos among a far-flung group of >>>>>> computer scientists, collecting feedback and settling on solutions >> in >>>>> much >>>>>> the same way as today, albeit at a much smaller scale. >>>>>> >>>>>> We called each of those early memos a ?Request for Comments? or >> RFC. >>>>>> Whatever networked device you use today, it almost certainly >> follows >>>>> rules >>>>>> laid down in ARPANET RFCs written decades ago, probably including >>>>> protocols >>>>>> for sending plain ASCII text (RFC 20 >>>>>> , issued in 1969), audio >> or >>>>> video >>>>>> data streams (RFC 768 , >>>> 1980), >>>>> and >>>>>> Post Office Protocol, or POP, email (RFC 918 >>>>>> , 1984). >>>>>> >>>>>> *Anatomy of an RFC*... >>>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >> https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/cyberspace/todays-internet-still-relies-on-an-arpanetera-protocol-the-request-for-comments >>>>> -- >>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> new postal address: >>>> Google, LLC >>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, Suite 1400 >>>> Reston, VA 20190 >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Message: 4 >>>> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:40:17 -0700 >>>> From: Dave Crocker >>>> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) >>>> Message-ID: >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed >>>> >>>> On 8/7/2020 3:12 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> While the RFC has been enduring, I've always wondered -- where are >> all >>>>> the Comments in response to those thousands of RFCs that Requested >>> them? >>>>> Is there some "form" site somewhere where each RFC appears when >>>>> published and has a "Comments" section to collect and preserve the >>>>> Comments.?? That kind of thing is pervasive today on all sorts of >> news >>>>> sites, blogs, etc.?? But IMHO the RFCs have somehow always been >>> ignoring >>>>> the Cs they Request. >>>> >>>> emails, internet-drafts, web pages, meeting presentations and >>>> recordings, etc. >>>> >>>> There is excellent archiving of the RFCs, but there has been no >> interest >>>> historical retention of of the surrounding mass of supporting work >>>> product. It seems that folk think the usual 'backups' are sufficient... >>>> >>>> d/ >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dave Crocker >>>> Brandenburg InternetWorking >>>> bbiw.net >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Message: 5 >>>> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 15:49:39 -0700 >>>> From: Dave Crocker >>>> Cc: "Nelson H. F. Beebe via Internet-history" >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [ih] Today?s Internet Still Relies on an ARPANET-Era >>>> Protocol: The Request for Comments (Steve Crocker) >>>> Message-ID: >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed >>>> >>>> On 8/7/2020 3:16 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> then came Internet Drafts which highlighted conversation again. >>>> Even I-Ds tend to be used in a more formal way, now, making them more >>>> representative of RFC development snapshots than of comment indicators, >>>> which are handled in email and meetings. >>>> >>>> There is, occasionally, an I-D done as a comment on other work -- with >>>> no intent for RFC publication -- but that's extremely rare. >>>> >>>> d/ >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dave Crocker >>>> Brandenburg InternetWorking >>>> bbiw.net >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> 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 11, Issue 2 >>>> *********************************************** >>>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> >> -- 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 mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Sat Aug 8 16:20:47 2020 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 19:20:47 -0400 Subject: [ih] question re. Lotus Notes (not quite Internet history) Message-ID: Hi Folks, I was just having a nice chat, when the topic of Lotus Notes came up.? My companion noted that Ray Ozzie was the lead developer, based on Plato Notes.? I recall that Irene Greif has a major role.? Anybody remember the history? Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. Practice is when everything works but no one knows why. In our lab, theory and practice are combined: nothing works and no one knows why. ... unknown From vgcerf at gmail.com Sat Aug 8 18:19:36 2020 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 21:19:36 -0400 Subject: [ih] vint's 3 piece suits In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Actually, if anything, it was a protest against excessive uniformity. I did not want to look like everyone else and just be one in a crowd. So I decided to dress differently. And the choice of tie, sports coat and slacks could not possibly have produced much objection from the faculty. Van Nuys High was not a "uniformed" school. And can you imagine the consequences if they tried to "retaliate" against my dressing more formally than my classmates? :-))) v On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:33 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history wrote: > vint, could you further add to our Internet History corpus with some > elucidation on that of which you were summarily protesting in high school > with such "formal" haberdashery? > > On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 10:26 AM Dave Crocker wrote: > > > On 8/8/2020 1:11 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via > > Internet-history wrote: > > > - did vint also sport 3 piece suits in high school? > > > > yes. he's said that that was his form of protest. protest was popular > > in those days. > > > > d/ > > > > -- > > Dave Crocker > > Brandenburg InternetWorking > > bbiw.net > > > > > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > -- > 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 Aug 8 20:20:09 2020 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 15:20:09 +1200 Subject: [ih] question re. Lotus Notes (not quite Internet history) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3523536f-a1bb-5139-b113-79434a4d420d@gmail.com> You need to follow the trail of breadcrumbs back to Iris Associates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_Associates). When I joined IBM in 1997, it had just become the 11th Commandment that "Thou shalt use Lotus Notes", although I actually managed to continue using Unix-based email as well for almost 10 years. To be honest Lotus Notes and Lotus Domino were very hard to use at IBM scale in 1997, although I suppose they worked well for smaller customers. They (the developers at Iris) were trying hard to integrate with this Internet thingie in 1997, so I was invited to visit Iris at Westford MA, a rare privilege. Iris was desperate to retain its own Route 128 culture at that time, being insulated from Lotus culture down in Cambridge, which itself was desperate to resist the creeping infiltration of IBM culture. The first, second and third lines of defense for Iris were "too busy to host visitors" but apparently they thought I wasn't dangerous, having only just joined IBM and being active in the IAB. It was interesting. Very business-casual, and they had free snack machines, which was either a nod to Silicon Valley culture, or a dig at Lotus and IBM. Apart from that, I don't remember any technical specifics of my visit. But my goodness, the Notes gateway to SMTP when it came was downright horrible. I can't remember the issues, but I think a lot of them were because Notes Mail supported rich text and the mapping to MIME was freaky and non-commutative. Text/Plain worked but most internal users didn't know how to limit themselves to that. It took several years before the Notes/SMTP gateways were satisfactory. As for Irene Greif, I can't help you. However, Wikipedia says "she left academia in 1987 to join Lotus" and Notes was still well hidden inside Iris at that time. I expect she has email... yes, not hiding: igreif at alum.mit.edu . Regards Brian Carpenter On 09-Aug-20 11:20, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: > Hi Folks, > > I was just having a nice chat, when the topic of Lotus Notes came up.? > My companion noted that Ray Ozzie was the lead developer, based on Plato > Notes.? I recall that Irene Greif has a major role.? Anybody remember > the history? > > Miles Fidelman > From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Sat Aug 8 20:32:33 2020 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 15:32:33 +1200 Subject: [ih] question re. Lotus Notes (not quite Internet history) In-Reply-To: <3523536f-a1bb-5139-b113-79434a4d420d@gmail.com> References: <3523536f-a1bb-5139-b113-79434a4d420d@gmail.com> Message-ID: P.S. The politically correct hsitory of Notes is at https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/lotus/library/ls-NDHistory/ Regards Brian On 09-Aug-20 15:20, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > You need to follow the trail of breadcrumbs back to Iris Associates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_Associates). When I joined IBM in 1997, it had just become the 11th Commandment that "Thou shalt use Lotus Notes", although I actually managed to continue using Unix-based email as well for almost 10 years. To be honest Lotus Notes and Lotus Domino were very hard to use at IBM scale in 1997, although I suppose they worked well for smaller customers. They (the developers at Iris) were trying hard to integrate with this Internet thingie in 1997, so I was invited to visit Iris at Westford MA, a rare privilege. Iris was desperate to retain its own Route 128 culture at that time, being insulated from Lotus culture down in Cambridge, which itself was desperate to resist the creeping infiltration of IBM culture. The first, second and third lines of defense for Iris were "too busy to host visitors" but apparently they thought I wasn't dangerous, having only just joined IBM and being active in the IAB. > > It was interesting. Very business-casual, and they had free snack machines, which was either a nod to Silicon Valley culture, or a dig at Lotus and IBM. Apart from that, I don't remember any technical specifics of my visit. > > But my goodness, the Notes gateway to SMTP when it came was downright horrible. I can't remember the issues, but I think a lot of them were because Notes Mail supported rich text and the mapping to MIME was freaky and non-commutative. Text/Plain worked but most internal users didn't know how to limit themselves to that. It took several years before the Notes/SMTP gateways were satisfactory. > > As for Irene Greif, I can't help you. However, Wikipedia says "she left academia in 1987 to join Lotus" and Notes was still well hidden inside Iris at that time. I expect she has email... yes, not hiding: igreif at alum.mit.edu . > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 09-Aug-20 11:20, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: >> Hi Folks, >> >> I was just having a nice chat, when the topic of Lotus Notes came up.? >> My companion noted that Ray Ozzie was the lead developer, based on Plato >> Notes.? I recall that Irene Greif has a major role.? Anybody remember >> the history? >> >> Miles Fidelman >> > From touch at strayalpha.com Sat Aug 8 20:58:24 2020 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joseph Touch) Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2020 20:58:24 -0700 Subject: [ih] can the Internet History list be enabled for image inclusion? (was: vint's 3 piece suits) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Geoff (et al.), The list is currently limited to text without attachments of any kind due to space limitations. The list is not intended as an archive for such material. Attachments and images should be posted elsewhere, with links posted to this list instead. Joe (as list admin) > On Aug 8, 2020, at 1:44 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow wrote: > > apparently anyone not directly getting the replies have summarily missed out on images -- Most Especially of Vint with Col. Sanders not wearing any type of suit. > > instead the IH listbot "replaced" the image Vint sent with: > > [image: vgc sanders stc 1968 copy.jpg] > > ERGO, can the Internet History list be enabled for image transmission? > > geoff > > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > > > From jack at 3kitty.org Sun Aug 9 00:13:31 2020 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 00:13:31 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet History - first extraterrestrial Internet error message? Message-ID: I just read an article about the recent SpaceX/NASA mission.? Although it all went amazingly well, there were a few glitches..... The astronauts had an Ipad Mini onboard, containing apps they use as digital "manuals".? After undocking to head back to Earth, they contacted Mission Control for a little technical help.? From the Business Insider article: " /"The timeline application on my tablet gives me an error message that Safari cannot open the page," Behnken said, noting the app said it couldn't load the app due to not being connected to the internet. "// / I suspect this is a milestone for Internet History. /Jack From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Sun Aug 9 02:02:32 2020 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 05:02:32 -0400 Subject: [ih] Internet History - first extraterrestrial Internet error message? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Anybody remember a series of science fiction stories involving the Interstellar Postal Union?? Address it, mail it, and they will come. Miles On 8/9/20 3:13 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > I just read an article about the recent SpaceX/NASA mission.? Although > it all went amazingly well, there were a few glitches..... > > The astronauts had an Ipad Mini onboard, containing apps they use as > digital "manuals".? After undocking to head back to Earth, they > contacted Mission Control for a little technical help.? From the > Business Insider article: > > " > /"The timeline application on my tablet gives me an error message that > Safari cannot open the page," Behnken said, noting the app said it > couldn't load the app due to not being connected to the internet. > "// > / > I suspect this is a milestone for Internet History. > > /Jack > -- 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 mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Sun Aug 9 02:09:48 2020 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 05:09:48 -0400 Subject: [ih] question re. Lotus Notes (not quite Internet history) In-Reply-To: References: <3523536f-a1bb-5139-b113-79434a4d420d@gmail.com> Message-ID: <71751b71-e982-2f27-593a-35372bec1a5d@meetinghouse.net> Read that one.? Also know that Irene coined the term "Computer Supported Group Work" while at MIT, then joined Lotus to direct their product design group, and create their research group - in the Notes time frame. Not really curious enough to track down breadcrumbs further, beyond posting the quick note here - you know, where one might find some "Internet Historians" :-). Cheers, Miles On 8/8/20 11:32 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > P.S. The politically correct hsitory of Notes is at > https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/lotus/library/ls-NDHistory/ > > Regards > Brian > > On 09-Aug-20 15:20, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> You need to follow the trail of breadcrumbs back to Iris Associates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_Associates). When I joined IBM in 1997, it had just become the 11th Commandment that "Thou shalt use Lotus Notes", although I actually managed to continue using Unix-based email as well for almost 10 years. To be honest Lotus Notes and Lotus Domino were very hard to use at IBM scale in 1997, although I suppose they worked well for smaller customers. They (the developers at Iris) were trying hard to integrate with this Internet thingie in 1997, so I was invited to visit Iris at Westford MA, a rare privilege. Iris was desperate to retain its own Route 128 culture at that time, being insulated from Lotus culture down in Cambridge, which itself was desperate to resist the creeping infiltration of IBM culture. The first, second and third lines of defense for Iris were "too busy to host visitors" but apparently they thought I wasn't dangerous, having only just joined IBM and being active in the IAB. >> >> It was interesting. Very business-casual, and they had free snack machines, which was either a nod to Silicon Valley culture, or a dig at Lotus and IBM. Apart from that, I don't remember any technical specifics of my visit. >> >> But my goodness, the Notes gateway to SMTP when it came was downright horrible. I can't remember the issues, but I think a lot of them were because Notes Mail supported rich text and the mapping to MIME was freaky and non-commutative. Text/Plain worked but most internal users didn't know how to limit themselves to that. It took several years before the Notes/SMTP gateways were satisfactory. >> >> As for Irene Greif, I can't help you. However, Wikipedia says "she left academia in 1987 to join Lotus" and Notes was still well hidden inside Iris at that time. I expect she has email... yes, not hiding: igreif at alum.mit.edu . >> >> Regards >> Brian Carpenter >> >> On 09-Aug-20 11:20, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: >>> Hi Folks, >>> >>> I was just having a nice chat, when the topic of Lotus Notes came up. >>> My companion noted that Ray Ozzie was the lead developer, based on Plato >>> Notes.? I recall that Irene Greif has a major role.? Anybody remember >>> the history? >>> >>> Miles Fidelman >>> -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. Practice is when everything works but no one knows why. In our lab, theory and practice are combined: nothing works and no one knows why. ... unknown From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Sun Aug 9 02:11:07 2020 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 05:11:07 -0400 Subject: [ih] vint's 3 piece suits In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: But a tie, at USC, in the 60s???? What's up with that?? :-) Miles On 8/8/20 9:19 PM, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: > Actually, if anything, it was a protest against excessive uniformity. I did > not want to look like everyone else and just be one in a crowd. So I > decided to dress differently. And the choice of tie, sports coat and slacks > could not possibly have produced much objection from the faculty. Van Nuys > High was not a "uniformed" school. And can you imagine the consequences if > they tried to "retaliate" against my dressing more formally than my > classmates? :-))) > > v > > > On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:33 PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via > Internet-history wrote: > >> vint, could you further add to our Internet History corpus with some >> elucidation on that of which you were summarily protesting in high school >> with such "formal" haberdashery? >> >> On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 10:26 AM Dave Crocker wrote: >> >>> On 8/8/2020 1:11 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via >>> Internet-history wrote: >>>> - did vint also sport 3 piece suits in high school? >>> yes. he's said that that was his form of protest. protest was popular >>> in those days. >>> >>> d/ >>> >>> -- >>> Dave Crocker >>> Brandenburg InternetWorking >>> bbiw.net >>> >>> >> -- >> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com >> living as The Truth is True >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> -- 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 jhlowry at mac.com Sun Aug 9 03:48:32 2020 From: jhlowry at mac.com (John Lowry) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 06:48:32 -0400 Subject: [ih] question re. Lotus Notes (not quite Internet history) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3E472FD7-294B-43F6-BC83-9CF09C82B4DE@mac.com> Notes was extremely popular with parts of the government. BBN had a license to an X.400 implementation as well as our own PKI expertise that also worked with type-1 algorithms. We were hired to integrate X.400 with crypto into Notes, so that for a while I had source to Notes on my machine. My primary point of contact was with Bill Flanagan who had left BBN to work with Iris. I never found out how many X.400 versions sold but heard that Notes was using SMTP shortly after. One of the issues for that customer (besides confidentiality) was traceability. PKI helped to solve that problem for them. > On Aug 8, 2020, at 7:22 PM, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: > > ?Hi Folks, > > I was just having a nice chat, when the topic of Lotus Notes came up. My companion noted that Ray Ozzie was the lead developer, based on Plato Notes. I recall that Irene Greif has a major role. Anybody remember the history? > > Miles Fidelman > > -- > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra > > Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. > Practice is when everything works but no one knows why. > In our lab, theory and practice are combined: > nothing works and no one knows why. ... unknown > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From wfms at wfms.org Sun Aug 9 03:54:04 2020 From: wfms at wfms.org (wfms at wfms.org) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 10:54:04 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] =?iso8859-7?q?Today=A2s_Internet_Still_Relies_on_an_ARPANET?= =?iso8859-7?q?-Era_Protocol=3A_The_Request_for_Comments_=28Steve_Crocker?= =?iso8859-7?q?=29?= In-Reply-To: References: <5F2DDF8A.21404.21681A70@bernie.fantasyfarm.com> Message-ID: FTP is also being used for very large scale, parallel file transfers with GLOBUS within grid-ftp. Granted, they've extended the FTP spec accordingly to make all that work. On Sat, 8 Aug 2020, Scott Brim via Internet-history wrote: > Bernie, FTP gets used every day by millions who use cPanel and Plesk and > even Filezilla for less-than-completely-privileged maintenance on websites. > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 7:11 PM Bernie Cosell via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> On 7 Aug 2020 at 11:52, the keyboard of geoff goodfel wrote: >> >>> *The RFC may be the ARPANET?s most enduring legacy* >>> EXCERPT: >> >> On FB I opined that SMTP might be a contender [and mentioned that I'm told >> that FTP and TELNET are still used, but I barely believe it :o)] >> >> /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 > wfms From vgcerf at gmail.com Sun Aug 9 05:51:58 2020 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 08:51:58 -0400 Subject: [ih] can the Internet History list be enabled for image inclusion? (was: vint's 3 piece suits) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: try this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wxNQVzXHjmx4IV4TZH21Dal0JD4mc4JG/view?usp=sharing v On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 11:58 PM Joseph Touch via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Hi, Geoff (et al.), > > The list is currently limited to text without attachments of any kind due > to space limitations. The list is not intended as an archive for such > material. > > Attachments and images should be posted elsewhere, with links posted to > this list instead. > > Joe (as list admin) > > > On Aug 8, 2020, at 1:44 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow < > geoff at iconia.com> wrote: > > > > apparently anyone not directly getting the replies have summarily > missed out on images -- Most Especially of Vint with Col. Sanders not > wearing any type of suit. > > > > instead the IH listbot "replaced" the image Vint sent with: > > > > [image: vgc sanders stc 1968 copy.jpg] > > > > ERGO, can the Internet History list be enabled for image transmission? > > > > geoff > > > > > > -- > > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > > living as The Truth is True > > > > > > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From dhc at dcrocker.net Sun Aug 9 06:00:02 2020 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 06:00:02 -0700 Subject: [ih] can the Internet History list be enabled for image inclusion? (was: vint's 3 piece suits) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8bb78df1-3eb1-3ab1-e248-af6056428a18@dcrocker.net> On 8/9/2020 5:51 AM, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: > try this: What wine did you select for that? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From vint at google.com Sun Aug 9 06:20:36 2020 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 09:20:36 -0400 Subject: [ih] can the Internet History list be enabled for image inclusion? (was: vint's 3 piece suits) In-Reply-To: <8bb78df1-3eb1-3ab1-e248-af6056428a18@dcrocker.net> References: <8bb78df1-3eb1-3ab1-e248-af6056428a18@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: 1968 - too long ago to remember!!! v On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 9:00 AM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > On 8/9/2020 5:51 AM, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: > > try this: > > > What wine did you select for that? > > 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, LLC 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, Suite 1400 Reston, VA 20190 From el at lisse.na Sun Aug 9 06:24:03 2020 From: el at lisse.na (Dr Eberhard W Lisse) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 15:24:03 +0200 Subject: [ih] Internet History - first extraterrestrial Internet error message? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Two things come to mind? 1) What?s the WiFi Password? 2) RFC 4838 el > On 09 Aug 2020, at 09:13 , Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > > I just read an article about the recent SpaceX/NASA mission. Although > it all went amazingly well, there were a few glitches..... > > The astronauts had an Ipad Mini onboard, containing apps they use as > digital "manuals". After undocking to head back to Earth, they > contacted Mission Control for a little technical help. From the > Business Insider article: > > " > /"The timeline application on my tablet gives me an error message that > Safari cannot open the page," Behnken said, noting the app said it > couldn't load the app due to not being connected to the internet. > "// > / > I suspect this is a milestone for Internet History. > > /Jack > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From joly at punkcast.com Sun Aug 9 12:44:19 2020 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2020 15:44:19 -0400 Subject: [ih] can the Internet History list be enabled for image inclusion? (was: vint's 3 piece suits) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not a 3-piece in sight! On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 8:51 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > try this: > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wxNQVzXHjmx4IV4TZH21Dal0JD4mc4JG/view?usp=sharing > > v > > > On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 11:58 PM Joseph Touch via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > Hi, Geoff (et al.), > > > > The list is currently limited to text without attachments of any kind due > > to space limitations. The list is not intended as an archive for such > > material. > > > > Attachments and images should be posted elsewhere, with links posted to > > this list instead. > > > > Joe (as list admin) > > > > > On Aug 8, 2020, at 1:44 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow < > > geoff at iconia.com> wrote: > > > > > > apparently anyone not directly getting the replies have summarily > > missed out on images -- Most Especially of Vint with Col. Sanders not > > wearing any type of suit. > > > > > > instead the IH listbot "replaced" the image Vint sent with: > > > > > > [image: vgc sanders stc 1968 copy.jpg] > > > > > > ERGO, can the Internet History list be enabled for image transmission? > > > > > > geoff > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > > > living as The Truth is True > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com Mon Aug 10 16:58:54 2020 From: alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com (Alejandro Acosta) Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 19:58:54 -0400 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number Message-ID: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> Hello list, ? I have a question and one more time I believe this a good place to ask. ? During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). When reading it I noticed the following: {...} ????? 009.rrr.rrr.rrr?? BRAGG-PR????? Ft. Bragg Packet Radio Net [JEM] ????? 010.rrr.rrr.rrr?? ARPANET?????? ARPANET [17,1,VGC] ????? 011.rrr.rrr.rrr?? UCLNET??????? University College London???? [PK] ????? 012.rrr.rrr.rrr?? CYCLADES????? CYCLADES [VGC] ????? 013.rrr.rrr.rrr???????????????? Unassigned [JBP] ????? 014.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TELENET?????? TELENET [VGC] ????? 015.rrr.rrr.rrr?? EPSS????????? British Post Office EPSS????? [PK] ????? 016.rrr.rrr.rrr?? DATAPAC?????? DATAPAC [VGC] ????? 017.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TRANSPAC????? TRANSPAC [VGC] ????? 018.rrr.rrr.rrr?? LCSNET??????? MIT LCS Network [43,10,DDC2] {...} ? As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some subsequent prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I know 013 was later assigned to XEROX-NET. ? I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of superstitions?. Thanks, Alejandro, From steve at shinkuro.com Tue Aug 11 06:51:22 2020 From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 09:51:22 -0400 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> Message-ID: I don't know the answer and will be interested in hearing from someone who does, but I seriously doubt it has anything to do with superstition. More likely, in my opinion, Postel held the number back because he had a plan for how it was going to be used and it was premature to announce it. The fact that it was later assigned to Xerox would be consistent with this thought. Steve On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 9:08 AM Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Hello list, > > I have a question and one more time I believe this a good place to ask. > > During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). When > reading it I noticed the following: > > {...} > > 009.rrr.rrr.rrr BRAGG-PR Ft. Bragg Packet Radio Net [JEM] > 010.rrr.rrr.rrr ARPANET ARPANET [17,1,VGC] > 011.rrr.rrr.rrr UCLNET University College London [PK] > 012.rrr.rrr.rrr CYCLADES CYCLADES [VGC] > 013.rrr.rrr.rrr Unassigned [JBP] > 014.rrr.rrr.rrr TELENET TELENET [VGC] > 015.rrr.rrr.rrr EPSS British Post Office EPSS [PK] > 016.rrr.rrr.rrr DATAPAC DATAPAC [VGC] > 017.rrr.rrr.rrr TRANSPAC TRANSPAC [VGC] > 018.rrr.rrr.rrr LCSNET MIT LCS Network [43,10,DDC2] > > {...} > > > As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some subsequent > prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I know 013 > was later assigned to XEROX-NET. > > I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of superstitions?. > > > Thanks, > > > Alejandro, > > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From jericho at attrition.org Tue Aug 11 09:23:48 2020 From: jericho at attrition.org (jericho) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 11:23:48 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number (fwd) Message-ID: Only one reply and it did not provide an explanation. Figure this might be the group to answer it. Brian ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history To: Internet-history Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 19:58:54 -0400 Reply-To: Alejandro Acosta Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number Hello list, ? I have a question and one more time I believe this a good place to ask. ? During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). When reading it I noticed the following: {...} ????? 009.rrr.rrr.rrr?? BRAGG-PR????? Ft. Bragg Packet Radio Net [JEM] ????? 010.rrr.rrr.rrr?? ARPANET?????? ARPANET [17,1,VGC] ????? 011.rrr.rrr.rrr?? UCLNET??????? University College London???? [PK] ????? 012.rrr.rrr.rrr?? CYCLADES????? CYCLADES [VGC] ????? 013.rrr.rrr.rrr???????????????? Unassigned [JBP] ????? 014.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TELENET?????? TELENET [VGC] ????? 015.rrr.rrr.rrr?? EPSS????????? British Post Office EPSS????? [PK] ????? 016.rrr.rrr.rrr?? DATAPAC?????? DATAPAC [VGC] ????? 017.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TRANSPAC????? TRANSPAC [VGC] ????? 018.rrr.rrr.rrr?? LCSNET??????? MIT LCS Network [43,10,DDC2] {...} ? As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some subsequent prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I know 013 was later assigned to XEROX-NET. ? I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of superstitions?. Thanks, Alejandro, -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From amckenzie3 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 11 09:45:11 2020 From: amckenzie3 at yahoo.com (Alex McKenzie) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:45:11 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> Message-ID: <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> Alejandro, I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who assigned the numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for himself.? I knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a superstitious person.? I think Steve Crocker's explanation that the number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made public on the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer. For what its worth,Alex McKenzie On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: Hello list, ? I have a question and one more time I believe this a good place to ask. ? During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). When reading it I noticed the following: {...} ????? 009.rrr.rrr.rrr?? BRAGG-PR????? Ft. Bragg Packet Radio Net [JEM] ????? 010.rrr.rrr.rrr?? ARPANET?????? ARPANET [17,1,VGC] ????? 011.rrr.rrr.rrr?? UCLNET??????? University College London???? [PK] ????? 012.rrr.rrr.rrr?? CYCLADES????? CYCLADES [VGC] ????? 013.rrr.rrr.rrr???????????????? Unassigned [JBP] ????? 014.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TELENET?????? TELENET [VGC] ????? 015.rrr.rrr.rrr?? EPSS????????? British Post Office EPSS????? [PK] ????? 016.rrr.rrr.rrr?? DATAPAC?????? DATAPAC [VGC] ????? 017.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TRANSPAC????? TRANSPAC [VGC] ????? 018.rrr.rrr.rrr?? LCSNET??????? MIT LCS Network [43,10,DDC2] {...} ? As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some subsequent prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I know 013 was later assigned to XEROX-NET. ? I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of superstitions?. Thanks, Alejandro, -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From cabo at tzi.org Tue Aug 11 09:50:28 2020 From: cabo at tzi.org (Carsten Bormann) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 18:50:28 +0200 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4222E960-FE24-45A2-A7AF-5523F7D1971B@tzi.org> On 2020-08-11, at 01:58, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: > > 010.rrr.rrr.rrr ARPANET ARPANET [17,1,VGC] Off-topic, but I can?t read this in any other way than as an octal number. $ ping 010.010.010.010 PING 010.010.010.010 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.35 ms $ ping 134744072 PING 134744072 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.31 ms $ ping 01002004010 PING 01002004010 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.31 ms $ ping 0x8080808 PING 0x8080808 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.30 ms Does anyone remember how this misfeature crept into the C library? (I seem to remember seeing it all the way back to 4.2BSD. It no longer works with macOS, but still does on the Linuxes I tried.) Gr??e, Carsten From touch at strayalpha.com Tue Aug 11 10:51:01 2020 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joseph Touch) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:51:01 -0700 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: <4222E960-FE24-45A2-A7AF-5523F7D1971B@tzi.org> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <4222E960-FE24-45A2-A7AF-5523F7D1971B@tzi.org> Message-ID: <5E0DE011-1B4F-4B80-8CE3-E4E741E6EEED@strayalpha.com> It seems like the input functions of the implementations vary. When using scanf: %d, %x, %o = interpret the input as only decimal, hex, or octal (respectively) %I = interpret the input based on its format: 0x? = hex 0? = octal (1-9)? = decimal 0b? = binary (in some systems) It looks like MacOS is using %d and linux/others are using %I Joe > On Aug 11, 2020, at 9:50 AM, Carsten Bormann via Internet-history wrote: > > On 2020-08-11, at 01:58, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >> >> 010.rrr.rrr.rrr ARPANET ARPANET [17,1,VGC] > > Off-topic, but I can?t read this in any other way than as an octal number. > > $ ping 010.010.010.010 > PING 010.010.010.010 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.35 ms > $ ping 134744072 > PING 134744072 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.31 ms > $ ping 01002004010 > PING 01002004010 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.31 ms > $ ping 0x8080808 > PING 0x8080808 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.30 ms > > Does anyone remember how this misfeature crept into the C library? > (I seem to remember seeing it all the way back to 4.2BSD. > It no longer works with macOS, but still does on the Linuxes I tried.) > > Gr??e, Carsten > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com Tue Aug 11 10:53:05 2020 From: alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com (Alejandro Acosta) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:53:05 -0400 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> Hello All, ? First, really thanks for your comments. ? I read a little bit more about the network 13. I supposed I should have done this before sending the email. ? As I said, it does not appear in RFC 790 (Sep 81), and it does not appear until RFC 990 (Nov 1986 assigned to XEROX) ? However, I just realized that actually network 13 was first seen in RFC 739 assigned to National Physical Laboratory and last seen in RFC 776. Thanks again & sorry for the noise. Alejandro, On 8/11/20 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: > Alejandro, > I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who assigned the numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for himself.? I knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a superstitious person.? I think Steve Crocker's explanation that the number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made public on the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer. > For what its worth,Alex McKenzie > > On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: > > Hello list, > > ? I have a question and one more time I believe this a good place to ask. > > ? During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). When > reading it I noticed the following: > > {...} > > ????? 009.rrr.rrr.rrr?? BRAGG-PR????? Ft. Bragg Packet Radio Net [JEM] > ????? 010.rrr.rrr.rrr?? ARPANET?????? ARPANET [17,1,VGC] > ????? 011.rrr.rrr.rrr?? UCLNET??????? University College London???? [PK] > ????? 012.rrr.rrr.rrr?? CYCLADES????? CYCLADES [VGC] > ????? 013.rrr.rrr.rrr???????????????? Unassigned [JBP] > ????? 014.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TELENET?????? TELENET [VGC] > ????? 015.rrr.rrr.rrr?? EPSS????????? British Post Office EPSS????? [PK] > ????? 016.rrr.rrr.rrr?? DATAPAC?????? DATAPAC [VGC] > ????? 017.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TRANSPAC????? TRANSPAC [VGC] > ????? 018.rrr.rrr.rrr?? LCSNET??????? MIT LCS Network [43,10,DDC2] > > {...} > > > ? As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some subsequent > prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I know 013 > was later assigned to XEROX-NET. > > ? I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of superstitions?. > > > Thanks, > > > Alejandro, > > > From touch at strayalpha.com Tue Aug 11 10:53:25 2020 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joseph Touch) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:53:25 -0700 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, all, As noted, it?s hard to guess, but I agree that Jon was not superstitious. However, let?s not discount that the applicants could have been (i.e., and not wanted that value). There?s the odd possibility that it might trip up some interpreters because it is ^M (CR), but I would hope that wouldn?t be the reason. Joe > On Aug 11, 2020, at 9:23 AM, jericho via Internet-history wrote: > > > Only one reply and it did not provide an explanation. Figure this might be the group to answer it. > > Brian > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history > To: Internet-history > Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 19:58:54 -0400 > Reply-To: Alejandro Acosta > Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number > > Hello list, > > I have a question and one more time I believe this a good place to ask. > > During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). When reading it I noticed the following: > > {...} > > 009.rrr.rrr.rrr BRAGG-PR Ft. Bragg Packet Radio Net [JEM] > 010.rrr.rrr.rrr ARPANET ARPANET [17,1,VGC] > 011.rrr.rrr.rrr UCLNET University College London [PK] > 012.rrr.rrr.rrr CYCLADES CYCLADES [VGC] > 013.rrr.rrr.rrr Unassigned [JBP] > 014.rrr.rrr.rrr TELENET TELENET [VGC] > 015.rrr.rrr.rrr EPSS British Post Office EPSS [PK] > 016.rrr.rrr.rrr DATAPAC DATAPAC [VGC] > 017.rrr.rrr.rrr TRANSPAC TRANSPAC [VGC] > 018.rrr.rrr.rrr LCSNET MIT LCS Network [43,10,DDC2] > > {...} > > > As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some subsequent prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I know 013 was later assigned to XEROX-NET. > > I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of superstitions?. > > > Thanks, > > > Alejandro, > > > > -- > 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 patrick at ianai.net Tue Aug 11 10:57:10 2020 From: patrick at ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:57:10 -0400 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: <5E0DE011-1B4F-4B80-8CE3-E4E741E6EEED@strayalpha.com> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <4222E960-FE24-45A2-A7AF-5523F7D1971B@tzi.org> <5E0DE011-1B4F-4B80-8CE3-E4E741E6EEED@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: I believe MacOS (I?m on Catalina, 10.15, but pretty sure previous versions are the same) is doing %I. The leading 0 is forcing octal. Removing the leading zero lets the OS see decimal. For instance: patrick at TiggerBook-C-32 ~ % ping 10.010.010.10 PING 10.010.010.10 (10.8.8.10): 56 data bytes -- TTFN, patrick > On Aug 11, 2020, at 1:51 PM, Joseph Touch via Internet-history wrote: > > It seems like the input functions of the implementations vary. When using scanf: > > %d, %x, %o = interpret the input as only decimal, hex, or octal (respectively) > > %I = interpret the input based on its format: > 0x? = hex > 0? = octal > (1-9)? = decimal > 0b? = binary (in some systems) > > It looks like MacOS is using %d and linux/others are using %I > > Joe > > >> On Aug 11, 2020, at 9:50 AM, Carsten Bormann via Internet-history wrote: >> >> On 2020-08-11, at 01:58, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>> >>> 010.rrr.rrr.rrr ARPANET ARPANET [17,1,VGC] >> >> Off-topic, but I can?t read this in any other way than as an octal number. >> >> $ ping 010.010.010.010 >> PING 010.010.010.010 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. >> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.35 ms >> $ ping 134744072 >> PING 134744072 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. >> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.31 ms >> $ ping 01002004010 >> PING 01002004010 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. >> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.31 ms >> $ ping 0x8080808 >> PING 0x8080808 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. >> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.30 ms >> >> Does anyone remember how this misfeature crept into the C library? >> (I seem to remember seeing it all the way back to 4.2BSD. >> It no longer works with macOS, but still does on the Linuxes I tried.) >> >> Gr??e, Carsten >> >> -- >> 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 Tue Aug 11 11:12:35 2020 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joseph Touch) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 11:12:35 -0700 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <4222E960-FE24-45A2-A7AF-5523F7D1971B@tzi.org> <5E0DE011-1B4F-4B80-8CE3-E4E741E6EEED@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: <37267465-22CB-4BAF-B02C-8C228E1D0FE0@strayalpha.com> FYI, some code appears to use stroul() with a base of ?0?, which works basically like scanf() with %i. Joe > On Aug 11, 2020, at 10:57 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore via Internet-history wrote: > > I believe MacOS (I?m on Catalina, 10.15, but pretty sure previous versions are the same) is doing %I. The leading 0 is forcing octal. Removing the leading zero lets the OS see decimal. For instance: > > patrick at TiggerBook-C-32 ~ % ping 10.010.010.10 > PING 10.010.010.10 (10.8.8.10): 56 data bytes > > -- > TTFN, > patrick > >> On Aug 11, 2020, at 1:51 PM, Joseph Touch via Internet-history wrote: >> >> It seems like the input functions of the implementations vary. When using scanf: >> >> %d, %x, %o = interpret the input as only decimal, hex, or octal (respectively) >> >> %I = interpret the input based on its format: >> 0x? = hex >> 0? = octal >> (1-9)? = decimal >> 0b? = binary (in some systems) >> >> It looks like MacOS is using %d and linux/others are using %I >> >> Joe >> >> >>> On Aug 11, 2020, at 9:50 AM, Carsten Bormann via Internet-history wrote: >>> >>> On 2020-08-11, at 01:58, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>>> >>>> 010.rrr.rrr.rrr ARPANET ARPANET [17,1,VGC] >>> >>> Off-topic, but I can?t read this in any other way than as an octal number. >>> >>> $ ping 010.010.010.010 >>> PING 010.010.010.010 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. >>> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.35 ms >>> $ ping 134744072 >>> PING 134744072 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. >>> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.31 ms >>> $ ping 01002004010 >>> PING 01002004010 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. >>> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.31 ms >>> $ ping 0x8080808 >>> PING 0x8080808 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. >>> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.30 ms >>> >>> Does anyone remember how this misfeature crept into the C library? >>> (I seem to remember seeing it all the way back to 4.2BSD. >>> It no longer works with macOS, but still does on the Linuxes I tried.) >>> >>> Gr??e, Carsten >>> >>> -- >>> 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 jack at 3kitty.org Tue Aug 11 11:43:35 2020 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 11:43:35 -0700 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> Message-ID: A related question, if you're exploring Internet History, might be "Which of the early networks were ever actually operational nets on The Internet, i.e., nets that you could ping and get a response?" I was involved in the 77-80s timeframe, and as I recall, many of those low numbered networks were assigned numbers, but didn't actually ever get connected to the operational Internet.? /Jack Haverty On 8/11/20 10:53 AM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: > Hello All, > > ? First, really thanks for your comments. > > ? I read a little bit more about the network 13. I supposed I should > have done this before sending the email. > > ? As I said, it does not appear in RFC 790 (Sep 81), and it does not > appear until RFC 990 (Nov 1986 assigned to XEROX) > > ? However, I just realized that actually network 13 was first seen in > RFC 739 assigned to National Physical Laboratory and last seen in RFC > 776. > > > Thanks again & sorry for the noise. > > > Alejandro, > > > On 8/11/20 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: >> ? Alejandro, >> I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who assigned the >> numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for himself.? I >> knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a >> superstitious person.? I think Steve Crocker's explanation that the >> number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made public on >> the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer. >> For what its worth,Alex McKenzie >> >> ???? On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro Acosta >> via Internet-history wrote: >> ? ? Hello list, >> >> ? ? I have a question and one more time I believe this a good place >> to ask. >> >> ? ? During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). When >> reading it I noticed the following: >> >> {...} >> >> ? ????? 009.rrr.rrr.rrr?? BRAGG-PR????? Ft. Bragg Packet Radio Net [JEM] >> ? ????? 010.rrr.rrr.rrr?? ARPANET?????? ARPANET [17,1,VGC] >> ? ????? 011.rrr.rrr.rrr?? UCLNET??????? University College London???? >> [PK] >> ? ????? 012.rrr.rrr.rrr?? CYCLADES????? CYCLADES [VGC] >> ? ????? 013.rrr.rrr.rrr???????????????? Unassigned [JBP] >> ? ????? 014.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TELENET?????? TELENET [VGC] >> ? ????? 015.rrr.rrr.rrr?? EPSS????????? British Post Office EPSS????? >> [PK] >> ? ????? 016.rrr.rrr.rrr?? DATAPAC?????? DATAPAC [VGC] >> ? ????? 017.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TRANSPAC????? TRANSPAC [VGC] >> ? ????? 018.rrr.rrr.rrr?? LCSNET??????? MIT LCS Network [43,10,DDC2] >> >> {...} >> >> >> ? ? As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some >> subsequent >> prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I know 013 >> was later assigned to XEROX-NET. >> >> ? ? I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of superstitions?. >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> Alejandro, >> >> >> From jhlowry at mac.com Tue Aug 11 11:53:46 2020 From: jhlowry at mac.com (John Lowry) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 14:53:46 -0400 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: <37267465-22CB-4BAF-B02C-8C228E1D0FE0@strayalpha.com> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <4222E960-FE24-45A2-A7AF-5523F7D1971B@tzi.org> <5E0DE011-1B4F-4B80-8CE3-E4E741E6EEED@strayalpha.com> <37267465-22CB-4BAF-B02C-8C228E1D0FE0@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: Perhaps it is BSD-ism ? https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-main-ipaddr-text-rep-00 > On Aug 11, 2020, at 14:12, Joseph Touch via Internet-history wrote: > > FYI, some code appears to use stroul() with a base of ?0?, which works basically like scanf() with %i. > > Joe > >> On Aug 11, 2020, at 10:57 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore via Internet-history wrote: >> >> I believe MacOS (I?m on Catalina, 10.15, but pretty sure previous versions are the same) is doing %I. The leading 0 is forcing octal. Removing the leading zero lets the OS see decimal. For instance: >> >> patrick at TiggerBook-C-32 ~ % ping 10.010.010.10 >> PING 10.010.010.10 (10.8.8.10): 56 data bytes >> >> -- >> TTFN, >> patrick >> >>> On Aug 11, 2020, at 1:51 PM, Joseph Touch via Internet-history wrote: >>> >>> It seems like the input functions of the implementations vary. When using scanf: >>> >>> %d, %x, %o = interpret the input as only decimal, hex, or octal (respectively) >>> >>> %I = interpret the input based on its format: >>> 0x? = hex >>> 0? = octal >>> (1-9)? = decimal >>> 0b? = binary (in some systems) >>> >>> It looks like MacOS is using %d and linux/others are using %I >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> >>>> On Aug 11, 2020, at 9:50 AM, Carsten Bormann via Internet-history wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2020-08-11, at 01:58, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 010.rrr.rrr.rrr ARPANET ARPANET [17,1,VGC] >>>> >>>> Off-topic, but I can?t read this in any other way than as an octal number. >>>> >>>> $ ping 010.010.010.010 >>>> PING 010.010.010.010 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. >>>> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.35 ms >>>> $ ping 134744072 >>>> PING 134744072 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. >>>> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.31 ms >>>> $ ping 01002004010 >>>> PING 01002004010 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. >>>> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.31 ms >>>> $ ping 0x8080808 >>>> PING 0x8080808 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. >>>> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.30 ms >>>> >>>> Does anyone remember how this misfeature crept into the C library? >>>> (I seem to remember seeing it all the way back to 4.2BSD. >>>> It no longer works with macOS, but still does on the Linuxes I tried.) >>>> >>>> Gr??e, Carsten >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From michael at kjorling.se Tue Aug 11 12:06:21 2020 From: michael at kjorling.se (Michael =?utf-8?B?S2rDtnJsaW5n?=) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 19:06:21 +0000 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: <4222E960-FE24-45A2-A7AF-5523F7D1971B@tzi.org> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <4222E960-FE24-45A2-A7AF-5523F7D1971B@tzi.org> Message-ID: <02a074c6-4a05-4f98-b90f-31e6ba1ce66f@localhost> On 11 Aug 2020 18:50 +0200, from internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Carsten Bormann via Internet-history): > $ ping 010.010.010.010 > PING 010.010.010.010 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.35 ms > $ ping 134744072 > PING 134744072 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.31 ms > $ ping 01002004010 > PING 01002004010 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.31 ms > $ ping 0x8080808 > PING 0x8080808 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.30 ms > > Does anyone remember how this misfeature crept into the C library? > (I seem to remember seeing it all the way back to 4.2BSD. > It no longer works with macOS, but still does on the Linuxes I tried.) Just for fun, I looked at the source code for _ping_ in Debian Buster (because I could do that easily). It uses getaddrinfo() to map from the target given on the command line to an IP address (either IPv4 or IPv6, depending on usage). In the version packaged as 3:20180629-2+deb10u1, this appears to happen in ping.c on lines 482 and 512. getaddrinfo(), in turn, is specified[1] to accept "address strings using Internet standard dot notation as specified in inet_addr". inet_addr(), next, actually specifies[2] four different forms of "IPv4 dotted decimal notation": a.b.c.d, a.b.c, a.b and a. Excluding the first ("010.010.010.010"), your examples above all correspond to "a" (just a single numerical value), so: > When only one part is given, the value shall be stored directly in > the network address without any byte rearrangement. Also, > All numbers supplied as parts in IPv4 dotted decimal notation may be > decimal, octal, or hexadecimal, as specified in the ISO C standard > (that is, a leading 0x or 0X implies hexadecimal; otherwise, a > leading '0' implies octal; otherwise, the number is interpreted as > decimal). One might make a reasonable argument that it's unexpected that this is exposed all the way to the end user, but _not_ exposing this behavior would seem to require using something other than a POSIX-compliant getaddrinfo() and/or inet_addr() to parse and resolve the address given. Doing so would _probably_ increase complexity, and increasing complexity _usually_ causes the introduction of bugs. [1]: https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/getaddrinfo.html [2]: https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/inet_addr.html -- Michael Kj?rling ? https://michael.kjorling.se ? michael at kjorling.se ?Remember when, on the Internet, nobody cared that you were a dog?? From b_a_denny at yahoo.com Tue Aug 11 12:19:33 2020 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 19:19:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> Message-ID: <543050226.465490.1597173573466@mail.yahoo.com> Fort Bragg did have a packet radio testbed in that time frame. I remember having to help them out when they had problems. I don't remember what path I took from BBN to get whatever information I could to try to debug the issue.? I also don't remember if anyone on the net could ping them.? barbara? On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 11:43:58 AM PDT, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: A related question, if you're exploring Internet History, might be "Which of the early networks were ever actually operational nets on The Internet, i.e., nets that you could ping and get a response?" I was involved in the 77-80s timeframe, and as I recall, many of those low numbered networks were assigned numbers, but didn't actually ever get connected to the operational Internet.? /Jack Haverty On 8/11/20 10:53 AM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: > Hello All, > > ? First, really thanks for your comments. > > ? I read a little bit more about the network 13. I supposed I should > have done this before sending the email. > > ? As I said, it does not appear in RFC 790 (Sep 81), and it does not > appear until RFC 990 (Nov 1986 assigned to XEROX) > > ? However, I just realized that actually network 13 was first seen in > RFC 739 assigned to National Physical Laboratory and last seen in RFC > 776. > > > Thanks again & sorry for the noise. > > > Alejandro, > > > On 8/11/20 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: >> ? Alejandro, >> I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who assigned the >> numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for himself.? I >> knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a >> superstitious person.? I think Steve Crocker's explanation that the >> number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made public on >> the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer. >> For what its worth,Alex McKenzie >> >> ???? On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro Acosta >> via Internet-history wrote: >> ? ? Hello list, >> >> ? ? I have a question and one more time I believe this a good place >> to ask. >> >> ? ? During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). When >> reading it I noticed the following: >> >> {...} >> >> ? ????? 009.rrr.rrr.rrr?? BRAGG-PR????? Ft. Bragg Packet Radio Net [JEM] >> ? ????? 010.rrr.rrr.rrr?? ARPANET?????? ARPANET [17,1,VGC] >> ? ????? 011.rrr.rrr.rrr?? UCLNET??????? University College London???? >> [PK] >> ? ????? 012.rrr.rrr.rrr?? CYCLADES????? CYCLADES [VGC] >> ? ????? 013.rrr.rrr.rrr???????????????? Unassigned [JBP] >> ? ????? 014.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TELENET?????? TELENET [VGC] >> ? ????? 015.rrr.rrr.rrr?? EPSS????????? British Post Office EPSS????? >> [PK] >> ? ????? 016.rrr.rrr.rrr?? DATAPAC?????? DATAPAC [VGC] >> ? ????? 017.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TRANSPAC????? TRANSPAC [VGC] >> ? ????? 018.rrr.rrr.rrr?? LCSNET??????? MIT LCS Network [43,10,DDC2] >> >> {...} >> >> >> ? ? As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some >> subsequent >> prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I know 013 >> was later assigned to XEROX-NET. >> >> ? ? I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of superstitions?. >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> Alejandro, >> >> >> -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From touch at strayalpha.com Tue Aug 11 12:29:28 2020 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joseph Touch) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 12:29:28 -0700 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: <02a074c6-4a05-4f98-b90f-31e6ba1ce66f@localhost> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <4222E960-FE24-45A2-A7AF-5523F7D1971B@tzi.org> <02a074c6-4a05-4f98-b90f-31e6ba1ce66f@localhost> Message-ID: <03EE334D-39C0-4C32-A63B-CAD2D2FDD746@strayalpha.com> FYI - inet_addr() is where I found the different versions using scanf() and %i and stroul() with a base of ?0?. Joe > On Aug 11, 2020, at 12:06 PM, Michael Kj?rling via Internet-history wrote: > > Just for fun, I looked at the source code for _ping_ in Debian Buster > (because I could do that easily). > > It uses getaddrinfo() to map from the target given on the command line > to an IP address (either IPv4 or IPv6, depending on usage). In the > version packaged as 3:20180629-2+deb10u1, this appears to happen in > ping.c on lines 482 and 512. > > getaddrinfo(), in turn, is specified[1] to accept "address strings > using Internet standard dot notation as specified in inet_addr". > > inet_addr(), next, actually specifies[2] four different forms of "IPv4 > dotted decimal notation": a.b.c.d, a.b.c, a.b and a. From jack at 3kitty.org Tue Aug 11 12:42:00 2020 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 12:42:00 -0700 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: <02a074c6-4a05-4f98-b90f-31e6ba1ce66f@localhost> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <4222E960-FE24-45A2-A7AF-5523F7D1971B@tzi.org> <02a074c6-4a05-4f98-b90f-31e6ba1ce66f@localhost> Message-ID: <5106b832-6421-98c9-fbae-bdfb067eb67b@3kitty.org> At the time these conventions were congealing, we were all used to working with the ARPANET, and in particular with the TIPs, which were the machines you connected your terminal to in order to Telnet to work on some host computer on the ARPANET. To connect to, for example, host 1 on IMP 6 (MIT-DM, where I was at the time), you would type "@l 70"? -- i.e., Host#* 64 + IMP#?? It was sometimes tedious to do the arithmetic.? But there weren't that many IMPs, an each could have only 4 hosts, so not too bad. The early Internet systems explored different ways of specifying the address.?? One I especially remember was the TIU (Terminal Interface Unit).?? You had to specify your target address in decimal.? Not dotted quad decimal, but 32-bit decimal.? Converting a typical IP address (10.0.0.5 was BBN-E) was a pain, and resulted in a many-digit unmemorable decimal number that you had to type correctly. People had different notions of what was the right way to specify IP addresses.? The "dotted-quad" notion was nice (no 10-digit decimal numbers), and mapped easily into the bytes we were used to dealing with inside packets and computers. But the individual numbers of the quad were still controversial.?? So, IIRC, allowing any of hex/decimal/octal in the dotted-quad was a compromise that ended the discussions.?? I'm not sure, but my recollection is that JonP was in the middle of all that, working hard to reach "consensus and running code". /Jack On 8/11/20 12:06 PM, Michael Kj?rling via Internet-history wrote: > On 11 Aug 2020 18:50 +0200, from internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Carsten Bormann via Internet-history): >> $ ping 010.010.010.010 >> PING 010.010.010.010 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. >> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.35 ms >> $ ping 134744072 >> PING 134744072 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. >> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.31 ms >> $ ping 01002004010 >> PING 01002004010 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. >> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.31 ms >> $ ping 0x8080808 >> PING 0x8080808 (8.8.8.8) 56(84) bytes of data. >> 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=119 time=6.30 ms >> >> Does anyone remember how this misfeature crept into the C library? >> (I seem to remember seeing it all the way back to 4.2BSD. >> It no longer works with macOS, but still does on the Linuxes I tried.) > Just for fun, I looked at the source code for _ping_ in Debian Buster > (because I could do that easily). > > It uses getaddrinfo() to map from the target given on the command line > to an IP address (either IPv4 or IPv6, depending on usage). In the > version packaged as 3:20180629-2+deb10u1, this appears to happen in > ping.c on lines 482 and 512. > > getaddrinfo(), in turn, is specified[1] to accept "address strings > using Internet standard dot notation as specified in inet_addr". > > inet_addr(), next, actually specifies[2] four different forms of "IPv4 > dotted decimal notation": a.b.c.d, a.b.c, a.b and a. > > Excluding the first ("010.010.010.010"), your examples above all > correspond to "a" (just a single numerical value), so: > >> When only one part is given, the value shall be stored directly in >> the network address without any byte rearrangement. > Also, > >> All numbers supplied as parts in IPv4 dotted decimal notation may be >> decimal, octal, or hexadecimal, as specified in the ISO C standard >> (that is, a leading 0x or 0X implies hexadecimal; otherwise, a >> leading '0' implies octal; otherwise, the number is interpreted as >> decimal). > One might make a reasonable argument that it's unexpected that this is > exposed all the way to the end user, but _not_ exposing this behavior > would seem to require using something other than a POSIX-compliant > getaddrinfo() and/or inet_addr() to parse and resolve the address > given. Doing so would _probably_ increase complexity, and increasing > complexity _usually_ causes the introduction of bugs. > > [1]: https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/getaddrinfo.html > [2]: https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/inet_addr.html > From alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com Tue Aug 11 13:06:25 2020 From: alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com (Alejandro Acosta) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:06:25 -0400 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7da84cd4-d231-82e8-4d52-1b5661534dd1@gmail.com> uh, good question. Based on the days of the firsts networks and the release of ping the answer is none, afaik, ping was released in 1983 On 8/11/20 2:43 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > A related question, if you're exploring Internet History, might be > "Which of the early networks were ever actually operational nets on The > Internet, i.e., nets that you could ping and get a response?" > > I was involved in the 77-80s timeframe, and as I recall, many of those > low numbered networks were assigned numbers, but didn't actually ever > get connected to the operational Internet. > > /Jack Haverty > > On 8/11/20 10:53 AM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >> Hello All, >> >> ? First, really thanks for your comments. >> >> ? I read a little bit more about the network 13. I supposed I should >> have done this before sending the email. >> >> ? As I said, it does not appear in RFC 790 (Sep 81), and it does not >> appear until RFC 990 (Nov 1986 assigned to XEROX) >> >> ? However, I just realized that actually network 13 was first seen in >> RFC 739 assigned to National Physical Laboratory and last seen in RFC >> 776. >> >> >> Thanks again & sorry for the noise. >> >> >> Alejandro, >> >> >> On 8/11/20 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: >>> ? Alejandro, >>> I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who assigned the >>> numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for himself.? I >>> knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a >>> superstitious person.? I think Steve Crocker's explanation that the >>> number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made public on >>> the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer. >>> For what its worth,Alex McKenzie >>> >>> ???? On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro Acosta >>> via Internet-history wrote: >>> ? ? Hello list, >>> >>> ? ? I have a question and one more time I believe this a good place >>> to ask. >>> >>> ? ? During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). When >>> reading it I noticed the following: >>> >>> {...} >>> >>> ? ????? 009.rrr.rrr.rrr?? BRAGG-PR????? Ft. Bragg Packet Radio Net [JEM] >>> ? ????? 010.rrr.rrr.rrr?? ARPANET?????? ARPANET [17,1,VGC] >>> ? ????? 011.rrr.rrr.rrr?? UCLNET??????? University College London >>> [PK] >>> ? ????? 012.rrr.rrr.rrr?? CYCLADES????? CYCLADES [VGC] >>> ? ????? 013.rrr.rrr.rrr???????????????? Unassigned [JBP] >>> ? ????? 014.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TELENET?????? TELENET [VGC] >>> ? ????? 015.rrr.rrr.rrr?? EPSS????????? British Post Office EPSS >>> [PK] >>> ? ????? 016.rrr.rrr.rrr?? DATAPAC?????? DATAPAC [VGC] >>> ? ????? 017.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TRANSPAC????? TRANSPAC [VGC] >>> ? ????? 018.rrr.rrr.rrr?? LCSNET??????? MIT LCS Network [43,10,DDC2] >>> >>> {...} >>> >>> >>> ? ? As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some >>> subsequent >>> prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I know 013 >>> was later assigned to XEROX-NET. >>> >>> ? ? I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of superstitions?. >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> >>> Alejandro, >>> >>> >>> From jack at 3kitty.org Tue Aug 11 13:21:50 2020 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:21:50 -0700 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: <7da84cd4-d231-82e8-4d52-1b5661534dd1@gmail.com> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> <7da84cd4-d231-82e8-4d52-1b5661534dd1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9ccca1c4-afee-b3f3-1690-e4d305f495ff@3kitty.org> Ping may have been released in 1983 but it was in use long before that.??? When I was in charge of keeping the "core gateways" running, Dave Mills was famous for doing lots of experiments that often gave us heartburn.?? I clearly recall him telling us at some Internet meeting about his experiments and the tool he used - he called it "Ping", and explained it was an acronym for "Packet InterNet Groper".? This was probably 1979/80 or thereabouts.? I don't know that Dave invented "ping", but I believe that's where I first heard about it. /Jack On 8/11/20 1:06 PM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: > uh, good question. > > Based on the days of the firsts networks and the release of ping the > answer is none, afaik, ping was released in 1983 > > On 8/11/20 2:43 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >> A related question, if you're exploring Internet History, might be >> "Which of the early networks were ever actually operational nets on The >> Internet, i.e., nets that you could ping and get a response?" >> >> I was involved in the 77-80s timeframe, and as I recall, many of those >> low numbered networks were assigned numbers, but didn't actually ever >> get connected to the operational Internet. >> >> /Jack Haverty >> >> On 8/11/20 10:53 AM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>> Hello All, >>> >>> ?? First, really thanks for your comments. >>> >>> ?? I read a little bit more about the network 13. I supposed I should >>> have done this before sending the email. >>> >>> ?? As I said, it does not appear in RFC 790 (Sep 81), and it does not >>> appear until RFC 990 (Nov 1986 assigned to XEROX) >>> >>> ?? However, I just realized that actually network 13 was first seen in >>> RFC 739 assigned to National Physical Laboratory and last seen in RFC >>> 776. >>> >>> >>> Thanks again & sorry for the noise. >>> >>> >>> Alejandro, >>> >>> >>> On 8/11/20 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: >>>> ?? Alejandro, >>>> I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who assigned the >>>> numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for himself.? I >>>> knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a >>>> superstitious person.? I think Steve Crocker's explanation that the >>>> number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made public on >>>> the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer. >>>> For what its worth,Alex McKenzie >>>> >>>> ????? On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro Acosta >>>> via Internet-history wrote: >>>> ?? ? Hello list, >>>> >>>> ?? ? I have a question and one more time I believe this a good place >>>> to ask. >>>> >>>> ?? ? During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). >>>> When >>>> reading it I noticed the following: >>>> >>>> {...} >>>> >>>> ?? ????? 009.rrr.rrr.rrr?? BRAGG-PR????? Ft. Bragg Packet Radio Net >>>> [JEM] >>>> ?? ????? 010.rrr.rrr.rrr?? ARPANET?????? ARPANET [17,1,VGC] >>>> ?? ????? 011.rrr.rrr.rrr?? UCLNET??????? University College London >>>> [PK] >>>> ?? ????? 012.rrr.rrr.rrr?? CYCLADES????? CYCLADES [VGC] >>>> ?? ????? 013.rrr.rrr.rrr???????????????? Unassigned [JBP] >>>> ?? ????? 014.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TELENET?????? TELENET [VGC] >>>> ?? ????? 015.rrr.rrr.rrr?? EPSS????????? British Post Office EPSS >>>> [PK] >>>> ?? ????? 016.rrr.rrr.rrr?? DATAPAC?????? DATAPAC [VGC] >>>> ?? ????? 017.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TRANSPAC????? TRANSPAC [VGC] >>>> ?? ????? 018.rrr.rrr.rrr?? LCSNET??????? MIT LCS Network [43,10,DDC2] >>>> >>>> {...} >>>> >>>> >>>> ?? ? As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some >>>> subsequent >>>> prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I know 013 >>>> was later assigned to XEROX-NET. >>>> >>>> ?? ? I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of superstitions?. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> >>>> Alejandro, >>>> >>>> >>>> From alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com Tue Aug 11 13:40:12 2020 From: alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com (Alejandro Acosta) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:40:12 -0400 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: <9ccca1c4-afee-b3f3-1690-e4d305f495ff@3kitty.org> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> <7da84cd4-d231-82e8-4d52-1b5661534dd1@gmail.com> <9ccca1c4-afee-b3f3-1690-e4d305f495ff@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <417768ac-bb66-2e67-89c4-47c09db07196@gmail.com> Thanks a lot for the information. I really enjoy reading this mailing list. I will keep myself quiet and ask some occasional questions :-) Hugs, Alejandro, On 8/11/20 4:21 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > Ping may have been released in 1983 but it was in use long before > that.??? When I was in charge of keeping the "core gateways" running, > Dave Mills was famous for doing lots of experiments that often gave us > heartburn.?? I clearly recall him telling us at some Internet meeting > about his experiments and the tool he used - he called it "Ping", and > explained it was an acronym for "Packet InterNet Groper".? This was > probably 1979/80 or thereabouts.? I don't know that Dave invented > "ping", but I believe that's where I first heard about it. > > /Jack > > > On 8/11/20 1:06 PM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >> uh, good question. >> >> Based on the days of the firsts networks and the release of ping the >> answer is none, afaik, ping was released in 1983 >> >> On 8/11/20 2:43 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >>> A related question, if you're exploring Internet History, might be >>> "Which of the early networks were ever actually operational nets on The >>> Internet, i.e., nets that you could ping and get a response?" >>> >>> I was involved in the 77-80s timeframe, and as I recall, many of those >>> low numbered networks were assigned numbers, but didn't actually ever >>> get connected to the operational Internet. >>> >>> /Jack Haverty >>> >>> On 8/11/20 10:53 AM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>>> Hello All, >>>> >>>> ?? First, really thanks for your comments. >>>> >>>> ?? I read a little bit more about the network 13. I supposed I should >>>> have done this before sending the email. >>>> >>>> ?? As I said, it does not appear in RFC 790 (Sep 81), and it does not >>>> appear until RFC 990 (Nov 1986 assigned to XEROX) >>>> >>>> ?? However, I just realized that actually network 13 was first seen in >>>> RFC 739 assigned to National Physical Laboratory and last seen in RFC >>>> 776. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks again & sorry for the noise. >>>> >>>> >>>> Alejandro, >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8/11/20 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> ?? Alejandro, >>>>> I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who assigned the >>>>> numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for himself.? I >>>>> knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a >>>>> superstitious person.? I think Steve Crocker's explanation that the >>>>> number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made public on >>>>> the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer. >>>>> For what its worth,Alex McKenzie >>>>> >>>>> ????? On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro Acosta >>>>> via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> ?? ? Hello list, >>>>> >>>>> ?? ? I have a question and one more time I believe this a good place >>>>> to ask. >>>>> >>>>> ?? ? During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). >>>>> When >>>>> reading it I noticed the following: >>>>> >>>>> {...} >>>>> >>>>> ?? ????? 009.rrr.rrr.rrr?? BRAGG-PR????? Ft. Bragg Packet Radio Net >>>>> [JEM] >>>>> ?? ????? 010.rrr.rrr.rrr?? ARPANET?????? ARPANET [17,1,VGC] >>>>> ?? ????? 011.rrr.rrr.rrr?? UCLNET??????? University College London >>>>> [PK] >>>>> ?? ????? 012.rrr.rrr.rrr?? CYCLADES????? CYCLADES [VGC] >>>>> ?? ????? 013.rrr.rrr.rrr???????????????? Unassigned [JBP] >>>>> ?? ????? 014.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TELENET?????? TELENET [VGC] >>>>> ?? ????? 015.rrr.rrr.rrr?? EPSS????????? British Post Office EPSS >>>>> [PK] >>>>> ?? ????? 016.rrr.rrr.rrr?? DATAPAC?????? DATAPAC [VGC] >>>>> ?? ????? 017.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TRANSPAC????? TRANSPAC [VGC] >>>>> ?? ????? 018.rrr.rrr.rrr?? LCSNET??????? MIT LCS Network [43,10,DDC2] >>>>> >>>>> {...} >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ?? ? As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some >>>>> subsequent >>>>> prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I know 013 >>>>> was later assigned to XEROX-NET. >>>>> >>>>> ?? ? I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of superstitions?. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Alejandro, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From pnr at planet.nl Tue Aug 11 13:50:43 2020 From: pnr at planet.nl (Paul Ruizendaal) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 22:50:43 +0200 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: <417768ac-bb66-2e67-89c4-47c09db07196@gmail.com> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> <7da84cd4-d231-82e8-4d52-1b5661534dd1@gmail.com> <9ccca1c4-afee-b3f3-1690-e4d305f495ff@3kitty.org> <417768ac-bb66-2e67-89c4-47c09db07196@gmail.com> Message-ID: <840545DE-A37E-4AA5-AF3E-E197F248B112@planet.nl> From Mike Muuss' archived pages: https://ftp.arl.army.mil/~mike/ping.html > On 11 Aug 2020, at 22:40, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: > > Thanks a lot for the information. I really enjoy reading this mailing list. > > I will keep myself quiet and ask some occasional questions :-) > > > Hugs, > > > Alejandro, > > > On 8/11/20 4:21 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >> Ping may have been released in 1983 but it was in use long before >> that. When I was in charge of keeping the "core gateways" running, >> Dave Mills was famous for doing lots of experiments that often gave us >> heartburn. I clearly recall him telling us at some Internet meeting >> about his experiments and the tool he used - he called it "Ping", and >> explained it was an acronym for "Packet InterNet Groper". This was >> probably 1979/80 or thereabouts. I don't know that Dave invented >> "ping", but I believe that's where I first heard about it. >> >> /Jack >> >> >> On 8/11/20 1:06 PM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>> uh, good question. >>> >>> Based on the days of the firsts networks and the release of ping the >>> answer is none, afaik, ping was released in 1983 >>> >>> On 8/11/20 2:43 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >>>> A related question, if you're exploring Internet History, might be >>>> "Which of the early networks were ever actually operational nets on The >>>> Internet, i.e., nets that you could ping and get a response?" >>>> >>>> I was involved in the 77-80s timeframe, and as I recall, many of those >>>> low numbered networks were assigned numbers, but didn't actually ever >>>> get connected to the operational Internet. >>>> >>>> /Jack Haverty >>>> >>>> On 8/11/20 10:53 AM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> Hello All, >>>>> >>>>> First, really thanks for your comments. >>>>> >>>>> I read a little bit more about the network 13. I supposed I should >>>>> have done this before sending the email. >>>>> >>>>> As I said, it does not appear in RFC 790 (Sep 81), and it does not >>>>> appear until RFC 990 (Nov 1986 assigned to XEROX) >>>>> >>>>> However, I just realized that actually network 13 was first seen in >>>>> RFC 739 assigned to National Physical Laboratory and last seen in RFC >>>>> 776. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks again & sorry for the noise. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Alejandro, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8/11/20 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> Alejandro, >>>>>> I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who assigned the >>>>>> numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for himself. I >>>>>> knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a >>>>>> superstitious person. I think Steve Crocker's explanation that the >>>>>> number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made public on >>>>>> the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer. >>>>>> For what its worth,Alex McKenzie >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro Acosta >>>>>> via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> Hello list, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have a question and one more time I believe this a good place >>>>>> to ask. >>>>>> >>>>>> During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). >>>>>> When >>>>>> reading it I noticed the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> {...} >>>>>> >>>>>> 009.rrr.rrr.rrr BRAGG-PR Ft. Bragg Packet Radio Net >>>>>> [JEM] >>>>>> 010.rrr.rrr.rrr ARPANET ARPANET [17,1,VGC] >>>>>> 011.rrr.rrr.rrr UCLNET University College London >>>>>> [PK] >>>>>> 012.rrr.rrr.rrr CYCLADES CYCLADES [VGC] >>>>>> 013.rrr.rrr.rrr Unassigned [JBP] >>>>>> 014.rrr.rrr.rrr TELENET TELENET [VGC] >>>>>> 015.rrr.rrr.rrr EPSS British Post Office EPSS >>>>>> [PK] >>>>>> 016.rrr.rrr.rrr DATAPAC DATAPAC [VGC] >>>>>> 017.rrr.rrr.rrr TRANSPAC TRANSPAC [VGC] >>>>>> 018.rrr.rrr.rrr LCSNET MIT LCS Network [43,10,DDC2] >>>>>> >>>>>> {...} >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some >>>>>> subsequent >>>>>> prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I know 013 >>>>>> was later assigned to XEROX-NET. >>>>>> >>>>>> I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of superstitions?. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Alejandro, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From clemc at ccc.com Tue Aug 11 13:51:45 2020 From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:51:45 -0400 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: <9ccca1c4-afee-b3f3-1690-e4d305f495ff@3kitty.org> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> <7da84cd4-d231-82e8-4d52-1b5661534dd1@gmail.com> <9ccca1c4-afee-b3f3-1690-e4d305f495ff@3kitty.org> Message-ID: Jack, I believe one of the first implementations was Mike Muuss of BRL On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 4:22 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Ping may have been released in 1983 but it was in use long before > that. When I was in charge of keeping the "core gateways" running, > Dave Mills was famous for doing lots of experiments that often gave us > heartburn. I clearly recall him telling us at some Internet meeting > about his experiments and the tool he used - he called it "Ping", and > explained it was an acronym for "Packet InterNet Groper". This was > probably 1979/80 or thereabouts. I don't know that Dave invented > "ping", but I believe that's where I first heard about it. > > /Jack > > > On 8/11/20 1:06 PM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: > > uh, good question. > > > > Based on the days of the firsts networks and the release of ping the > > answer is none, afaik, ping was released in 1983 > > > > On 8/11/20 2:43 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > >> A related question, if you're exploring Internet History, might be > >> "Which of the early networks were ever actually operational nets on The > >> Internet, i.e., nets that you could ping and get a response?" > >> > >> I was involved in the 77-80s timeframe, and as I recall, many of those > >> low numbered networks were assigned numbers, but didn't actually ever > >> get connected to the operational Internet. > >> > >> /Jack Haverty > >> > >> On 8/11/20 10:53 AM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: > >>> Hello All, > >>> > >>> First, really thanks for your comments. > >>> > >>> I read a little bit more about the network 13. I supposed I should > >>> have done this before sending the email. > >>> > >>> As I said, it does not appear in RFC 790 (Sep 81), and it does not > >>> appear until RFC 990 (Nov 1986 assigned to XEROX) > >>> > >>> However, I just realized that actually network 13 was first seen in > >>> RFC 739 assigned to National Physical Laboratory and last seen in RFC > >>> 776. > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks again & sorry for the noise. > >>> > >>> > >>> Alejandro, > >>> > >>> > >>> On 8/11/20 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: > >>>> Alejandro, > >>>> I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who assigned the > >>>> numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for himself. I > >>>> knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a > >>>> superstitious person. I think Steve Crocker's explanation that the > >>>> number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made public on > >>>> the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer. > >>>> For what its worth,Alex McKenzie > >>>> > >>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro Acosta > >>>> via Internet-history wrote: > >>>> Hello list, > >>>> > >>>> I have a question and one more time I believe this a good place > >>>> to ask. > >>>> > >>>> During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). > >>>> When > >>>> reading it I noticed the following: > >>>> > >>>> {...} > >>>> > >>>> 009.rrr.rrr.rrr BRAGG-PR Ft. Bragg Packet Radio Net > >>>> [JEM] > >>>> 010.rrr.rrr.rrr ARPANET ARPANET [17,1,VGC] > >>>> 011.rrr.rrr.rrr UCLNET University College London > >>>> [PK] > >>>> 012.rrr.rrr.rrr CYCLADES CYCLADES [VGC] > >>>> 013.rrr.rrr.rrr Unassigned [JBP] > >>>> 014.rrr.rrr.rrr TELENET TELENET [VGC] > >>>> 015.rrr.rrr.rrr EPSS British Post Office EPSS > >>>> [PK] > >>>> 016.rrr.rrr.rrr DATAPAC DATAPAC [VGC] > >>>> 017.rrr.rrr.rrr TRANSPAC TRANSPAC [VGC] > >>>> 018.rrr.rrr.rrr LCSNET MIT LCS Network [43,10,DDC2] > >>>> > >>>> {...} > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some > >>>> subsequent > >>>> prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I know 013 > >>>> was later assigned to XEROX-NET. > >>>> > >>>> I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of superstitions?. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Alejandro, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From cabo at tzi.org Tue Aug 11 14:12:13 2020 From: cabo at tzi.org (Carsten Bormann) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 23:12:13 +0200 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <4222E960-FE24-45A2-A7AF-5523F7D1971B@tzi.org> <5E0DE011-1B4F-4B80-8CE3-E4E741E6EEED@strayalpha.com> <37267465-22CB-4BAF-B02C-8C228E1D0FE0@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: <0186F6BD-97F8-4FA3-AE22-9D39F33F7C46@tzi.org> On 2020-08-11, at 20:53, John Lowry via Internet-history wrote: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-main-ipaddr-text-rep-00 Thank you! I didn?t know of this I-D; while I have not checked all the details, it certainly meshes with and confirms my memories of the situation. And another thank you to everyone else for filling in more details. By the way, I have to correct myself: My experiments with macOS were based on using telnet (which doesn?t even exist in current macOS; I seem to have used the homebrew inetutils version); but then even older versions of telnet (OS X 10.9) do not seem to accept octal-notated addresses as such (at least with four numbers given; telnet 010.1 does go to 8.0.0.1!), while ping does. Apart from the octal/hex deviation, the ?octet-dot-24bits? deviation of course is in heavy use: ?ping 1.1? (insert diagnostic tool of choice for ?ping?) is the canonical way to check ?do I have Internet access? in my quarters: it pings 1.0.0.1, the alternate 32-bit address of Cloudflare?s one.one.one.one. Gr??e, Carsten From jack at 3kitty.org Tue Aug 11 15:49:01 2020 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:49:01 -0700 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> <7da84cd4-d231-82e8-4d52-1b5661534dd1@gmail.com> <9ccca1c4-afee-b3f3-1690-e4d305f495ff@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <39f4ff21-ca75-39ef-198f-59bdc36f4189@3kitty.org> Yes, that makes sense.? Before Mike wrote the ping program, we all had our own ways of doing such tests, typically not as user-friendly as Mike's.? E.g., when I was debugging the TCP for Unix, I could use the debugger (DDT) to create a packet directly in memory, and then start the program running at some "Send packet" location to get it out to the net.?? I remember including several "packet templates" in my source code, just so they could be used later in DDT.? I'm sure Dave Mills and others used similar techniques, and he inspired Mike to write the program and get a real user interface.? This all occurred roughly in the timeframe between TCP version 2.5 and TCP/IP version 4, when the IP header was split out of the original TCP header.? After many arguments about what should go in each header, and a fear that they would be simply too big if everyone's desires were met, we defined ICMP as a separate protocol, and also introduced the "Options" feature in the headers.?? Plenty of space for everything, and room for future additions.? That's when Echo Request and Echo Reply appeared, and lots of other stuff.? Lots of tools got generated in that era, e.g., things like a TCP socket that would just spew data at you.?? Much of that suite of "debugging tools" was just adopted from the analogous ARPANET mechanisms, which had been running for almost a decade by then. Mike's story jives with my recollection.?? I'm not sure if he was the first to use the term "ping", or if possibly Dave Mills was the one who thought up the acronym expansion (knowing Dave back then I can believe it).?? But we were probing using IP packets almost from Day 1, but it wasn't until later that the term "ping" became popular. /Jack On 8/11/20 1:51 PM, Clem Cole wrote: > Jack, I believe one of the first implementations was Mike Muuss of BRL > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 4:22 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history > > wrote: > > Ping may have been released in 1983 but it was in use long before > that.??? When I was in charge of keeping the "core gateways" running, > Dave Mills was famous for doing lots of experiments that often gave us > heartburn.?? I clearly recall him telling us at some Internet meeting > about his experiments and the tool he used - he called it "Ping", and > explained it was an acronym for "Packet InterNet Groper".? This was > probably 1979/80 or thereabouts.? I don't know that Dave invented > "ping", but I believe that's where I first heard about it. > > /Jack > > > On 8/11/20 1:06 PM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: > > uh, good question. > > > > Based on the days of the firsts networks and the release of ping the > > answer is none, afaik, ping was released in 1983 > > > > On 8/11/20 2:43 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > >> A related question, if you're exploring Internet History, might be > >> "Which of the early networks were ever actually operational > nets on The > >> Internet, i.e., nets that you could ping and get a response?" > >> > >> I was involved in the 77-80s timeframe, and as I recall, many > of those > >> low numbered networks were assigned numbers, but didn't > actually ever > >> get connected to the operational Internet. > >> > >> /Jack Haverty > >> > >> On 8/11/20 10:53 AM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: > >>> Hello All, > >>> > >>> ?? First, really thanks for your comments. > >>> > >>> ?? I read a little bit more about the network 13. I supposed I > should > >>> have done this before sending the email. > >>> > >>> ?? As I said, it does not appear in RFC 790 (Sep 81), and it > does not > >>> appear until RFC 990 (Nov 1986 assigned to XEROX) > >>> > >>> ?? However, I just realized that actually network 13 was first > seen in > >>> RFC 739 assigned to National Physical Laboratory and last seen > in RFC > >>> 776. > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks again & sorry for the noise. > >>> > >>> > >>> Alejandro, > >>> > >>> > >>> On 8/11/20 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: > >>>> ?? Alejandro, > >>>> I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who > assigned the > >>>> numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for > himself.? I > >>>> knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a > >>>> superstitious person.? I think Steve Crocker's explanation > that the > >>>> number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made > public on > >>>> the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer. > >>>> For what its worth,Alex McKenzie > >>>> > >>>> ????? On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro > Acosta > >>>> via Internet-history > wrote: > >>>> ?? ? Hello list, > >>>> > >>>> ?? ? I have a question and one more time I believe this a > good place > >>>> to ask. > >>>> > >>>> ?? ? During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED > NUMBERS). > >>>> When > >>>> reading it I noticed the following: > >>>> > >>>> {...} > >>>> > >>>> ?? ????? 009.rrr.rrr.rrr?? BRAGG-PR????? Ft. Bragg Packet > Radio Net > >>>> [JEM] > >>>> ?? ????? 010.rrr.rrr.rrr?? ARPANET?????? ARPANET [17,1,VGC] > >>>> ?? ????? 011.rrr.rrr.rrr?? UCLNET??????? University College > London > >>>> [PK] > >>>> ?? ????? 012.rrr.rrr.rrr?? CYCLADES????? CYCLADES [VGC] > >>>> ?? ????? 013.rrr.rrr.rrr???????????????? Unassigned [JBP] > >>>> ?? ????? 014.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TELENET?????? TELENET [VGC] > >>>> ?? ????? 015.rrr.rrr.rrr?? EPSS????????? British Post Office EPSS > >>>> [PK] > >>>> ?? ????? 016.rrr.rrr.rrr?? DATAPAC?????? DATAPAC [VGC] > >>>> ?? ????? 017.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TRANSPAC????? TRANSPAC [VGC] > >>>> ?? ????? 018.rrr.rrr.rrr?? LCSNET??????? MIT LCS Network > [43,10,DDC2] > >>>> > >>>> {...} > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ?? ? As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some > >>>> subsequent > >>>> prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I > know 013 > >>>> was later assigned to XEROX-NET. > >>>> > >>>> ?? ? I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of > superstitions?. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Alejandro, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From louie at transsys.com Tue Aug 11 22:01:08 2020 From: louie at transsys.com (Louis Mamakos) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 01:01:08 -0400 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: <9ccca1c4-afee-b3f3-1690-e4d305f495ff@3kitty.org> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> <7da84cd4-d231-82e8-4d52-1b5661534dd1@gmail.com> <9ccca1c4-afee-b3f3-1690-e4d305f495ff@3kitty.org> Message-ID: The timing here lines up with Dave Mills' fuzzball code we had running at University of Maryland (where Dave was a visiting professor for a "special topics" networking class.) I do fondly recall Fuzzball PING and it was certainly a well-used tool for the initial debugging of the UNIVAC TCP/IP stack that Mike Petry and I started implementing at that time - fall 1980. It was also around that time that we added the initial Ethernet support in the Fuzzball code, adding ARP and a QBus InterLAN interface. Once again, PING was the universal debugging tool. I do recall seeing "Packet InterNet Groper" in the Fuzzball source code. louie On 11 Aug 2020, at 16:21, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > Ping may have been released in 1983 but it was in use long before > that.??? When I was in charge of keeping the "core gateways" > running, > Dave Mills was famous for doing lots of experiments that often gave us > heartburn.?? I clearly recall him telling us at some Internet > meeting > about his experiments and the tool he used - he called it "Ping", and > explained it was an acronym for "Packet InterNet Groper".? This was > probably 1979/80 or thereabouts.? I don't know that Dave invented > "ping", but I believe that's where I first heard about it. > > /Jack > > > On 8/11/20 1:06 PM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >> uh, good question. >> >> Based on the days of the firsts networks and the release of ping the >> answer is none, afaik, ping was released in 1983 >> >> On 8/11/20 2:43 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >>> A related question, if you're exploring Internet History, might be >>> "Which of the early networks were ever actually operational nets on >>> The >>> Internet, i.e., nets that you could ping and get a response?" >>> >>> I was involved in the 77-80s timeframe, and as I recall, many of >>> those >>> low numbered networks were assigned numbers, but didn't actually >>> ever >>> get connected to the operational Internet. >>> >>> /Jack Haverty >>> >>> On 8/11/20 10:53 AM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>>> Hello All, >>>> >>>> ?? First, really thanks for your comments. >>>> >>>> ?? I read a little bit more about the network 13. I supposed I >>>> should >>>> have done this before sending the email. >>>> >>>> ?? As I said, it does not appear in RFC 790 (Sep 81), and it does >>>> not >>>> appear until RFC 990 (Nov 1986 assigned to XEROX) >>>> >>>> ?? However, I just realized that actually network 13 was first >>>> seen in >>>> RFC 739 assigned to National Physical Laboratory and last seen in >>>> RFC >>>> 776. >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks again & sorry for the noise. >>>> >>>> >>>> Alejandro, >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8/11/20 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> ?? Alejandro, >>>>> I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who assigned the >>>>> numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for himself.? >>>>> I >>>>> knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a >>>>> superstitious person.? I think Steve Crocker's explanation that >>>>> the >>>>> number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made public >>>>> on >>>>> the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer. >>>>> For what its worth,Alex McKenzie >>>>> >>>>> ????? On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro >>>>> Acosta >>>>> via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> ?? ? Hello list, >>>>> >>>>> ?? ? I have a question and one more time I believe this a good >>>>> place >>>>> to ask. >>>>> >>>>> ?? ? During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED >>>>> NUMBERS). >>>>> When >>>>> reading it I noticed the following: >>>>> >>>>> {...} >>>>> >>>>> ?? ????? 009.rrr.rrr.rrr?? BRAGG-PR????? Ft. Bragg >>>>> Packet Radio Net >>>>> [JEM] >>>>> ?? ????? 010.rrr.rrr.rrr?? ARPANET?????? ARPANET >>>>> [17,1,VGC] >>>>> ?? ????? 011.rrr.rrr.rrr?? UCLNET??????? >>>>> University College London >>>>> [PK] >>>>> ?? ????? 012.rrr.rrr.rrr?? CYCLADES????? CYCLADES >>>>> [VGC] >>>>> ?? ????? 013.rrr.rrr.rrr???????????????? >>>>> Unassigned [JBP] >>>>> ?? ????? 014.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TELENET?????? TELENET >>>>> [VGC] >>>>> ?? ????? 015.rrr.rrr.rrr?? EPSS????????? British >>>>> Post Office EPSS >>>>> [PK] >>>>> ?? ????? 016.rrr.rrr.rrr?? DATAPAC?????? DATAPAC >>>>> [VGC] >>>>> ?? ????? 017.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TRANSPAC????? TRANSPAC >>>>> [VGC] >>>>> ?? ????? 018.rrr.rrr.rrr?? LCSNET??????? MIT LCS >>>>> Network [43,10,DDC2] >>>>> >>>>> {...} >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ?? ? As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some >>>>> subsequent >>>>> prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I know >>>>> 013 >>>>> was later assigned to XEROX-NET. >>>>> >>>>> ?? ? I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of >>>>> superstitions?. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Alejandro, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From vgcerf at gmail.com Wed Aug 12 03:17:29 2020 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 06:17:29 -0400 Subject: [ih] NSFNET 1989 Message-ID: from Hans-Werner Braun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPPjMU73ikc&feature=youtu.be vint From jmamodio at gmail.com Wed Aug 12 04:16:44 2020 From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 06:16:44 -0500 Subject: [ih] NSFNET 1989 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That is so cool !! Was that "nocol" running on one of the screens ? Cheers Jorge On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 5:18 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > from Hans-Werner Braun > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPPjMU73ikc&feature=youtu.be > > vint > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From agmalis at gmail.com Wed Aug 12 04:22:32 2020 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 07:22:32 -0400 Subject: [ih] NSFNET 1989 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I recognized Sue Hares and Elise Gerich ... and I'm sure others whose names escape me at the moment. Cheers, Andy On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 6:18 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > from Hans-Werner Braun > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPPjMU73ikc&feature=youtu.be > > vint > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From scott.brim at gmail.com Wed Aug 12 05:48:02 2020 From: scott.brim at gmail.com (Scott Brim) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 08:48:02 -0400 Subject: [ih] NSFNET 1989 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That was the "new" NOC if I recall correctly. When it was just opening we had a meeting there and at night we watched "The Last Starfighter" on one of the big screens. From scott.brim at gmail.com Wed Aug 12 08:40:43 2020 From: scott.brim at gmail.com (Scott Brim) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:40:43 -0400 Subject: [ih] NSFNET 1989 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It was great seeing everyone young. If anyone who was there is on this list (e.g. Sue) do you remember what the problem was with devvax? Scott On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 8:48 AM Scott Brim wrote: > That was the "new" NOC if I recall correctly. When it was just opening we > had a meeting there and at night we watched "The Last Starfighter" on one > of the big screens. > From jack at 3kitty.org Wed Aug 12 14:35:23 2020 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 14:35:23 -0700 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> <7da84cd4-d231-82e8-4d52-1b5661534dd1@gmail.com> <9ccca1c4-afee-b3f3-1690-e4d305f495ff@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <00df4a82-0fc0-8458-c547-47ef38a7955d@3kitty.org> I've been trying to remember how we did "pings" on the ARPANET.? You couldn't send datagrams or packets directly, so the common way to see if everything was "up" was to just try to connect to some remote computer. The earliest "debugging tool" precursor to Ping that I can remember is the "SURVEY" program, written by Marc Seriff and running on the MIT-DM machine.?? It was included in the demos that attendees could try themselves at the ICCC '72 networking conference in Washington DC.?? SURVEY ran as a background daemon and repeatedly did connection attempts to a bunch of ARPANET host computers and recorded the results in a database which could be queried by curious Users. /Jack On 8/11/20 10:01 PM, Louis Mamakos wrote: > The timing here lines up with Dave Mills' fuzzball code we had > running at University of Maryland (where Dave was a visiting > professor for a "special topics" networking class.)? I do > fondly recall Fuzzball PING and it was certainly a well-used > tool for the initial debugging of the UNIVAC TCP/IP stack that > Mike Petry and I started implementing at that time - fall 1980. > > It was also around that time that we added the initial Ethernet > support in the Fuzzball code, adding ARP and a QBus InterLAN > interface.? Once again, PING was the universal debugging tool. > > I do recall seeing "Packet InterNet Groper" in the Fuzzball > source code. > > louie > > On 11 Aug 2020, at 16:21, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > >> Ping may have been released in 1983 but it was in use long before >> that.??? When I was in charge of keeping the "core gateways" running, >> Dave Mills was famous for doing lots of experiments that often gave us >> heartburn.?? I clearly recall him telling us at some Internet meeting >> about his experiments and the tool he used - he called it "Ping", and >> explained it was an acronym for "Packet InterNet Groper".? This was >> probably 1979/80 or thereabouts.? I don't know that Dave invented >> "ping", but I believe that's where I first heard about it. >> >> /Jack >> >> >> On 8/11/20 1:06 PM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>> uh, good question. >>> >>> Based on the days of the firsts networks and the release of ping the >>> answer is none, afaik, ping was released in 1983 >>> >>> On 8/11/20 2:43 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >>>> A related question, if you're exploring Internet History, might be >>>> "Which of the early networks were ever actually operational nets on >>>> The >>>> Internet, i.e., nets that you could ping and get a response?" >>>> >>>> I was involved in the 77-80s timeframe, and as I recall, many of those >>>> low numbered networks were assigned numbers, but didn't actually ever >>>> get connected to the operational Internet. >>>> >>>> /Jack Haverty >>>> >>>> On 8/11/20 10:53 AM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> Hello All, >>>>> >>>>> ?? First, really thanks for your comments. >>>>> >>>>> ?? I read a little bit more about the network 13. I supposed I should >>>>> have done this before sending the email. >>>>> >>>>> ?? As I said, it does not appear in RFC 790 (Sep 81), and it does not >>>>> appear until RFC 990 (Nov 1986 assigned to XEROX) >>>>> >>>>> ?? However, I just realized that actually network 13 was first >>>>> seen in >>>>> RFC 739 assigned to National Physical Laboratory and last seen in RFC >>>>> 776. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks again & sorry for the noise. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Alejandro, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8/11/20 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> ?? Alejandro, >>>>>> I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who assigned the >>>>>> numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for himself.? I >>>>>> knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a >>>>>> superstitious person.? I think Steve Crocker's explanation that the >>>>>> number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made >>>>>> public on >>>>>> the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer. >>>>>> For what its worth,Alex McKenzie >>>>>> >>>>>> ????? On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro Acosta >>>>>> via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> ?? ? Hello list, >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? ? I have a question and one more time I believe this a good place >>>>>> to ask. >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? ? During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). >>>>>> When >>>>>> reading it I noticed the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> {...} >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? ????? 009.rrr.rrr.rrr?? BRAGG-PR????? Ft. Bragg Packet Radio Net >>>>>> [JEM] >>>>>> ?? ????? 010.rrr.rrr.rrr?? ARPANET?????? ARPANET [17,1,VGC] >>>>>> ?? ????? 011.rrr.rrr.rrr?? UCLNET??????? University College London >>>>>> [PK] >>>>>> ?? ????? 012.rrr.rrr.rrr?? CYCLADES????? CYCLADES [VGC] >>>>>> ?? ????? 013.rrr.rrr.rrr???????????????? Unassigned [JBP] >>>>>> ?? ????? 014.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TELENET?????? TELENET [VGC] >>>>>> ?? ????? 015.rrr.rrr.rrr?? EPSS????????? British Post Office EPSS >>>>>> [PK] >>>>>> ?? ????? 016.rrr.rrr.rrr?? DATAPAC?????? DATAPAC [VGC] >>>>>> ?? ????? 017.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TRANSPAC????? TRANSPAC [VGC] >>>>>> ?? ????? 018.rrr.rrr.rrr?? LCSNET??????? MIT LCS Network >>>>>> [43,10,DDC2] >>>>>> >>>>>> {...} >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? ? As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some >>>>>> subsequent >>>>>> prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I >>>>>> know 013 >>>>>> was later assigned to XEROX-NET. >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? ? I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of >>>>>> superstitions?. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Alejandro, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >> --? >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From geoff at iconia.com Wed Aug 12 15:02:00 2020 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:02:00 -1000 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: <00df4a82-0fc0-8458-c547-47ef38a7955d@3kitty.org> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> <7da84cd4-d231-82e8-4d52-1b5661534dd1@gmail.com> <9ccca1c4-afee-b3f3-1690-e4d305f495ff@3kitty.org> <00df4a82-0fc0-8458-c547-47ef38a7955d@3kitty.org> Message-ID: UCLA-CCN (an IBM 360/91) has a "bug" (or some "issue") in its NCP, that whenever a connection was made to it with FTP/MAIL, TELNET, RJE, et al from Tenex the logtty (tty0:) would spew out an "NCP ERROR" message... this was "handy" in that when there was a network "issue" or "problem" where no hosts responded to outgoing connection requests with FTP/TELNET, et al. one could "tell" that the net interface was "properly working" and at least able to get a packet out to a remote host -- in this case, UCLA-CCN. at that point, you knew The Problem/Issue was "elsewhere"... :D geoff On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 11:36 AM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > I've been trying to remember how we did "pings" on the ARPANET. You > couldn't send datagrams or packets directly, so the common way to see if > everything was "up" was to just try to connect to some remote computer. > > The earliest "debugging tool" precursor to Ping that I can remember is > the "SURVEY" program, written by Marc Seriff and running on the MIT-DM > machine. It was included in the demos that attendees could try > themselves at the ICCC '72 networking conference in Washington DC. > SURVEY ran as a background daemon and repeatedly did connection attempts > to a bunch of ARPANET host computers and recorded the results in a > database which could be queried by curious Users. > > /Jack > > On 8/11/20 10:01 PM, Louis Mamakos wrote: > > The timing here lines up with Dave Mills' fuzzball code we had > > running at University of Maryland (where Dave was a visiting > > professor for a "special topics" networking class.) I do > > fondly recall Fuzzball PING and it was certainly a well-used > > tool for the initial debugging of the UNIVAC TCP/IP stack that > > Mike Petry and I started implementing at that time - fall 1980. > > > > It was also around that time that we added the initial Ethernet > > support in the Fuzzball code, adding ARP and a QBus InterLAN > > interface. Once again, PING was the universal debugging tool. > > > > I do recall seeing "Packet InterNet Groper" in the Fuzzball > > source code. > > > > louie > > > > On 11 Aug 2020, at 16:21, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > > > >> Ping may have been released in 1983 but it was in use long before > >> that. When I was in charge of keeping the "core gateways" running, > >> Dave Mills was famous for doing lots of experiments that often gave us > >> heartburn. I clearly recall him telling us at some Internet meeting > >> about his experiments and the tool he used - he called it "Ping", and > >> explained it was an acronym for "Packet InterNet Groper". This was > >> probably 1979/80 or thereabouts. I don't know that Dave invented > >> "ping", but I believe that's where I first heard about it. > >> > >> /Jack > >> > >> > >> On 8/11/20 1:06 PM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: > >>> uh, good question. > >>> > >>> Based on the days of the firsts networks and the release of ping the > >>> answer is none, afaik, ping was released in 1983 > >>> > >>> On 8/11/20 2:43 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > >>>> A related question, if you're exploring Internet History, might be > >>>> "Which of the early networks were ever actually operational nets on > >>>> The > >>>> Internet, i.e., nets that you could ping and get a response?" > >>>> > >>>> I was involved in the 77-80s timeframe, and as I recall, many of those > >>>> low numbered networks were assigned numbers, but didn't actually ever > >>>> get connected to the operational Internet. > >>>> > >>>> /Jack Haverty > >>>> > >>>> On 8/11/20 10:53 AM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: > >>>>> Hello All, > >>>>> > >>>>> First, really thanks for your comments. > >>>>> > >>>>> I read a little bit more about the network 13. I supposed I should > >>>>> have done this before sending the email. > >>>>> > >>>>> As I said, it does not appear in RFC 790 (Sep 81), and it does not > >>>>> appear until RFC 990 (Nov 1986 assigned to XEROX) > >>>>> > >>>>> However, I just realized that actually network 13 was first > >>>>> seen in > >>>>> RFC 739 assigned to National Physical Laboratory and last seen in RFC > >>>>> 776. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks again & sorry for the noise. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Alejandro, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 8/11/20 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: > >>>>>> Alejandro, > >>>>>> I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who assigned the > >>>>>> numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for himself. I > >>>>>> knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a > >>>>>> superstitious person. I think Steve Crocker's explanation that the > >>>>>> number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made > >>>>>> public on > >>>>>> the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer. > >>>>>> For what its worth,Alex McKenzie > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro Acosta > >>>>>> via Internet-history wrote: > >>>>>> Hello list, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I have a question and one more time I believe this a good place > >>>>>> to ask. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). > >>>>>> When > >>>>>> reading it I noticed the following: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> {...} > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 009.rrr.rrr.rrr BRAGG-PR Ft. Bragg Packet Radio Net > >>>>>> [JEM] > >>>>>> 010.rrr.rrr.rrr ARPANET ARPANET [17,1,VGC] > >>>>>> 011.rrr.rrr.rrr UCLNET University College London > >>>>>> [PK] > >>>>>> 012.rrr.rrr.rrr CYCLADES CYCLADES [VGC] > >>>>>> 013.rrr.rrr.rrr Unassigned [JBP] > >>>>>> 014.rrr.rrr.rrr TELENET TELENET [VGC] > >>>>>> 015.rrr.rrr.rrr EPSS British Post Office EPSS > >>>>>> [PK] > >>>>>> 016.rrr.rrr.rrr DATAPAC DATAPAC [VGC] > >>>>>> 017.rrr.rrr.rrr TRANSPAC TRANSPAC [VGC] > >>>>>> 018.rrr.rrr.rrr LCSNET MIT LCS Network > >>>>>> [43,10,DDC2] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> {...} > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some > >>>>>> subsequent > >>>>>> prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I > >>>>>> know 013 > >>>>>> was later assigned to XEROX-NET. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of > >>>>>> superstitions?. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Alejandro, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 From dugo at xs4all.nl Wed Aug 12 16:53:49 2020 From: dugo at xs4all.nl (Jacob Goense) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 01:53:49 +0200 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> <7da84cd4-d231-82e8-4d52-1b5661534dd1@gmail.com> <9ccca1c4-afee-b3f3-1690-e4d305f495ff@3kitty.org> Message-ID: The fuzzball archive seems down at the moment, but it is still there[1]. Mills' PING was a client and server, or "pinger and sounder" as he called it. Muus' ping(8) was the client side to complement the BSD kernel. http://web.archive.org/web/20131020063249/http://malarky.udel.edu/~dmills/data/du0/PING.MAC On 2020-08-12 07:01, Louis Mamakos via Internet-history wrote: > The timing here lines up with Dave Mills' fuzzball code we had > running at University of Maryland (where Dave was a visiting > professor for a "special topics" networking class.) I do > fondly recall Fuzzball PING and it was certainly a well-used > tool for the initial debugging of the UNIVAC TCP/IP stack that > Mike Petry and I started implementing at that time - fall 1980. > > It was also around that time that we added the initial Ethernet > support in the Fuzzball code, adding ARP and a QBus InterLAN > interface. Once again, PING was the universal debugging tool. > > I do recall seeing "Packet InterNet Groper" in the Fuzzball > source code. > > louie > > On 11 Aug 2020, at 16:21, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > >> Ping may have been released in 1983 but it was in use long before >> that.??? When I was in charge of keeping the "core gateways" running, >> Dave Mills was famous for doing lots of experiments that often gave us >> heartburn.?? I clearly recall him telling us at some Internet meeting >> about his experiments and the tool he used - he called it "Ping", and >> explained it was an acronym for "Packet InterNet Groper".? This was >> probably 1979/80 or thereabouts.? I don't know that Dave invented >> "ping", but I believe that's where I first heard about it. >> >> /Jack >> >> >> On 8/11/20 1:06 PM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>> uh, good question. >>> >>> Based on the days of the firsts networks and the release of ping the >>> answer is none, afaik, ping was released in 1983 >>> >>> On 8/11/20 2:43 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >>>> A related question, if you're exploring Internet History, might be >>>> "Which of the early networks were ever actually operational nets on >>>> The >>>> Internet, i.e., nets that you could ping and get a response?" >>>> >>>> I was involved in the 77-80s timeframe, and as I recall, many of >>>> those >>>> low numbered networks were assigned numbers, but didn't actually >>>> ever >>>> get connected to the operational Internet. >>>> >>>> /Jack Haverty >>>> >>>> On 8/11/20 10:53 AM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> Hello All, >>>>> >>>>> ?? First, really thanks for your comments. >>>>> >>>>> ?? I read a little bit more about the network 13. I supposed I >>>>> should >>>>> have done this before sending the email. >>>>> >>>>> ?? As I said, it does not appear in RFC 790 (Sep 81), and it does >>>>> not >>>>> appear until RFC 990 (Nov 1986 assigned to XEROX) >>>>> >>>>> ?? However, I just realized that actually network 13 was first seen >>>>> in >>>>> RFC 739 assigned to National Physical Laboratory and last seen in >>>>> RFC >>>>> 776. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks again & sorry for the noise. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Alejandro, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8/11/20 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> ?? Alejandro, >>>>>> I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who assigned the >>>>>> numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for himself.? >>>>>> I >>>>>> knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a >>>>>> superstitious person.? I think Steve Crocker's explanation that >>>>>> the >>>>>> number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made public >>>>>> on >>>>>> the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer. >>>>>> For what its worth,Alex McKenzie >>>>>> >>>>>> ????? On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro >>>>>> Acosta >>>>>> via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> ?? ? Hello list, >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? ? I have a question and one more time I believe this a good >>>>>> place >>>>>> to ask. >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? ? During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). >>>>>> When >>>>>> reading it I noticed the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> {...} >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? ????? 009.rrr.rrr.rrr?? BRAGG-PR????? Ft. Bragg Packet Radio >>>>>> Net >>>>>> [JEM] >>>>>> ?? ????? 010.rrr.rrr.rrr?? ARPANET?????? ARPANET [17,1,VGC] >>>>>> ?? ????? 011.rrr.rrr.rrr?? UCLNET??????? University College London >>>>>> [PK] >>>>>> ?? ????? 012.rrr.rrr.rrr?? CYCLADES????? CYCLADES [VGC] >>>>>> ?? ????? 013.rrr.rrr.rrr???????????????? Unassigned [JBP] >>>>>> ?? ????? 014.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TELENET?????? TELENET [VGC] >>>>>> ?? ????? 015.rrr.rrr.rrr?? EPSS????????? British Post Office EPSS >>>>>> [PK] >>>>>> ?? ????? 016.rrr.rrr.rrr?? DATAPAC?????? DATAPAC [VGC] >>>>>> ?? ????? 017.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TRANSPAC????? TRANSPAC [VGC] >>>>>> ?? ????? 018.rrr.rrr.rrr?? LCSNET??????? MIT LCS Network >>>>>> [43,10,DDC2] >>>>>> >>>>>> {...} >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? ? As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some >>>>>> subsequent >>>>>> prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I know >>>>>> 013 >>>>>> was later assigned to XEROX-NET. >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? ? I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of >>>>>> superstitions?. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Alejandro, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >> -- Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From amckenzie3 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 12 17:07:40 2020 From: amckenzie3 at yahoo.com (Alex McKenzie) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 00:07:40 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] "Pings" on the ARPAnet In-Reply-To: <00df4a82-0fc0-8458-c547-47ef38a7955d@3kitty.org> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> <7da84cd4-d231-82e8-4d52-1b5661534dd1@gmail.com> <9ccca1c4-afee-b3f3-1690-e4d305f495ff@3kitty.org> <00df4a82-0fc0-8458-c547-47ef38a7955d@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <890582647.1194264.1597277260137@mail.yahoo.com> The NCP protocol had Echo and Echo Reply commands, which I think were used on occasions to determine whether an other Host was "up" enough to be connected to the ARPAnet and running its NCP.? This may be what you are thinking of. Alex On Wednesday, August 12, 2020, 5:35:48 PM EDT, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: I've been trying to remember how we did "pings" on the ARPANET.? You couldn't send datagrams or packets directly, so the common way to see if everything was "up" was to just try to connect to some remote computer. The earliest "debugging tool" precursor to Ping that I can remember is the "SURVEY" program, written by Marc Seriff and running on the MIT-DM machine.?? It was included in the demos that attendees could try themselves at the ICCC '72 networking conference in Washington DC.?? SURVEY ran as a background daemon and repeatedly did connection attempts to a bunch of ARPANET host computers and recorded the results in a database which could be queried by curious Users. /Jack On 8/11/20 10:01 PM, Louis Mamakos wrote: > The timing here lines up with Dave Mills' fuzzball code we had > running at University of Maryland (where Dave was a visiting > professor for a "special topics" networking class.)? I do > fondly recall Fuzzball PING and it was certainly a well-used > tool for the initial debugging of the UNIVAC TCP/IP stack that > Mike Petry and I started implementing at that time - fall 1980. > > It was also around that time that we added the initial Ethernet > support in the Fuzzball code, adding ARP and a QBus InterLAN > interface.? Once again, PING was the universal debugging tool. > > I do recall seeing "Packet InterNet Groper" in the Fuzzball > source code. > > louie > > On 11 Aug 2020, at 16:21, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > >> Ping may have been released in 1983 but it was in use long before >> that.??? When I was in charge of keeping the "core gateways" running, >> Dave Mills was famous for doing lots of experiments that often gave us >> heartburn.?? I clearly recall him telling us at some Internet meeting >> about his experiments and the tool he used - he called it "Ping", and >> explained it was an acronym for "Packet InterNet Groper".? This was >> probably 1979/80 or thereabouts.? I don't know that Dave invented >> "ping", but I believe that's where I first heard about it. >> >> /Jack >> >> >> On 8/11/20 1:06 PM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>> uh, good question. >>> >>> Based on the days of the firsts networks and the release of ping the >>> answer is none, afaik, ping was released in 1983 >>> >>> On 8/11/20 2:43 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >>>> A related question, if you're exploring Internet History, might be >>>> "Which of the early networks were ever actually operational nets on >>>> The >>>> Internet, i.e., nets that you could ping and get a response?" >>>> >>>> I was involved in the 77-80s timeframe, and as I recall, many of those >>>> low numbered networks were assigned numbers, but didn't actually ever >>>> get connected to the operational Internet. >>>> >>>> /Jack Haverty >>>> >>>> On 8/11/20 10:53 AM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> Hello All, >>>>> >>>>> ?? First, really thanks for your comments. >>>>> >>>>> ?? I read a little bit more about the network 13. I supposed I should >>>>> have done this before sending the email. >>>>> >>>>> ?? As I said, it does not appear in RFC 790 (Sep 81), and it does not >>>>> appear until RFC 990 (Nov 1986 assigned to XEROX) >>>>> >>>>> ?? However, I just realized that actually network 13 was first >>>>> seen in >>>>> RFC 739 assigned to National Physical Laboratory and last seen in RFC >>>>> 776. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks again & sorry for the noise. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Alejandro, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8/11/20 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> ?? Alejandro, >>>>>> I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who assigned the >>>>>> numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for himself.? I >>>>>> knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a >>>>>> superstitious person.? I think Steve Crocker's explanation that the >>>>>> number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made >>>>>> public on >>>>>> the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer. >>>>>> For what its worth,Alex McKenzie >>>>>> >>>>>> ????? On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro Acosta >>>>>> via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> ?? ? Hello list, >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? ? I have a question and one more time I believe this a good place >>>>>> to ask. >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? ? During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). >>>>>> When >>>>>> reading it I noticed the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> {...} >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? ????? 009.rrr.rrr.rrr?? BRAGG-PR????? Ft. Bragg Packet Radio Net >>>>>> [JEM] >>>>>> ?? ????? 010.rrr.rrr.rrr?? ARPANET?????? ARPANET [17,1,VGC] >>>>>> ?? ????? 011.rrr.rrr.rrr?? UCLNET??????? University College London >>>>>> [PK] >>>>>> ?? ????? 012.rrr.rrr.rrr?? CYCLADES????? CYCLADES [VGC] >>>>>> ?? ????? 013.rrr.rrr.rrr???????????????? Unassigned [JBP] >>>>>> ?? ????? 014.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TELENET?????? TELENET [VGC] >>>>>> ?? ????? 015.rrr.rrr.rrr?? EPSS????????? British Post Office EPSS >>>>>> [PK] >>>>>> ?? ????? 016.rrr.rrr.rrr?? DATAPAC?????? DATAPAC [VGC] >>>>>> ?? ????? 017.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TRANSPAC????? TRANSPAC [VGC] >>>>>> ?? ????? 018.rrr.rrr.rrr?? LCSNET??????? MIT LCS Network >>>>>> [43,10,DDC2] >>>>>> >>>>>> {...} >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? ? As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some >>>>>> subsequent >>>>>> prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I >>>>>> know 013 >>>>>> was later assigned to XEROX-NET. >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? ? I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of >>>>>> superstitions?. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Alejandro, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >> --? >> 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 jeanjour at comcast.net Wed Aug 12 17:49:58 2020 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 20:49:58 -0400 Subject: [ih] "Pings" on the ARPAnet In-Reply-To: <890582647.1194264.1597277260137@mail.yahoo.com> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> <7da84cd4-d231-82e8-4d52-1b5661534dd1@gmail.com> <9ccca1c4-afee-b3f3-1690-e4d305f495ff@3kitty.org> <00df4a82-0fc0-8458-c547-47ef38a7955d@3kitty.org> <890582647.1194264.1597277260137@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <59C256E9-35DD-4706-88A7-181BAD2436C7@comcast.net> I remember there was much complaining when the NMC announced that the ARPANET had grown to the point that they would no longer support the well-known socket that printed a network map of which hosts were up and down on a Teletype, because it would no longer fit on one sheet of paper. Which brings up the other ?unofficial? well-known sockets that existed. I remember there was a ?one-liner? socket at BBN. I never did learn the significance of ?There goes a big red fire engine.? What else was there? > On Aug 12, 2020, at 20:07, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: > > The NCP protocol had Echo and Echo Reply commands, which I think were used on occasions to determine whether an other Host was "up" enough to be connected to the ARPAnet and running its NCP. This may be what you are thinking of. > Alex > > On Wednesday, August 12, 2020, 5:35:48 PM EDT, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > > I've been trying to remember how we did "pings" on the ARPANET. You > couldn't send datagrams or packets directly, so the common way to see if > everything was "up" was to just try to connect to some remote computer. > > The earliest "debugging tool" precursor to Ping that I can remember is > the "SURVEY" program, written by Marc Seriff and running on the MIT-DM > machine. It was included in the demos that attendees could try > themselves at the ICCC '72 networking conference in Washington DC. > SURVEY ran as a background daemon and repeatedly did connection attempts > to a bunch of ARPANET host computers and recorded the results in a > database which could be queried by curious Users. > > /Jack > > On 8/11/20 10:01 PM, Louis Mamakos wrote: >> The timing here lines up with Dave Mills' fuzzball code we had >> running at University of Maryland (where Dave was a visiting >> professor for a "special topics" networking class.) I do >> fondly recall Fuzzball PING and it was certainly a well-used >> tool for the initial debugging of the UNIVAC TCP/IP stack that >> Mike Petry and I started implementing at that time - fall 1980. >> >> It was also around that time that we added the initial Ethernet >> support in the Fuzzball code, adding ARP and a QBus InterLAN >> interface. Once again, PING was the universal debugging tool. >> >> I do recall seeing "Packet InterNet Groper" in the Fuzzball >> source code. >> >> louie >> >> On 11 Aug 2020, at 16:21, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >> >>> Ping may have been released in 1983 but it was in use long before >>> that. When I was in charge of keeping the "core gateways" running, >>> Dave Mills was famous for doing lots of experiments that often gave us >>> heartburn. I clearly recall him telling us at some Internet meeting >>> about his experiments and the tool he used - he called it "Ping", and >>> explained it was an acronym for "Packet InterNet Groper". This was >>> probably 1979/80 or thereabouts. I don't know that Dave invented >>> "ping", but I believe that's where I first heard about it. >>> >>> /Jack >>> >>> >>> On 8/11/20 1:06 PM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>>> uh, good question. >>>> >>>> Based on the days of the firsts networks and the release of ping the >>>> answer is none, afaik, ping was released in 1983 >>>> >>>> On 8/11/20 2:43 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> A related question, if you're exploring Internet History, might be >>>>> "Which of the early networks were ever actually operational nets on >>>>> The >>>>> Internet, i.e., nets that you could ping and get a response?" >>>>> >>>>> I was involved in the 77-80s timeframe, and as I recall, many of those >>>>> low numbered networks were assigned numbers, but didn't actually ever >>>>> get connected to the operational Internet. >>>>> >>>>> /Jack Haverty >>>>> >>>>> On 8/11/20 10:53 AM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> Hello All, >>>>>> >>>>>> First, really thanks for your comments. >>>>>> >>>>>> I read a little bit more about the network 13. I supposed I should >>>>>> have done this before sending the email. >>>>>> >>>>>> As I said, it does not appear in RFC 790 (Sep 81), and it does not >>>>>> appear until RFC 990 (Nov 1986 assigned to XEROX) >>>>>> >>>>>> However, I just realized that actually network 13 was first >>>>>> seen in >>>>>> RFC 739 assigned to National Physical Laboratory and last seen in RFC >>>>>> 776. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks again & sorry for the noise. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Alejandro, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8/11/20 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>> Alejandro, >>>>>>> I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who assigned the >>>>>>> numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for himself. I >>>>>>> knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a >>>>>>> superstitious person. I think Steve Crocker's explanation that the >>>>>>> number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made >>>>>>> public on >>>>>>> the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer. >>>>>>> For what its worth,Alex McKenzie >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro Acosta >>>>>>> via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>> Hello list, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have a question and one more time I believe this a good place >>>>>>> to ask. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). >>>>>>> When >>>>>>> reading it I noticed the following: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> {...} >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 009.rrr.rrr.rrr BRAGG-PR Ft. Bragg Packet Radio Net >>>>>>> [JEM] >>>>>>> 010.rrr.rrr.rrr ARPANET ARPANET [17,1,VGC] >>>>>>> 011.rrr.rrr.rrr UCLNET University College London >>>>>>> [PK] >>>>>>> 012.rrr.rrr.rrr CYCLADES CYCLADES [VGC] >>>>>>> 013.rrr.rrr.rrr Unassigned [JBP] >>>>>>> 014.rrr.rrr.rrr TELENET TELENET [VGC] >>>>>>> 015.rrr.rrr.rrr EPSS British Post Office EPSS >>>>>>> [PK] >>>>>>> 016.rrr.rrr.rrr DATAPAC DATAPAC [VGC] >>>>>>> 017.rrr.rrr.rrr TRANSPAC TRANSPAC [VGC] >>>>>>> 018.rrr.rrr.rrr LCSNET MIT LCS Network >>>>>>> [43,10,DDC2] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> {...} >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some >>>>>>> subsequent >>>>>>> prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I >>>>>>> know 013 >>>>>>> was later assigned to XEROX-NET. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of >>>>>>> superstitions?. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alejandro, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 b_a_denny at yahoo.com Wed Aug 12 17:58:56 2020 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 00:58:56 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> <7da84cd4-d231-82e8-4d52-1b5661534dd1@gmail.com> <9ccca1c4-afee-b3f3-1690-e4d305f495ff@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <2135791628.1212126.1597280336468@mail.yahoo.com> I have a ping story.? I got sent to Germany in the mid-80s? (1986?) to help install an IP testbed for USAREUR.? We used the Cisco AGS routers? (The ones with the fan that sounded like an airplane taking off ).? Cisco was a very small company so we got a lot of support in the bug fixing department.? I remember having to call them one night from Germany because I didn't like what their ping implementation was doing.? I noticed their routers would respond to a ping even if? the interface with the ping's IP destination address was down.? I didn't like that behavior so I think I ended up having to get Kirk Lougheed? on the line to get them to agree to change this for us. I've always wondered if the behavior of ping on a gateway /router was specified.? I certainly didn't have the time, or resources at my finger tips,? to check this out at the time. barbara On Wednesday, August 12, 2020, 4:54:15 PM PDT, Jacob Goense via Internet-history wrote: The fuzzball archive seems down at the moment, but it is still there[1]. Mills' PING was a client and server, or "pinger and sounder" as he called it. Muus' ping(8) was the client side to complement the BSD kernel. http://web.archive.org/web/20131020063249/http://malarky.udel.edu/~dmills/data/du0/PING.MAC On 2020-08-12 07:01, Louis Mamakos via Internet-history wrote: > The timing here lines up with Dave Mills' fuzzball code we had > running at University of Maryland (where Dave was a visiting > professor for a "special topics" networking class.)? I do > fondly recall Fuzzball PING and it was certainly a well-used > tool for the initial debugging of the UNIVAC TCP/IP stack that > Mike Petry and I started implementing at that time - fall 1980. > > It was also around that time that we added the initial Ethernet > support in the Fuzzball code, adding ARP and a QBus InterLAN > interface.? Once again, PING was the universal debugging tool. > > I do recall seeing "Packet InterNet Groper" in the Fuzzball > source code. > > louie > > On 11 Aug 2020, at 16:21, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > >> Ping may have been released in 1983 but it was in use long before >> that.??? When I was in charge of keeping the "core gateways" running, >> Dave Mills was famous for doing lots of experiments that often gave us >> heartburn.?? I clearly recall him telling us at some Internet meeting >> about his experiments and the tool he used - he called it "Ping", and >> explained it was an acronym for "Packet InterNet Groper".? This was >> probably 1979/80 or thereabouts.? I don't know that Dave invented >> "ping", but I believe that's where I first heard about it. >> >> /Jack >> >> >> On 8/11/20 1:06 PM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>> uh, good question. >>> >>> Based on the days of the firsts networks and the release of ping the >>> answer is none, afaik, ping was released in 1983 >>> >>> On 8/11/20 2:43 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >>>> A related question, if you're exploring Internet History, might be >>>> "Which of the early networks were ever actually operational nets on >>>> The >>>> Internet, i.e., nets that you could ping and get a response?" >>>> >>>> I was involved in the 77-80s timeframe, and as I recall, many of >>>> those >>>> low numbered networks were assigned numbers, but didn't actually >>>> ever >>>> get connected to the operational Internet. >>>> >>>> /Jack Haverty >>>> >>>> On 8/11/20 10:53 AM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> Hello All, >>>>> >>>>> ?? First, really thanks for your comments. >>>>> >>>>> ?? I read a little bit more about the network 13. I supposed I >>>>> should >>>>> have done this before sending the email. >>>>> >>>>> ?? As I said, it does not appear in RFC 790 (Sep 81), and it does >>>>> not >>>>> appear until RFC 990 (Nov 1986 assigned to XEROX) >>>>> >>>>> ?? However, I just realized that actually network 13 was first seen >>>>> in >>>>> RFC 739 assigned to National Physical Laboratory and last seen in >>>>> RFC >>>>> 776. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks again & sorry for the noise. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Alejandro, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8/11/20 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> ?? Alejandro, >>>>>> I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who assigned the >>>>>> numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for himself.? >>>>>> I >>>>>> knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a >>>>>> superstitious person.? I think Steve Crocker's explanation that >>>>>> the >>>>>> number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made public >>>>>> on >>>>>> the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer. >>>>>> For what its worth,Alex McKenzie >>>>>> >>>>>> ????? On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro >>>>>> Acosta >>>>>> via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> ?? ? Hello list, >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? ? I have a question and one more time I believe this a good >>>>>> place >>>>>> to ask. >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? ? During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). >>>>>> When >>>>>> reading it I noticed the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> {...} >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? ????? 009.rrr.rrr.rrr?? BRAGG-PR????? Ft. Bragg Packet Radio >>>>>> Net >>>>>> [JEM] >>>>>> ?? ????? 010.rrr.rrr.rrr?? ARPANET?????? ARPANET [17,1,VGC] >>>>>> ?? ????? 011.rrr.rrr.rrr?? UCLNET??????? University College London >>>>>> [PK] >>>>>> ?? ????? 012.rrr.rrr.rrr?? CYCLADES????? CYCLADES [VGC] >>>>>> ?? ????? 013.rrr.rrr.rrr???????????????? Unassigned [JBP] >>>>>> ?? ????? 014.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TELENET?????? TELENET [VGC] >>>>>> ?? ????? 015.rrr.rrr.rrr?? EPSS????????? British Post Office EPSS >>>>>> [PK] >>>>>> ?? ????? 016.rrr.rrr.rrr?? DATAPAC?????? DATAPAC [VGC] >>>>>> ?? ????? 017.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TRANSPAC????? TRANSPAC [VGC] >>>>>> ?? ????? 018.rrr.rrr.rrr?? LCSNET??????? MIT LCS Network >>>>>> [43,10,DDC2] >>>>>> >>>>>> {...} >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? ? As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some >>>>>> subsequent >>>>>> prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I know >>>>>> 013 >>>>>> was later assigned to XEROX-NET. >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? ? I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of >>>>>> superstitions?. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Alejandro, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >> -- 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 jack at 3kitty.org Wed Aug 12 18:23:00 2020 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 18:23:00 -0700 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: <2135791628.1212126.1597280336468@mail.yahoo.com> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> <7da84cd4-d231-82e8-4d52-1b5661534dd1@gmail.com> <9ccca1c4-afee-b3f3-1690-e4d305f495ff@3kitty.org> <2135791628.1212126.1597280336468@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <30a4cee0-5850-6a0e-97f8-735ce3e41f1d@3kitty.org> Hi Barbara, AFAIK, there was never a spec for gateway/router behavior, except Ginny Strazisar's very early RFC.? However, the behavior of ICMP Echo Request/reply et al was spec'd in RFC 792 in 1981, so the gateway should have been conforming to that.?? If the destination host was down, it should have returned a "Destination Unreachable". Part of the problem may have resulted from a little glitch in the DoD's process of declaring the Internet protocols to be DoD Standards.? When they did that in the early 80s, they spec'd both the TCP and IP RFCs as standards, but overlooked the ICMP spec.?? I remember we started seeing machines come online with "DoD Standard implementations" as specified by their companies contracts with whatever piece of DoD ordered the equipment.?? They had implemented TCP and IP, but not ICMP.? After much complaining by us at BBN and probably others, ICMP eventually got added in some way, but it may have been a while before that spec actually got into products. I have only anecdotal evidence, but it seems things have regressed over the decades and now routers don't always respond to ICMP.? I think some ISPs have turned it off because of all the "ping" traffic they experienced.?? I guess they don't consider it part of the Standard either. I remember when we decided at some meeting to split out the ICMP functionality from the basic IP definition, mostly just for organizational simplification.?? It's amazing to me what kinds of longstanding and far reaching consequences a little mistake (overlooking ICMP as a critical component of TCP/IP) can have. /Jack On 8/12/20 5:58 PM, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote: > I have a ping story.? I got sent to Germany in the mid-80s? (1986?) to help install an IP testbed for USAREUR.? We used the Cisco AGS routers? (The ones with the fan that sounded like an airplane taking off ).? Cisco was a very small company so we got a lot of support in the bug fixing department.? I remember having to call them one night from Germany because I didn't like what their ping implementation was doing.? I noticed their routers would respond to a ping even if? the interface with the ping's IP destination address was down.? I didn't like that behavior so I think I ended up having to get Kirk Lougheed? on the line to get them to agree to change this for us. I've always wondered if the behavior of ping on a gateway /router was specified.? I certainly didn't have the time, or resources at my finger tips,? to check this out at the time. > > barbara > > On Wednesday, August 12, 2020, 4:54:15 PM PDT, Jacob Goense via Internet-history wrote: > > The fuzzball archive seems down at the moment, but it is still > there[1]. Mills' PING was a client and server, or "pinger and > sounder" as he called it. Muus' ping(8) was the client side to > complement the BSD kernel. > > http://web.archive.org/web/20131020063249/http://malarky.udel.edu/~dmills/data/du0/PING.MAC > > On 2020-08-12 07:01, Louis Mamakos via Internet-history wrote: >> The timing here lines up with Dave Mills' fuzzball code we had >> running at University of Maryland (where Dave was a visiting >> professor for a "special topics" networking class.)? I do >> fondly recall Fuzzball PING and it was certainly a well-used >> tool for the initial debugging of the UNIVAC TCP/IP stack that >> Mike Petry and I started implementing at that time - fall 1980. >> >> It was also around that time that we added the initial Ethernet >> support in the Fuzzball code, adding ARP and a QBus InterLAN >> interface.? Once again, PING was the universal debugging tool. >> >> I do recall seeing "Packet InterNet Groper" in the Fuzzball >> source code. >> >> louie >> >> On 11 Aug 2020, at 16:21, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >> >>> Ping may have been released in 1983 but it was in use long before >>> that.??? When I was in charge of keeping the "core gateways" running, >>> Dave Mills was famous for doing lots of experiments that often gave us >>> heartburn.?? I clearly recall him telling us at some Internet meeting >>> about his experiments and the tool he used - he called it "Ping", and >>> explained it was an acronym for "Packet InterNet Groper".? This was >>> probably 1979/80 or thereabouts.? I don't know that Dave invented >>> "ping", but I believe that's where I first heard about it. >>> >>> /Jack >>> >>> >>> On 8/11/20 1:06 PM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>>> uh, good question. >>>> >>>> Based on the days of the firsts networks and the release of ping the >>>> answer is none, afaik, ping was released in 1983 >>>> >>>> On 8/11/20 2:43 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> A related question, if you're exploring Internet History, might be >>>>> "Which of the early networks were ever actually operational nets on >>>>> The >>>>> Internet, i.e., nets that you could ping and get a response?" >>>>> >>>>> I was involved in the 77-80s timeframe, and as I recall, many of >>>>> those >>>>> low numbered networks were assigned numbers, but didn't actually >>>>> ever >>>>> get connected to the operational Internet. >>>>> >>>>> /Jack Haverty >>>>> >>>>> On 8/11/20 10:53 AM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> Hello All, >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? First, really thanks for your comments. >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? I read a little bit more about the network 13. I supposed I >>>>>> should >>>>>> have done this before sending the email. >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? As I said, it does not appear in RFC 790 (Sep 81), and it does >>>>>> not >>>>>> appear until RFC 990 (Nov 1986 assigned to XEROX) >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? However, I just realized that actually network 13 was first seen >>>>>> in >>>>>> RFC 739 assigned to National Physical Laboratory and last seen in >>>>>> RFC >>>>>> 776. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks again & sorry for the noise. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Alejandro, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8/11/20 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>> ?? Alejandro, >>>>>>> I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who assigned the >>>>>>> numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for himself.? >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a >>>>>>> superstitious person.? I think Steve Crocker's explanation that >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made public >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer. >>>>>>> For what its worth,Alex McKenzie >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ????? On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro >>>>>>> Acosta >>>>>>> via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>> ?? ? Hello list, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?? ? I have a question and one more time I believe this a good >>>>>>> place >>>>>>> to ask. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?? ? During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). >>>>>>> When >>>>>>> reading it I noticed the following: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> {...} >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?? ????? 009.rrr.rrr.rrr?? BRAGG-PR????? Ft. Bragg Packet Radio >>>>>>> Net >>>>>>> [JEM] >>>>>>> ?? ????? 010.rrr.rrr.rrr?? ARPANET?????? ARPANET [17,1,VGC] >>>>>>> ?? ????? 011.rrr.rrr.rrr?? UCLNET??????? University College London >>>>>>> [PK] >>>>>>> ?? ????? 012.rrr.rrr.rrr?? CYCLADES????? CYCLADES [VGC] >>>>>>> ?? ????? 013.rrr.rrr.rrr???????????????? Unassigned [JBP] >>>>>>> ?? ????? 014.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TELENET?????? TELENET [VGC] >>>>>>> ?? ????? 015.rrr.rrr.rrr?? EPSS????????? British Post Office EPSS >>>>>>> [PK] >>>>>>> ?? ????? 016.rrr.rrr.rrr?? DATAPAC?????? DATAPAC [VGC] >>>>>>> ?? ????? 017.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TRANSPAC????? TRANSPAC [VGC] >>>>>>> ?? ????? 018.rrr.rrr.rrr?? LCSNET??????? MIT LCS Network >>>>>>> [43,10,DDC2] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> {...} >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?? ? As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some >>>>>>> subsequent >>>>>>> prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I know >>>>>>> 013 >>>>>>> was later assigned to XEROX-NET. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?? ? I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of >>>>>>> superstitions?. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alejandro, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> -- Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From b_a_denny at yahoo.com Wed Aug 12 21:43:44 2020 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 04:43:44 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: <30a4cee0-5850-6a0e-97f8-735ce3e41f1d@3kitty.org> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> <7da84cd4-d231-82e8-4d52-1b5661534dd1@gmail.com> <9ccca1c4-afee-b3f3-1690-e4d305f495ff@3kitty.org> <2135791628.1212126.1597280336468@mail.yahoo.com> <30a4cee0-5850-6a0e-97f8-735ce3e41f1d@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <1829832701.1301824.1597293824139@mail.yahoo.com> Thanks Jack. I think I should clarify the router would send back an ICMP echo reply. I didn't order the Cisco routers? I don't know if we needed to supply any documentation showing whether they conformed to the DoD IP Standards or the RFCs. barbara On Wednesday, August 12, 2020, 6:23:33 PM PDT, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: Hi Barbara, AFAIK, there was never a spec for gateway/router behavior, except Ginny Strazisar's very early RFC.? However, the behavior of ICMP Echo Request/reply et al was spec'd in RFC 792 in 1981, so the gateway should have been conforming to that.?? If the destination host was down, it should have returned a "Destination Unreachable". Part of the problem may have resulted from a little glitch in the DoD's process of declaring the Internet protocols to be DoD Standards.? When they did that in the early 80s, they spec'd both the TCP and IP RFCs as standards, but overlooked the ICMP spec.?? I remember we started seeing machines come online with "DoD Standard implementations" as specified by their companies contracts with whatever piece of DoD ordered the equipment.?? They had implemented TCP and IP, but not ICMP.? After much complaining by us at BBN and probably others, ICMP eventually got added in some way, but it may have been a while before that spec actually got into products. I have only anecdotal evidence, but it seems things have regressed over the decades and now routers don't always respond to ICMP.? I think some ISPs have turned it off because of all the "ping" traffic they experienced.?? I guess they don't consider it part of the Standard either. I remember when we decided at some meeting to split out the ICMP functionality from the basic IP definition, mostly just for organizational simplification.?? It's amazing to me what kinds of longstanding and far reaching consequences a little mistake (overlooking ICMP as a critical component of TCP/IP) can have. /Jack On 8/12/20 5:58 PM, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote: >? I have a ping story.? I got sent to Germany in the mid-80s? (1986?) to help install an IP testbed for USAREUR.? We used the Cisco AGS routers? (The ones with the fan that sounded like an airplane taking off ).? Cisco was a very small company so we got a lot of support in the bug fixing department.? I remember having to call them one night from Germany because I didn't like what their ping implementation was doing.? I noticed their routers would respond to a ping even if? the interface with the ping's IP destination address was down.? I didn't like that behavior so I think I ended up having to get Kirk Lougheed? on the line to get them to agree to change this for us. I've always wondered if the behavior of ping on a gateway /router was specified.? I certainly didn't have the time, or resources at my finger tips,? to check this out at the time. > > barbara > >? ? On Wednesday, August 12, 2020, 4:54:15 PM PDT, Jacob Goense via Internet-history wrote:? >? >? The fuzzball archive seems down at the moment, but it is still > there[1]. Mills' PING was a client and server, or "pinger and > sounder" as he called it. Muus' ping(8) was the client side to > complement the BSD kernel. > > http://web.archive.org/web/20131020063249/http://malarky.udel.edu/~dmills/data/du0/PING.MAC > > On 2020-08-12 07:01, Louis Mamakos via Internet-history wrote: >> The timing here lines up with Dave Mills' fuzzball code we had >> running at University of Maryland (where Dave was a visiting >> professor for a "special topics" networking class.)? I do >> fondly recall Fuzzball PING and it was certainly a well-used >> tool for the initial debugging of the UNIVAC TCP/IP stack that >> Mike Petry and I started implementing at that time - fall 1980. >> >> It was also around that time that we added the initial Ethernet >> support in the Fuzzball code, adding ARP and a QBus InterLAN >> interface.? Once again, PING was the universal debugging tool. >> >> I do recall seeing "Packet InterNet Groper" in the Fuzzball >> source code. >> >> louie >> >> On 11 Aug 2020, at 16:21, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >> >>> Ping may have been released in 1983 but it was in use long before >>> that.??? When I was in charge of keeping the "core gateways" running, >>> Dave Mills was famous for doing lots of experiments that often gave us >>> heartburn.?? I clearly recall him telling us at some Internet meeting >>> about his experiments and the tool he used - he called it "Ping", and >>> explained it was an acronym for "Packet InterNet Groper".? This was >>> probably 1979/80 or thereabouts.? I don't know that Dave invented >>> "ping", but I believe that's where I first heard about it. >>> >>> /Jack >>> >>> >>> On 8/11/20 1:06 PM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>>> uh, good question. >>>> >>>> Based on the days of the firsts networks and the release of ping the >>>> answer is none, afaik, ping was released in 1983 >>>> >>>> On 8/11/20 2:43 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> A related question, if you're exploring Internet History, might be >>>>> "Which of the early networks were ever actually operational nets on >>>>> The >>>>> Internet, i.e., nets that you could ping and get a response?" >>>>> >>>>> I was involved in the 77-80s timeframe, and as I recall, many of >>>>> those >>>>> low numbered networks were assigned numbers, but didn't actually >>>>> ever >>>>> get connected to the operational Internet. >>>>> >>>>> /Jack Haverty >>>>> >>>>> On 8/11/20 10:53 AM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> Hello All, >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? First, really thanks for your comments. >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? I read a little bit more about the network 13. I supposed I >>>>>> should >>>>>> have done this before sending the email. >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? As I said, it does not appear in RFC 790 (Sep 81), and it does >>>>>> not >>>>>> appear until RFC 990 (Nov 1986 assigned to XEROX) >>>>>> >>>>>> ?? However, I just realized that actually network 13 was first seen >>>>>> in >>>>>> RFC 739 assigned to National Physical Laboratory and last seen in >>>>>> RFC >>>>>> 776. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks again & sorry for the noise. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Alejandro, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8/11/20 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>> ?? Alejandro, >>>>>>> I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who assigned the >>>>>>> numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for himself.? >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a >>>>>>> superstitious person.? I think Steve Crocker's explanation that >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made public >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer. >>>>>>> For what its worth,Alex McKenzie >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ????? On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro >>>>>>> Acosta >>>>>>> via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>> ?? ? Hello list, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?? ? I have a question and one more time I believe this a good >>>>>>> place >>>>>>> to ask. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?? ? During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). >>>>>>> When >>>>>>> reading it I noticed the following: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> {...} >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?? ????? 009.rrr.rrr.rrr?? BRAGG-PR????? Ft. Bragg Packet Radio >>>>>>> Net >>>>>>> [JEM] >>>>>>> ?? ????? 010.rrr.rrr.rrr?? ARPANET?????? ARPANET [17,1,VGC] >>>>>>> ?? ????? 011.rrr.rrr.rrr?? UCLNET??????? University College London >>>>>>> [PK] >>>>>>> ?? ????? 012.rrr.rrr.rrr?? CYCLADES????? CYCLADES [VGC] >>>>>>> ?? ????? 013.rrr.rrr.rrr???????????????? Unassigned [JBP] >>>>>>> ?? ????? 014.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TELENET?????? TELENET [VGC] >>>>>>> ?? ????? 015.rrr.rrr.rrr?? EPSS????????? British Post Office EPSS >>>>>>> [PK] >>>>>>> ?? ????? 016.rrr.rrr.rrr?? DATAPAC?????? DATAPAC [VGC] >>>>>>> ?? ????? 017.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TRANSPAC????? TRANSPAC [VGC] >>>>>>> ?? ????? 018.rrr.rrr.rrr?? LCSNET??????? MIT LCS Network >>>>>>> [43,10,DDC2] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> {...} >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?? ? As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some >>>>>>> subsequent >>>>>>> prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I know >>>>>>> 013 >>>>>>> was later assigned to XEROX-NET. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?? ? I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of >>>>>>> superstitions?. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alejandro, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> -- 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 vint at google.com Thu Aug 13 01:13:02 2020 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 04:13:02 -0400 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: <30a4cee0-5850-6a0e-97f8-735ce3e41f1d@3kitty.org> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> <7da84cd4-d231-82e8-4d52-1b5661534dd1@gmail.com> <9ccca1c4-afee-b3f3-1690-e4d305f495ff@3kitty.org> <2135791628.1212126.1597280336468@mail.yahoo.com> <30a4cee0-5850-6a0e-97f8-735ce3e41f1d@3kitty.org> Message-ID: Jack, wasn't that [2] Strazisar, V., "Gateway Routing: An Implementation Specification," IEN-30, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., August 1979. [3] Strazisar, V., "How to Build a Gateway," IEN-109, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., August 1979. v On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 9:23 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Hi Barbara, > > AFAIK, there was never a spec for gateway/router behavior, except Ginny > Strazisar's very early RFC. However, the behavior of ICMP Echo > Request/reply et al was spec'd in RFC 792 in 1981, so the gateway should > have been conforming to that. If the destination host was down, it > should have returned a "Destination Unreachable". > > Part of the problem may have resulted from a little glitch in the DoD's > process of declaring the Internet protocols to be DoD Standards. When > they did that in the early 80s, they spec'd both the TCP and IP RFCs as > standards, but overlooked the ICMP spec. I remember we started seeing > machines come online with "DoD Standard implementations" as specified by > their companies contracts with whatever piece of DoD ordered the > equipment. They had implemented TCP and IP, but not ICMP. After much > complaining by us at BBN and probably others, ICMP eventually got added > in some way, but it may have been a while before that spec actually got > into products. > > I have only anecdotal evidence, but it seems things have regressed over > the decades and now routers don't always respond to ICMP. I think some > ISPs have turned it off because of all the "ping" traffic they > experienced. I guess they don't consider it part of the Standard either. > > I remember when we decided at some meeting to split out the ICMP > functionality from the basic IP definition, mostly just for > organizational simplification. It's amazing to me what kinds of > longstanding and far reaching consequences a little mistake (overlooking > ICMP as a critical component of TCP/IP) can have. > > /Jack > > > On 8/12/20 5:58 PM, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote: > > I have a ping story. I got sent to Germany in the mid-80s (1986?) to > help install an IP testbed for USAREUR. We used the Cisco AGS routers > (The ones with the fan that sounded like an airplane taking off ). Cisco > was a very small company so we got a lot of support in the bug fixing > department. I remember having to call them one night from Germany because > I didn't like what their ping implementation was doing. I noticed their > routers would respond to a ping even if the interface with the ping's IP > destination address was down. I didn't like that behavior so I think I > ended up having to get Kirk Lougheed? on the line to get them to agree to > change this for us. I've always wondered if the behavior of ping on a > gateway /router was specified. I certainly didn't have the time, or > resources at my finger tips, to check this out at the time. > > > > barbara > > > > On Wednesday, August 12, 2020, 4:54:15 PM PDT, Jacob Goense via > Internet-history wrote: > > > > The fuzzball archive seems down at the moment, but it is still > > there[1]. Mills' PING was a client and server, or "pinger and > > sounder" as he called it. Muus' ping(8) was the client side to > > complement the BSD kernel. > > > > > http://web.archive.org/web/20131020063249/http://malarky.udel.edu/~dmills/data/du0/PING.MAC > > > > On 2020-08-12 07:01, Louis Mamakos via Internet-history wrote: > >> The timing here lines up with Dave Mills' fuzzball code we had > >> running at University of Maryland (where Dave was a visiting > >> professor for a "special topics" networking class.) I do > >> fondly recall Fuzzball PING and it was certainly a well-used > >> tool for the initial debugging of the UNIVAC TCP/IP stack that > >> Mike Petry and I started implementing at that time - fall 1980. > >> > >> It was also around that time that we added the initial Ethernet > >> support in the Fuzzball code, adding ARP and a QBus InterLAN > >> interface. Once again, PING was the universal debugging tool. > >> > >> I do recall seeing "Packet InterNet Groper" in the Fuzzball > >> source code. > >> > >> louie > >> > >> On 11 Aug 2020, at 16:21, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > >> > >>> Ping may have been released in 1983 but it was in use long before > >>> that. When I was in charge of keeping the "core gateways" running, > >>> Dave Mills was famous for doing lots of experiments that often gave us > >>> heartburn. I clearly recall him telling us at some Internet meeting > >>> about his experiments and the tool he used - he called it "Ping", and > >>> explained it was an acronym for "Packet InterNet Groper". This was > >>> probably 1979/80 or thereabouts. I don't know that Dave invented > >>> "ping", but I believe that's where I first heard about it. > >>> > >>> /Jack > >>> > >>> > >>> On 8/11/20 1:06 PM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: > >>>> uh, good question. > >>>> > >>>> Based on the days of the firsts networks and the release of ping the > >>>> answer is none, afaik, ping was released in 1983 > >>>> > >>>> On 8/11/20 2:43 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > >>>>> A related question, if you're exploring Internet History, might be > >>>>> "Which of the early networks were ever actually operational nets on > >>>>> The > >>>>> Internet, i.e., nets that you could ping and get a response?" > >>>>> > >>>>> I was involved in the 77-80s timeframe, and as I recall, many of > >>>>> those > >>>>> low numbered networks were assigned numbers, but didn't actually > >>>>> ever > >>>>> get connected to the operational Internet. > >>>>> > >>>>> /Jack Haverty > >>>>> > >>>>> On 8/11/20 10:53 AM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: > >>>>>> Hello All, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> First, really thanks for your comments. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I read a little bit more about the network 13. I supposed I > >>>>>> should > >>>>>> have done this before sending the email. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As I said, it does not appear in RFC 790 (Sep 81), and it does > >>>>>> not > >>>>>> appear until RFC 990 (Nov 1986 assigned to XEROX) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> However, I just realized that actually network 13 was first seen > >>>>>> in > >>>>>> RFC 739 assigned to National Physical Laboratory and last seen in > >>>>>> RFC > >>>>>> 776. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks again & sorry for the noise. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Alejandro, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 8/11/20 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: > >>>>>>> Alejandro, > >>>>>>> I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who assigned the > >>>>>>> numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for himself. > >>>>>>> I > >>>>>>> knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a > >>>>>>> superstitious person. I think Steve Crocker's explanation that > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made public > >>>>>>> on > >>>>>>> the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer. > >>>>>>> For what its worth,Alex McKenzie > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro > >>>>>>> Acosta > >>>>>>> via Internet-history wrote: > >>>>>>> Hello list, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I have a question and one more time I believe this a good > >>>>>>> place > >>>>>>> to ask. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). > >>>>>>> When > >>>>>>> reading it I noticed the following: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> {...} > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 009.rrr.rrr.rrr BRAGG-PR Ft. Bragg Packet Radio > >>>>>>> Net > >>>>>>> [JEM] > >>>>>>> 010.rrr.rrr.rrr ARPANET ARPANET [17,1,VGC] > >>>>>>> 011.rrr.rrr.rrr UCLNET University College London > >>>>>>> [PK] > >>>>>>> 012.rrr.rrr.rrr CYCLADES CYCLADES [VGC] > >>>>>>> 013.rrr.rrr.rrr Unassigned [JBP] > >>>>>>> 014.rrr.rrr.rrr TELENET TELENET [VGC] > >>>>>>> 015.rrr.rrr.rrr EPSS British Post Office EPSS > >>>>>>> [PK] > >>>>>>> 016.rrr.rrr.rrr DATAPAC DATAPAC [VGC] > >>>>>>> 017.rrr.rrr.rrr TRANSPAC TRANSPAC [VGC] > >>>>>>> 018.rrr.rrr.rrr LCSNET MIT LCS Network > >>>>>>> [43,10,DDC2] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> {...} > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some > >>>>>>> subsequent > >>>>>>> prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I know > >>>>>>> 013 > >>>>>>> was later assigned to XEROX-NET. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of > >>>>>>> superstitions?. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Alejandro, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> -- 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 > -- new postal address: Google, LLC 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, Suite 1400 Reston, VA 20190 From cabo at tzi.org Thu Aug 13 05:34:53 2020 From: cabo at tzi.org (Carsten Bormann) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:34:53 +0200 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> <7da84cd4-d231-82e8-4d52-1b5661534dd1@gmail.com> <9ccca1c4-afee-b3f3-1690-e4d305f495ff@3kitty.org> <2135791628.1212126.1597280336468@mail.yahoo.com> <30a4cee0-5850-6a0e-97f8-735ce3e41f1d@3kitty.org> Message-ID: Since IENs can be a bit obscure, here are two URLs: > [2] Strazisar, V., "Gateway Routing: An Implementation Specification," > IEN-30, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., August 1979. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/ien/ien30.pdf (That says ?April 11, 1978?.) > [3] Strazisar, V., "How to Build a Gateway," IEN-109, Bolt Beranek and > Newman Inc., August 1979. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/ien/ien109.txt (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/ien/ien109.html is the same with page/section anchors.) Gr??e, Carsten From b_a_denny at yahoo.com Thu Aug 13 08:26:24 2020 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 15:26:24 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> <7da84cd4-d231-82e8-4d52-1b5661534dd1@gmail.com> <9ccca1c4-afee-b3f3-1690-e4d305f495ff@3kitty.org> <2135791628.1212126.1597280336468@mail.yahoo.com> <30a4cee0-5850-6a0e-97f8-735ce3e41f1d@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <1227210983.1477951.1597332384850@mail.yahoo.com> Lixia Zhang also wrote a paper entitled "How to Build a Gateway - - C Gateway: An Example". I found a copy at a MIT website.?It is dated April 1987 and there is a footnote indicating it is a revised version of a published paper in June 1987.? I know I had a copy of that paper ages ago.? Perhaps I had an early version because 1987 seems later than when I remember. I don't trust my recollection about that however.? barbara? On Thursday, August 13, 2020, 01:13:39 AM PDT, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: Jack, wasn't that [2] Strazisar, V., "Gateway Routing: An Implementation Specification," IEN-30, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., August 1979. [3] Strazisar, V., "How to Build a Gateway," IEN-109, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., August 1979. v On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 9:23 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Hi Barbara, > > AFAIK, there was never a spec for gateway/router behavior, except Ginny > Strazisar's very early RFC.? However, the behavior of ICMP Echo > Request/reply et al was spec'd in RFC 792 in 1981, so the gateway should > have been conforming to that.? If the destination host was down, it > should have returned a "Destination Unreachable". > > Part of the problem may have resulted from a little glitch in the DoD's > process of declaring the Internet protocols to be DoD Standards.? When > they did that in the early 80s, they spec'd both the TCP and IP RFCs as > standards, but overlooked the ICMP spec.? I remember we started seeing > machines come online with "DoD Standard implementations" as specified by > their companies contracts with whatever piece of DoD ordered the > equipment.? They had implemented TCP and IP, but not ICMP.? After much > complaining by us at BBN and probably others, ICMP eventually got added > in some way, but it may have been a while before that spec actually got > into products. > > I have only anecdotal evidence, but it seems things have regressed over > the decades and now routers don't always respond to ICMP.? I think some > ISPs have turned it off because of all the "ping" traffic they > experienced.? I guess they don't consider it part of the Standard either. > > I remember when we decided at some meeting to split out the ICMP > functionality from the basic IP definition, mostly just for > organizational simplification.? It's amazing to me what kinds of > longstanding and far reaching consequences a little mistake (overlooking > ICMP as a critical component of TCP/IP) can have. > > /Jack > > > On 8/12/20 5:58 PM, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote: > >? I have a ping story.? I got sent to Germany in the mid-80s? (1986?) to > help install an IP testbed for USAREUR.? We used the Cisco AGS routers > (The ones with the fan that sounded like an airplane taking off ).? Cisco > was a very small company so we got a lot of support in the bug fixing > department.? I remember having to call them one night from Germany because > I didn't like what their ping implementation was doing.? I noticed their > routers would respond to a ping even if? the interface with the ping's IP > destination address was down.? I didn't like that behavior so I think I > ended up having to get Kirk Lougheed? on the line to get them to agree to > change this for us. I've always wondered if the behavior of ping on a > gateway /router was specified.? I certainly didn't have the time, or > resources at my finger tips,? to check this out at the time. > > > > barbara > > > >? ? On Wednesday, August 12, 2020, 4:54:15 PM PDT, Jacob Goense via > Internet-history wrote: > > > >? The fuzzball archive seems down at the moment, but it is still > > there[1]. Mills' PING was a client and server, or "pinger and > > sounder" as he called it. Muus' ping(8) was the client side to > > complement the BSD kernel. > > > > > http://web.archive.org/web/20131020063249/http://malarky.udel.edu/~dmills/data/du0/PING.MAC > > > > On 2020-08-12 07:01, Louis Mamakos via Internet-history wrote: > >> The timing here lines up with Dave Mills' fuzzball code we had > >> running at University of Maryland (where Dave was a visiting > >> professor for a "special topics" networking class.)? I do > >> fondly recall Fuzzball PING and it was certainly a well-used > >> tool for the initial debugging of the UNIVAC TCP/IP stack that > >> Mike Petry and I started implementing at that time - fall 1980. > >> > >> It was also around that time that we added the initial Ethernet > >> support in the Fuzzball code, adding ARP and a QBus InterLAN > >> interface.? Once again, PING was the universal debugging tool. > >> > >> I do recall seeing "Packet InterNet Groper" in the Fuzzball > >> source code. > >> > >> louie > >> > >> On 11 Aug 2020, at 16:21, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > >> > >>> Ping may have been released in 1983 but it was in use long before > >>> that.? ? When I was in charge of keeping the "core gateways" running, > >>> Dave Mills was famous for doing lots of experiments that often gave us > >>> heartburn.? I clearly recall him telling us at some Internet meeting > >>> about his experiments and the tool he used - he called it "Ping", and > >>> explained it was an acronym for "Packet InterNet Groper".? This was > >>> probably 1979/80 or thereabouts.? I don't know that Dave invented > >>> "ping", but I believe that's where I first heard about it. > >>> > >>> /Jack > >>> > >>> > >>> On 8/11/20 1:06 PM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: > >>>> uh, good question. > >>>> > >>>> Based on the days of the firsts networks and the release of ping the > >>>> answer is none, afaik, ping was released in 1983 > >>>> > >>>> On 8/11/20 2:43 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > >>>>> A related question, if you're exploring Internet History, might be > >>>>> "Which of the early networks were ever actually operational nets on > >>>>> The > >>>>> Internet, i.e., nets that you could ping and get a response?" > >>>>> > >>>>> I was involved in the 77-80s timeframe, and as I recall, many of > >>>>> those > >>>>> low numbered networks were assigned numbers, but didn't actually > >>>>> ever > >>>>> get connected to the operational Internet. > >>>>> > >>>>> /Jack Haverty > >>>>> > >>>>> On 8/11/20 10:53 AM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: > >>>>>> Hello All, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>? ? First, really thanks for your comments. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>? ? I read a little bit more about the network 13. I supposed I > >>>>>> should > >>>>>> have done this before sending the email. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>? ? As I said, it does not appear in RFC 790 (Sep 81), and it does > >>>>>> not > >>>>>> appear until RFC 990 (Nov 1986 assigned to XEROX) > >>>>>> > >>>>>>? ? However, I just realized that actually network 13 was first seen > >>>>>> in > >>>>>> RFC 739 assigned to National Physical Laboratory and last seen in > >>>>>> RFC > >>>>>> 776. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks again & sorry for the noise. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Alejandro, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 8/11/20 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: > >>>>>>>? ? Alejandro, > >>>>>>> I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who assigned the > >>>>>>> numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for himself. > >>>>>>> I > >>>>>>> knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a > >>>>>>> superstitious person.? I think Steve Crocker's explanation that > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made public > >>>>>>> on > >>>>>>> the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer. > >>>>>>> For what its worth,Alex McKenzie > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>? ? ? On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro > >>>>>>> Acosta > >>>>>>> via Internet-history wrote: > >>>>>>>? ? ? Hello list, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>? ? ? I have a question and one more time I believe this a good > >>>>>>> place > >>>>>>> to ask. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>? ? ? During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). > >>>>>>> When > >>>>>>> reading it I noticed the following: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> {...} > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? 009.rrr.rrr.rrr? BRAGG-PR? ? ? Ft. Bragg Packet Radio > >>>>>>> Net > >>>>>>> [JEM] > >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? 010.rrr.rrr.rrr? ARPANET? ? ? ARPANET [17,1,VGC] > >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? 011.rrr.rrr.rrr? UCLNET? ? ? ? University College London > >>>>>>> [PK] > >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? 012.rrr.rrr.rrr? CYCLADES? ? ? CYCLADES [VGC] > >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? 013.rrr.rrr.rrr? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Unassigned [JBP] > >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? 014.rrr.rrr.rrr? TELENET? ? ? TELENET [VGC] > >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? 015.rrr.rrr.rrr? EPSS? ? ? ? ? British Post Office EPSS > >>>>>>> [PK] > >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? 016.rrr.rrr.rrr? DATAPAC? ? ? DATAPAC [VGC] > >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? 017.rrr.rrr.rrr? TRANSPAC? ? ? TRANSPAC [VGC] > >>>>>>>? ? ? ? ? 018.rrr.rrr.rrr? LCSNET? ? ? ? MIT LCS Network > >>>>>>> [43,10,DDC2] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> {...} > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>? ? ? As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some > >>>>>>> subsequent > >>>>>>> prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I know > >>>>>>> 013 > >>>>>>> was later assigned to XEROX-NET. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>? ? ? I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of > >>>>>>> superstitions?. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Alejandro, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> -- 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 > -- new postal address: Google, LLC 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, Suite 1400 Reston, VA 20190 -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jack at 3kitty.org Thu Aug 13 11:25:58 2020 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 11:25:58 -0700 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: <1227210983.1477951.1597332384850@mail.yahoo.com> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> <7da84cd4-d231-82e8-4d52-1b5661534dd1@gmail.com> <9ccca1c4-afee-b3f3-1690-e4d305f495ff@3kitty.org> <2135791628.1212126.1597280336468@mail.yahoo.com> <30a4cee0-5850-6a0e-97f8-735ce3e41f1d@3kitty.org> <1227210983.1477951.1597332384850@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <67f1cbb0-3a14-b099-29bf-e48b93737097@3kitty.org> I did a little more archeological work.... Yes, IENs 30 and 109 were specs related to the first gateways, written by Ginny Strazisar.?? IIRC, they did not include ICMP which came later, but there was some functionality like Echo datagrams, as well as Routing exchanges.? There was also a project that built and operated the "CMCC" (Catenet Monitoring and Control Center) which collected a lot of "ping" type of data.? Subsequently we split apart the "gateway-gateway" and "gateway-host" parts of the control protocol and put the host-related pieces into ICMP, and created EGP with the notion of "Autonomous Systems".?? SNMP was also in the picture at some point.? A very vibrant time.... The "Internet Project" was moved in October 1981 from one piece of BBN to another, with the goal that the Internet gateways evolve from a research project into an operational network, run and managed 24x7 along with the ARPANET and SATNET which had been operating for quite a while under control of the NOC (Network Operations Center).?? A lot of the work in that timeframe was associated with taking the Internet (i.e., the "core gateways") into fulltime operation as a communications service. ***** FYI for Internet Historians: ***** The most authoritative records of the early Internet that I've found are the reports which were submitted to ARPA as contract deliverables, and which documented what actually happened.?? Many of them are publicly accessible from the DTIC (Defense Technical Information Center, at dtic.mil), although they're not always easy to find. I've managed to find some of the 1980-1984 reports from BBN (I wrote some of them); the section on "Internet Development" in each records the evolution of the "core gateways" during that period.? There's also a lot of detail on other Internet-related ARPA projects (e.g., SATNET, WidebandNet, Remote Site Maintenance, CMCC)? that were parts of the early Internet but not documented much at all in IENs or RFCs. Here's a list of what I've found.?? The "ADxxxxxx" part of the file name is the DTIC "access number", which will help a lot if you'd like to retrieve them from DTIC. BBN4342-QTR16-198002-ADA082618.pdf BBN4399-QTR17-198005-ADA085807.pdf BBN4458-QTR-HP3000TCP-198005-ADA086832.pdf BBN4474-QTR18-198008-ADA089025.pdf BBN4526-QTR19-198011-ADA093164.pdf BBN4609-QTR20-198102-ADA096114.pdf BBN4679-QTR21-198105-ADA100473.pdf BBN4761-QTR22-198108-ADA104931.pdf BBN4825-QTR23-198111-ADA108783.pdf BBN4868-QTR24-198202-ADA112575.pdf BBN4930-RSM-1982-ADA-112887.pdf BBN5003-QTR25-198205-ADA115773.pdf BBN5129-QTR26-198208-ADA119776.pdf BBN5215-QTR27-198211-ADA122596.pdf BBN5215-QTR27-198211-ADA222356.pdf BBN5286-QTR28-198302-ADA125959.pdf BBN5345-QTR29-198305-ADA129828.pdf BBN5408-QTR30-198308-ADA132690.pdf BBN5492-QTR31-198311-ADA136256.pdf BBN5580-QTR32-198402-ADA145348.pdf BBN5774-QTR33-198405-ADA147675.pdf BBN5883-QTR35-198411-ADA151312.pdf BBN5939-FINAL-198507-ADA157124.pdf I'm sure there must have been other reports about the early Internet work, from all the other ARPA contractors, but I haven't had much success in finding them. Enjoy, /Jack On 8/13/20 8:26 AM, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote: > Lixia Zhang also wrote a paper entitled "How to Build a Gateway - - C Gateway: An Example". I found a copy at a MIT website.?It is dated April 1987 and there is a footnote indicating it is a revised version of a published paper in June 1987.? I know I had a copy of that paper ages ago.? Perhaps I had an early version because 1987 seems later than when I remember. I don't trust my recollection about that however.? > > barbara? > > On Thursday, August 13, 2020, 01:13:39 AM PDT, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: > > Jack, wasn't that > [2] Strazisar, V., "Gateway Routing: An Implementation Specification," > IEN-30, Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., August 1979. > [3] Strazisar, V., "How to Build a Gateway," IEN-109, Bolt Beranek and > Newman Inc., August 1979. > > v > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 9:23 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> Hi Barbara, >> >> AFAIK, there was never a spec for gateway/router behavior, except Ginny >> Strazisar's very early RFC.? However, the behavior of ICMP Echo >> Request/reply et al was spec'd in RFC 792 in 1981, so the gateway should >> have been conforming to that.? If the destination host was down, it >> should have returned a "Destination Unreachable". >> >> Part of the problem may have resulted from a little glitch in the DoD's >> process of declaring the Internet protocols to be DoD Standards.? When >> they did that in the early 80s, they spec'd both the TCP and IP RFCs as >> standards, but overlooked the ICMP spec.? I remember we started seeing >> machines come online with "DoD Standard implementations" as specified by >> their companies contracts with whatever piece of DoD ordered the >> equipment.? They had implemented TCP and IP, but not ICMP.? After much >> complaining by us at BBN and probably others, ICMP eventually got added >> in some way, but it may have been a while before that spec actually got >> into products. >> >> I have only anecdotal evidence, but it seems things have regressed over >> the decades and now routers don't always respond to ICMP.? I think some >> ISPs have turned it off because of all the "ping" traffic they >> experienced.? I guess they don't consider it part of the Standard either. >> >> I remember when we decided at some meeting to split out the ICMP >> functionality from the basic IP definition, mostly just for >> organizational simplification.? It's amazing to me what kinds of >> longstanding and far reaching consequences a little mistake (overlooking >> ICMP as a critical component of TCP/IP) can have. >> >> /Jack >> >> >> On 8/12/20 5:58 PM, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote: >>> ? I have a ping story.? I got sent to Germany in the mid-80s? (1986?) to >> help install an IP testbed for USAREUR.? We used the Cisco AGS routers >> (The ones with the fan that sounded like an airplane taking off ).? Cisco >> was a very small company so we got a lot of support in the bug fixing >> department.? I remember having to call them one night from Germany because >> I didn't like what their ping implementation was doing.? I noticed their >> routers would respond to a ping even if? the interface with the ping's IP >> destination address was down.? I didn't like that behavior so I think I >> ended up having to get Kirk Lougheed? on the line to get them to agree to >> change this for us. I've always wondered if the behavior of ping on a >> gateway /router was specified.? I certainly didn't have the time, or >> resources at my finger tips,? to check this out at the time. >>> barbara >>> >>> ? ? On Wednesday, August 12, 2020, 4:54:15 PM PDT, Jacob Goense via >> Internet-history wrote: >>> ? The fuzzball archive seems down at the moment, but it is still >>> there[1]. Mills' PING was a client and server, or "pinger and >>> sounder" as he called it. Muus' ping(8) was the client side to >>> complement the BSD kernel. >>> >>> >> http://web.archive.org/web/20131020063249/http://malarky.udel.edu/~dmills/data/du0/PING.MAC >>> On 2020-08-12 07:01, Louis Mamakos via Internet-history wrote: >>>> The timing here lines up with Dave Mills' fuzzball code we had >>>> running at University of Maryland (where Dave was a visiting >>>> professor for a "special topics" networking class.)? I do >>>> fondly recall Fuzzball PING and it was certainly a well-used >>>> tool for the initial debugging of the UNIVAC TCP/IP stack that >>>> Mike Petry and I started implementing at that time - fall 1980. >>>> >>>> It was also around that time that we added the initial Ethernet >>>> support in the Fuzzball code, adding ARP and a QBus InterLAN >>>> interface.? Once again, PING was the universal debugging tool. >>>> >>>> I do recall seeing "Packet InterNet Groper" in the Fuzzball >>>> source code. >>>> >>>> louie >>>> >>>> On 11 Aug 2020, at 16:21, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ping may have been released in 1983 but it was in use long before >>>>> that.? ? When I was in charge of keeping the "core gateways" running, >>>>> Dave Mills was famous for doing lots of experiments that often gave us >>>>> heartburn.? I clearly recall him telling us at some Internet meeting >>>>> about his experiments and the tool he used - he called it "Ping", and >>>>> explained it was an acronym for "Packet InterNet Groper".? This was >>>>> probably 1979/80 or thereabouts.? I don't know that Dave invented >>>>> "ping", but I believe that's where I first heard about it. >>>>> >>>>> /Jack >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8/11/20 1:06 PM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> uh, good question. >>>>>> >>>>>> Based on the days of the firsts networks and the release of ping the >>>>>> answer is none, afaik, ping was released in 1983 >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8/11/20 2:43 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>> A related question, if you're exploring Internet History, might be >>>>>>> "Which of the early networks were ever actually operational nets on >>>>>>> The >>>>>>> Internet, i.e., nets that you could ping and get a response?" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was involved in the 77-80s timeframe, and as I recall, many of >>>>>>> those >>>>>>> low numbered networks were assigned numbers, but didn't actually >>>>>>> ever >>>>>>> get connected to the operational Internet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /Jack Haverty >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/11/20 10:53 AM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>> Hello All, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? ? First, really thanks for your comments. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? ? I read a little bit more about the network 13. I supposed I >>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>> have done this before sending the email. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? ? As I said, it does not appear in RFC 790 (Sep 81), and it does >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> appear until RFC 990 (Nov 1986 assigned to XEROX) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? ? However, I just realized that actually network 13 was first seen >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> RFC 739 assigned to National Physical Laboratory and last seen in >>>>>>>> RFC >>>>>>>> 776. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks again & sorry for the noise. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alejandro, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 8/11/20 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>> ? ? Alejandro, >>>>>>>>> I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who assigned the >>>>>>>>> numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for himself. >>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>> knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a >>>>>>>>> superstitious person.? I think Steve Crocker's explanation that >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made public >>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>> the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer. >>>>>>>>> For what its worth,Alex McKenzie >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro >>>>>>>>> Acosta >>>>>>>>> via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? Hello list, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? I have a question and one more time I believe this a good >>>>>>>>> place >>>>>>>>> to ask. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). >>>>>>>>> When >>>>>>>>> reading it I noticed the following: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> {...} >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? 009.rrr.rrr.rrr? BRAGG-PR? ? ? Ft. Bragg Packet Radio >>>>>>>>> Net >>>>>>>>> [JEM] >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? 010.rrr.rrr.rrr? ARPANET? ? ? ARPANET [17,1,VGC] >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? 011.rrr.rrr.rrr? UCLNET? ? ? ? University College London >>>>>>>>> [PK] >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? 012.rrr.rrr.rrr? CYCLADES? ? ? CYCLADES [VGC] >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? 013.rrr.rrr.rrr? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Unassigned [JBP] >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? 014.rrr.rrr.rrr? TELENET? ? ? TELENET [VGC] >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? 015.rrr.rrr.rrr? EPSS? ? ? ? ? British Post Office EPSS >>>>>>>>> [PK] >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? 016.rrr.rrr.rrr? DATAPAC? ? ? DATAPAC [VGC] >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? 017.rrr.rrr.rrr? TRANSPAC? ? ? TRANSPAC [VGC] >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? 018.rrr.rrr.rrr? LCSNET? ? ? ? MIT LCS Network >>>>>>>>> [43,10,DDC2] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> {...} >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some >>>>>>>>> subsequent >>>>>>>>> prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I know >>>>>>>>> 013 >>>>>>>>> was later assigned to XEROX-NET. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? ? ? I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of >>>>>>>>> superstitions?. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alejandro, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> -- 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 bhuffake at caida.org Thu Aug 13 12:15:19 2020 From: bhuffake at caida.org (Bradley Huffaker) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 12:15:19 -0700 Subject: [ih] IPv4 allocations history visualization Message-ID: <2416D748-81ED-4B24-9F3E-975C0331185D@caida.org> Hello Internet historians, We have created a visualization of the IPv4 allocations history and are interested in things we missed or mistakes we made. This list seemed the prefect place to look for it. Any feedback is welcome. https://www.caida.org/publications/visualizations/ipv4-history Thanks, Bradley From surfer at mauigateway.com Thu Aug 13 17:34:15 2020 From: surfer at mauigateway.com (surfer) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 14:34:15 -1000 Subject: [ih] 13 the unlucky number In-Reply-To: <30a4cee0-5850-6a0e-97f8-735ce3e41f1d@3kitty.org> References: <09b1dd86-0134-39a0-095a-dabd007e701a@gmail.com> <568580624.348422.1597164311278@mail.yahoo.com> <2d0ff07a-dc8d-bc11-1f45-cb6e6f300193@gmail.com> <7da84cd4-d231-82e8-4d52-1b5661534dd1@gmail.com> <9ccca1c4-afee-b3f3-1690-e4d305f495ff@3kitty.org> <2135791628.1212126.1597280336468@mail.yahoo.com> <30a4cee0-5850-6a0e-97f8-735ce3e41f1d@3kitty.org> Message-ID: :: it seems things have regressed over the decades and now routers don't always respond to ICMP.? I think some ISPs have turned it off because of all the "ping" traffic they experienced. Long time network operator here.? :) Probably I'm stating the obvious with this considering who is in the room.? Routers always respond to pings unless it's turned off by the operator.? In my experience, the "Ping Blockade" started in the mid-1990s so attackers could not map out the network to decide what to attack.? Now days any routers behind a firewall will have various aspects of ICMP (or the whole thing) blocked and things like MPLS will also hide the underlying architecture from ICMP if the internet is carried in a layer 3 VPN.? And more... scott On 8/12/20 3:23 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > Hi Barbara, > > AFAIK, there was never a spec for gateway/router behavior, except Ginny > Strazisar's very early RFC.? However, the behavior of ICMP Echo > Request/reply et al was spec'd in RFC 792 in 1981, so the gateway should > have been conforming to that.?? If the destination host was down, it > should have returned a "Destination Unreachable". > > Part of the problem may have resulted from a little glitch in the DoD's > process of declaring the Internet protocols to be DoD Standards.? When > they did that in the early 80s, they spec'd both the TCP and IP RFCs as > standards, but overlooked the ICMP spec.?? I remember we started seeing > machines come online with "DoD Standard implementations" as specified by > their companies contracts with whatever piece of DoD ordered the > equipment.?? They had implemented TCP and IP, but not ICMP.? After much > complaining by us at BBN and probably others, ICMP eventually got added > in some way, but it may have been a while before that spec actually got > into products. > > I have only anecdotal evidence, but it seems things have regressed over > the decades and now routers don't always respond to ICMP.? I think some > ISPs have turned it off because of all the "ping" traffic they > experienced.?? I guess they don't consider it part of the Standard either. > > I remember when we decided at some meeting to split out the ICMP > functionality from the basic IP definition, mostly just for > organizational simplification.?? It's amazing to me what kinds of > longstanding and far reaching consequences a little mistake (overlooking > ICMP as a critical component of TCP/IP) can have. > > /Jack > > > On 8/12/20 5:58 PM, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote: >> I have a ping story.? I got sent to Germany in the mid-80s? (1986?) to help install an IP testbed for USAREUR.? We used the Cisco AGS routers? (The ones with the fan that sounded like an airplane taking off ).? Cisco was a very small company so we got a lot of support in the bug fixing department.? I remember having to call them one night from Germany because I didn't like what their ping implementation was doing.? I noticed their routers would respond to a ping even if? the interface with the ping's IP destination address was down.? I didn't like that behavior so I think I ended up having to get Kirk Lougheed? on the line to get them to agree to change this for us. I've always wondered if the behavior of ping on a gateway /router was specified.? I certainly didn't have the time, or resources at my finger tips,? to check this out at the time. >> >> barbara >> >> On Wednesday, August 12, 2020, 4:54:15 PM PDT, Jacob Goense via Internet-history wrote: >> >> The fuzzball archive seems down at the moment, but it is still >> there[1]. Mills' PING was a client and server, or "pinger and >> sounder" as he called it. Muus' ping(8) was the client side to >> complement the BSD kernel. >> >> http://web.archive.org/web/20131020063249/http://malarky.udel.edu/~dmills/data/du0/PING.MAC >> >> On 2020-08-12 07:01, Louis Mamakos via Internet-history wrote: >>> The timing here lines up with Dave Mills' fuzzball code we had >>> running at University of Maryland (where Dave was a visiting >>> professor for a "special topics" networking class.)? I do >>> fondly recall Fuzzball PING and it was certainly a well-used >>> tool for the initial debugging of the UNIVAC TCP/IP stack that >>> Mike Petry and I started implementing at that time - fall 1980. >>> >>> It was also around that time that we added the initial Ethernet >>> support in the Fuzzball code, adding ARP and a QBus InterLAN >>> interface.? Once again, PING was the universal debugging tool. >>> >>> I do recall seeing "Packet InterNet Groper" in the Fuzzball >>> source code. >>> >>> louie >>> >>> On 11 Aug 2020, at 16:21, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >>> >>>> Ping may have been released in 1983 but it was in use long before >>>> that.??? When I was in charge of keeping the "core gateways" running, >>>> Dave Mills was famous for doing lots of experiments that often gave us >>>> heartburn.?? I clearly recall him telling us at some Internet meeting >>>> about his experiments and the tool he used - he called it "Ping", and >>>> explained it was an acronym for "Packet InterNet Groper".? This was >>>> probably 1979/80 or thereabouts.? I don't know that Dave invented >>>> "ping", but I believe that's where I first heard about it. >>>> >>>> /Jack >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8/11/20 1:06 PM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> uh, good question. >>>>> >>>>> Based on the days of the firsts networks and the release of ping the >>>>> answer is none, afaik, ping was released in 1983 >>>>> >>>>> On 8/11/20 2:43 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> A related question, if you're exploring Internet History, might be >>>>>> "Which of the early networks were ever actually operational nets on >>>>>> The >>>>>> Internet, i.e., nets that you could ping and get a response?" >>>>>> >>>>>> I was involved in the 77-80s timeframe, and as I recall, many of >>>>>> those >>>>>> low numbered networks were assigned numbers, but didn't actually >>>>>> ever >>>>>> get connected to the operational Internet. >>>>>> >>>>>> /Jack Haverty >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8/11/20 10:53 AM, Alejandro Acosta via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>> Hello All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?? First, really thanks for your comments. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?? I read a little bit more about the network 13. I supposed I >>>>>>> should >>>>>>> have done this before sending the email. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?? As I said, it does not appear in RFC 790 (Sep 81), and it does >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> appear until RFC 990 (Nov 1986 assigned to XEROX) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?? However, I just realized that actually network 13 was first seen >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> RFC 739 assigned to National Physical Laboratory and last seen in >>>>>>> RFC >>>>>>> 776. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks again & sorry for the noise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alejandro, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/11/20 12:45 PM, Alex McKenzie via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>> ?? Alejandro, >>>>>>>> I don't think any of us can speak for Jon Postel, who assigned the >>>>>>>> numbers, and sadly he is no longer with us to speak for himself. >>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>> knew Jon pretty well and he showed no evidence of being a >>>>>>>> superstitious person.? I think Steve Crocker's explanation that >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> number was assigned to an entity that could not yet be made public >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> the date RFC 790 was released is the most likely answer. >>>>>>>> For what its worth,Alex McKenzie >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ????? On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, 9:08:58 AM EDT, Alejandro >>>>>>>> Acosta >>>>>>>> via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>> ?? ? Hello list, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?? ? I have a question and one more time I believe this a good >>>>>>>> place >>>>>>>> to ask. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?? ? During the weekend I read the old RFC 790 (ASSIGNED NUMBERS). >>>>>>>> When >>>>>>>> reading it I noticed the following: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> {...} >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?? ????? 009.rrr.rrr.rrr?? BRAGG-PR????? Ft. Bragg Packet Radio >>>>>>>> Net >>>>>>>> [JEM] >>>>>>>> ?? ????? 010.rrr.rrr.rrr?? ARPANET?????? ARPANET [17,1,VGC] >>>>>>>> ?? ????? 011.rrr.rrr.rrr?? UCLNET??????? University College London >>>>>>>> [PK] >>>>>>>> ?? ????? 012.rrr.rrr.rrr?? CYCLADES????? CYCLADES [VGC] >>>>>>>> ?? ????? 013.rrr.rrr.rrr???????????????? Unassigned [JBP] >>>>>>>> ?? ????? 014.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TELENET?????? TELENET [VGC] >>>>>>>> ?? ????? 015.rrr.rrr.rrr?? EPSS????????? British Post Office EPSS >>>>>>>> [PK] >>>>>>>> ?? ????? 016.rrr.rrr.rrr?? DATAPAC?????? DATAPAC [VGC] >>>>>>>> ?? ????? 017.rrr.rrr.rrr?? TRANSPAC????? TRANSPAC [VGC] >>>>>>>> ?? ????? 018.rrr.rrr.rrr?? LCSNET??????? MIT LCS Network >>>>>>>> [43,10,DDC2] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> {...} >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?? ? As you can see the 013.rrr.rrr.rrr was unassigned but some >>>>>>>> subsequent >>>>>>>> prefix were (014, 015 ..... ). Is there any reason for it?. I know >>>>>>>> 013 >>>>>>>> was later assigned to XEROX-NET. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?? ? I wonder if 013 was skipped because some sort of >>>>>>>> superstitions?. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alejandro, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> -- 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 Mon Aug 17 05:26:50 2020 From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (dave walden) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 08:26:50 -0400 Subject: [ih] a nice article about creation of Harvard's computer science department Message-ID: See https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2020/09/features-a-science-is-born Several ARPANET/Internet people are mentioned in the article, and of course Harvard was an early ARPANET site. (Also, if I remember correctly, Harvard's IMP was the destination for all packets during an ARPANET routing failure caused by a bad memory bit that led to additional check summing in the IMP code. Not Harvard's fault, of course.) From dave.walden.family at gmail.com Wed Aug 26 04:43:33 2020 From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (dave walden) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 07:43:33 -0400 Subject: [ih] Yngvar Lunch has died -- the memorial service is tomorrow Message-ID: Internet pioneer Yngvar Lundh has died. With Paal Spilling, Yngvar led Norway into the Internet world. The following paper which Yngvar gave me in early 2019 is his and Paal's story of their contribution. https://walden-family.com/spilling-lundh-InternetHistory-final-2-VC%20edits.pdf I will leave this on my website for a while.? I don't know where it was published. Following is the death announcement from his local newspaper. What I can make out from the announcement follows: ================================= image of boat -- Yngvar had a sailboat good kind Yngvar, husband, father, grandfather and uncle something about being in own home at death his name and day he died in a little while it will be so quiet here in a little while it will be over you got to see what you wanted you got to hear your melody in a little while we will be gone we may see each other again Bente (wife) Lise (daughter I assume) I guess the others are the nephew and grandson where and when the funeral service will be -- Valle church something about flowers for the church's mission?? see the memorial page on the (funeral home) website -- I could not find a memorial page for Yngvar ================= You can use google translate to read the following: https://snl.no/Yngvar_Lundh A piece by him published in the IEEE Annals of the History of Computing in 2018 https://www.computer.org/csdl/magazine/an/2018/02/man2018020062/13rRUytWFbd begins with this introduction by the Annals department editor: Yngvar Lundh was instrumental in the development of some of Norway?s earliest digital computers, having started his investigation of digital electronics in the 1950s. He continued his involvement with digital computers and digital communications for the next 40 years. A 10 April 2017 article about Lundh in the Norwegian online information and telecommunications newspaper digi.no quotes another pioneer of Norwegian computing, saying, ?Yngvar Lundh is the most important person in Norwegian IT ever.? Yngvar was a wonderful man and greatly respected in Norway as the father or Norwegian digital computing.? I first met Yngvar when I worked for Norsk Data in 1970-71. He was with the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment.? I met him again in Oslo, London, etc., during the early Internet days.? Over the years I saw him a few more times, including in 2017 when he invited my wife and me to visit him in his home overlooking the Oslo Fjord in Tornsberg where we talked about sail boats. I corresponded with him by email a few times a year.? I learned the news of Yngvar's death when I sent an email to him a few days ago about early-days computing at MIT and he didn't respond.? I asked friends in Norway if they knew if he was having health problems and the shocking news above came back.? I will miss him. From vint at google.com Wed Aug 26 05:02:38 2020 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 08:02:38 -0400 Subject: [ih] Yngvar Lunch has died -- the memorial service is tomorrow In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for sharing this, Dave. Yngvar and Paal Spilling were key players in the Arpanet and Internet efforts in Norway. Bob Kahn and Yngvar worked together to get the satellite link for the Norwegian Seismic Array (NORSAR) system shared with Arpanet and doubled in capacity to 9.6 kb/s. A further link was made to get to University College London where Peter Kirstein's lab was located. There was a huge flap about connecting military use circuits to the commercial British system - Bob Kahn knows that story better than I because he was the primary DARPA POC for the negotiation. Yngvar was my choice to demonstrate the experimental packet voice system to some generals in the Pentagon. Duane Adams had developed the Linear Predictive Code with 10 parameters (LPC-10) as a way to reduce capacity required for packet speech from 64 kb/s to 1800 b/s. But you sounded like a drunken Norwegian. So of course, I got Yngvar to demonstrate the system, first through the AUTOVON switched voice network used by the US military at the time and then through the packet voice system - sounded the same :-))). Yngvar was our go-to person for the early connectivity of Arpanet to Europe. He and especially Paal Spilling worked on TCP and Paal came to the US (SRI) for a time in the late 1970s. Bob Kahn told me a story about picking raspberries and maybe blackberries in Yngvar's back yard. Bob's comment was that these fruits were infinitely miscible in people [look it up.. :-) ] I will miss Yngvar's cheerful, willing and able attitude. The memory of his formative contributions to the Arpanet and Internet stories temper his loss to the world. v On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 7:43 AM dave walden via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Internet pioneer Yngvar Lundh has died. > > With Paal Spilling, Yngvar led Norway into the Internet world. The > following paper which Yngvar gave me in early 2019 is his and Paal's > story of their contribution. > > https://walden-family.com/spilling-lundh-InternetHistory-final-2-VC%20edits.pdf > I will leave this on my website for a while. I don't know where it was > published. > > Following is the death announcement from his local newspaper. > > What I can make out from the announcement follows: > > ================================= > image of boat -- Yngvar had a sailboat > > good kind Yngvar, husband, father, grandfather and uncle > something about being in own home at death > > his name and day he died > > in a little while it will be so quiet here > in a little while it will be over > you got to see what you wanted > you got to hear your melody > > in a little while > we will be gone > we may see each other again > > Bente (wife) > Lise (daughter I assume) > I guess the others are the nephew and grandson > > where and when the funeral service will be -- Valle church > > something about flowers for the church's mission?? > > see the memorial page on the (funeral home) website -- I could not find > a memorial page for Yngvar > > ================= > > You can use google translate to read the following: > > https://snl.no/Yngvar_Lundh > > A piece by him published in the IEEE Annals of the History of Computing > in 2018 > https://www.computer.org/csdl/magazine/an/2018/02/man2018020062/13rRUytWFbd > begins with this introduction by the Annals department editor: > > Yngvar Lundh was instrumental in the development of some of Norway?s > earliest digital computers, having started his investigation of digital > electronics in the 1950s. He continued his involvement with digital > computers and digital communications for the next 40 years. A 10 April > 2017 article about Lundh in the Norwegian online information and > telecommunications newspaper digi.no quotes another pioneer of Norwegian > computing, saying, ?Yngvar Lundh is the most important person in > Norwegian IT ever.? > > Yngvar was a wonderful man and greatly respected in Norway as the father > or Norwegian digital computing. I first met Yngvar when I worked for > Norsk Data in 1970-71. He was with the Norwegian Defense Research > Establishment. I met him again in Oslo, London, etc., during the early > Internet days. Over the years I saw him a few more times, including in > 2017 when he invited my wife and me to visit him in his home overlooking > the Oslo Fjord in Tornsberg where we talked about sail boats. I > corresponded with him by email a few times a year. I learned the news > of Yngvar's death when I sent an email to him a few days ago about > early-days computing at MIT and he didn't respond. I asked friends in > Norway if they knew if he was having health problems and the shocking > news above came back. I will miss him. > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: Vint Cerf 1435 Woodhurst Blvd McLean, VA 22102 703-448-0965 until further notice From dave.walden.family at gmail.com Thu Aug 27 05:47:18 2020 From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (dave walden) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 08:47:18 -0400 Subject: [ih] One more item about Yngvar Lundh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Seehttps://www.tekniskmuseum.no/21-nyheter/354-internett-med-norske-pionerer Google translate may help. The three people mentioned in the first paragraph (above the author's name) are all listed on the plaque pictured at the end of the article. From lars at nocrew.org Fri Aug 28 00:00:31 2020 From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 07:00:31 +0000 Subject: [ih] Johnny Eriksson In-Reply-To: (dave walden via Internet-history's message of "Wed, 26 Aug 2020 07:43:33 -0400") References: Message-ID: <7w8sdz2r1s.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Dave Walden wrote: > Internet pioneer Yngvar Lundh has died. Another Scandinavian Internet pioneer also died earlier this year: Johnny Eriksson. He helped build the Swedish TCP/IP networks in the 1980s and 1990s. From lars at nocrew.org Fri Aug 28 08:53:21 2020 From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 15:53:21 +0000 Subject: [ih] Johnny Eriksson In-Reply-To: (Vint Cerf's message of "Fri, 28 Aug 2020 08:04:54 -0400") References: <7w8sdz2r1s.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Message-ID: <7weenq22dq.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Vint Cerf writes: >> Another Scandinavian Internet pioneer also died earlier this year: >> Johnny Eriksson. He helped build the Swedish TCP/IP networks in the >> 1980s and 1990s. > > please tell us more about Johnny. Johnny Eriksson worked at QZ in Stockholm, which provided centralized computing services in the 70s and 80s. He was also active in the student organization Stacken, which was a hotbed of PDP-10 machines and all sorts of ad-hoc networking. Johnny was recuited to KTHNOC, the network operating center at Royal Institute of Technology, and the hub for SUNET, the Swedish University Network. Later he went to SWIPNET, the first commercial IP network in Sweden. Johnny added TCP/IP to TOPS-10 for Stacken's dual KI10, called KICKI. Sources: the article "De byggde Internet i Sverige" (They build Internet in Sweden), and messages from Peter L?thberg. From jack at 3kitty.org Fri Aug 28 12:39:27 2020 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 12:39:27 -0700 Subject: [ih] The Sub-atomic Physics of The Internet Message-ID: <785d16e1-14c8-206f-009c-3b507af2341f@3kitty.org> We know that molecules are made of atoms, and atoms are made of quarks, and somewhere you get strings and other stuff I personally don't know much about. ? I saw this infographic and it struck me as an interesting snapshot of the current internal "subatomic" structure of The Internet - not our traditional technical structure of circuits, routers et al, but the internal social structure of the population of The Internet. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-social-media-universe-in-2020/ It slso strikes me as a snapshot of how The Internet is fragmenting as it evolves.? Where once being "on the Internet" meant you could easily interact with everyone else on the net, now there are dozens of disjoint communities within the Internet, who mostly cannot readily interact with each other. It reminds me of the original situation which was motivation for building the ARPANET - fixing the problem of needing to have multiple terminals in your office to connect and communicate with separate organizations.?? A mantra of the Internet project(s) back in the 80s was to build a system that enabled every computer, no matter where it was, to communicate with every other computer. Unfortunately, it seems IMHO today that even if two computers can communicate, their human users often cannot.?? Perhaps someday someone will build a "social gateway" that restores connectivity among the 4+ billion Internet users. /Jack Haverty ? From touch at strayalpha.com Fri Aug 28 17:35:43 2020 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joseph Touch) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 17:35:43 -0700 Subject: [ih] The Sub-atomic Physics of The Internet In-Reply-To: <785d16e1-14c8-206f-009c-3b507af2341f@3kitty.org> References: <785d16e1-14c8-206f-009c-3b507af2341f@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <07692BB8-858C-41F1-B6E2-8DC63B9FD087@strayalpha.com> FWIW, that picture is of planets, not atoms. It perhaps more accurately represents the different platforms as worlds unto themselves, requiring substantial (and often not yet available) means of interplanetary transport to transit between. Joe > On Aug 28, 2020, at 12:39 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > > We know that molecules are made of atoms, and atoms are made of quarks, > and somewhere you get strings and other stuff I personally don't know > much about. I saw this infographic and it struck me as an interesting > snapshot of the current internal "subatomic" structure of The Internet - > not our traditional technical structure of circuits, routers et al, but > the internal social structure of the population of The Internet. > > https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-social-media-universe-in-2020/ From b_a_denny at yahoo.com Fri Aug 28 17:38:12 2020 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 00:38:12 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] Johnny Eriksson In-Reply-To: <7weenq22dq.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> References: <7w8sdz2r1s.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <7weenq22dq.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Message-ID: <1299558740.8677.1598661492795@mail.yahoo.com> Don Provan asked me to clarify that he wrote the TCP/IP implementation for TOPS-10 used by Johnny Eriksson. Johnny Eriksson? took that code and made it work on KICKI.? FYI, Don wrote the TCP/IP code for the TCP/IP cutover when he worked as a DEC contractor at Wright Paterson Air Force Base for AFWAL (Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratory). barbara On Friday, August 28, 2020, 8:53:38 AM PDT, Lars Brinkhoff via Internet-history wrote: Vint Cerf writes: >> Another Scandinavian Internet pioneer also died earlier this year: >> Johnny Eriksson. He helped build the Swedish TCP/IP networks in the >> 1980s and 1990s. > > please tell us more about Johnny. Johnny Eriksson worked at QZ in Stockholm, which provided centralized computing services in the 70s and 80s.? He was also active in the student organization Stacken, which was a hotbed of PDP-10 machines and all sorts of ad-hoc networking.? Johnny was recuited to KTHNOC, the network operating center at Royal Institute of Technology, and the hub for SUNET, the Swedish University Network.? Later he went to SWIPNET, the first commercial IP network in Sweden. Johnny added TCP/IP to TOPS-10 for Stacken's dual KI10, called KICKI. Sources: the article "De byggde Internet i Sverige" (They build Internet in Sweden), and messages from Peter L?thberg. -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From vgcerf at gmail.com Fri Aug 28 17:46:28 2020 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 20:46:28 -0400 Subject: [ih] Johnny Eriksson In-Reply-To: <1299558740.8677.1598661492795@mail.yahoo.com> References: <7w8sdz2r1s.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <7weenq22dq.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <1299558740.8677.1598661492795@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: thanks so much for that clarification, Barbara! Great to see your name in the thread. v On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 8:41 PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Don Provan asked me to clarify that he wrote the TCP/IP implementation > for TOPS-10 used by Johnny Eriksson. Johnny Eriksson took that code and > made it work on KICKI. FYI, Don wrote the TCP/IP code for the TCP/IP > cutover when he worked as a DEC contractor at Wright Paterson Air Force > Base for AFWAL (Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratory). > barbara > > On Friday, August 28, 2020, 8:53:38 AM PDT, Lars Brinkhoff via > Internet-history wrote: > > Vint Cerf writes: > >> Another Scandinavian Internet pioneer also died earlier this year: > >> Johnny Eriksson. He helped build the Swedish TCP/IP networks in the > >> 1980s and 1990s. > > > > please tell us more about Johnny. > > Johnny Eriksson worked at QZ in Stockholm, which provided centralized > computing services in the 70s and 80s. He was also active in the > student organization Stacken, which was a hotbed of PDP-10 machines and > all sorts of ad-hoc networking. Johnny was recuited to KTHNOC, the > network operating center at Royal Institute of Technology, and the hub > for SUNET, the Swedish University Network. Later he went to SWIPNET, > the first commercial IP network in Sweden. > > Johnny added TCP/IP to TOPS-10 for Stacken's dual KI10, called KICKI. > > Sources: the article "De byggde Internet i Sverige" (They build Internet > in Sweden), and messages from Peter L?thberg. > -- > 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 vint at google.com Fri Aug 28 20:01:08 2020 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 23:01:08 -0400 Subject: [ih] Johnny Eriksson In-Reply-To: <0B425D9E-43B6-41AC-ACA1-9DA14A235E36@frobbit.se> References: <7w8sdz2r1s.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <7weenq22dq.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <0B425D9E-43B6-41AC-ACA1-9DA14A235E36@frobbit.se> Message-ID: thanks patrik - this helps to round out the man and his story. We all owe him for his work (as we do you, as well). v On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 1:59 PM Patrik F?ltstr?m wrote: > On 28 Aug 2020, at 17:53, Lars Brinkhoff via Internet-history wrote: > > > Vint Cerf writes: > > > >>> Another Scandinavian Internet pioneer also died earlier this year: > >>> Johnny Eriksson. He helped build the Swedish TCP/IP networks in the > >>> 1980s and 1990s. > > > >> > >> please tell us more about Johnny. > > > > Johnny Eriksson worked at QZ in Stockholm, which provided centralized > computing > > services in the 70s and 80s. He was also active in the student > organization Stacken, which was a hotbed of PDP-10 machines and all sorts > of ad-hoc networking. Johnny was recuited to KTHNOC, the network operating > center at Royal Institute of Technology, and the hub for SUNET, the Swedish > University Network. Later he went to SWIPNET, the first commercial IP > network in Sweden. > > > > Johnny added TCP/IP to TOPS-10 for Stacken's dual KI10, called KICKI. > > > > Sources: the article "De byggde Internet i Sverige" (They build Internet > in Sweden), and messages from Peter L?thberg. > > Johnny was a close friend of mine. One of the silent workers that was > never vocal and because that was not really "known". Of course he was known > "to us that worked with him", but... We worked together at KTH and also at > SwipNet. And was friends off office as well. > > He has been to a number of IETF meetings, was definitely part of the > community. > > Author of RFC 1926 ;-) which display some of his humour. > > He was the person, I claim, that connected NORDUNet to NSFNet (satellite > link between us at KTH and JvNC) fall of 1988 which resulted in a working > link on December 1 1988. I at that time "only" did run the DNS :-) > > Worked as described above, but went back to KTH to work with PDC Center > for High Performance Computing where he worked > the day he unfortunately passed away far too early in a stroke. > > So many Internet people from all over at the memorial ceremony in > Stockholm. > > I have pictures from that service and also when his urn was placed in the > ground just a week ago, but I rather share pictures with Johnny being > Johnny. As many of you have met him. > > The last few years he also started to not only play, but compete, in > snooker. > > I miss him so much. > > Patrik > -- Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: Vint Cerf 1435 Woodhurst Blvd McLean, VA 22102 703-448-0965 until further notice From ocl at gih.com Sat Aug 29 00:42:02 2020 From: ocl at gih.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=c3=a9pin-Leblond?=) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 09:42:02 +0200 Subject: [ih] The Sub-atomic Physics of The Internet In-Reply-To: <07692BB8-858C-41F1-B6E2-8DC63B9FD087@strayalpha.com> References: <785d16e1-14c8-206f-009c-3b507af2341f@3kitty.org> <07692BB8-858C-41F1-B6E2-8DC63B9FD087@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: If there's one problem with representation of the social media worlds as planets, it's that most people "live" on more than one planet, starting with significant Influencers who need to grow their audience. So whilst there are plenty of parallel worlds, users travel already. I am quite pleased with the notion of parallel worlds, it's called "choice". Why would we want a single social gateway that would in effect become a monopoly that has the potential to lock any new social media provider out? Kindest regards, Olivier On 29/08/2020 02:35, Joseph Touch via Internet-history wrote: > FWIW, that picture is of planets, not atoms. It perhaps more accurately represents the different platforms as worlds unto themselves, requiring substantial (and often not yet available) means of interplanetary transport to transit between. > > Joe > >> On Aug 28, 2020, at 12:39 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >> >> We know that molecules are made of atoms, and atoms are made of quarks, >> and somewhere you get strings and other stuff I personally don't know >> much about. I saw this infographic and it struck me as an interesting >> snapshot of the current internal "subatomic" structure of The Internet - >> not our traditional technical structure of circuits, routers et al, but >> the internal social structure of the population of The Internet. >> >> https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-social-media-universe-in-2020/ From agmalis at gmail.com Sat Aug 29 05:57:36 2020 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 08:57:36 -0400 Subject: [ih] The Sub-atomic Physics of The Internet In-Reply-To: References: <785d16e1-14c8-206f-009c-3b507af2341f@3kitty.org> <07692BB8-858C-41F1-B6E2-8DC63B9FD087@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: And as we know, these things evolve over time, Remember Myspace, Friendster, Vine, AOL Messenger, etc., etc.? It really is survival of the fittest .... On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 3:42 AM Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond via Internet-history wrote: > If there's one problem with representation of the social media worlds as > planets, it's that most people "live" on more than one planet, starting > with significant Influencers who need to grow their audience. So whilst > there are plenty of parallel worlds, users travel already. I am quite > pleased with the notion of parallel worlds, it's called "choice". Why > would we want a single social gateway that would in effect become a > monopoly that has the potential to lock any new social media provider out? > Kindest regards, > > Olivier > > On 29/08/2020 02:35, Joseph Touch via Internet-history wrote: > > FWIW, that picture is of planets, not atoms. It perhaps more accurately > represents the different platforms as worlds unto themselves, requiring > substantial (and often not yet available) means of interplanetary transport > to transit between. > > > > Joe > > > >> On Aug 28, 2020, at 12:39 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> > >> We know that molecules are made of atoms, and atoms are made of quarks, > >> and somewhere you get strings and other stuff I personally don't know > >> much about. I saw this infographic and it struck me as an interesting > >> snapshot of the current internal "subatomic" structure of The Internet - > >> not our traditional technical structure of circuits, routers et al, but > >> the internal social structure of the population of The Internet. > >> > >> > https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-social-media-universe-in-2020/ > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From dhc at dcrocker.net Sat Aug 29 06:37:51 2020 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 06:37:51 -0700 Subject: [ih] The Sub-atomic Physics of The Internet In-Reply-To: <785d16e1-14c8-206f-009c-3b507af2341f@3kitty.org> References: <785d16e1-14c8-206f-009c-3b507af2341f@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <51307cb4-c2db-4965-a229-bceccb376d73@dcrocker.net> On 8/28/2020 12:39 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > Unfortunately, it seems IMHO today that even if two computers can > communicate, their human users often cannot.?? Perhaps someday someone > will build a "social gateway" that restores connectivity among the 4+ > billion Internet users. In the period leading up to the mass-market adoption of the Internet, things were extremely fragmented, with a variety of separate and non-interoperable networking technologies, and a variety of separate and non-interoperable email systems, for departments and enterprises. This changed only because the market demanded the change. Vendors do not naturally embrace unified interoperability. It reduces profit margins. In the current fragmentation, the market is making no such demand. For some reason, people are tolerating having to access a wide array of different browser taps and independent apps, open at the same time, doing what really is the same job, only because the constituent services do not interoperate. I currently have to keep active several independent mail systems and several independent instant messaging systems. It is the price of dealing with an array of people and groups. And I've no reason to believe my case is unusual. In a current, mission-oriented activity, involving hundreds of participants from around the country, we are communicating via a self-contained enterprise collaborations system, which has its own chat, voice, and conferencing system, as well as via telephone texting and a separate, enterprise email service. Critical messages get missed because the recipient didn't have the right app open, or didn't get a system notice. The only interesting question, here, is why we put up with this? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From ocl at gih.com Sat Aug 29 07:07:43 2020 From: ocl at gih.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=c3=a9pin-Leblond?=) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 16:07:43 +0200 Subject: [ih] The Sub-atomic Physics of The Internet In-Reply-To: <51307cb4-c2db-4965-a229-bceccb376d73@dcrocker.net> References: <785d16e1-14c8-206f-009c-3b507af2341f@3kitty.org> <51307cb4-c2db-4965-a229-bceccb376d73@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <24a3be98-3bae-806a-0300-2b87b974a903@gih.com> On 29/08/2020 15:37, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > The only interesting question, here, is why we put up with this? Because we as humans like resiliency. Because when service A fails, we use service B to find out what's going on. Now the thing becomes complicated when service A and B are not in the same country and one of them is accused of endangering national security. But I guess Internet History is not the forum to discuss that, so I'll refrain from feeding the thread further - and apologise for the side track. ;-) Kindest regards, Olivier From leo at vegoda.org Sat Aug 29 07:14:27 2020 From: leo at vegoda.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 07:14:27 -0700 Subject: [ih] The Sub-atomic Physics of The Internet In-Reply-To: <24a3be98-3bae-806a-0300-2b87b974a903@gih.com> References: <785d16e1-14c8-206f-009c-3b507af2341f@3kitty.org> <51307cb4-c2db-4965-a229-bceccb376d73@dcrocker.net> <24a3be98-3bae-806a-0300-2b87b974a903@gih.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 7:07 AM Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond via Internet-history wrote: > On 29/08/2020 15:37, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > > The only interesting question, here, is why we put up with this? > > Because we as humans like resiliency. Because when service A fails, we > use service B to find out what's going on. I don't disagree but I think there's a more fundamental issue. These are *social* networks. People operate in different social contexts and want to present themselves differently in a professional context than in a family context or a dating context. If each of these is independent, it's easy enough to turn off the contexts that are not relevant at any given time. It is no different than people dressing differently or speaking with different levels of formality. Regards, Leo From agmalis at gmail.com Sat Aug 29 08:08:45 2020 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 11:08:45 -0400 Subject: [ih] The Sub-atomic Physics of The Internet In-Reply-To: References: <785d16e1-14c8-206f-009c-3b507af2341f@3kitty.org> <51307cb4-c2db-4965-a229-bceccb376d73@dcrocker.net> <24a3be98-3bae-806a-0300-2b87b974a903@gih.com> Message-ID: I don't disagree but I think there's a more fundamental issue. These are *social* networks. People operate in different social contexts and want to present themselves differently in a professional context than in a family context or a dating context. If each of these is independent, it's easy enough to turn off the contexts that are not relevant at any given time. It is no different than people dressing differently or speaking with different levels of formality. My son has a good friend that I'm friends with on Facebook and LinkedIn. People who know him only through his LlinkedIn posts (very professional and technical videos) would probably be appalled by his Facebook posts, and most probably vice-versa as well! Cheers, Andy On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 10:14 AM Leo Vegoda via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 7:07 AM Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond via > Internet-history wrote: > > On 29/08/2020 15:37, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > > > The only interesting question, here, is why we put up with this? > > > > Because we as humans like resiliency. Because when service A fails, we > > use service B to find out what's going on. > > I don't disagree but I think there's a more fundamental issue. These > are *social* networks. People operate in different social contexts and > want to present themselves differently in a professional context than > in a family context or a dating context. If each of these is > independent, it's easy enough to turn off the contexts that are not > relevant at any given time. > > It is no different than people dressing differently or speaking with > different levels of formality. > > Regards, > > Leo > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From touch at strayalpha.com Sat Aug 29 09:11:40 2020 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 09:11:40 -0700 Subject: [ih] The Sub-atomic Physics of The Internet Message-ID: ? >> On Aug 29, 2020, at 12:42 AM, Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond wrote: > ? If there's one problem with representation of the social media worlds as planets, it's that most people "live" on more than one planet, starting with significant Influencers who need to grow their audience. It?s not my graphic; I agree it?s flawed as an analogy. > So whilst there are plenty of parallel worlds, users travel already. I am quite pleased with the notion of parallel worlds, it's called "choice". They don?t really travel so much as are multihomed and sometimes act as translator gateways between worlds. Again, not a great analogy but - as Jack pointed out - it?s where the analogy breaks down that informs the similarity between what the Internet has social network systems have evolved into and what the Internet was intended to avoid. > Why would we want a single social gateway that would in effect become a monopoly that has the potential to lock any new social media provider out? That?s like saying that IP is a monopoly that could prevent someone from joining the Internet. The Internet avoided the monopoly by both being a common lingua franca and being open/free (as a standard). By integrating experiences inside each of these systems, social networks - somewhat like custom vendor extensions to standard protocols, and even burying DNS inside HTTP - end up creating the very ?world? the Internet was trying to avoid... Joe > Kindest regards, > > Olivier > > On 29/08/2020 02:35, Joseph Touch via Internet-history wrote: >> FWIW, that picture is of planets, not atoms. It perhaps more accurately represents the different platforms as worlds unto themselves, requiring substantial (and often not yet available) means of interplanetary transport to transit between. >> >> Joe >> >>> On Aug 28, 2020, at 12:39 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >>> >>> We know that molecules are made of atoms, and atoms are made of quarks, >>> and somewhere you get strings and other stuff I personally don't know >>> much about. I saw this infographic and it struck me as an interesting >>> snapshot of the current internal "subatomic" structure of The Internet - >>> not our traditional technical structure of circuits, routers et al, but >>> the internal social structure of the population of The Internet. >>> >>> https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-social-media-universe-in-2020/ From jack at 3kitty.org Sat Aug 29 10:34:57 2020 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 10:34:57 -0700 Subject: [ih] The Sub-atomic Physics of The Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My apologies - yes, I should have looked to Astronomy rather than Physics on seeing that graphic. The deja vu experience I was trying to relate was from two historical seminal events.? One was in the late 60s, when many sites, usually universities, had computer facilities, and one could "choose" which to use, usually by choosing an institution to join.?? The movers and shakers at ARPA had multiple terminals, one for each institution they were sponsoring, and it was tedious to constantly shift back and forth to interact with their remote colleagues.?? To address that issue, ARPA created the ARPANET. Through the 70s and 80s, other network technologies appeared, and one could choose which to use, and interact with others on that network.? But some projects required interactions between different networks.? So ARPA created TCP/IP, which formed the basic "glue" of The Internet. Now, in 2020, dozens of large social media "platforms" have evolved, built on The Internet, yet it is very tedious to interact across their boundaries (as Dave Crocker illustrated).?? AFAIK, no one has yet created the "SocialNet" to glue them all together. I agree choice is a good thing.? It allows one to pick a mechanism most suited to your own needs.? It fosters competition and survival of the fittest. But one particular "choice" has been very popular - the choice of using a mechanism that integrates the various "planets" into a cohesive community.? In the 70s, the ARPANET grew explosively because it provided that cohesion among diverse computers.? In the 90s, the Internet similarly exploded across the world, integrating all sorts of physical networks. Now we have a lot of "planets" again.?? There are even more "planetesimals" if you consider all the forums and discussion groups, media publications with hyperactive "comments" areas, and other such closed communities.?? Personally, I find it virtually impossible to keep track of it all, and not miss things that I really should see.?? I don't seem to have the choice of using a cohesive interface to multiple planets.?? At least I haven't found it. My deja vu sense tells me that it's a similar situation to that at the time of the ARPANET and Internet emergence.? ARPA seems to have gone on to other things, so I just wonder who will continue the pattern of Internet History.? And if. /Jack Haverty