[ih] NCP and TCP implementations

[Dave Crocker]

On 3/10/2020 11:53 AM, Bernie Cosell via Internet-history wrote:
>> Am I right in inferring that the key driver behind the design decision
>> was cost rather than elegance?
>
> no.  cost wasn't the issue.  in fact elegance was. 

My subjective view, at the time, was the the existence of a single 
integrated device for terminal access was extremely helpful in growing 
the user population of the early Arpanet.  Juggling two devices -- IMP 
and a separate host -- for sites needing access but not really having a 
machine or operator cycles to spare, would have been a significant 
barrier to entry.

Small tidbit:

As part of my job doing user support at the UCLA CS site, I got tasked 
with helping Einar Stefferud get started using access.  He didn't access 
through our system but had other arrangements; I just had to help.

One day he calls me up and says that he can't send email.  He was using 
Tenex.  I don't remember whether we were yet into the RD/BananaRD/MSG 
world yet, but in any case, sending was done with Sndmsg.

So I ask him to describe the problem and he says he types the 
destination address and the system responded with "Bad".

I told him he needed to enter at-sign (@) twice.  I felt quite proud of 
realizing the TIP was intercepting the the at-sign.  As I recall, the 
TIP was the only system on the net that gave 'bad' as an error message...

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net