From vgcerf at gmail.com  Fri May  7 15:32:41 2021
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 18:32:41 -0400
Subject: [ih] IENs
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>

Alex McKenzie donated paper copies of the IENs to the University of MN
Libraries. I just had them all scanned. A hard drive is being shipped. I
will be happy to upload into a common archive - do we have one besides this
mailing list?

v


From olejacobsen at me.com  Fri May  7 15:47:02 2021
From: olejacobsen at me.com (Ole Jacobsen)
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 15:47:02 -0700
Subject: [ih] IENs
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>


Vint,

Yes, we do !

See: https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien-index.html <https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien-index.html>

Ole

> On May 7, 2021, at 15:32, vinton cerf via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Alex McKenzie donated paper copies of the IENs to the University of MN
> Libraries. I just had them all scanned. A hard drive is being shipped. I
> will be happy to upload into a common archive - do we have one besides this
> mailing list?
> 
> v
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office: +1 415-550-9433
Cell:   +1 415-370-4628
Web: protocoljournal.org
E-mail: olejacobsen at me.com
E-mail: ole at protocoljournal.org
Skype: organdemo





From dhc at dcrocker.net  Fri May  7 16:02:46 2021
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 16:02:46 -0700
Subject: [ih] IENs
In-Reply-To: <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
Message-ID: <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>

On 5/7/2021 3:47 PM, Ole Jacobsen via Internet-history wrote:
> See:https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien-index.html  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien-index.html>


Also the Computer History Museum?

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Fri May  7 17:02:40 2021
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 20:02:40 -0400
Subject: [ih] IENs
In-Reply-To: <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
 <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>

What is the difference between them being at CBI and at CHM?  CBI has a better archive facility. It won?t burn down or be involved in an earthquake.

John

> On May 7, 2021, at 19:02, Dave Crocker via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> On 5/7/2021 3:47 PM, Ole Jacobsen via Internet-history wrote:
>> See:https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien-index.html  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien-index.html>
> 
> 
> Also the Computer History Museum?
> 
> 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 dhc at dcrocker.net  Fri May  7 17:55:41 2021
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 17:55:41 -0700
Subject: [ih] IENs
In-Reply-To: <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
 <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
 <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <b78e5d78-f392-225f-4e1f-b65432000b74@dcrocker.net>

On 5/7/2021 5:02 PM, John Day wrote:
> What is the difference between them being at CBI and at CHM?  CBI has a better archive facility. It won?t burn down or be involved in an earthquake.

Glad to hear that Minnesota does not have any interesting weather 
challenges.

But that's really irrelevant, since the question was about distributing 
a digital copy of the archive, not the actual papers.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Fri May  7 17:57:45 2021
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 17:57:45 -0700
Subject: [ih] Museum archiving (was: Re:  IENs)
In-Reply-To: <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
 <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
 <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <00436a99-3e69-8b67-7cbe-ae3ccc4800d5@dcrocker.net>

On 5/7/2021 5:02 PM, John Day wrote:
> CBI has a better archive facility.

So I'm curious about how each place does their archiving, such that one 
is better than the others.

I'm asking a serious question.  I've the view that a serious 'museum' 
takes long-term archiving seriously, but I don't know what the different 
choices are.

So it might be interesting to hear details for each.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net


From craig at tereschau.net  Sat May  8 05:50:37 2021
From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 06:50:37 -0600
Subject: [ih] Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
In-Reply-To: <00436a99-3e69-8b67-7cbe-ae3ccc4800d5@dcrocker.net>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
 <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
 <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
 <00436a99-3e69-8b67-7cbe-ae3ccc4800d5@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <CAHQj4CeUKG8VO+UzB9UN-oxFFH4p70LS=yBCwGMJbLdOXsD1dQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Dave:

You asked about museums and their commitment to archiving.  As someone who
was trained as a historian and still does occasional archival work for fun,
I'll hazard a somewhat structural answer and then John D. can comment on
computing museums.

One can assess archives on at least three dimensions:

* Commitment to ensuring their collections are preserved for centuries to
come.  This requires money (for fire suppression and temperature monitoring
and the like) and also requires careful evaluation and planning (preserving
paper for instance, is different from preserving paintings, which is
different from preserving fabrics).

* Commitment to creating finding aids (catalogs, indexes, collection
descriptions) that enable researchers to find items in the collections.

* Commitment to making their collections available for research (or public
display).

The last may surprise folks but there are a number of institutions that
have strong views about who should and should not be able to use their
collections, usually to the detriment of scholarship and the public
interest.

(And, if you want an example of exactly how not to do all three, consider
the team of scholars who were originally given control of the Dead Sea
Scrolls).

Craig

-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat May  8 07:10:17 2021
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 10:10:17 -0400
Subject: [ih] Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
In-Reply-To: <CAHQj4CeUKG8VO+UzB9UN-oxFFH4p70LS=yBCwGMJbLdOXsD1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
 <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
 <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
 <00436a99-3e69-8b67-7cbe-ae3ccc4800d5@dcrocker.net>
 <CAHQj4CeUKG8VO+UzB9UN-oxFFH4p70LS=yBCwGMJbLdOXsD1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2D740133-BF56-4DB5-BBD6-D127927FC093@comcast.net>

A slight correction, Craig. 

I am a recognized historian in the History of Science and Cartography, primarily 17thC-18thC China and published widely. I have spent considerable time in archives across Asia and Europe and with private collectors. My experience goes well beyond computer museums, as I told Dave off-list, including junk rooms in the Vatican. (Sometimes one finds things in the oddest places.) ;-)

You are right about access. Electronic copies can be nice, but there are important things about provenance, etc. that one can only learn by seeing the artifact itself.

John



> On May 8, 2021, at 08:50, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Dave:
> 
> You asked about museums and their commitment to archiving.  As someone who was trained as a historian and still does occasional archival work for fun, I'll hazard a somewhat structural answer and then John D. can comment on computing museums.
> 
> One can assess archives on at least three dimensions:
> 
> * Commitment to ensuring their collections are preserved for centuries to come.  This requires money (for fire suppression and temperature monitoring and the like) and also requires careful evaluation and planning (preserving paper for instance, is different from preserving paintings, which is different from preserving fabrics).
> 
> * Commitment to creating finding aids (catalogs, indexes, collection descriptions) that enable researchers to find items in the collections.
> 
> * Commitment to making their collections available for research (or public display).
> 
> The last may surprise folks but there are a number of institutions that have strong views about who should and should not be able to use their collections, usually to the detriment of scholarship and the public interest.
> 
> (And, if you want an example of exactly how not to do all three, consider the team of scholars who were originally given control of the Dead Sea Scrolls).
> 
> Craig
> 
> -- 
> *****
> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists.



From dave.walden.family at gmail.com  Sat May  8 07:42:33 2021
From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (David Walden)
Date: Sat, 08 May 2021 10:42:33 -0400
Subject: [ih] Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
Message-ID: <2rq2f6d62riyjoeq0iv6qbbp.1620484914858@email.android.com>



On May 8, 2021, at 10:11 AM, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

A slight correction, Craig. 

I am a recognized historian in the History of Science and Cartography, primarily 17thC-18thC China and published widely. I have spent considerable time in archives across Asia and Europe and with private collectors. My experience goes well beyond computer museums, as I told Dave off-list, including junk rooms in the Vatican. (Sometimes one finds things in the oddest places.) ;-)

You are right about access. Electronic copies can be nice, but there are important things about provenance, etc. that one can only learn by seeing the artifact itself.

John



> On May 8, 2021, at 08:50, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Dave:
> 
> You asked about museums and their commitment to archiving.  As someone who was trained as a historian and still does occasional archival work for fun, I'll hazard a somewhat structural answer and then John D. can comment on computing museums.
> 
> One can assess archives on at least three dimensions:
> 
> * Commitment to ensuring their collections are preserved for centuries to come.  This requires money (for fire suppression and temperature monitoring and the like) and also requires careful evaluation and planning (preserving paper for instance, is different from preserving paintings, which is different from preserving fabrics).
> 
> * Commitment to creating finding aids (catalogs, indexes, collection descriptions) that enable researchers to find items in the collections.
> 
> * Commitment to making their collections available for research (or public display).
> 
> The last may surprise folks but there are a number of institutions that have strong views about who should and should not be able to use their collections, usually to the detriment of scholarship and the public interest.
> 
> (And, if you want an example of exactly how not to do all three, consider the team of scholars who were originally given control of the Dead Sea Scrolls).
> 
> Craig
> 
> -- 
> *****
> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists.

-- 
Internet-history mailing list
Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

From olejacobsen at me.com  Sat May  8 07:44:26 2021
From: olejacobsen at me.com (Ole Jacobsen)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 07:44:26 -0700
Subject: [ih] Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
In-Reply-To: <2D740133-BF56-4DB5-BBD6-D127927FC093@comcast.net>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
 <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
 <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
 <00436a99-3e69-8b67-7cbe-ae3ccc4800d5@dcrocker.net>
 <CAHQj4CeUKG8VO+UzB9UN-oxFFH4p70LS=yBCwGMJbLdOXsD1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2D740133-BF56-4DB5-BBD6-D127927FC093@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <3E500887-1BBD-43EC-B311-5BAE072DC5F9@me.com>


Since we are on the topic of archiving, let me put in a plug for the ConneXions archive.

ConneXions ? The Interoperability Report was published monthly from
1987 through 1996 and covered emerging technologies -- including those
that never quite emerged. The Charles Babbage Institute at the University
of Minnesota has both one complete set of the paper editions as well as
a scanned (PDF) collection of ConneXions (117 issues) and it is available here:

https://cse.umn.edu/cbi/hosted-publications

Scroll down to ?Outside Authors? and select: ?ConneXions?The
Interoperability Report (1987-1996) Edited by Ole Jacobsen.?

I'll just note that there used to be a direct URL for ConneXions in the CBI
hosted publications archive, but that has recently changed. Another peril
of online museums. I assume it is possible to examine the paper copies as
well if someone wishes to do that, and I have also recently converted the
original MacWrite source files into something that can be read by modern
computers ;-)

Having published two Internet-related journals since 1987, it is interesting
to see how "current" becomes "historical" in many cases. You'll find more
recent history in The Internet Protocol Journal archive which is available
at https://ipj.dreamhosters.com/ <https://ipj.dreamhosters.com/>

Ole 

> On May 8, 2021, at 07:10, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> A slight correction, Craig. 
> 
> I am a recognized historian in the History of Science and Cartography, primarily 17thC-18thC China and published widely. I have spent considerable time in archives across Asia and Europe and with private collectors. My experience goes well beyond computer museums, as I told Dave off-list, including junk rooms in the Vatican. (Sometimes one finds things in the oddest places.) ;-)
> 
> You are right about access. Electronic copies can be nice, but there are important things about provenance, etc. that one can only learn by seeing the artifact itself.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
>> On May 8, 2021, at 08:50, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Dave:
>> 
>> You asked about museums and their commitment to archiving.  As someone who was trained as a historian and still does occasional archival work for fun, I'll hazard a somewhat structural answer and then John D. can comment on computing museums.
>> 
>> One can assess archives on at least three dimensions:
>> 
>> * Commitment to ensuring their collections are preserved for centuries to come.  This requires money (for fire suppression and temperature monitoring and the like) and also requires careful evaluation and planning (preserving paper for instance, is different from preserving paintings, which is different from preserving fabrics).
>> 
>> * Commitment to creating finding aids (catalogs, indexes, collection descriptions) that enable researchers to find items in the collections.
>> 
>> * Commitment to making their collections available for research (or public display).
>> 
>> The last may surprise folks but there are a number of institutions that have strong views about who should and should not be able to use their collections, usually to the detriment of scholarship and the public interest.
>> 
>> (And, if you want an example of exactly how not to do all three, consider the team of scholars who were originally given control of the Dead Sea Scrolls).
>> 
>> Craig
>> 
>> -- 
>> *****
>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists.
> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office: +1 415-550-9433
Cell:   +1 415-370-4628
Web: protocoljournal.org
E-mail: olejacobsen at me.com
E-mail: ole at protocoljournal.org
Skype: organdemo





From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat May  8 08:35:10 2021
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 11:35:10 -0400
Subject: [ih] [xbbn] Re:  Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
In-Reply-To: <4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719@email.android.com>
References: <4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <AFE1754D-B5A5-4D58-8F5C-990400EC72CA@comcast.net>

The thing that scares me are the administrators who think that that because the material has been scanned the original artifacts are no longer needed and can be discarded. It is far more important than that. At best, it means the artifacts don?t need to be handled as often, which as the centuries go on becomes more and more critical.

John

> On May 8, 2021, at 11:12, David Walden <dave.walden.family at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> i have been an amateur but serious historian for a couple of decades and accessing archives and observing professional historians over that time.  I think commitment to scanning/digitizing documents is important. Archives with tight budgets employing people not used to engineering level salaries and other compensation tend to see scanning/digitizing as *very*, perhaps prohibitively, expensively.  Document contributors on this list might be able to help them think about digitizing costs and methods.  
> 
> Back maybe to the sense of Dave's question, archives may not be interested in everything one has to give.  It may take more than one archive to find homes for one's materials.
> 
> Finding aids are important, as Craig noted.  An archive depending on google-like searches is less desirable in my view.  
> 
> 
> On May 8, 2021, at 10:11 AM, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
> 
> >A slight correction, Craig. 
> >I am a recognized historian in the History of Science and Cartography, primarily 17thC-18thC China and published widely. I have spent considerable time in archives across Asia and Europe and with private collectors. My experience goes well beyond computer museums, as I told Dave off-list, including junk rooms in the Vatican. (Sometimes one finds things in the oddest places.) ;-)
> >You are right about access. Electronic copies can be nice, but there are important things about provenance, etc. that one can only learn by seeing the artifact itself.
> >John
> >> On May 8, 2021, at 08:50, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net <mailto:craig at tereschau.net>> wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Hi Dave:
> >> 
> >> You asked about museums and their commitment to archiving.  As someone who was trained as a historian and still does occasional archival work for fun, I'll hazard a somewhat structural answer and then John D. can comment on computing museums.
> >> 
> >> One can assess archives on at least three dimensions:
> >> 
> >> * Commitment to ensuring their collections are preserved for centuries to come.  This requires money (for fire suppression and temperature monitoring and the like) and also requires careful evaluation and planning (preserving paper for instance, is different from preserving paintings, which is different from preserving fabrics).
> >> 
> >> * Commitment to creating finding aids (catalogs, indexes, collection descriptions) that enable researchers to find items in the collections.
> >> 
> >> * Commitment to making their collections available for research (or public display).
> >> 
> >> The last may surprise folks but there are a number of institutions that have strong views about who should and should not be able to use their collections, usually to the detriment of scholarship and the public interest.
> >> 
> >> (And, if you want an example of exactly how not to do all three, consider the team of scholars who were originally given control of the Dead Sea Scrolls).
> >> 
> >> Craig
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> *****
> >> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists.
> >-- 
> >Internet-history mailing list
> >Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> >https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "xBBN" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com <mailto:xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.



From johnl at iecc.com  Sat May  8 08:36:50 2021
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 8 May 2021 11:36:50 -0400
Subject: [ih] IENs
In-Reply-To: <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <20210508153651.F149472B542@ary.qy>

It appears that John Day via Internet-history <jeanjour at comcast.net> said:
>What is the difference between them being at CBI and at CHM?  CBI has a better archive facility. It won?t burn
>down or be involved in an earthquake.

The CHM already has an agreement to archive RFCs.  I expect it would be
easy enough to add the scanned IENs.

R's,
John


From vgcerf at gmail.com  Sat May  8 09:06:29 2021
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 12:06:29 -0400
Subject: [ih] IENs
In-Reply-To: <20210508153651.F149472B542@ary.qy>
References: <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
 <20210508153651.F149472B542@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_VMKhGjy9kVtxHys3Yk8FSo+9B7L_ZQWvdbqUBm7oXMKQ@mail.gmail.com>

thanks John, good to know. I want them to be readily accessible for anyone
on the web, too.
v


On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 11:37 AM John Levine via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> It appears that John Day via Internet-history <jeanjour at comcast.net> said:
> >What is the difference between them being at CBI and at CHM?  CBI has a
> better archive facility. It won?t burn
> >down or be involved in an earthquake.
>
> The CHM already has an agreement to archive RFCs.  I expect it would be
> easy enough to add the scanned IENs.
>
> R's,
> John
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From vgcerf at gmail.com  Sat May  8 09:07:00 2021
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 12:07:00 -0400
Subject: [ih] [xbbn] Re: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
In-Reply-To: <AFE1754D-B5A5-4D58-8F5C-990400EC72CA@comcast.net>
References: <4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719@email.android.com>
 <AFE1754D-B5A5-4D58-8F5C-990400EC72CA@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_U_b7n_Vk9Pq7saAqaxG6skM=8Nj7T_6G=iSnxJKNK2wg@mail.gmail.com>

that is not the case here. Univ MN Library retains the originals.
v


On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 11:36 AM John Day via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> The thing that scares me are the administrators who think that that
> because the material has been scanned the original artifacts are no longer
> needed and can be discarded. It is far more important than that. At best,
> it means the artifacts don?t need to be handled as often, which as the
> centuries go on becomes more and more critical.
>
> John
>
> > On May 8, 2021, at 11:12, David Walden <dave.walden.family at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > i have been an amateur but serious historian for a couple of decades and
> accessing archives and observing professional historians over that time.  I
> think commitment to scanning/digitizing documents is important. Archives
> with tight budgets employing people not used to engineering level salaries
> and other compensation tend to see scanning/digitizing as *very*, perhaps
> prohibitively, expensively.  Document contributors on this list might be
> able to help them think about digitizing costs and methods.
> >
> > Back maybe to the sense of Dave's question, archives may not be
> interested in everything one has to give.  It may take more than one
> archive to find homes for one's materials.
> >
> > Finding aids are important, as Craig noted.  An archive depending on
> google-like searches is less desirable in my view.
> >
> >
> > On May 8, 2021, at 10:11 AM, John Day via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
> wrote:
> >
> > >A slight correction, Craig.
> > >I am a recognized historian in the History of Science and Cartography,
> primarily 17thC-18thC China and published widely. I have spent considerable
> time in archives across Asia and Europe and with private collectors. My
> experience goes well beyond computer museums, as I told Dave off-list,
> including junk rooms in the Vatican. (Sometimes one finds things in the
> oddest places.) ;-)
> > >You are right about access. Electronic copies can be nice, but there
> are important things about provenance, etc. that one can only learn by
> seeing the artifact itself.
> > >John
> > >> On May 8, 2021, at 08:50, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net
> <mailto:craig at tereschau.net>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Hi Dave:
> > >>
> > >> You asked about museums and their commitment to archiving.  As
> someone who was trained as a historian and still does occasional archival
> work for fun, I'll hazard a somewhat structural answer and then John D. can
> comment on computing museums.
> > >>
> > >> One can assess archives on at least three dimensions:
> > >>
> > >> * Commitment to ensuring their collections are preserved for
> centuries to come.  This requires money (for fire suppression and
> temperature monitoring and the like) and also requires careful evaluation
> and planning (preserving paper for instance, is different from preserving
> paintings, which is different from preserving fabrics).
> > >>
> > >> * Commitment to creating finding aids (catalogs, indexes, collection
> descriptions) that enable researchers to find items in the collections.
> > >>
> > >> * Commitment to making their collections available for research (or
> public display).
> > >>
> > >> The last may surprise folks but there are a number of institutions
> that have strong views about who should and should not be able to use their
> collections, usually to the detriment of scholarship and the public
> interest.
> > >>
> > >> (And, if you want an example of exactly how not to do all three,
> consider the team of scholars who were originally given control of the Dead
> Sea Scrolls).
> > >>
> > >> Craig
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> *****
> > >> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities
> and mailing lists.
> > >--
> > >Internet-history mailing list
> > >Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> > >https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "xBBN" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com <mailto:
> xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com>.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com
> <
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> >.
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From vgcerf at gmail.com  Sat May  8 09:09:26 2021
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 12:09:26 -0400
Subject: [ih] Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
In-Reply-To: <CAHQj4CeUKG8VO+UzB9UN-oxFFH4p70LS=yBCwGMJbLdOXsD1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
 <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
 <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
 <00436a99-3e69-8b67-7cbe-ae3ccc4800d5@dcrocker.net>
 <CAHQj4CeUKG8VO+UzB9UN-oxFFH4p70LS=yBCwGMJbLdOXsD1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_XEBUytjD1=b4KJGQxg=NVsraeSV+igbC3OHjNA9O_WCw@mail.gmail.com>

there is a whole website (probably many) devoted to the definition of
archive:

OAIS.INFO

v




On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 8:51 AM Craig Partridge via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Hi Dave:
>
> You asked about museums and their commitment to archiving.  As someone who
> was trained as a historian and still does occasional archival work for fun,
> I'll hazard a somewhat structural answer and then John D. can comment on
> computing museums.
>
> One can assess archives on at least three dimensions:
>
> * Commitment to ensuring their collections are preserved for centuries to
> come.  This requires money (for fire suppression and temperature monitoring
> and the like) and also requires careful evaluation and planning (preserving
> paper for instance, is different from preserving paintings, which is
> different from preserving fabrics).
>
> * Commitment to creating finding aids (catalogs, indexes, collection
> descriptions) that enable researchers to find items in the collections.
>
> * Commitment to making their collections available for research (or public
> display).
>
> The last may surprise folks but there are a number of institutions that
> have strong views about who should and should not be able to use their
> collections, usually to the detriment of scholarship and the public
> interest.
>
> (And, if you want an example of exactly how not to do all three, consider
> the team of scholars who were originally given control of the Dead Sea
> Scrolls).
>
> Craig
>
> --
> *****
> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
> mailing lists.
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From el at lisse.na  Sat May  8 10:09:09 2021
From: el at lisse.na (el at lisse.na)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 19:09:09 +0200
Subject: [ih] youngling
References: <3e131267-4e55-4d96-a7fd-e35a24d6975e@Spark>
Message-ID: <5891cd74-558a-47aa-b091-a8315fc38b89@Spark>

whois -h whois.iana.org NA | grep ^created

Unchanged management :-)-O

el

?
Sent from Dr Lisse?s iPhone


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sat May  8 10:38:50 2021
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 10:38:50 -0700
Subject: [ih] Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
In-Reply-To: <00436a99-3e69-8b67-7cbe-ae3ccc4800d5@dcrocker.net>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
 <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
 <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
 <00436a99-3e69-8b67-7cbe-ae3ccc4800d5@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <6e884a7f-7a62-4584-eb63-6c2d478658f4@dcrocker.net>

On 5/7/2021 5:57 PM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
> So I'm curious about how each place does their archiving, such that one 
> is better than the others.

Thanks for the multiple discussions around the underlying aspects of 
museum goals and operation.

I've included the above, from my original note, for continuing to pursue 
the differentiation between CHM and CBI.  Perhaps CBI's geologic 
stability (and caves dug into that very stable ground) are the sole (and 
possibly sufficient) discriminator, but I'm still curious about the 
details for each place.  For example I don't know anything about the 
details of CHM's long-term storage operation.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat May  8 11:41:47 2021
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 14:41:47 -0400
Subject: [ih] Fwd:  [xbbn] Re: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
References: <7F582F6C-5572-4441-BA12-728DEC97325C@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <34EF09B8-F26E-49B0-B982-096AA220DD13@comcast.net>

Sorry forgot Reply-All

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [ih] [xbbn] Re: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
> Date: May 8, 2021 at 14:39:47 EDT
> To: vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com>
> 
> Yes, I know. They weren?t my concern. Generally, it isn?t librarians who have these ideas. They understand. It is further up the chain that there are barbaric ideas. Much of CBI is available on-line. I thought that once they scanned material it became available.
> 
> They are currently renovating the ?math building? at Illinois. Altgeld is one of the oldest buildings on campus and the original library, now the math library. It has a glorious reading room with those great ?working and learning? murals of the early 20thC and they are making sure that they preserve and repair the glass floors of the stacks!! (Only have to light every other row on two floors.) The building and the math dept deserve each other. The floor plan has half floors and other twists and turns that make it almost a maze, and the secreted Bourbaki?s office!  ;-)
> 
>> On May 8, 2021, at 12:07, vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com <mailto:vgcerf at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> that is not the case here. Univ MN Library retains the originals.
>> v
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 11:36 AM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>> The thing that scares me are the administrators who think that that because the material has been scanned the original artifacts are no longer needed and can be discarded. It is far more important than that. At best, it means the artifacts don?t need to be handled as often, which as the centuries go on becomes more and more critical.
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> > On May 8, 2021, at 11:12, David Walden <dave.walden.family at gmail.com <mailto:dave.walden.family at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > 
>> > i have been an amateur but serious historian for a couple of decades and accessing archives and observing professional historians over that time.  I think commitment to scanning/digitizing documents is important. Archives with tight budgets employing people not used to engineering level salaries and other compensation tend to see scanning/digitizing as *very*, perhaps prohibitively, expensively.  Document contributors on this list might be able to help them think about digitizing costs and methods.  
>> > 
>> > Back maybe to the sense of Dave's question, archives may not be interested in everything one has to give.  It may take more than one archive to find homes for one's materials.
>> > 
>> > Finding aids are important, as Craig noted.  An archive depending on google-like searches is less desirable in my view.  
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On May 8, 2021, at 10:11 AM, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>> wrote:
>> > 
>> > >A slight correction, Craig. 
>> > >I am a recognized historian in the History of Science and Cartography, primarily 17thC-18thC China and published widely. I have spent considerable time in archives across Asia and Europe and with private collectors. My experience goes well beyond computer museums, as I told Dave off-list, including junk rooms in the Vatican. (Sometimes one finds things in the oddest places.) ;-)
>> > >You are right about access. Electronic copies can be nice, but there are important things about provenance, etc. that one can only learn by seeing the artifact itself.
>> > >John
>> > >> On May 8, 2021, at 08:50, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net <mailto:craig at tereschau.net> <mailto:craig at tereschau.net <mailto:craig at tereschau.net>>> wrote:
>> > >> 
>> > >> 
>> > >> Hi Dave:
>> > >> 
>> > >> You asked about museums and their commitment to archiving.  As someone who was trained as a historian and still does occasional archival work for fun, I'll hazard a somewhat structural answer and then John D. can comment on computing museums.
>> > >> 
>> > >> One can assess archives on at least three dimensions:
>> > >> 
>> > >> * Commitment to ensuring their collections are preserved for centuries to come.  This requires money (for fire suppression and temperature monitoring and the like) and also requires careful evaluation and planning (preserving paper for instance, is different from preserving paintings, which is different from preserving fabrics).
>> > >> 
>> > >> * Commitment to creating finding aids (catalogs, indexes, collection descriptions) that enable researchers to find items in the collections.
>> > >> 
>> > >> * Commitment to making their collections available for research (or public display).
>> > >> 
>> > >> The last may surprise folks but there are a number of institutions that have strong views about who should and should not be able to use their collections, usually to the detriment of scholarship and the public interest.
>> > >> 
>> > >> (And, if you want an example of exactly how not to do all three, consider the team of scholars who were originally given control of the Dead Sea Scrolls).
>> > >> 
>> > >> Craig
>> > >> 
>> > >> -- 
>> > >> *****
>> > >> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists.
>> > >-- 
>> > >Internet-history mailing list
>> > >Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
>> > >https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history> <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>>
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "xBBN" group.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com <mailto:xbbn%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com> <mailto:xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com <mailto:xbbn%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com>>.
>> > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
> 



From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat May  8 12:19:39 2021
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 15:19:39 -0400
Subject: [ih] [xbbn]  Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
In-Reply-To: <38208293-d2d0-8264-e296-bf91658f3845@mit.edu>
References: <4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719@email.android.com>
 <AFE1754D-B5A5-4D58-8F5C-990400EC72CA@comcast.net>
 <38208293-d2d0-8264-e296-bf91658f3845@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <8A092FD7-2F4F-4FF3-B364-BCD8CF473ADC@comcast.net>

My favorite library story didn?t take place in a library:

One afternoon I had an appointment at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris (The original not the new one.) about some research I was doing on 17thC China.  I was down on rue de Rennes and didn?t want to be late and trust the Metro as I usually would. So I hailed a cab, jumped in the back, and in my best French said, "Bibliotheque Nationale, s?il vous plait?? The driver turned to me and in English (so much for my French) ;-) said, ?Do you have an address?? I looked at him dumbfounded. Huh? It has been there for 300+ years, it takes up 4 blocks! How can you not know where it is! (Of course, I didn?t say that.) He repeated, ?Do you have an address?? I blurted out, ?Rue Richelieu?. And off we tore through Paris. Across the Seine, up the Av. de l?Opera, hung a couple of rights and pulled up in front of the Bibliotheque. As I was leaning forward to pay him, he turned to me and said, ?Shows! Women! I can find! BUT BOOKS!!?  ;-) I fell on the floor laughing. 

What a great cabby!

John

> On May 8, 2021, at 12:03, Bill Cattey <wdc at MIT.EDU> wrote:
> 
> In the 1990s, I had the great good fortune of collaborating with MIT Librarians.  It was the favorite part of my career. I learned a LOT from them.  This thread puts me in mind of my favorite librarian story -- proof that scanning for archiving is never going to be sufficient.
> 
> There was a researcher who was researching an archive of letters to home written by Civil War servicemen.
> 
> The researcher was smelling the letters.
> 
> Why?  In encampments where there was cholera, all outgoing mail was spritzed with vinegar as a crude disinfectant.  There was never good tracking of cholera, but these letters home provided a proxy for recorded cholera outbreaks during the Civil War!
> 
> -Bill Cattey BBN '86
> 
> John Day wrote on 5/8/21 11:35 AM:
>> The thing that scares me are the administrators who think that that because the material has been scanned the original artifacts are no longer needed and can be discarded. It is far more important than that. At best, it means the artifacts don?t need to be handled as often, which as the centuries go on becomes more and more critical.
>> 
>> John
>> 
>>> On May 8, 2021, at 11:12, David Walden <dave.walden.family at gmail.com <mailto:dave.walden.family at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> i have been an amateur but serious historian for a couple of decades and accessing archives and observing professional historians over that time.  I think commitment to scanning/digitizing documents is important. Archives with tight budgets employing people not used to engineering level salaries and other compensation tend to see  scanning/digitizing as *very*, perhaps prohibitively, expensively.  Document contributors on this list might be able to help them think about digitizing costs and methods.  
>>> 
>>> Back maybe to the sense of Dave's question, archives may not be interested in everything one has to give.  It may take more than one archive to find homes for one's materials.
>>> 
>>> Finding aids are important, as Craig noted.  An archive depending on google-like searches is less desirable in my view.  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On May 8, 2021, at 10:11 AM, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> >A slight correction, Craig. 
>>> >I am a recognized historian in the History of Science and Cartography, primarily 17thC-18thC China and published widely. I have spent considerable time in archives across Asia and Europe and with private collectors. My experience goes well beyond computer museums, as I told Dave off-list, including junk rooms in the Vatican. (Sometimes one finds things in the oddest places.) ;-)
>>> >You are right about access. Electronic copies can be nice, but there are important things about provenance, etc. that one can only learn by seeing the artifact itself.
>>> >John
>>> >> On May 8, 2021, at 08:50, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net <mailto:craig at tereschau.net>> wrote:
>>> >> 
>>> >> 
>>> >> Hi Dave:
>>> >> 
>>> >> You asked about museums and their commitment to archiving.  As someone who was trained as a historian and still does occasional archival work for fun, I'll hazard a somewhat structural answer and then John D. can comment on computing museums.
>>> >> 
>>> >> One can assess archives on at least three dimensions:
>>> >> 
>>> >> * Commitment to ensuring their collections are preserved for centuries to come.  This requires money (for fire suppression and temperature monitoring and the like) and also requires careful evaluation and planning (preserving paper for instance, is different from preserving paintings, which is different from preserving fabrics).
>>> >> 
>>> >> * Commitment to creating finding aids (catalogs, indexes, collection descriptions) that enable researchers to find items in the collections.
>>> >> 
>>> >> * Commitment to making their collections available for research (or public display).
>>> >> 
>>> >> The last may surprise folks but there are a number of institutions that have strong views about who should and should not be able to use their collections, usually to the detriment of scholarship and the public interest.
>>> >> 
>>> >> (And, if you want an example of exactly how not to do all three, consider the team of scholars who were originally given control of the Dead Sea Scrolls).
>>> >> 
>>> >> Craig
>>> >> 
>>> >> -- 
>>> >> *****
>>> >> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists.
>>> >-- 
>>> >Internet-history mailing list
>>> >Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>>> >https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "xBBN" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com <mailto:xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com>.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "xBBN" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com <mailto:xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com>.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/AFE1754D-B5A5-4D58-8F5C-990400EC72CA%40comcast.net <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/AFE1754D-B5A5-4D58-8F5C-990400EC72CA%40comcast.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "xBBN" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com <mailto:xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/38208293-d2d0-8264-e296-bf91658f3845%40mit.edu <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/38208293-d2d0-8264-e296-bf91658f3845%40mit.edu?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.



From steffen at sdaoden.eu  Sat May  8 13:03:49 2021
From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso)
Date: Sat, 08 May 2021 22:03:49 +0200
Subject: [ih] [xbbn]  Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
In-Reply-To: <8A092FD7-2F4F-4FF3-B364-BCD8CF473ADC@comcast.net>
References: <4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719@email.android.com>
 <AFE1754D-B5A5-4D58-8F5C-990400EC72CA@comcast.net>
 <38208293-d2d0-8264-e296-bf91658f3845@mit.edu>
 <8A092FD7-2F4F-4FF3-B364-BCD8CF473ADC@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <20210508200349.L-1C-%steffen@sdaoden.eu>

John Day wrote in
 <8A092FD7-2F4F-4FF3-B364-BCD8CF473ADC at comcast.net>:
 |My favorite library story didn?t take place in a library:
 |
 |One afternoon I had an appointment at the Bibliotheque Nationale in \
 |Paris (The original not the new one.) about some research I was doing \
 |on 17thC China.  I was down on rue de Rennes and didn?t want to be \
 |late and trust the Metro as I usually would. So I hailed a cab, jumped \
 |in the back, and in my best French said, "Bibliotheque Nationale, s?il \
 |vous plait?? The driver turned to me and in English (so much for my \
 |French) ;-) said, ?Do you have an address?? I looked at him dumbfounded. \
 |Huh? It has been there for 300+ years, it takes up 4 blocks! How can \
 |you not know where it is! (Of course, I didn?t say that.) He repeated, \
 |?Do you have an address?? I blurted out, ?Rue Richelieu?. And off we \
 |tore through Paris. Across the Seine, up the Av. de l?Opera, hung a \
 |couple of rights and pulled up in front of the Bibliotheque. As I was \
 |leaning forward to pay him, he turned to me and said, ?Shows! Women! \
 |I can find! BUT BOOKS!!?  ;-) I fell on the floor laughing. 
 |
 |What a great cabby!

For the ones who have no idea of France like myself, that poor guy
surely was perplexed by the need to drive someone for anything
else but the usual tourist "Les Bouquinistes! Les Bouquinistes!!!"

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)


From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sat May  8 13:17:55 2021
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Sun, 9 May 2021 08:17:55 +1200
Subject: [ih] Link rot (was: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs))
In-Reply-To: <3E500887-1BBD-43EC-B311-5BAE072DC5F9@me.com>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
 <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
 <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
 <00436a99-3e69-8b67-7cbe-ae3ccc4800d5@dcrocker.net>
 <CAHQj4CeUKG8VO+UzB9UN-oxFFH4p70LS=yBCwGMJbLdOXsD1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2D740133-BF56-4DB5-BBD6-D127927FC093@comcast.net>
 <3E500887-1BBD-43EC-B311-5BAE072DC5F9@me.com>
Message-ID: <7c4f71e0-ce7f-6265-5a2c-fa3854ef2bb2@gmail.com>

On 09-May-21 02:44, Ole Jacobsen via Internet-history wrote:
...
> I'll just note that there used to be a direct URL for ConneXions in the CBI
> hosted publications archive, but that has recently changed. Another peril
> of online museums. 

Indeed, and I wonder whether this august body could somehow try to change the thinking of archivists about that problem. Just over the last year or so, I've been digging in archives quite a bit (for  doi.org/10.1109/MAHC.2020.2990647 and a forthcoming follow-up) and even in that time, some URLs have rotted, which makes it annoying to go back and follow up a new detail, and invalidates published citations. Over the longer term, say 10 years, even more links rot and search results become misleading or useless.

(Or maybe that's a topic for the SIGCIS list.)

Regards
   Brian Carpenter


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat May  8 13:45:52 2021
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 16:45:52 -0400
Subject: [ih] Link rot (was: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs))
In-Reply-To: <7c4f71e0-ce7f-6265-5a2c-fa3854ef2bb2@gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
 <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
 <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
 <00436a99-3e69-8b67-7cbe-ae3ccc4800d5@dcrocker.net>
 <CAHQj4CeUKG8VO+UzB9UN-oxFFH4p70LS=yBCwGMJbLdOXsD1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2D740133-BF56-4DB5-BBD6-D127927FC093@comcast.net>
 <3E500887-1BBD-43EC-B311-5BAE072DC5F9@me.com>
 <7c4f71e0-ce7f-6265-5a2c-fa3854ef2bb2@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FF70181E-6766-4483-B04C-F33A054D8F9B@comcast.net>

Couldn?t agree more.  A URL as a citation is practically useless. The Internet is not much of an archive.

> On May 8, 2021, at 16:17, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 09-May-21 02:44, Ole Jacobsen via Internet-history wrote:
> ...
>> I'll just note that there used to be a direct URL for ConneXions in the CBI
>> hosted publications archive, but that has recently changed. Another peril
>> of online museums. 
> 
> Indeed, and I wonder whether this august body could somehow try to change the thinking of archivists about that problem. Just over the last year or so, I've been digging in archives quite a bit (for  doi.org/10.1109/MAHC.2020.2990647 and a forthcoming follow-up) and even in that time, some URLs have rotted, which makes it annoying to go back and follow up a new detail, and invalidates published citations. Over the longer term, say 10 years, even more links rot and search results become misleading or useless.
> 
> (Or maybe that's a topic for the SIGCIS list.)
> 
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter



From feinler at earthlink.net  Sat May  8 14:24:16 2021
From: feinler at earthlink.net (Jake Feinler)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 14:24:16 -0700
Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 20, Issue 4
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
References: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
Message-ID: <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>

I am jumping into the middle of this and haven?t seen what went before, but thought you would like to know

A full set of (paper) IENs is contained in the collection I gave to the Computer History Museum, Mountain View, CA..

And you will be amused to know that when I told a group at ISOC that my wish was for a computer storage medium that lasted as long as paper, everyone laughed and thought I was joking.  I wasn?t.  So far I have lived through:  library catalogs on cards, microfilm, microfiche, punched cards, computer tapes (both 7 and 9 track), floppy disks, small and large hard disks, thumb drives, information servers, the web, and the cloud (and probably a few I?ve forgotten).  Each has had more or less a 10 year time frame, before we moved on to something else and obsoleted everything that came before.  And try to find something that stands still on the web - now you see it, now you don?t. True, all these processes are faster and more portable, but not necessarily more durable. I say, historians should not count paper out, until they have something that can outlast it.

My 2c for what it is worth.

Jake

> On May 8, 2021, at 12:00 PM, internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org 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. Fwd:  [xbbn] Re: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs) (John Day)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 14:41:47 -0400
> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
> To: BBN Alumni <xbbn at xbbn.org>, internet-history
> 	<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> Subject: [ih] Fwd:  [xbbn] Re: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
> Message-ID: <34EF09B8-F26E-49B0-B982-096AA220DD13 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=utf-8
> 
> Sorry forgot Reply-All
> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
>> Subject: Re: [ih] [xbbn] Re: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
>> Date: May 8, 2021 at 14:39:47 EDT
>> To: vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com>
>> 
>> Yes, I know. They weren?t my concern. Generally, it isn?t librarians who have these ideas. They understand. It is further up the chain that there are barbaric ideas. Much of CBI is available on-line. I thought that once they scanned material it became available.
>> 
>> They are currently renovating the ?math building? at Illinois. Altgeld is one of the oldest buildings on campus and the original library, now the math library. It has a glorious reading room with those great ?working and learning? murals of the early 20thC and they are making sure that they preserve and repair the glass floors of the stacks!! (Only have to light every other row on two floors.) The building and the math dept deserve each other. The floor plan has half floors and other twists and turns that make it almost a maze, and the secreted Bourbaki?s office!  ;-)
>> 
>>> On May 8, 2021, at 12:07, vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com <mailto:vgcerf at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> that is not the case here. Univ MN Library retains the originals.
>>> v
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 11:36 AM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>> The thing that scares me are the administrators who think that that because the material has been scanned the original artifacts are no longer needed and can be discarded. It is far more important than that. At best, it means the artifacts don?t need to be handled as often, which as the centuries go on becomes more and more critical.
>>> 
>>> John
>>> 
>>>> On May 8, 2021, at 11:12, David Walden <dave.walden.family at gmail.com <mailto:dave.walden.family at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> i have been an amateur but serious historian for a couple of decades and accessing archives and observing professional historians over that time.  I think commitment to scanning/digitizing documents is important. Archives with tight budgets employing people not used to engineering level salaries and other compensation tend to see scanning/digitizing as *very*, perhaps prohibitively, expensively.  Document contributors on this list might be able to help them think about digitizing costs and methods.  
>>>> 
>>>> Back maybe to the sense of Dave's question, archives may not be interested in everything one has to give.  It may take more than one archive to find homes for one's materials.
>>>> 
>>>> Finding aids are important, as Craig noted.  An archive depending on google-like searches is less desirable in my view.  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On May 8, 2021, at 10:11 AM, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> A slight correction, Craig. 
>>>>> I am a recognized historian in the History of Science and Cartography, primarily 17thC-18thC China and published widely. I have spent considerable time in archives across Asia and Europe and with private collectors. My experience goes well beyond computer museums, as I told Dave off-list, including junk rooms in the Vatican. (Sometimes one finds things in the oddest places.) ;-)
>>>>> You are right about access. Electronic copies can be nice, but there are important things about provenance, etc. that one can only learn by seeing the artifact itself.
>>>>> John
>>>>>> On May 8, 2021, at 08:50, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net <mailto:craig at tereschau.net> <mailto:craig at tereschau.net <mailto:craig at tereschau.net>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Dave:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You asked about museums and their commitment to archiving.  As someone who was trained as a historian and still does occasional archival work for fun, I'll hazard a somewhat structural answer and then John D. can comment on computing museums.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> One can assess archives on at least three dimensions:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> * Commitment to ensuring their collections are preserved for centuries to come.  This requires money (for fire suppression and temperature monitoring and the like) and also requires careful evaluation and planning (preserving paper for instance, is different from preserving paintings, which is different from preserving fabrics).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> * Commitment to creating finding aids (catalogs, indexes, collection descriptions) that enable researchers to find items in the collections.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> * Commitment to making their collections available for research (or public display).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The last may surprise folks but there are a number of institutions that have strong views about who should and should not be able to use their collections, usually to the detriment of scholarship and the public interest.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (And, if you want an example of exactly how not to do all three, consider the team of scholars who were originally given control of the Dead Sea Scrolls).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> *****
>>>>>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists.
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history> <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>>
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "xBBN" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com <mailto:xbbn%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com> <mailto:xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com <mailto:xbbn%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com>>.
>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 20, Issue 4
> ***********************************************



From jack at 3kitty.org  Sat May  8 14:24:48 2021
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 14:24:48 -0700
Subject: [ih] Link rot (was: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs))
In-Reply-To: <FF70181E-6766-4483-B04C-F33A054D8F9B@comcast.net>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
 <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
 <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
 <00436a99-3e69-8b67-7cbe-ae3ccc4800d5@dcrocker.net>
 <CAHQj4CeUKG8VO+UzB9UN-oxFFH4p70LS=yBCwGMJbLdOXsD1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2D740133-BF56-4DB5-BBD6-D127927FC093@comcast.net>
 <3E500887-1BBD-43EC-B311-5BAE072DC5F9@me.com>
 <7c4f71e0-ce7f-6265-5a2c-fa3854ef2bb2@gmail.com>
 <FF70181E-6766-4483-B04C-F33A054D8F9B@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <94c51943-fb59-39d3-4b72-3d11e45e44ac@3kitty.org>

Sometimes you can find lost URLs' contents by looking at archive.org if
you can remember the relevant URL.

At one point in the '90s while I was on the W3C I lobbied for the
introduction of a new form of URL - a "PURL" or permanent URL.?? PURLs
would have their content cached in a permanent database (akin to
archive.org), so that if/when the URL ever disappeared the last content
would still be available.? Someone creating web content who wanted it to
have longevity would submit it as a PURL to that database, which would
copy its contents and periodically check for changes.?? The backend
storage would be maintained and managed by W3C.

Looking now from 2021, archive.org does provide a very similar service
although I'm not sure how comprehensive it is.? Also, it's not clear
whether or not popular search engines would find something that has
disappeared as a URL, but is still present in the archive.org
repository.? And like most other repositories, the survival of
archive.org depends on some stream of continuous life support (funding,
etc.)

I've occasionally caught some corporation's misdeeds by such
retrievals.? E.g., when a manufacturer promises that a product will do
something, it's no longer sufficient for them to just change the
product's web page to erase all traces of the promise.? Chances are it's
in the archive still and they have a tough time claiming they never said
that.

/Jack

On 5/8/21 1:45 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> Couldn?t agree more.  A URL as a citation is practically useless. The Internet is not much of an archive.
>
>> On May 8, 2021, at 16:17, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 09-May-21 02:44, Ole Jacobsen via Internet-history wrote:
>> ...
>>> I'll just note that there used to be a direct URL for ConneXions in the CBI
>>> hosted publications archive, but that has recently changed. Another peril
>>> of online museums. 
>> Indeed, and I wonder whether this august body could somehow try to change the thinking of archivists about that problem. Just over the last year or so, I've been digging in archives quite a bit (for  doi.org/10.1109/MAHC.2020.2990647 and a forthcoming follow-up) and even in that time, some URLs have rotted, which makes it annoying to go back and follow up a new detail, and invalidates published citations. Over the longer term, say 10 years, even more links rot and search results become misleading or useless.
>>
>> (Or maybe that's a topic for the SIGCIS list.)
>>
>> Regards
>>   Brian Carpenter



From bernie at fantasyfarm.com  Sat May  8 14:29:33 2021
From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell)
Date: Sat, 08 May 2021 17:29:33 -0400
Subject: [ih] Link rot (was: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs))
In-Reply-To: <FF70181E-6766-4483-B04C-F33A054D8F9B@comcast.net>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
 <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
 <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
 <00436a99-3e69-8b67-7cbe-ae3ccc4800d5@dcrocker.net>
 <CAHQj4CeUKG8VO+UzB9UN-oxFFH4p70LS=yBCwGMJbLdOXsD1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2D740133-BF56-4DB5-BBD6-D127927FC093@comcast.net>
 <3E500887-1BBD-43EC-B311-5BAE072DC5F9@me.com>
 <7c4f71e0-ce7f-6265-5a2c-fa3854ef2bb2@gmail.com>
 <FF70181E-6766-4483-B04C-F33A054D8F9B@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <1794de2ae60.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com>

On May 8, 2021 16:46:29 John Day via Internet-history 
<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Couldn?t agree more.  A URL as a citation is practically useless. The 
> Internet is not much of an archive.

actually, even traditional citations aren't much help.   if a paper cites
something like "annals of esoterica, june 1939" that strikes me as not
much help. and even if you somehow learned that there was a copy
of that journal, but it was in a library in serbo-Croatia
{that may or may not still exist - the real world analogue of link rot} what
help is that.

my view is that providing permanent usable citations isn't well solved.
and I'm not sure that the problem of link rot isn't potentially more
solvable than links to dead tree references.  for example, at least digital
reference docs are easily replicated and links could be repaired.

/b\

                     Bernie Cosell
           bernie at fantasyfarm. com
? Too many people,  too few sheep ?


From dave.walden.family at gmail.com  Sat May  8 14:51:07 2021
From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (Dave Walden)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 17:51:07 -0400
Subject: [ih] Link rot (was: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs))
In-Reply-To: <FF70181E-6766-4483-B04C-F33A054D8F9B@comcast.net>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
 <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
 <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
 <00436a99-3e69-8b67-7cbe-ae3ccc4800d5@dcrocker.net>
 <CAHQj4CeUKG8VO+UzB9UN-oxFFH4p70LS=yBCwGMJbLdOXsD1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2D740133-BF56-4DB5-BBD6-D127927FC093@comcast.net>
 <3E500887-1BBD-43EC-B311-5BAE072DC5F9@me.com>
 <7c4f71e0-ce7f-6265-5a2c-fa3854ef2bb2@gmail.com>
 <FF70181E-6766-4483-B04C-F33A054D8F9B@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CAM1V=pmdfLpjYbKrxvguRKWo==__5TKejqaYLPvty2i1tOkajQ@mail.gmail.com>

Historian Jim Cortada recommends keeping copies of web pages one sites in
his book Hunting History.  One could submit the URL copies along with one's
contributions to an archive.

On Sat, May 8, 2021, 4:46 PM John Day via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Couldn?t agree more.  A URL as a citation is practically useless. The
> Internet is not much of an archive.
>
> > On May 8, 2021, at 16:17, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 09-May-21 02:44, Ole Jacobsen via Internet-history wrote:
> > ...
> >> I'll just note that there used to be a direct URL for ConneXions in the
> CBI
> >> hosted publications archive, but that has recently changed. Another
> peril
> >> of online museums.
> >
> > Indeed, and I wonder whether this august body could somehow try to
> change the thinking of archivists about that problem. Just over the last
> year or so, I've been digging in archives quite a bit (for
> doi.org/10.1109/MAHC.2020.2990647 and a forthcoming follow-up) and even
> in that time, some URLs have rotted, which makes it annoying to go back and
> follow up a new detail, and invalidates published citations. Over the
> longer term, say 10 years, even more links rot and search results become
> misleading or useless.
> >
> > (Or maybe that's a topic for the SIGCIS list.)
> >
> > Regards
> >   Brian Carpenter
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From casner at acm.org  Sat May  8 15:42:59 2021
From: casner at acm.org (Stephen Casner)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 15:42:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 20, Issue 4
In-Reply-To: <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
References: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.9999.2105081515510.39024@auge.attlocal.net>

On Sat, 8 May 2021, Jake Feinler via Internet-history wrote:

> And you will be amused to know that when I told a group at ISOC that
> my wish was for a computer storage medium that lasted as long as
> paper, everyone laughed and thought I was joking.  I wasn't.

You're right.  I remember a librarian (perhaps at the Huntington
Library) saying that we have 500-year-old books that we can read
perfectly, whereas we lose that ability for modern media.  Some more
recent books printed on poor-quality paper also do not last, but for
at least some of those it's no great loss.

                                                        -- Steve


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sat May  8 15:47:34 2021
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 15:47:34 -0700
Subject: [ih] Link rot (was: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs))
In-Reply-To: <1794de2ae60.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
 <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
 <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
 <00436a99-3e69-8b67-7cbe-ae3ccc4800d5@dcrocker.net>
 <CAHQj4CeUKG8VO+UzB9UN-oxFFH4p70LS=yBCwGMJbLdOXsD1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2D740133-BF56-4DB5-BBD6-D127927FC093@comcast.net>
 <3E500887-1BBD-43EC-B311-5BAE072DC5F9@me.com>
 <7c4f71e0-ce7f-6265-5a2c-fa3854ef2bb2@gmail.com>
 <FF70181E-6766-4483-B04C-F33A054D8F9B@comcast.net>
 <1794de2ae60.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com>
Message-ID: <5b6fbabf-09e4-51ec-3e31-f4615410f7f4@dcrocker.net>


> actually, even traditional citations aren't much help.?? if a paper cites
> something like "annals of esoterica, june 1939" that strikes me as not
> much help. and even if you somehow learned that there was a copy
> of that journal, but it was in a library in serbo-Croatia
> {that may or may not still exist - the real world analogue of link rot} 
> what
> help is that.

Name, address, route.  Someone should write something about the 
distinction, since we seem to keep getting them confused.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net


From bernie at fantasyfarm.com  Sat May  8 16:02:31 2021
From: bernie at fantasyfarm.com (Bernie Cosell)
Date: Sat, 08 May 2021 19:02:31 -0400
Subject: [ih] Link rot (was: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs))
In-Reply-To: <5b6fbabf-09e4-51ec-3e31-f4615410f7f4@dcrocker.net>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>,
 <1794de2ae60.2796.742cd0bcba90c1f7f640db99bf6503c5@fantasyfarm.com>,
 <5b6fbabf-09e4-51ec-3e31-f4615410f7f4@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <60971887.21141.26BAFC25@bernie.fantasyfarm.com>

On 8 May 2021 at 15:47, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:

> > actually, even traditional citations aren't much help.?? if a paper
> cites
> > something like "annals of esoterica, june 1939" that strikes me as
> not
> > much help. and even if you somehow learned that there was a copy
> > of that journal, but it was in a library in serbo-Croatia
> > {that may or may not still exist - the real world analogue of link
> rot} 
> > what
> > help is that.
> 
> Name, address, route.  Someone should write something about the 
> distinction, since we seem to keep getting them confused.

Sorry but I don't know what you're saying.   When I see a citation it generally 
looks like this:

D. S. Callaway, M. E. J. Newman, S. H. Strogatz, and D. J. Watts, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5468 (2000).

How does this relate to "name address route"?    I am clearly confused.. :o)

    /Bernie\

                 Bernie Cosell
         bernie at fantasyfarm.com
-- Too many people; too few sheep --



From dave.walden.family at gmail.com  Sat May  8 16:27:29 2021
From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (Dave Walden)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 19:27:29 -0400
Subject: [ih] Link rot (was: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs))
In-Reply-To: <FF70181E-6766-4483-B04C-F33A054D8F9B@comcast.net>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
 <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
 <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
 <00436a99-3e69-8b67-7cbe-ae3ccc4800d5@dcrocker.net>
 <CAHQj4CeUKG8VO+UzB9UN-oxFFH4p70LS=yBCwGMJbLdOXsD1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2D740133-BF56-4DB5-BBD6-D127927FC093@comcast.net>
 <3E500887-1BBD-43EC-B311-5BAE072DC5F9@me.com>
 <7c4f71e0-ce7f-6265-5a2c-fa3854ef2bb2@gmail.com>
 <FF70181E-6766-4483-B04C-F33A054D8F9B@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CAM1V=p=-kF9xeB8k6UwbQC9NARBguGTmJCwWsjZoN-6YSkrYXQ@mail.gmail.com>

As magazine archives got/get converted from paper to digital, sometimes
there have been errors in the digital archive.  As the web sites get
redesigned in the name of making them more attractive, more errors may be
introduced.  Under financial pressure as its business model changed, the
magazine's publisher may assign no resources to correcting past issues of
the digital archive.  It is important to keep an archive of paper copies.
It's scary to think about where history recording is going as publishers
are increasingly enthralled by "digital" and ignore its total costs.

On Sat, May 8, 2021, 4:46 PM John Day via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Couldn?t agree more.  A URL as a citation is practically useless. The
> Internet is not much of an archive.
>
> > On May 8, 2021, at 16:17, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 09-May-21 02:44, Ole Jacobsen via Internet-history wrote:
> > ...
> >> I'll just note that there used to be a direct URL for ConneXions in the
> CBI
> >> hosted publications archive, but that has recently changed. Another
> peril
> >> of online museums.
> >
> > Indeed, and I wonder whether this august body could somehow try to
> change the thinking of archivists about that problem. Just over the last
> year or so, I've been digging in archives quite a bit (for
> doi.org/10.1109/MAHC.2020.2990647 and a forthcoming follow-up) and even
> in that time, some URLs have rotted, which makes it annoying to go back and
> follow up a new detail, and invalidates published citations. Over the
> longer term, say 10 years, even more links rot and search results become
> misleading or useless.
> >
> > (Or maybe that's a topic for the SIGCIS list.)
> >
> > Regards
> >   Brian Carpenter
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat May  8 17:16:20 2021
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 20:16:20 -0400
Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 20, Issue 4
In-Reply-To: <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
References: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <811E6714-AB49-457D-A1FA-021EDCCB7F75@comcast.net>

We have had that discussion on this list before. It isn?t a question of changing technologies. None of those technologies are known to last as long as paper, even if there was equipment to read them. This is a severe problem.

John

> On May 8, 2021, at 17:24, Jake Feinler via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> I am jumping into the middle of this and haven?t seen what went before, but thought you would like to know
> 
> A full set of (paper) IENs is contained in the collection I gave to the Computer History Museum, Mountain View, CA..
> 
> And you will be amused to know that when I told a group at ISOC that my wish was for a computer storage medium that lasted as long as paper, everyone laughed and thought I was joking.  I wasn?t.  So far I have lived through:  library catalogs on cards, microfilm, microfiche, punched cards, computer tapes (both 7 and 9 track), floppy disks, small and large hard disks, thumb drives, information servers, the web, and the cloud (and probably a few I?ve forgotten).  Each has had more or less a 10 year time frame, before we moved on to something else and obsoleted everything that came before.  And try to find something that stands still on the web - now you see it, now you don?t. True, all these processes are faster and more portable, but not necessarily more durable. I say, historians should not count paper out, until they have something that can outlast it.
> 
> My 2c for what it is worth.
> 
> Jake
> 
>> On May 8, 2021, at 12:00 PM, internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org 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. Fwd:  [xbbn] Re: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs) (John Day)
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 14:41:47 -0400
>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
>> To: BBN Alumni <xbbn at xbbn.org>, internet-history
>> 	<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>> Subject: [ih] Fwd:  [xbbn] Re: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
>> Message-ID: <34EF09B8-F26E-49B0-B982-096AA220DD13 at comcast.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=utf-8
>> 
>> Sorry forgot Reply-All
>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [ih] [xbbn] Re: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
>>> Date: May 8, 2021 at 14:39:47 EDT
>>> To: vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com>
>>> 
>>> Yes, I know. They weren?t my concern. Generally, it isn?t librarians who have these ideas. They understand. It is further up the chain that there are barbaric ideas. Much of CBI is available on-line. I thought that once they scanned material it became available.
>>> 
>>> They are currently renovating the ?math building? at Illinois. Altgeld is one of the oldest buildings on campus and the original library, now the math library. It has a glorious reading room with those great ?working and learning? murals of the early 20thC and they are making sure that they preserve and repair the glass floors of the stacks!! (Only have to light every other row on two floors.) The building and the math dept deserve each other. The floor plan has half floors and other twists and turns that make it almost a maze, and the secreted Bourbaki?s office!  ;-)
>>> 
>>>> On May 8, 2021, at 12:07, vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com <mailto:vgcerf at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> that is not the case here. Univ MN Library retains the originals.
>>>> v
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 11:36 AM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>> The thing that scares me are the administrators who think that that because the material has been scanned the original artifacts are no longer needed and can be discarded. It is far more important than that. At best, it means the artifacts don?t need to be handled as often, which as the centuries go on becomes more and more critical.
>>>> 
>>>> John
>>>> 
>>>>> On May 8, 2021, at 11:12, David Walden <dave.walden.family at gmail.com <mailto:dave.walden.family at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> i have been an amateur but serious historian for a couple of decades and accessing archives and observing professional historians over that time.  I think commitment to scanning/digitizing documents is important. Archives with tight budgets employing people not used to engineering level salaries and other compensation tend to see scanning/digitizing as *very*, perhaps prohibitively, expensively.  Document contributors on this list might be able to help them think about digitizing costs and methods.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Back maybe to the sense of Dave's question, archives may not be interested in everything one has to give.  It may take more than one archive to find homes for one's materials.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Finding aids are important, as Craig noted.  An archive depending on google-like searches is less desirable in my view.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On May 8, 2021, at 10:11 AM, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> A slight correction, Craig. 
>>>>>> I am a recognized historian in the History of Science and Cartography, primarily 17thC-18thC China and published widely. I have spent considerable time in archives across Asia and Europe and with private collectors. My experience goes well beyond computer museums, as I told Dave off-list, including junk rooms in the Vatican. (Sometimes one finds things in the oddest places.) ;-)
>>>>>> You are right about access. Electronic copies can be nice, but there are important things about provenance, etc. that one can only learn by seeing the artifact itself.
>>>>>> John
>>>>>>> On May 8, 2021, at 08:50, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net <mailto:craig at tereschau.net> <mailto:craig at tereschau.net <mailto:craig at tereschau.net>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Dave:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You asked about museums and their commitment to archiving.  As someone who was trained as a historian and still does occasional archival work for fun, I'll hazard a somewhat structural answer and then John D. can comment on computing museums.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> One can assess archives on at least three dimensions:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> * Commitment to ensuring their collections are preserved for centuries to come.  This requires money (for fire suppression and temperature monitoring and the like) and also requires careful evaluation and planning (preserving paper for instance, is different from preserving paintings, which is different from preserving fabrics).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> * Commitment to creating finding aids (catalogs, indexes, collection descriptions) that enable researchers to find items in the collections.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> * Commitment to making their collections available for research (or public display).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The last may surprise folks but there are a number of institutions that have strong views about who should and should not be able to use their collections, usually to the detriment of scholarship and the public interest.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> (And, if you want an example of exactly how not to do all three, consider the team of scholars who were originally given control of the Dead Sea Scrolls).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists.
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history> <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "xBBN" group.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com <mailto:xbbn%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com> <mailto:xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com <mailto:xbbn%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com>>.
>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>> 
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 20, Issue 4
>> ***********************************************
> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From touch at strayalpha.com  Sat May  8 17:17:37 2021
From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joseph Touch)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 17:17:37 -0700
Subject: [ih] Link rot (was: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs))
In-Reply-To: <CAM1V=p=-kF9xeB8k6UwbQC9NARBguGTmJCwWsjZoN-6YSkrYXQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
 <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
 <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
 <00436a99-3e69-8b67-7cbe-ae3ccc4800d5@dcrocker.net>
 <CAHQj4CeUKG8VO+UzB9UN-oxFFH4p70LS=yBCwGMJbLdOXsD1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2D740133-BF56-4DB5-BBD6-D127927FC093@comcast.net>
 <3E500887-1BBD-43EC-B311-5BAE072DC5F9@me.com>
 <7c4f71e0-ce7f-6265-5a2c-fa3854ef2bb2@gmail.com>
 <FF70181E-6766-4483-B04C-F33A054D8F9B@comcast.net>
 <CAM1V=p=-kF9xeB8k6UwbQC9NARBguGTmJCwWsjZoN-6YSkrYXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <179FFB31-E027-441D-9DAE-25FD59430F08@strayalpha.com>

Hi, all,

> On May 8, 2021, at 4:27 PM, Dave Walden via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> It is important to keep an archive of paper copies.


Newspapers are routinely archived only or primarily as photographic images to save space and overcome the limitations of their original (non-archival) medium. 

For IENs, even that is overkill as most were generated as only ASCII text. There is little if any utility in preserving that representation vs. an ASCII file. (Yes, there were some exceptions with figures, but those could be augmented with scanned image files).

Joe (list admin hat off)



From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat May  8 17:18:44 2021
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 20:18:44 -0400
Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 20, Issue 4
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.21.9999.2105081515510.39024@auge.attlocal.net>
References: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
 <alpine.OSX.2.21.9999.2105081515510.39024@auge.attlocal.net>
Message-ID: <52982EC7-BC47-4771-AEB1-CEAEDCE68CEB@comcast.net>

This too is a problem. I have a book published in 1938 by the Vatican that comes unbound. I have not had it bound because the paper is so brittle I am afraid to. I keep it in a museum quality box.

> On May 8, 2021, at 18:42, Stephen Casner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 8 May 2021, Jake Feinler via Internet-history wrote:
> 
>> And you will be amused to know that when I told a group at ISOC that
>> my wish was for a computer storage medium that lasted as long as
>> paper, everyone laughed and thought I was joking.  I wasn't.
> 
> You're right.  I remember a librarian (perhaps at the Huntington
> Library) saying that we have 500-year-old books that we can read
> perfectly, whereas we lose that ability for modern media.  Some more
> recent books printed on poor-quality paper also do not last, but for
> at least some of those it's no great loss.
> 
>                                                        -- Steve
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat May  8 17:25:42 2021
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 20:25:42 -0400
Subject: [ih] Link rot (was: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs))
In-Reply-To: <179FFB31-E027-441D-9DAE-25FD59430F08@strayalpha.com>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
 <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
 <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
 <00436a99-3e69-8b67-7cbe-ae3ccc4800d5@dcrocker.net>
 <CAHQj4CeUKG8VO+UzB9UN-oxFFH4p70LS=yBCwGMJbLdOXsD1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2D740133-BF56-4DB5-BBD6-D127927FC093@comcast.net>
 <3E500887-1BBD-43EC-B311-5BAE072DC5F9@me.com>
 <7c4f71e0-ce7f-6265-5a2c-fa3854ef2bb2@gmail.com>
 <FF70181E-6766-4483-B04C-F33A054D8F9B@comcast.net>
 <CAM1V=p=-kF9xeB8k6UwbQC9NARBguGTmJCwWsjZoN-6YSkrYXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <179FFB31-E027-441D-9DAE-25FD59430F08@strayalpha.com>
Message-ID: <F66ADDD6-EE08-4FDC-A204-13775058D1A9@comcast.net>

Unless the original isn?t just the text. For example marginalia, or signatures, accession stamps, etc. Sometimes these things tell you something that goes beyond the content. Some times these things show up in the scanned version, sometimes they don?t.  I have seen cases where it was only seeing the original artifact provided the necessary information. It would not have been apparent in a scan of the material.

John

> On May 8, 2021, at 20:17, Joseph Touch <touch at strayalpha.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi, all,
> 
>> On May 8, 2021, at 4:27 PM, Dave Walden via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> It is important to keep an archive of paper copies.
> 
> 
> Newspapers are routinely archived only or primarily as photographic images to save space and overcome the limitations of their original (non-archival) medium. 
> 
> For IENs, even that is overkill as most were generated as only ASCII text. There is little if any utility in preserving that representation vs. an ASCII file. (Yes, there were some exceptions with figures, but those could be augmented with scanned image files).
> 
> Joe (list admin hat off)
> 



From touch at strayalpha.com  Sat May  8 17:42:51 2021
From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joseph Touch)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 17:42:51 -0700
Subject: [ih] Link rot (was: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs))
In-Reply-To: <F66ADDD6-EE08-4FDC-A204-13775058D1A9@comcast.net>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
 <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
 <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
 <00436a99-3e69-8b67-7cbe-ae3ccc4800d5@dcrocker.net>
 <CAHQj4CeUKG8VO+UzB9UN-oxFFH4p70LS=yBCwGMJbLdOXsD1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2D740133-BF56-4DB5-BBD6-D127927FC093@comcast.net>
 <3E500887-1BBD-43EC-B311-5BAE072DC5F9@me.com>
 <7c4f71e0-ce7f-6265-5a2c-fa3854ef2bb2@gmail.com>
 <FF70181E-6766-4483-B04C-F33A054D8F9B@comcast.net>
 <CAM1V=p=-kF9xeB8k6UwbQC9NARBguGTmJCwWsjZoN-6YSkrYXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <179FFB31-E027-441D-9DAE-25FD59430F08@strayalpha.com>
 <F66ADDD6-EE08-4FDC-A204-13775058D1A9@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <59E911F2-26BB-47F3-B99C-E0B281E6426F@strayalpha.com>



> On May 8, 2021, at 5:25 PM, John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> Unless the original isn?t just the text. For example marginalia, or signatures, accession stamps, etc. Sometimes these things tell you something that goes beyond the content. Some times these things show up in the scanned version, sometimes they don?t.  I have seen cases where it was only seeing the original artifact provided the necessary information. It would not have been apparent in a scan of the material.

For some documents. I scanned a set of IENs at ISI. The vast majority had no such notes.

The question then also becomes - are you archiving the IENs, or ?Joe's copy of the IENs, with Joe's notes?. (For some Joe). E.g., handwriting in library books could be of historical value, but also could just be defacing.

Joe

> John
> 
>> On May 8, 2021, at 20:17, Joseph Touch <touch at strayalpha.com <mailto:touch at strayalpha.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi, all,
>> 
>>> On May 8, 2021, at 4:27 PM, Dave Walden via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> It is important to keep an archive of paper copies.
>> 
>> 
>> Newspapers are routinely archived only or primarily as photographic images to save space and overcome the limitations of their original (non-archival) medium. 
>> 
>> For IENs, even that is overkill as most were generated as only ASCII text. There is little if any utility in preserving that representation vs. an ASCII file. (Yes, there were some exceptions with figures, but those could be augmented with scanned image files).
>> 
>> Joe (list admin hat off)
>> 
> 



From marc at webhistory.org  Sat May  8 18:32:04 2021
From: marc at webhistory.org (Marc Weber)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 18:32:04 -0700
Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 20, Issue 4
In-Reply-To: <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
References: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <7A366161-2853-4040-8F36-16BD94E75A6A@webhistory.org>

Dear all, 

At CHM, we are very interested in archiving Internet historical materials. As Jake points out we do have paper IENs in the ARC/NIC collection, and as John Levine points out we are a mirror archive for new RFCs as they come out; we set that up with Heather Flanagan and others a few years ago. We?ve had some exploratory discussions with ISOC and IETF over the years about preserving other materials and remain keen, especially as our digital repository continues to grow and we begin to open up digital access to the collection even more with what we?re calling OpenCHM, more on that below. 

In terms of which archive is best, pretty much all major universities, collecting museums, libraries, and archives have professional archivists, climate controlled environments, disaster plans, and so on, and they do collaborate with each other. 

As Jake and I advised at the IETF BoF on networking history we did in 2013, It?s more important to actually get historical materials OUT of garages, storage spaces, hard drives, and mailing lists and INTO a serious archiving institution than worry overmuch about which one, or particular disaster scenarios. California has earthquakes. But CHM's main paper and media archive, which is a separate facility about 15 miles from the public museum, is a modern single story steel frame building and an extremely low earthquake risk; it?s also nowhere near wildfires. It doesn?t carry the flood risks that many underground facilities do, nor the tornado risks of the midwest. As Dave Crocker pointed out, physical sites are even less important for digital materials, which we?ve always extensively mirrored and are now getting even more cloud mirroring. We keep original media for software and video in a special cold room. 

Besides long term preservation, one key consideration is access, below. Another is to try to put like materials with like for the convenience of researchers, rather than scattering them. From that point of view, either CHM or Babbage is an extremely solid choice. On our end we have networking related materials of all kinds, and the ARC/NIC materials <https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102706170> that Jake directed and then preserved are the ?anchor tenant" of our ARPAnet/Internet/Engelbart holdings with about 350 boxes of paper plus some digital materials. We also have a very active oral history program, with well over 1000 oral histories including hundreds with networking pioneers, and a dedicated Internet History Program <http://computerhistory.org/nethistory> which I started and have directed since 2009.

In terms of access, CHM has had our catalog online and searchable <https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/search/> for over a decade. You can narrow the search by physical objects, documents, software, video, images, etc. If documents are scanned, the PDFs usually appear right in the record. We do retain the original documents in the collection as well. If documents are not scanned, we have the same kind of research room as any other archive or library special collection; i.e. you make an appointment and then archivists pull the boxes you want to go through. On the pure digital side, we collect software and source code as well as other kinds of digital content, and provide access in a number of ways. 

The museum is right now in the early stages of an initiative called OpenCHM. When done this will make the collection searchable in even more sophisticated ways, and offer a standard API that outsiders can use to access materials in the collection with their own tools. They can then integrate them into their own  online exhibits or other interpretations. This should be a real step toward what are called ?federated archives,? where you can mix and match materials independent of where the originals are held. OpenCHM is also starting to experiment with AI to automatically suggest connections within the collection; for instance between a name in a document, a mention in an oral history, and a physical object on an exhibit floor.

As to which media outlast others, it?s interesting that most new media are more ephemeral than the ones that came before.... Clay tablets were so durable they baked hard in fires. Paper is more fragile but can still last millennia. The Cloud today is moving closer to an oral tradition. As Brewster Kahle told me in the ?90s, ?the good thing about digital media is that you can save everything. The bad thing about digital media is you can lose everything.? Let?s all try to save some of the important stuff, whether with us or another archiving institution! 

Best, Marc

Marc Weber <http://www.computerhistory.org/staff/Marc,Weber/>  |   marc at webhistory.org  |   +1 415 282 6868
Curatorial Director, Internet History Program
Computer History Museum, 1401 N Shoreline Blvd., Mountain View CA 94043
computerhistory.org/nethistory  |  Co-founder, Web History Center and Project

> On May 8, 2021, at 14:24, Jake Feinler via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> I am jumping into the middle of this and haven?t seen what went before, but thought you would like to know
> 
> A full set of (paper) IENs is contained in the collection I gave to the Computer History Museum, Mountain View, CA..
> 
> And you will be amused to know that when I told a group at ISOC that my wish was for a computer storage medium that lasted as long as paper, everyone laughed and thought I was joking.  I wasn?t.  So far I have lived through:  library catalogs on cards, microfilm, microfiche, punched cards, computer tapes (both 7 and 9 track), floppy disks, small and large hard disks, thumb drives, information servers, the web, and the cloud (and probably a few I?ve forgotten).  Each has had more or less a 10 year time frame, before we moved on to something else and obsoleted everything that came before.  And try to find something that stands still on the web - now you see it, now you don?t. True, all these processes are faster and more portable, but not necessarily more durable. I say, historians should not count paper out, until they have something that can outlast it.
> 
> My 2c for what it is worth.
> 
> Jake
> 
>> On May 8, 2021, at 12:00 PM, internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org 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. Fwd:  [xbbn] Re: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs) (John Day)
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 14:41:47 -0400
>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
>> To: BBN Alumni <xbbn at xbbn.org>, internet-history
>> 	<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>> Subject: [ih] Fwd:  [xbbn] Re: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
>> Message-ID: <34EF09B8-F26E-49B0-B982-096AA220DD13 at comcast.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=utf-8
>> 
>> Sorry forgot Reply-All
>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [ih] [xbbn] Re: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
>>> Date: May 8, 2021 at 14:39:47 EDT
>>> To: vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com>
>>> 
>>> Yes, I know. They weren?t my concern. Generally, it isn?t librarians who have these ideas. They understand. It is further up the chain that there are barbaric ideas. Much of CBI is available on-line. I thought that once they scanned material it became available.
>>> 
>>> They are currently renovating the ?math building? at Illinois. Altgeld is one of the oldest buildings on campus and the original library, now the math library. It has a glorious reading room with those great ?working and learning? murals of the early 20thC and they are making sure that they preserve and repair the glass floors of the stacks!! (Only have to light every other row on two floors.) The building and the math dept deserve each other. The floor plan has half floors and other twists and turns that make it almost a maze, and the secreted Bourbaki?s office!  ;-)
>>> 
>>>> On May 8, 2021, at 12:07, vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com <mailto:vgcerf at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> that is not the case here. Univ MN Library retains the originals.
>>>> v
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 11:36 AM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>> The thing that scares me are the administrators who think that that because the material has been scanned the original artifacts are no longer needed and can be discarded. It is far more important than that. At best, it means the artifacts don?t need to be handled as often, which as the centuries go on becomes more and more critical.
>>>> 
>>>> John
>>>> 
>>>>> On May 8, 2021, at 11:12, David Walden <dave.walden.family at gmail.com <mailto:dave.walden.family at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> i have been an amateur but serious historian for a couple of decades and accessing archives and observing professional historians over that time.  I think commitment to scanning/digitizing documents is important. Archives with tight budgets employing people not used to engineering level salaries and other compensation tend to see scanning/digitizing as *very*, perhaps prohibitively, expensively.  Document contributors on this list might be able to help them think about digitizing costs and methods.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Back maybe to the sense of Dave's question, archives may not be interested in everything one has to give.  It may take more than one archive to find homes for one's materials.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Finding aids are important, as Craig noted.  An archive depending on google-like searches is less desirable in my view.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On May 8, 2021, at 10:11 AM, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> A slight correction, Craig. 
>>>>>> I am a recognized historian in the History of Science and Cartography, primarily 17thC-18thC China and published widely. I have spent considerable time in archives across Asia and Europe and with private collectors. My experience goes well beyond computer museums, as I told Dave off-list, including junk rooms in the Vatican. (Sometimes one finds things in the oddest places.) ;-)
>>>>>> You are right about access. Electronic copies can be nice, but there are important things about provenance, etc. that one can only learn by seeing the artifact itself.
>>>>>> John
>>>>>>> On May 8, 2021, at 08:50, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net <mailto:craig at tereschau.net> <mailto:craig at tereschau.net <mailto:craig at tereschau.net>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Dave:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You asked about museums and their commitment to archiving.  As someone who was trained as a historian and still does occasional archival work for fun, I'll hazard a somewhat structural answer and then John D. can comment on computing museums.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> One can assess archives on at least three dimensions:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> * Commitment to ensuring their collections are preserved for centuries to come.  This requires money (for fire suppression and temperature monitoring and the like) and also requires careful evaluation and planning (preserving paper for instance, is different from preserving paintings, which is different from preserving fabrics).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> * Commitment to creating finding aids (catalogs, indexes, collection descriptions) that enable researchers to find items in the collections.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> * Commitment to making their collections available for research (or public display).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The last may surprise folks but there are a number of institutions that have strong views about who should and should not be able to use their collections, usually to the detriment of scholarship and the public interest.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> (And, if you want an example of exactly how not to do all three, consider the team of scholars who were originally given control of the Dead Sea Scrolls).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists.
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history> <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "xBBN" group.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com <mailto:xbbn%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com> <mailto:xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com <mailto:xbbn%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com>>.
>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>> 
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 20, Issue 4
>> ***********************************************
> 
> -- 
> 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 May  8 18:32:23 2021
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Sun, 9 May 2021 13:32:23 +1200
Subject: [ih] Media rot (Internet-history Digest, Vol 20, Issue 4)
In-Reply-To: <811E6714-AB49-457D-A1FA-021EDCCB7F75@comcast.net>
References: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
 <811E6714-AB49-457D-A1FA-021EDCCB7F75@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <c8919c2c-4f18-8dd7-3b84-2ae3c9c800ca@gmail.com>

On 09-May-21 12:16, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> We have had that discussion on this list before. It isn?t a question of changing technologies. None of those technologies are known to last as long as paper, even if there was equipment to read them. This is a 
severe problem.

It isn't news to librarians or archivists, though. They know that media need to be rewritten every N years, where N depends on the medium. I assume that the Internet Archive, the CBI and the CHM are on top of this. Of course that won't help when our civilisation collapses. Clay tablets seem to be best for that.

(Even 30 years ago, CERN knew that the principal medium for archiving experimental raw data - mag tape - had a very finite lifetime and needed to be rewound every year or two and rewritten to a new tape after N years; I 
don't remember the value of N but I think it was probably 10. The rewinds 
were to mitigate magnetic print-through from one layer of tape to the next.)

    Brian

> 
> John
> 
>> On May 8, 2021, at 17:24, Jake Feinler via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>> I am jumping into the middle of this and haven?t seen what went before, but thought you would like to know
>>
>> A full set of (paper) IENs is contained in the collection I gave to the Computer History Museum, Mountain View, CA..
>>
>> And you will be amused to know that when I told a group at ISOC that my wish was for a computer storage medium that lasted as long as paper, everyone laughed and thought I was joking.  I wasn?t.  So far I have lived through:  library catalogs on cards, microfilm, microfiche, punched cards, computer tapes (both 7 and 9 track), floppy disks, small and large hard disks, thumb drives, information servers, the web, and the cloud 
(and probably a few I?ve forgotten).  Each has had more or less a 
10 year time frame, before we moved on to something else and obsoleted everything that came before.  And try to find something that stands still on the web - now you see it, now you don?t. True, all these processes are faster and more portable, but not necessarily more durable. I say, historians should not count paper out, until they have something that can outlast it.
>>
>> My 2c for what it is worth.
>>
>> Jake
>>
>>> On May 8, 2021, at 12:00 PM, internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org 
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. Fwd:  [xbbn] Re: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs) (John Day)
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 14:41:47 -0400
>>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
>>> To: BBN Alumni <xbbn at xbbn.org>, internet-history
>>> 	<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>>> Subject: [ih] Fwd:  [xbbn] Re: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
>>> Message-ID: <34EF09B8-F26E-49B0-B982-096AA220DD13 at comcast.net>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=utf-8
>>>
>>> Sorry forgot Reply-All
>>>
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>
>>>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [ih] [xbbn] Re: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
>>>> Date: May 8, 2021 at 14:39:47 EDT
>>>> To: vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I know. They weren?t my concern. Generally, it isn?t librarians 
who have these ideas. They understand. It is further up the chain that there are barbaric ideas. Much of CBI is available on-line. I thought that once they scanned material it became available.
>>>>
>>>> They are currently renovating the ?math building? at Illinois. Altgeld is one of the oldest buildings on campus and the original library, now 
the math library. It has a glorious reading room with those great ?working and learning? murals of the early 20thC and they are making sure that they preserve and repair the glass floors of the stacks!! (Only have to light every other row on two floors.) The building and the math dept deserve each other. The floor plan has half floors and other twists and turns that make it almost a maze, and the secreted Bourbaki?s office!  ;-)
>>>>
>>>>> On May 8, 2021, at 12:07, vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com <mailto:vgcerf at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> that is not the case here. Univ MN Library retains the originals.
>>>>> v
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 11:36 AM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>>> The thing that scares me are the administrators who think that that 
because the material has been scanned the original artifacts are no longer needed and can be discarded. It is far more important than that. At best, it means the artifacts don?t need to be handled as often, which as the 
centuries go on becomes more and more critical.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 8, 2021, at 11:12, David Walden <dave.walden.family at gmail.com <mailto:dave.walden.family at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i have been an amateur but serious historian for a couple of decades and accessing archives and observing professional historians over that 
time.  I think commitment to scanning/digitizing documents is important. Archives with tight budgets employing people not used to engineering level salaries and other compensation tend to see scanning/digitizing as *very*, perhaps prohibitively, expensively.  Document contributors on this list might be able to help them think about digitizing costs and methods.  
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Back maybe to the sense of Dave's question, archives may not be interested in everything one has to give.  It may take more than one archive to find homes for one's materials.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finding aids are important, as Craig noted.  An archive depending on google-like searches is less desirable in my view.  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 8, 2021, at 10:11 AM, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A slight correction, Craig. 
>>>>>>> I am a recognized historian in the History of Science and Cartography, primarily 17thC-18thC China and published widely. I have spent considerable time in archives across Asia and Europe and with private collectors. My experience goes well beyond computer museums, as I told Dave off-list, including junk rooms in the Vatican. (Sometimes one finds things in 
the oddest places.) ;-)
>>>>>>> You are right about access. Electronic copies can be nice, but there are important things about provenance, etc. that one can only learn by seeing the artifact itself.
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>> On May 8, 2021, at 08:50, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net <mailto:craig at tereschau.net> <mailto:craig at tereschau.net <mailto:craig at tereschau.net>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Dave:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You asked about museums and their commitment to archiving.  As someone who was trained as a historian and still does occasional archival work for fun, I'll hazard a somewhat structural answer and then John D. can comment on computing museums.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One can assess archives on at least three dimensions:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Commitment to ensuring their collections are preserved for centuries to come.  This requires money (for fire suppression and temperature monitoring and the like) and also requires careful evaluation and planning (preserving paper for instance, is different from preserving paintings, which is different from preserving fabrics).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Commitment to creating finding aids (catalogs, indexes, collection descriptions) that enable researchers to find items in the collections.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * Commitment to making their collections available for research (or public display).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The last may surprise folks but there are a number of institutions that have strong views about who should and should not be able to use their collections, usually to the detriment of scholarship and the public 
interest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (And, if you want an example of exactly how not to do all three, 
consider the team of scholars who were originally given control of the Dead Sea Scrolls).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists.
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
>>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history> <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "xBBN" group.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com <mailto:xbbn%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com> <mailto:xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com <mailto:xbbn%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com>>.
>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>>
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 20, Issue 4
>>> ***********************************************
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 May  8 18:48:51 2021
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Sun, 9 May 2021 13:48:51 +1200
Subject: [ih] Link rot (was: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs))
In-Reply-To: <CAM1V=pmdfLpjYbKrxvguRKWo==__5TKejqaYLPvty2i1tOkajQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
 <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
 <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
 <00436a99-3e69-8b67-7cbe-ae3ccc4800d5@dcrocker.net>
 <CAHQj4CeUKG8VO+UzB9UN-oxFFH4p70LS=yBCwGMJbLdOXsD1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2D740133-BF56-4DB5-BBD6-D127927FC093@comcast.net>
 <3E500887-1BBD-43EC-B311-5BAE072DC5F9@me.com>
 <7c4f71e0-ce7f-6265-5a2c-fa3854ef2bb2@gmail.com>
 <FF70181E-6766-4483-B04C-F33A054D8F9B@comcast.net>
 <CAM1V=pmdfLpjYbKrxvguRKWo==__5TKejqaYLPvty2i1tOkajQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43fafddd-369a-4a49-a8df-7761fa15be4f@gmail.com>

On 09-May-21 09:51, Dave Walden wrote:
> Historian Jim Cortada recommends keeping copies of web pages one sites in his book Hunting History.

That can be easier said than done. Many if not all "modern" web sites are 
print-unfriendly (i.e. when you print them to paper or to PDF, you don't get what was on your screen). Also, it's usually no good doing "save as HTML" because it uses numerous external resources. Also, many sites are now so dynamic that even 5 minutes later, the content is different. In some 
cases I've been reduced to screen shots, or distilling raw text and saving that.

I used to say that the Internet contains its own history, but it seems that these days the Web is destroying its own history.

   Brian

> One could submit the URL copies along with one's contributions to an archive.??
> 
> On Sat, May 8, 2021, 4:46 PM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Couldn?t agree more.? A URL as a citation is practically useless. The Internet is not much of an archive.
> 
>     > On May 8, 2021, at 16:17, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     > On 09-May-21 02:44, Ole Jacobsen via Internet-history wrote:
>     > ...
>     >> I'll just note that there used to be a direct URL for ConneXions 
in the CBI
>     >> hosted publications archive, but that has recently changed. Another peril
>     >> of online museums.
>     >
>     > Indeed, and I wonder whether this august body could somehow try to change the thinking of archivists about that problem. Just over the last year or so, I've been digging in archives quite a bit (for? doi.org/10.1109/MAHC.2020.2990647 <http://doi.org/10.1109/MAHC.2020.2990647> and a forthcoming follow-up) and even in that time, some URLs have rotted, which makes it annoying to go back and follow up a new detail, and invalidates published citations. Over the longer term, say 10 years, even more links rot and search results become misleading or useless.
>     >
>     > (Or maybe that's a topic for the SIGCIS list.)
>     >
>     > Regards
>     >? ?Brian Carpenter
> 
>     -- 
>     Internet-history mailing list
>     Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>     https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
> 



From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sat May  8 19:02:47 2021
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 19:02:47 -0700
Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 20, Issue 4
In-Reply-To: <7A366161-2853-4040-8F36-16BD94E75A6A@webhistory.org>
References: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
 <7A366161-2853-4040-8F36-16BD94E75A6A@webhistory.org>
Message-ID: <401f9756-d888-fa3c-ba71-9744f166d0b2@dcrocker.net>

On 5/8/2021 6:32 PM, Marc Weber via Internet-history wrote:
> We?ve had some exploratory discussions with ISOC and IETF over the years about preserving other materials and remain keen

As long as this group is focused on this general topic, I'll repeat a 
concern I raised some years ago, when the IETF was (first?) in 
discussions with ISI and CHM about original materials:

    Saving the RFCs is obvious.  What appears to be less obvious and, 
IMO, is just as important in historical terms, is /all/ of the 
IETF-related work materials.  Drafts.  Mailing list archives.  Session 
notes.  Everything.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat May  8 19:09:07 2021
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 22:09:07 -0400
Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 20, Issue 4
In-Reply-To: <401f9756-d888-fa3c-ba71-9744f166d0b2@dcrocker.net>
References: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
 <7A366161-2853-4040-8F36-16BD94E75A6A@webhistory.org>
 <401f9756-d888-fa3c-ba71-9744f166d0b2@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>

Agreed. It should go somewhere. Same for all of the other standards groups, forums, consortia, etc.

> On May 8, 2021, at 22:02, Dave Crocker via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> On 5/8/2021 6:32 PM, Marc Weber via Internet-history wrote:
>> We?ve had some exploratory discussions with ISOC and IETF over the years about preserving other materials and remain keen
> 
> As long as this group is focused on this general topic, I'll repeat a concern I raised some years ago, when the IETF was (first?) in discussions with ISI and CHM about original materials:
> 
>   Saving the RFCs is obvious.  What appears to be less obvious and, IMO, is just as important in historical terms, is /all/ of the IETF-related work materials.  Drafts.  Mailing list archives.  Session notes.  Everything.
> 
> 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 johnl at iecc.com  Sat May  8 19:12:20 2021
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 8 May 2021 22:12:20 -0400
Subject: [ih] archival quality, was  Internet-history Digest
In-Reply-To: <7A366161-2853-4040-8F36-16BD94E75A6A@webhistory.org>
Message-ID: <20210509021222.0EF7D731AE9@ary.qy>

It appears that Marc Weber via Internet-history <marc at webhistory.org> said:
>As to which media outlast others, it?s interesting that most new media are more ephemeral than the ones that came before.... Clay
>tablets were so durable they baked hard in fires. Paper is more fragile but can still last millennia. ...

I think we have survivor bias here -- the only records we have from a
thousand years ago are the ones that happened to be on media that last
a thousand years. I expect there were plenty of things written on
badly tanned vellum which rotted away, using organic inks that flaked
and faded to illegibility.

I do agree that we have a profusion of the high tech equvalent of badly 
tanned vellum these days.

R's,
John


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat May  8 19:30:23 2021
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 22:30:23 -0400
Subject: [ih] archival quality, was  Internet-history Digest
In-Reply-To: <20210509021222.0EF7D731AE9@ary.qy>
References: <20210509021222.0EF7D731AE9@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <7ECAE275-E751-4B85-97EE-872912EF7FD4@comcast.net>

Of course it is survival bias, that is the point.

A lot of was destroyed, burned, left to rot, throw away, etc. Some old texts that were to be suppressed (or just considered old) were turned into bookbindings of other books. (Yes, old texts have been recovered this way.)

The whole point is that even with all our efforts, some of it will be lost. HP thought they had a very nice safe archive facility for their corporate papers . . . until it was burned to the ground. We have to go to great lengths to ensure that that probability is low.

So far, none of the digital media has been shown to last long enough to be called archival. It isn?t that we haven?t waited 100 years to see if we can read it. It is that we already know what it?s lifetime is as media. If we know that then it is too short. As Brian indicated, a media that requires human intervention on a regular basis is a non starter. We need something that if left alone for a very long time will still be decipherable.

> On May 8, 2021, at 22:12, John Levine via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> It appears that Marc Weber via Internet-history <marc at webhistory.org> said:
>> As to which media outlast others, it?s interesting that most new media are more ephemeral than the ones that came before.... Clay
>> tablets were so durable they baked hard in fires. Paper is more fragile but can still last millennia. ...
> 
> I think we have survivor bias here -- the only records we have from a
> thousand years ago are the ones that happened to be on media that last
> a thousand years. I expect there were plenty of things written on
> badly tanned vellum which rotted away, using organic inks that flaked
> and faded to illegibility.
> 
> I do agree that we have a profusion of the high tech equvalent of badly 
> tanned vellum these days.
> 
> R's,
> John
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From gnu at toad.com  Sun May  9 01:23:32 2021
From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore)
Date: Sun, 09 May 2021 01:23:32 -0700
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net> 
References: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
 <7A366161-2853-4040-8F36-16BD94E75A6A@webhistory.org>
 <401f9756-d888-fa3c-ba71-9744f166d0b2@dcrocker.net>
 <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>

Dave Crocker wrote:
> Saving the RFCs is obvious.  What appears to be less obvious and, IMO,
> is just as important in historical terms, is /all/ of the IETF-related
> work materials.  Drafts.  Mailing list archives.  Session notes.
> Everything.

John Day wrote:
> Agreed. It should go somewhere. Same for all of the other standards
> groups, forums, consortia, etc.

Re the IETF, look in:

  https://archive-it.org/collections/11034

A few years ago, I set up an Archive-It.org job to monitor the IETF's
web presence.  I was disturbed at the deliberate ephemerality of the
Internet-Draft ecosystem.  I had been looking back at a 10-year-old
effort to eliminate some ridiculous restrictions on the IPv4 address
space, and IETF had thrown away most of the relevant documents (though I
found copies elsewhere once I knew their names).

Archive-It is a service of the nonprofit Internet Archive (archive.org).
So, the Internet Archive's robots are now crawling (various parts of)
the IETF websites every week, month, and quarter, under my direction.
And saving the results forever, or as long as the Internet Archive and
the Wayback Machine exist.  Between 1998 and now it's pulled in about
1.8 TB of documents, which are accessible and searchable either from the
above URL, or from the main Wayback Machine at web.archive.org.

The IETF websites aren't organized for archiving.  I frankly don't
understand their structure, so am probably missing some important
things, and overcollecting other things.  But at least I tried.
Suggestions are welcome.

Just be glad the IETF is copying-friendly.  Imagine trying to archive
the IEEE or OSI standards development process.  Then imagine big
copyright lawsuits from self-serving people who tied their income
stream to restricting who can access the standards and the
standardization process.

	John

PS: Anyone or any institution can get an Archive-It account for roughly
$10K/year.  The service automates the collecting of *anything* you want
from the web for posterity.  (If you want them to, the Internet Archive
will also write copies of it on new hard drives and send them to you for
your own archival collection.)  About 800 institutions are customers today.
You can also get a low-support low-volume Archive-It Basic account for
$500/year.  Or get custom Digital Preservation services to improve the
likelihood that your own curated digital assets will survive into the
distant future.  See https://Archive-It.org .

PPS: The Internet Archive's long term survival is, of course, not
guaranteed.  In particular, it will go through a tough transition when
its founder eventually dies.  What is guaranteed is that they have built
a corpus of useful information: Millions of books, billions of web
pages, hundreds of thousands of concerts, decades of saved television
channels, etc.  They are absorbing a lot of archival microfilm, too,
including genealogical and census records, magazines, etc.  This corpus
will likely motivate people to preserve and replicate it into being
useful in the distant future.  They have tried to design the technical
storage to encourage that result.  Does anyone here know anybody who has
both the money and the motivation to make a complete and ongoing copy in
a separately administered, separately owned organization?  That would
significantly mitigate the long term risk of having all the replicated
copies of the corpus owned by a single US nonprofit.  It would probably
take a bare minimum staff of 10 people to run and manage such an
operation, with dozens of petabytes of rotating storage in multiple data
centers and a large collection of (mostly free) software keeping it all
organized and accessible.


From ocl at gih.com  Sun May  9 02:42:25 2021
From: ocl at gih.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=c3=a9pin-Leblond?=)
Date: Sun, 9 May 2021 12:42:25 +0300
Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 20, Issue 4
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.21.9999.2105081515510.39024@auge.attlocal.net>
References: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
 <alpine.OSX.2.21.9999.2105081515510.39024@auge.attlocal.net>
Message-ID: <a400c46b-3a40-0b48-7763-369b1bbc62ca@gih.com>



On 09/05/2021 01:42, Stephen Casner via Internet-history wrote:
>    Some more
> recent books printed on poor-quality paper also do not last, but for
> at least some of those it's no great loss

And that's books which are printed professionally.

I have a huge suitcase full of paper archives from the late 1980s, which 
has been in storage for years. The last time I checked, I found that the 
dot matrix wide accordion paper kept well but the print faded at the 
edges when subjected to air. The early laser printer paper kept well, 
but the "ink" which was toner printed on an Apple Laserwriter and 
several HP LaserJet series I and II, actually falls off and turns to 
powder. I do not know how to set it so it does not stick to the other 
page and fade/bleed into powder. And that's monochrome printing - the 
moment you go in to Colour Jet printers, some inks fade faster than others.

What has kept best was the old dot matrix stuff and also daisy wheel, or 
also chain printing, which ended up not only being printed, but somehow 
embossed into the paper, such was the printing force... (and noise).

I wonder if today's ink & toner would hold better now in the long term.
Kindest regards,

Olivier


From vgcerf at gmail.com  Sun May  9 06:32:37 2021
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Sun, 9 May 2021 09:32:37 -0400
Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 20, Issue 4
In-Reply-To: <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
References: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_XGywokEDzRmzmttenxzFQ-1f-hexgptEUw4-P9oOjROA@mail.gmail.com>

i should compare the scans with your collection, Jake.
agree on paper - unfortunately, not all material is renderable on paper.
v


On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 5:24 PM Jake Feinler via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> I am jumping into the middle of this and haven?t seen what went before,
> but thought you would like to know
>
> A full set of (paper) IENs is contained in the collection I gave to the
> Computer History Museum, Mountain View, CA..
>
> And you will be amused to know that when I told a group at ISOC that my
> wish was for a computer storage medium that lasted as long as paper,
> everyone laughed and thought I was joking.  I wasn?t.  So far I have lived
> through:  library catalogs on cards, microfilm, microfiche, punched cards,
> computer tapes (both 7 and 9 track), floppy disks, small and large hard
> disks, thumb drives, information servers, the web, and the cloud (and
> probably a few I?ve forgotten).  Each has had more or less a 10 year time
> frame, before we moved on to something else and obsoleted everything that
> came before.  And try to find something that stands still on the web - now
> you see it, now you don?t. True, all these processes are faster and more
> portable, but not necessarily more durable. I say, historians should not
> count paper out, until they have something that can outlast it.
>
> My 2c for what it is worth.
>
> Jake
>
> > On May 8, 2021, at 12:00 PM, internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org
> 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. Fwd:  [xbbn] Re: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs) (John Day)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 14:41:47 -0400
> > From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
> > To: BBN Alumni <xbbn at xbbn.org>, internet-history
> >       <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> > Subject: [ih] Fwd:  [xbbn] Re: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
> > Message-ID: <34EF09B8-F26E-49B0-B982-096AA220DD13 at comcast.net>
> > Content-Type: text/plain;     charset=utf-8
> >
> > Sorry forgot Reply-All
> >
> >> Begin forwarded message:
> >>
> >> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
> >> Subject: Re: [ih] [xbbn] Re: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
> >> Date: May 8, 2021 at 14:39:47 EDT
> >> To: vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com>
> >>
> >> Yes, I know. They weren?t my concern. Generally, it isn?t librarians
> who have these ideas. They understand. It is further up the chain that
> there are barbaric ideas. Much of CBI is available on-line. I thought that
> once they scanned material it became available.
> >>
> >> They are currently renovating the ?math building? at Illinois. Altgeld
> is one of the oldest buildings on campus and the original library, now the
> math library. It has a glorious reading room with those great ?working and
> learning? murals of the early 20thC and they are making sure that they
> preserve and repair the glass floors of the stacks!! (Only have to light
> every other row on two floors.) The building and the math dept deserve each
> other. The floor plan has half floors and other twists and turns that make
> it almost a maze, and the secreted Bourbaki?s office!  ;-)
> >>
> >>> On May 8, 2021, at 12:07, vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com <mailto:
> vgcerf at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> that is not the case here. Univ MN Library retains the originals.
> >>> v
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 11:36 AM John Day via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
> wrote:
> >>> The thing that scares me are the administrators who think that that
> because the material has been scanned the original artifacts are no longer
> needed and can be discarded. It is far more important than that. At best,
> it means the artifacts don?t need to be handled as often, which as the
> centuries go on becomes more and more critical.
> >>>
> >>> John
> >>>
> >>>> On May 8, 2021, at 11:12, David Walden <dave.walden.family at gmail.com
> <mailto:dave.walden.family at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> i have been an amateur but serious historian for a couple of decades
> and accessing archives and observing professional historians over that
> time.  I think commitment to scanning/digitizing documents is important.
> Archives with tight budgets employing people not used to engineering level
> salaries and other compensation tend to see scanning/digitizing as *very*,
> perhaps prohibitively, expensively.  Document contributors on this list
> might be able to help them think about digitizing costs and methods.
> >>>>
> >>>> Back maybe to the sense of Dave's question, archives may not be
> interested in everything one has to give.  It may take more than one
> archive to find homes for one's materials.
> >>>>
> >>>> Finding aids are important, as Craig noted.  An archive depending on
> google-like searches is less desirable in my view.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On May 8, 2021, at 10:11 AM, John Day via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> A slight correction, Craig.
> >>>>> I am a recognized historian in the History of Science and
> Cartography, primarily 17thC-18thC China and published widely. I have spent
> considerable time in archives across Asia and Europe and with private
> collectors. My experience goes well beyond computer museums, as I told Dave
> off-list, including junk rooms in the Vatican. (Sometimes one finds things
> in the oddest places.) ;-)
> >>>>> You are right about access. Electronic copies can be nice, but there
> are important things about provenance, etc. that one can only learn by
> seeing the artifact itself.
> >>>>> John
> >>>>>> On May 8, 2021, at 08:50, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net
> <mailto:craig at tereschau.net> <mailto:craig at tereschau.net <mailto:
> craig at tereschau.net>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Dave:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You asked about museums and their commitment to archiving.  As
> someone who was trained as a historian and still does occasional archival
> work for fun, I'll hazard a somewhat structural answer and then John D. can
> comment on computing museums.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> One can assess archives on at least three dimensions:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * Commitment to ensuring their collections are preserved for
> centuries to come.  This requires money (for fire suppression and
> temperature monitoring and the like) and also requires careful evaluation
> and planning (preserving paper for instance, is different from preserving
> paintings, which is different from preserving fabrics).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * Commitment to creating finding aids (catalogs, indexes,
> collection descriptions) that enable researchers to find items in the
> collections.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * Commitment to making their collections available for research (or
> public display).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The last may surprise folks but there are a number of institutions
> that have strong views about who should and should not be able to use their
> collections, usually to the detriment of scholarship and the public
> interest.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (And, if you want an example of exactly how not to do all three,
> consider the team of scholars who were originally given control of the Dead
> Sea Scrolls).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Craig
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> *****
> >>>>>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities
> and mailing lists.
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Internet-history mailing list
> >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
> >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history> <
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "xBBN" group.
> >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com <mailto:
> xbbn%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com> <mailto:
> xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com <mailto:
> xbbn%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com>>.
> >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com
> <
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com>
> <
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> <
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
> >>.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Internet-history mailing list
> >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Subject: Digest Footer
> >
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 20, Issue 4
> > ***********************************************
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From vgcerf at gmail.com  Sun May  9 07:24:15 2021
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Sun, 9 May 2021 10:24:15 -0400
Subject: [ih] Link rot (was: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs))
In-Reply-To: <94c51943-fb59-39d3-4b72-3d11e45e44ac@3kitty.org>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
 <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
 <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
 <00436a99-3e69-8b67-7cbe-ae3ccc4800d5@dcrocker.net>
 <CAHQj4CeUKG8VO+UzB9UN-oxFFH4p70LS=yBCwGMJbLdOXsD1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2D740133-BF56-4DB5-BBD6-D127927FC093@comcast.net>
 <3E500887-1BBD-43EC-B311-5BAE072DC5F9@me.com>
 <7c4f71e0-ce7f-6265-5a2c-fa3854ef2bb2@gmail.com>
 <FF70181E-6766-4483-B04C-F33A054D8F9B@comcast.net>
 <94c51943-fb59-39d3-4b72-3d11e45e44ac@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_UsZ0gB_XTOj-bbbz-6fvW6LCq9myJfv-9zy5dv8zg66g@mail.gmail.com>

see Digital Object Architecture (for DIgital Object Identifiers = DOI)

v


On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 5:25 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Sometimes you can find lost URLs' contents by looking at archive.org if
> you can remember the relevant URL.
>
> At one point in the '90s while I was on the W3C I lobbied for the
> introduction of a new form of URL - a "PURL" or permanent URL.   PURLs
> would have their content cached in a permanent database (akin to
> archive.org), so that if/when the URL ever disappeared the last content
> would still be available.  Someone creating web content who wanted it to
> have longevity would submit it as a PURL to that database, which would
> copy its contents and periodically check for changes.   The backend
> storage would be maintained and managed by W3C.
>
> Looking now from 2021, archive.org does provide a very similar service
> although I'm not sure how comprehensive it is.  Also, it's not clear
> whether or not popular search engines would find something that has
> disappeared as a URL, but is still present in the archive.org
> repository.  And like most other repositories, the survival of
> archive.org depends on some stream of continuous life support (funding,
> etc.)
>
> I've occasionally caught some corporation's misdeeds by such
> retrievals.  E.g., when a manufacturer promises that a product will do
> something, it's no longer sufficient for them to just change the
> product's web page to erase all traces of the promise.  Chances are it's
> in the archive still and they have a tough time claiming they never said
> that.
>
> /Jack
>
> On 5/8/21 1:45 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> > Couldn?t agree more.  A URL as a citation is practically useless. The
> Internet is not much of an archive.
> >
> >> On May 8, 2021, at 16:17, Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 09-May-21 02:44, Ole Jacobsen via Internet-history wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> I'll just note that there used to be a direct URL for ConneXions in
> the CBI
> >>> hosted publications archive, but that has recently changed. Another
> peril
> >>> of online museums.
> >> Indeed, and I wonder whether this august body could somehow try to
> change the thinking of archivists about that problem. Just over the last
> year or so, I've been digging in archives quite a bit (for
> doi.org/10.1109/MAHC.2020.2990647 and a forthcoming follow-up) and even
> in that time, some URLs have rotted, which makes it annoying to go back and
> follow up a new detail, and invalidates published citations. Over the
> longer term, say 10 years, even more links rot and search results become
> misleading or useless.
> >>
> >> (Or maybe that's a topic for the SIGCIS list.)
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>   Brian Carpenter
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From johnl at iecc.com  Sun May  9 09:08:12 2021
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 9 May 2021 12:08:12 -0400
Subject: [ih] Link rot (was: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs))
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_UsZ0gB_XTOj-bbbz-6fvW6LCq9myJfv-9zy5dv8zg66g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20210509160813.E2E237345C1@ary.qy>

It appears that vinton cerf via Internet-history <vgcerf at gmail.com> said:
>see Digital Object Architecture (for DIgital Object Identifiers = DOI)

DOI's point to a manually maintained federated database that contains
among other things forwarding URLs.

The only reason that DOI 10.17487/RFC9999 resolves to a web page with
the RFC is because when the RPC published the RFC. they ran a program
I wrote that updates the DOI database. While it is possible to update
the DOI database if the document moves, there's nothing automatic
about it.

R's,
John


From jack at 3kitty.org  Sun May  9 10:07:29 2021
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Sun, 9 May 2021 10:07:29 -0700
Subject: [ih] Link rot (was: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs))
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_UsZ0gB_XTOj-bbbz-6fvW6LCq9myJfv-9zy5dv8zg66g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
 <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
 <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
 <00436a99-3e69-8b67-7cbe-ae3ccc4800d5@dcrocker.net>
 <CAHQj4CeUKG8VO+UzB9UN-oxFFH4p70LS=yBCwGMJbLdOXsD1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2D740133-BF56-4DB5-BBD6-D127927FC093@comcast.net>
 <3E500887-1BBD-43EC-B311-5BAE072DC5F9@me.com>
 <7c4f71e0-ce7f-6265-5a2c-fa3854ef2bb2@gmail.com>
 <FF70181E-6766-4483-B04C-F33A054D8F9B@comcast.net>
 <94c51943-fb59-39d3-4b72-3d11e45e44ac@3kitty.org>
 <CAAFtm_UsZ0gB_XTOj-bbbz-6fvW6LCq9myJfv-9zy5dv8zg66g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7f156c1d-5123-205e-dbfd-f48b6e2e6418@3kitty.org>

Interesting, hadn't seen DOA before.? I've learned to be skeptical of
"Architectures".?? Why did they pick such an acronym - when I see "DOA"
I think of something quite different.? Has this been implemented?? Is it
being used?? How much stuff is in it?? Or is DOA DOA?

IMHO, there are many ways to create the technology, but the hard part is
creating the administrative mechanisms that will keep it functioning
continuously, and getting everybody to use them.

The "PURL" approach I was pushing with W3C (seemed like a likely
administrator) was really a resurrection of an old idea that was part of
Licklider's "galactic network" vision.?? When I was in Lick's group at
MIT in the early 70s, we pushed very hard to implement an archival
architecture in the emerging standards for "messaging" (what we now call
email).

Part of that was doing battle in the 1970s Header Wars that determined
what email headers should contain.? If you look at an email today,
you'll usually find one of the artifacts of those wars -- the
"Message-ID:" field.? I fought very hard to get that into the standard.

The idea was that a Message-ID was simply a unique string that
identified a specific message.?? In Lick's vision, messages were simply
documents that got created and assigned such an ID as they proceeded
down their own path through the galactic network.? Other messages might
reference them, e.g., as replies, forwards, and other actions take place
- possibly over years and creating complex tangles of messages.? So
basically anything in digital form could be a "message".

For longevity, the idea was that anyone encountering a message could
signal to their system that the message should be Archived - i.e., saved
permanently.?? So an ephemeral note ("Let's go to lunch.") would
disappear, but anything considered important could be Archived by anyone
who thought it worthwhile.

That was the Architecture.?? In the real world, we implemented our "mail
system" to use the Datacomputer as the Archive.? Anyone writing or
receiving a message could tell the system to Archive it, and the mail
daemon would place a copy of that message into the Datacomputer, which
was conveniently available on the ARPANET.?? The message's Message-ID
uniquely identified it for future retrieval.? In modern database
terminology, the Message-ID was the Primary Key.

AFAIK, if anyone can find artifacts from the Datacomputer, you would
find a collection of ancient email messages that the MIT mail system put
there back in the 70s.?? Sadly, the notion of the galactic network (now
called The Internet) lost the concept of having a Persistent Store as an
integral part.?? The vision was that there would be Datacomputers
scattered around the net, run 24x7 as reliable warehouses for information.

If you look at Vint's message:

Header with Message-IDs

you'll see the Message-ID of his message (you may have to enable "full
headers" or something like that to see them), and a reference to the
Message-ID of the message to which he was replying and several others.

Curiously, those Message-IDs are hot-links, at least in the software I'm
using (Thunderbird on Ubuntu).?? But when I click on one to go to that
referenced message, all it does is put up a spinner graphic and refuse
to do anything else so I have to kill the program.

I guess the Datacomputer is down today.....

/Jack Haverty


On 5/9/21 7:24 AM, vinton cerf wrote:
> see Digital Object Architecture (for DIgital Object Identifiers = DOI)
>
> v
>
>
> On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 5:25 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history
> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>
>     Sometimes you can find lost URLs' contents by looking at
>     archive.org <http://archive.org> if
>     you can remember the relevant URL.
>
>     At one point in the '90s while I was on the W3C I lobbied for the
>     introduction of a new form of URL - a "PURL" or permanent URL.?? PURLs
>     would have their content cached in a permanent database (akin to
>     archive.org <http://archive.org>), so that if/when the URL ever
>     disappeared the last content
>     would still be available.? Someone creating web content who wanted
>     it to
>     have longevity would submit it as a PURL to that database, which would
>     copy its contents and periodically check for changes.?? The backend
>     storage would be maintained and managed by W3C.
>
>     Looking now from 2021, archive.org <http://archive.org> does
>     provide a very similar service
>     although I'm not sure how comprehensive it is.? Also, it's not clear
>     whether or not popular search engines would find something that has
>     disappeared as a URL, but is still present in the archive.org
>     <http://archive.org>
>     repository.? And like most other repositories, the survival of
>     archive.org <http://archive.org> depends on some stream of
>     continuous life support (funding,
>     etc.)
>
>     I've occasionally caught some corporation's misdeeds by such
>     retrievals.? E.g., when a manufacturer promises that a product will do
>     something, it's no longer sufficient for them to just change the
>     product's web page to erase all traces of the promise.? Chances
>     are it's
>     in the archive still and they have a tough time claiming they
>     never said
>     that.
>
>     /Jack
>
>     On 5/8/21 1:45 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>     > Couldn?t agree more.? A URL as a citation is practically
>     useless. The Internet is not much of an archive.
>     >
>     >> On May 8, 2021, at 16:17, Brian E Carpenter
>     <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>>
>     wrote:
>     >>
>     >> On 09-May-21 02:44, Ole Jacobsen via Internet-history wrote:
>     >> ...
>     >>> I'll just note that there used to be a direct URL for
>     ConneXions in the CBI
>     >>> hosted publications archive, but that has recently changed.
>     Another peril
>     >>> of online museums.
>     >> Indeed, and I wonder whether this august body could somehow try
>     to change the thinking of archivists about that problem. Just over
>     the last year or so, I've been digging in archives quite a bit
>     (for? doi.org/10.1109/MAHC.2020.2990647
>     <http://doi.org/10.1109/MAHC.2020.2990647> and a forthcoming
>     follow-up) and even in that time, some URLs have rotted, which
>     makes it annoying to go back and follow up a new detail, and
>     invalidates published citations. Over the longer term, say 10
>     years, even more links rot and search results become misleading or
>     useless.
>     >>
>     >> (Or maybe that's a topic for the SIGCIS list.)
>     >>
>     >> Regards
>     >>? ?Brian Carpenter
>
>     -- 
>     Internet-history mailing list
>     Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>     <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>     https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>     <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
>



From vgcerf at gmail.com  Sun May  9 10:10:04 2021
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Sun, 9 May 2021 13:10:04 -0400
Subject: [ih] Link rot (was: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs))
In-Reply-To: <7f156c1d-5123-205e-dbfd-f48b6e2e6418@3kitty.org>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
 <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
 <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
 <00436a99-3e69-8b67-7cbe-ae3ccc4800d5@dcrocker.net>
 <CAHQj4CeUKG8VO+UzB9UN-oxFFH4p70LS=yBCwGMJbLdOXsD1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2D740133-BF56-4DB5-BBD6-D127927FC093@comcast.net>
 <3E500887-1BBD-43EC-B311-5BAE072DC5F9@me.com>
 <7c4f71e0-ce7f-6265-5a2c-fa3854ef2bb2@gmail.com>
 <FF70181E-6766-4483-B04C-F33A054D8F9B@comcast.net>
 <94c51943-fb59-39d3-4b72-3d11e45e44ac@3kitty.org>
 <CAAFtm_UsZ0gB_XTOj-bbbz-6fvW6LCq9myJfv-9zy5dv8zg66g@mail.gmail.com>
 <7f156c1d-5123-205e-dbfd-f48b6e2e6418@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_Wf09do4npf-zA0rCPWQG4SQ36L7dGVLFe9ASvLU2PbNg@mail.gmail.com>

anywhere you see "DOI:..." it is in use.
yeah, DOA is an unfortunate acronym. Bob Kahn has been developing since
1988.
There is a non-profit organization that contracts with CNRI to handle
operations.

v

On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 1:07 PM Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:

> Interesting, hadn't seen DOA before.  I've learned to be skeptical of
> "Architectures".   Why did they pick such an acronym - when I see "DOA" I
> think of something quite different.  Has this been implemented?  Is it
> being used?  How much stuff is in it?  Or is DOA DOA?
>
> IMHO, there are many ways to create the technology, but the hard part is
> creating the administrative mechanisms that will keep it functioning
> continuously, and getting everybody to use them.
>
> The "PURL" approach I was pushing with W3C (seemed like a likely
> administrator) was really a resurrection of an old idea that was part of
> Licklider's "galactic network" vision.   When I was in Lick's group at MIT
> in the early 70s, we pushed very hard to implement an archival architecture
> in the emerging standards for "messaging" (what we now call email).
>
> Part of that was doing battle in the 1970s Header Wars that determined
> what email headers should contain.  If you look at an email today, you'll
> usually find one of the artifacts of those wars -- the "Message-ID:"
> field.  I fought very hard to get that into the standard.
>
> The idea was that a Message-ID was simply a unique string that identified
> a specific message.   In Lick's vision, messages were simply documents that
> got created and assigned such an ID as they proceeded down their own path
> through the galactic network.  Other messages might reference them, e.g.,
> as replies, forwards, and other actions take place - possibly over years
> and creating complex tangles of messages.  So basically anything in digital
> form could be a "message".
>
> For longevity, the idea was that anyone encountering a message could
> signal to their system that the message should be Archived - i.e., saved
> permanently.   So an ephemeral note ("Let's go to lunch.") would disappear,
> but anything considered important could be Archived by anyone who thought
> it worthwhile.
>
> That was the Architecture.   In the real world, we implemented our "mail
> system" to use the Datacomputer as the Archive.  Anyone writing or
> receiving a message could tell the system to Archive it, and the mail
> daemon would place a copy of that message into the Datacomputer, which was
> conveniently available on the ARPANET.   The message's Message-ID uniquely
> identified it for future retrieval.  In modern database terminology, the
> Message-ID was the Primary Key.
>
> AFAIK, if anyone can find artifacts from the Datacomputer, you would find
> a collection of ancient email messages that the MIT mail system put there
> back in the 70s.   Sadly, the notion of the galactic network (now called
> The Internet) lost the concept of having a Persistent Store as an integral
> part.   The vision was that there would be Datacomputers scattered around
> the net, run 24x7 as reliable warehouses for information.
>
> If you look at Vint's message:
>
> [image: Header with Message-IDs]
>
> you'll see the Message-ID of his message (you may have to enable "full
> headers" or something like that to see them), and a reference to the
> Message-ID of the message to which he was replying and several others.
>
> Curiously, those Message-IDs are hot-links, at least in the software I'm
> using (Thunderbird on Ubuntu).   But when I click on one to go to that
> referenced message, all it does is put up a spinner graphic and refuse to
> do anything else so I have to kill the program.
>
> I guess the Datacomputer is down today.....
>
> /Jack Haverty
>
>
> On 5/9/21 7:24 AM, vinton cerf wrote:
>
> see Digital Object Architecture (for DIgital Object Identifiers = DOI)
>
> v
>
>
> On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 5:25 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>> Sometimes you can find lost URLs' contents by looking at archive.org if
>> you can remember the relevant URL.
>>
>> At one point in the '90s while I was on the W3C I lobbied for the
>> introduction of a new form of URL - a "PURL" or permanent URL.   PURLs
>> would have their content cached in a permanent database (akin to
>> archive.org), so that if/when the URL ever disappeared the last content
>> would still be available.  Someone creating web content who wanted it to
>> have longevity would submit it as a PURL to that database, which would
>> copy its contents and periodically check for changes.   The backend
>> storage would be maintained and managed by W3C.
>>
>> Looking now from 2021, archive.org does provide a very similar service
>> although I'm not sure how comprehensive it is.  Also, it's not clear
>> whether or not popular search engines would find something that has
>> disappeared as a URL, but is still present in the archive.org
>> repository.  And like most other repositories, the survival of
>> archive.org depends on some stream of continuous life support (funding,
>> etc.)
>>
>> I've occasionally caught some corporation's misdeeds by such
>> retrievals.  E.g., when a manufacturer promises that a product will do
>> something, it's no longer sufficient for them to just change the
>> product's web page to erase all traces of the promise.  Chances are it's
>> in the archive still and they have a tough time claiming they never said
>> that.
>>
>> /Jack
>>
>> On 5/8/21 1:45 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>> > Couldn?t agree more.  A URL as a citation is practically useless. The
>> Internet is not much of an archive.
>> >
>> >> On May 8, 2021, at 16:17, Brian E Carpenter <
>> brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 09-May-21 02:44, Ole Jacobsen via Internet-history wrote:
>> >> ...
>> >>> I'll just note that there used to be a direct URL for ConneXions in
>> the CBI
>> >>> hosted publications archive, but that has recently changed. Another
>> peril
>> >>> of online museums.
>> >> Indeed, and I wonder whether this august body could somehow try to
>> change the thinking of archivists about that problem. Just over the last
>> year or so, I've been digging in archives quite a bit (for
>> doi.org/10.1109/MAHC.2020.2990647 and a forthcoming follow-up) and even
>> in that time, some URLs have rotted, which makes it annoying to go back and
>> follow up a new detail, and invalidates published citations. Over the
>> longer term, say 10 years, even more links rot and search results become
>> misleading or useless.
>> >>
>> >> (Or maybe that's a topic for the SIGCIS list.)
>> >>
>> >> Regards
>> >>   Brian Carpenter
>>
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>
>
>


From jack at 3kitty.org  Sun May  9 11:25:58 2021
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Sun, 9 May 2021 11:25:58 -0700
Subject: [ih] Link rot (was: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs))
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_Wf09do4npf-zA0rCPWQG4SQ36L7dGVLFe9ASvLU2PbNg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_XBsF4SA0OwmYi6xsV-nLBPWNgoob5E4M2dAAn+6EmP7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <7B94AF90-A07A-4A86-8AA5-5ADD7D49121E@me.com>
 <40b8149d-1d33-338c-e40d-97bded3b4427@dcrocker.net>
 <D9807508-4646-4F3E-958D-22C030B52A1B@comcast.net>
 <00436a99-3e69-8b67-7cbe-ae3ccc4800d5@dcrocker.net>
 <CAHQj4CeUKG8VO+UzB9UN-oxFFH4p70LS=yBCwGMJbLdOXsD1dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2D740133-BF56-4DB5-BBD6-D127927FC093@comcast.net>
 <3E500887-1BBD-43EC-B311-5BAE072DC5F9@me.com>
 <7c4f71e0-ce7f-6265-5a2c-fa3854ef2bb2@gmail.com>
 <FF70181E-6766-4483-B04C-F33A054D8F9B@comcast.net>
 <94c51943-fb59-39d3-4b72-3d11e45e44ac@3kitty.org>
 <CAAFtm_UsZ0gB_XTOj-bbbz-6fvW6LCq9myJfv-9zy5dv8zg66g@mail.gmail.com>
 <7f156c1d-5123-205e-dbfd-f48b6e2e6418@3kitty.org>
 <CAAFtm_Wf09do4npf-zA0rCPWQG4SQ36L7dGVLFe9ASvLU2PbNg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49b7b900-7c73-8766-9c25-1aede92a92d1@3kitty.org>

I don't remember ever seeing DOI: but I'll watch for it.? To me, the
issue with DOA is the same as the other systems like Datacomputer,
archive.org, etc.? - what happens when the supporting organization
disappears.

IMHO, a viable approach to longevity might be to (somehow) make the
Storage of data as endemic to The Internet as the Movement of data is
today.? I don't worry about the future ability to Move data.? That
capability has become endemic to human society, arguably now as
important as air and water.?? Whatever happens with router vendors,
network operators, fiber optic technology, et al ... something will
replace it to continue human ability to Move data.?? That capability is
endemic to The Internet, which itself seems endemic now to Humanity.

So, what if the same were true of Storage of data?? Perhaps when you're
deciding what ISP to sign up with, instead of just looking at their
cost, reliability, bandwidth, and latency, you would also look at their
Storage capability.?? ISPs are Service Providers.?? Moving data is a
Service.? Storage of data could also be a Service.?? A successful ISP
might offer not only Gigabit/sec connectivity to anywhere on the planet
(coming soon - Mars!).?? It might also offer access to the collected
annals of humanity (basic service capped at 2 billion retrievals per
month, unlimited available at higher cost).

Today, that kind of Move service is implemented by a federation of
uncountable ISPs, all somehow interconnecting and cooperating (mostly)
to provide such a pervasive service.?? Could that approach also work to
provide Storage as a permanent endemic part of The Internet??? Not
implemented by a single organization, corporation, or consortium -- but
a core component of the fabric of The Internet.?? That was the
assumption behind those efforts to standardize Message-ID.

Meanwhile, for longevity very long term, hundreds or thousands of years,
I think we're allowed to assume that technology will continue to
advance.? There's even rumblings in the scientific community today that
faster-than-light travel may actually be possible (as well as "Beam me
up, Scotty!").? Not? today, but maybe someday.

So, one way to archive all of our digital stuff is simply --- send it
into Space.?? Using a powerful radio transmitter, just transmit everything.

Space is big.?? BIG.?? A few thousand light-years can store an
incredible amount of data.? Sure, we don't know how to go get that old
data now, but in the future?

We're (humanity) is also eager today to find evidence of alien
civilizations, studiously searching the electromagnetic spectrum for
data from distant planets.?? Perhaps we don't have the technology yet to
extract their data from the cosmic noise.? But in the future?

So, if we transmit all the IENs and RFCs (and everything else), they'll
likely eventually be accessible to future researchers.? Electromagnetic
radiation seems to have incredible longevity.?? Current scientists are
looking at the history back to the Big Bang, learning what happened then
by analyzing the current cosmic background radiation which is still
around after billions of years.?? Sure, we don't know how to find the
primordial equivalent to IENs of some civlization of that era.?? But in
the future?

The Archives of Humanity are already Out There.? Complete collections of
classic Human Artifact materials such as The Milton Berle Show and I
Love Lucy are currently accessible at about 70 lightyears out.?? Sure,
we don't know how to get them now.?? But in the future?

/Jack
(it's been that kind of Sunday morning...)

PS - there are possibly downsides to sending all our data into space.??
But that horse has left the barn.? Google "The Dark Forest"??

On 5/9/21 10:10 AM, vinton cerf wrote:
> anywhere you see "DOI:..." it is in use.?
> yeah, DOA is an unfortunate acronym. Bob Kahn has been developing
> since 1988.
> There is a non-profit organization that contracts with CNRI to handle
> operations.?
>
> v
>
> On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 1:07 PM Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org
> <mailto:jack at 3kitty.org>> wrote:
>
>     Interesting, hadn't seen DOA before.? I've learned to be skeptical
>     of "Architectures".?? Why did they pick such an acronym - when I
>     see "DOA" I think of something quite different.? Has this been
>     implemented?? Is it being used?? How much stuff is in it?? Or is
>     DOA DOA?
>
>     IMHO, there are many ways to create the technology, but the hard
>     part is creating the administrative mechanisms that will keep it
>     functioning continuously, and getting everybody to use them.
>
>     The "PURL" approach I was pushing with W3C (seemed like a likely
>     administrator) was really a resurrection of an old idea that was
>     part of Licklider's "galactic network" vision.?? When I was in
>     Lick's group at MIT in the early 70s, we pushed very hard to
>     implement an archival architecture in the emerging standards for
>     "messaging" (what we now call email).
>
>     Part of that was doing battle in the 1970s Header Wars that
>     determined what email headers should contain.? If you look at an
>     email today, you'll usually find one of the artifacts of those
>     wars -- the "Message-ID:" field.? I fought very hard to get that
>     into the standard.
>
>     The idea was that a Message-ID was simply a unique string that
>     identified a specific message.?? In Lick's vision, messages were
>     simply documents that got created and assigned such an ID as they
>     proceeded down their own path through the galactic network.? Other
>     messages might reference them, e.g., as replies, forwards, and
>     other actions take place - possibly over years and creating
>     complex tangles of messages.? So basically anything in digital
>     form could be a "message".
>
>     For longevity, the idea was that anyone encountering a message
>     could signal to their system that the message should be Archived -
>     i.e., saved permanently.?? So an ephemeral note ("Let's go to
>     lunch.") would disappear, but anything considered important could
>     be Archived by anyone who thought it worthwhile.
>
>     That was the Architecture.?? In the real world, we implemented our
>     "mail system" to use the Datacomputer as the Archive.? Anyone
>     writing or receiving a message could tell the system to Archive
>     it, and the mail daemon would place a copy of that message into
>     the Datacomputer, which was conveniently available on the
>     ARPANET.?? The message's Message-ID uniquely identified it for
>     future retrieval.? In modern database terminology, the Message-ID
>     was the Primary Key.
>
>     AFAIK, if anyone can find artifacts from the Datacomputer, you
>     would find a collection of ancient email messages that the MIT
>     mail system put there back in the 70s.?? Sadly, the notion of the
>     galactic network (now called The Internet) lost the concept of
>     having a Persistent Store as an integral part.?? The vision was
>     that there would be Datacomputers scattered around the net, run
>     24x7 as reliable warehouses for information.
>
>     If you look at Vint's message:
>
>     Header with Message-IDs
>
>     you'll see the Message-ID of his message (you may have to enable
>     "full headers" or something like that to see them), and a
>     reference to the Message-ID of the message to which he was
>     replying and several others.
>
>     Curiously, those Message-IDs are hot-links, at least in the
>     software I'm using (Thunderbird on Ubuntu).?? But when I click on
>     one to go to that referenced message, all it does is put up a
>     spinner graphic and refuse to do anything else so I have to kill
>     the program.
>
>     I guess the Datacomputer is down today.....
>
>     /Jack Haverty
>
>
>     On 5/9/21 7:24 AM, vinton cerf wrote:
>>     see Digital Object Architecture (for DIgital Object Identifiers =
>>     DOI)
>>
>>     v
>>
>>
>>     On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 5:25 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history
>>     <internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>     <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>
>>         Sometimes you can find lost URLs' contents by looking at
>>         archive.org <http://archive.org> if
>>         you can remember the relevant URL.
>>
>>         At one point in the '90s while I was on the W3C I lobbied for the
>>         introduction of a new form of URL - a "PURL" or permanent
>>         URL.?? PURLs
>>         would have their content cached in a permanent database (akin to
>>         archive.org <http://archive.org>), so that if/when the URL
>>         ever disappeared the last content
>>         would still be available.? Someone creating web content who
>>         wanted it to
>>         have longevity would submit it as a PURL to that database,
>>         which would
>>         copy its contents and periodically check for changes.?? The
>>         backend
>>         storage would be maintained and managed by W3C.
>>
>>         Looking now from 2021, archive.org <http://archive.org> does
>>         provide a very similar service
>>         although I'm not sure how comprehensive it is.? Also, it's
>>         not clear
>>         whether or not popular search engines would find something
>>         that has
>>         disappeared as a URL, but is still present in the archive.org
>>         <http://archive.org>
>>         repository.? And like most other repositories, the survival of
>>         archive.org <http://archive.org> depends on some stream of
>>         continuous life support (funding,
>>         etc.)
>>
>>         I've occasionally caught some corporation's misdeeds by such
>>         retrievals.? E.g., when a manufacturer promises that a
>>         product will do
>>         something, it's no longer sufficient for them to just change the
>>         product's web page to erase all traces of the promise.?
>>         Chances are it's
>>         in the archive still and they have a tough time claiming they
>>         never said
>>         that.
>>
>>         /Jack
>>
>>         On 5/8/21 1:45 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>>         > Couldn?t agree more.? A URL as a citation is practically
>>         useless. The Internet is not much of an archive.
>>         >
>>         >> On May 8, 2021, at 16:17, Brian E Carpenter
>>         <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
>>         <mailto:brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>         >>
>>         >> On 09-May-21 02:44, Ole Jacobsen via Internet-history wrote:
>>         >> ...
>>         >>> I'll just note that there used to be a direct URL for
>>         ConneXions in the CBI
>>         >>> hosted publications archive, but that has recently
>>         changed. Another peril
>>         >>> of online museums.
>>         >> Indeed, and I wonder whether this august body could
>>         somehow try to change the thinking of archivists about that
>>         problem. Just over the last year or so, I've been digging in
>>         archives quite a bit (for? doi.org/10.1109/MAHC.2020.2990647
>>         <http://doi.org/10.1109/MAHC.2020.2990647> and a forthcoming
>>         follow-up) and even in that time, some URLs have rotted,
>>         which makes it annoying to go back and follow up a new
>>         detail, and invalidates published citations. Over the longer
>>         term, say 10 years, even more links rot and search results
>>         become misleading or useless.
>>         >>
>>         >> (Or maybe that's a topic for the SIGCIS list.)
>>         >>
>>         >> Regards
>>         >>? ?Brian Carpenter
>>
>>         -- 
>>         Internet-history mailing list
>>         Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>         <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>>         https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>         <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
>>
>



From robert at timetraveller.org  Sun May  9 18:27:45 2021
From: robert at timetraveller.org (Robert Brockway)
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 11:27:45 +1000 (AEST)
Subject: [ih] archival quality, was Internet-history Digest
In-Reply-To: <7ECAE275-E751-4B85-97EE-872912EF7FD4@comcast.net>
References: <20210509021222.0EF7D731AE9@ary.qy>
 <7ECAE275-E751-4B85-97EE-872912EF7FD4@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2105101043450.17774@mira.opentrend.net>

On Sat, 8 May 2021, John Day via Internet-history wrote:

> Of course it is survival bias, that is the point.
>
> A lot of was destroyed, burned, left to rot, throw away, etc. Some old 
> texts that were to be suppressed (or just considered old) were turned 
> into bookbindings of other books. (Yes, old texts have been recovered 
> this way.)

I used to do a presentation on backups and disaster recovery.  I'd start 
by talking about the Medieval period and make the point that backups have 
nothing to do with technology beyond the fact that technology is used to 
facilitate the backups.

Monks in Medieval Europe and the Middle East made backups (physical 
copies) of important data (texts) and made sure it was stored in off-site 
locations (other monastaries).  Thanks to them many ancient texts, many 
predating the medieval period, survive to the modern day.

There are some fun stories such as one text that was completely lost in 
Europe.  Centuries later Europeans discovered it was widely distributed in 
Ethiopia.

And then of course we have archival storage locations such as Nag Hammadi.

> The whole point is that even with all our efforts, some of it will be 
> lost. HP thought they had a very nice safe archive facility for their 
> corporate papers . . . until it was burned to the ground. We have to go 
> to great lengths to ensure that that probability is low.

Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

I've long argued that generalised solutions are best for backups and 
disaster recovery and that backups should be offline, offsite and tested.

The engineering concept of "failure of imagination" still hasn't been 
widely adopted in IT.  It's necessary to build backup solutions that will 
survive the problems we didn't think of.

> We need something that if left alone for a very long time will still be 
> decipherable.

Yes this is quite challenging and involves both understanding the data 
format and then understanding the information contained.

This is also a good time to mention the Clock of the Long Now, a project 
to create a clock that will keep time accurately for 10,000 years.  They 
are having to consider some of the same problems that we would in 
addressing long-term data recoverability.

Cheers,

Rob


From johnl at iecc.com  Sun May  9 20:50:36 2021
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 9 May 2021 23:50:36 -0400
Subject: [ih] Link rot (was: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs))
In-Reply-To: <7f156c1d-5123-205e-dbfd-f48b6e2e6418@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <20210510035036.D63EF74DC01@ary.qy>

It appears that Jack Haverty via Internet-history <jack at 3kitty.org> said:
>Interesting, hadn't seen DOA before.? I've learned to be skeptical of
>"Architectures".?? Why did they pick such an acronym - when I see "DOA"
>I think of something quite different.? Has this been implemented?? Is it
>being used?? How much stuff is in it?? Or is DOA DOA?

DOA is the new name for the handle system described in RFCs 3650-3652.

DOI is by far its largest application.  As far as I know, nobody uses
the handle resolution protocol, but use https relative to a well known
domain instead, e.g., https://dx.doi.org/10.17487/RFC2549

R's,
John

PS:

>Curiously, those Message-IDs are hot-links, at least in the software I'm
>using (Thunderbird on Ubuntu).?? But when I click on one to go to that
>referenced message, all it does is put up a spinner graphic and refuse
>to do anything else so I have to kill the program.

It's probably misinterpreting it as an e-mail address or some kind of funky URL.

For those of us who still use usenet, Message-ID is the primary key to identify
a message and any nntp server can retrieve messages by message ID.

R's,
John


From karl at cavebear.com  Wed May 12 15:12:43 2021
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 15:12:43 -0700
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
References: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
 <7A366161-2853-4040-8F36-16BD94E75A6A@webhistory.org>
 <401f9756-d888-fa3c-ba71-9744f166d0b2@dcrocker.net>
 <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>
 <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
Message-ID: <d8412b9c-c85c-aaa5-70f5-191ce7df38aa@cavebear.com>

I have also been highly concerned about the tendency of modern tech 
history to erase its own records.

My concern may, however, be in a different direction.

I am concerned about the growth of specious patents.  There are a lot of 
patent trolls out there who buy-up weak patents that got past the 
relatively lax patent examiners in the US and elsewere, examiners who 
often have no notion of ideas in networking or computer systems, whether 
embodied in software or hardware.

By erasing our past we make it difficult to rebut these bad patents - we 
have discarded the evidence that the claims of those patents are neither 
novel nor non-obvious.

I think that over the last few years the IETF has done a spectacular job 
of organizing and tracking the RFC series.

However, we still have a tendency to forget the old when the newer, 
shinier thing comes along.

We should strive to make sure that our past is recorded.  And we ought 
to consider legal evidentiary requirements so that one who is 
challenging specious patents is not blocked by the complexities of the 
rules of evidence.

	--karl--


On 5/9/21 1:23 AM, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote:
> Dave Crocker wrote:
>> Saving the RFCs is obvious.  What appears to be less obvious and, IMO,
>> is just as important in historical terms, is /all/ of the IETF-related
>> work materials.  Drafts.  Mailing list archives.  Session notes.
>> Everything.
> 
> John Day wrote:
>> Agreed. It should go somewhere. Same for all of the other standards
>> groups, forums, consortia, etc.
> 
> Re the IETF, look in:
> 
>    https://archive-it.org/collections/11034
> 
> A few years ago, I set up an Archive-It.org job to monitor the IETF's
> web presence.  I was disturbed at the deliberate ephemerality of the
> Internet-Draft ecosystem.  I had been looking back at a 10-year-old
> effort to eliminate some ridiculous restrictions on the IPv4 address
> space, and IETF had thrown away most of the relevant documents (though I
> found copies elsewhere once I knew their names).
> 
> Archive-It is a service of the nonprofit Internet Archive (archive.org).
> So, the Internet Archive's robots are now crawling (various parts of)
> the IETF websites every week, month, and quarter, under my direction.
> And saving the results forever, or as long as the Internet Archive and
> the Wayback Machine exist.  Between 1998 and now it's pulled in about
> 1.8 TB of documents, which are accessible and searchable either from the
> above URL, or from the main Wayback Machine at web.archive.org.
> 
> The IETF websites aren't organized for archiving.  I frankly don't
> understand their structure, so am probably missing some important
> things, and overcollecting other things.  But at least I tried.
> Suggestions are welcome.
> 
> Just be glad the IETF is copying-friendly.  Imagine trying to archive
> the IEEE or OSI standards development process.  Then imagine big
> copyright lawsuits from self-serving people who tied their income
> stream to restricting who can access the standards and the
> standardization process.
> 
> 	John
> 
> PS: Anyone or any institution can get an Archive-It account for roughly
> $10K/year.  The service automates the collecting of *anything* you want
> from the web for posterity.  (If you want them to, the Internet Archive
> will also write copies of it on new hard drives and send them to you for
> your own archival collection.)  About 800 institutions are customers today.
> You can also get a low-support low-volume Archive-It Basic account for
> $500/year.  Or get custom Digital Preservation services to improve the
> likelihood that your own curated digital assets will survive into the
> distant future.  See https://Archive-It.org .
> 
> PPS: The Internet Archive's long term survival is, of course, not
> guaranteed.  In particular, it will go through a tough transition when
> its founder eventually dies.  What is guaranteed is that they have built
> a corpus of useful information: Millions of books, billions of web
> pages, hundreds of thousands of concerts, decades of saved television
> channels, etc.  They are absorbing a lot of archival microfilm, too,
> including genealogical and census records, magazines, etc.  This corpus
> will likely motivate people to preserve and replicate it into being
> useful in the distant future.  They have tried to design the technical
> storage to encourage that result.  Does anyone here know anybody who has
> both the money and the motivation to make a complete and ongoing copy in
> a separately administered, separately owned organization?  That would
> significantly mitigate the long term risk of having all the replicated
> copies of the corpus owned by a single US nonprofit.  It would probably
> take a bare minimum staff of 10 people to run and manage such an
> operation, with dozens of petabytes of rotating storage in multiple data
> centers and a large collection of (mostly free) software keeping it all
> organized and accessible.
> 


From tte at cs.fau.de  Wed May 12 16:22:13 2021
From: tte at cs.fau.de (Toerless Eckert)
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 01:22:13 +0200
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <d8412b9c-c85c-aaa5-70f5-191ce7df38aa@cavebear.com>
References: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
 <7A366161-2853-4040-8F36-16BD94E75A6A@webhistory.org>
 <401f9756-d888-fa3c-ba71-9744f166d0b2@dcrocker.net>
 <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>
 <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
 <d8412b9c-c85c-aaa5-70f5-191ce7df38aa@cavebear.com>
Message-ID: <20210512232213.GC40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>

To put Karls conerns into a maybe easier understood (but theoretical) example for those on the list that have not been involved in practical instances of the problem:

- printed public/user product documentation from 2000 gets thrown out 15 years later because
  of "we need to get rid of all this old junk", maybe because of refurnishing offices.
- half a year later, a lawsuit with such a "bogus" patent that was filed in 2002 ensues.
- Obviously, the 2000 public/user product documentation would exactly show the patent
  claim to be "bogus" because the public documentation from 2000 explains exactly the same
  thing the patent filed in 2002 claimed to be novel.
- Online web page of the prior art product of course did not keep old version information reaching
  that far back, and even if it would have, it would not have date information on it, but only
  version numbers.

These type of things easily happen in multi-million dollar lawsuits over and over.

Going forwarding, IMHO, the best solution for e.g.: IETF documentation would be:

a) have all data such as all of datatracker and IETF mailing list archive in an easy mirrored access form,
   which i think we do not have, at least i have not found it, only for some subset of our data.

b) Have multiple, independent of each other mirrors around the world that would create
   signed/dated certificates for the hashes of each mirrored document - and keep old
   (versions of) documents and their signatures even when they would be deleted/changed on the origin site.

   Maybe those mirrors cost money, but IMHO worth it. especially for stuff like IETF whose overall
   volume on disk is laughable small. And this becam standard tooling, folks like CHM should be
   ideal places for such mirroring.

Without something equivalent to a/b i fear it is way too easy to create fake evidence for anything,
and the "evidence" may not hold up as well court as  the "good old printed evidence".

This "creation time" tracking in a more trustworthy fashion will of course not
work retroactively, which is why it would be even more important to understand the value of
doing this now, so someone starts doing it for the benefit of future bogus lawsuits for
stuff we start working on now. Especially given how paper already has disappeared as more
reliable evidence.

Cheers
    Toerless

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 03:12:43PM -0700, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
> I have also been highly concerned about the tendency of modern tech history
> to erase its own records.
> 
> My concern may, however, be in a different direction.
> 
> I am concerned about the growth of specious patents.  There are a lot of
> patent trolls out there who buy-up weak patents that got past the relatively
> lax patent examiners in the US and elsewere, examiners who often have no
> notion of ideas in networking or computer systems, whether embodied in
> software or hardware.
> 
> By erasing our past we make it difficult to rebut these bad patents - we
> have discarded the evidence that the claims of those patents are neither
> novel nor non-obvious.
> 
> I think that over the last few years the IETF has done a spectacular job of
> organizing and tracking the RFC series.
> 
> However, we still have a tendency to forget the old when the newer, shinier
> thing comes along.
> 
> We should strive to make sure that our past is recorded.  And we ought to
> consider legal evidentiary requirements so that one who is challenging
> specious patents is not blocked by the complexities of the rules of
> evidence.
> 
> 	--karl--
> 
> 
> On 5/9/21 1:23 AM, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote:
> > Dave Crocker wrote:
> > > Saving the RFCs is obvious.  What appears to be less obvious and, IMO,
> > > is just as important in historical terms, is /all/ of the IETF-related
> > > work materials.  Drafts.  Mailing list archives.  Session notes.
> > > Everything.
> > 
> > John Day wrote:
> > > Agreed. It should go somewhere. Same for all of the other standards
> > > groups, forums, consortia, etc.
> > 
> > Re the IETF, look in:
> > 
> >    https://archive-it.org/collections/11034
> > 
> > A few years ago, I set up an Archive-It.org job to monitor the IETF's
> > web presence.  I was disturbed at the deliberate ephemerality of the
> > Internet-Draft ecosystem.  I had been looking back at a 10-year-old
> > effort to eliminate some ridiculous restrictions on the IPv4 address
> > space, and IETF had thrown away most of the relevant documents (though I
> > found copies elsewhere once I knew their names).
> > 
> > Archive-It is a service of the nonprofit Internet Archive (archive.org).
> > So, the Internet Archive's robots are now crawling (various parts of)
> > the IETF websites every week, month, and quarter, under my direction.
> > And saving the results forever, or as long as the Internet Archive and
> > the Wayback Machine exist.  Between 1998 and now it's pulled in about
> > 1.8 TB of documents, which are accessible and searchable either from the
> > above URL, or from the main Wayback Machine at web.archive.org.
> > 
> > The IETF websites aren't organized for archiving.  I frankly don't
> > understand their structure, so am probably missing some important
> > things, and overcollecting other things.  But at least I tried.
> > Suggestions are welcome.
> > 
> > Just be glad the IETF is copying-friendly.  Imagine trying to archive
> > the IEEE or OSI standards development process.  Then imagine big
> > copyright lawsuits from self-serving people who tied their income
> > stream to restricting who can access the standards and the
> > standardization process.
> > 
> > 	John
> > 
> > PS: Anyone or any institution can get an Archive-It account for roughly
> > $10K/year.  The service automates the collecting of *anything* you want
> > from the web for posterity.  (If you want them to, the Internet Archive
> > will also write copies of it on new hard drives and send them to you for
> > your own archival collection.)  About 800 institutions are customers today.
> > You can also get a low-support low-volume Archive-It Basic account for
> > $500/year.  Or get custom Digital Preservation services to improve the
> > likelihood that your own curated digital assets will survive into the
> > distant future.  See https://Archive-It.org .
> > 
> > PPS: The Internet Archive's long term survival is, of course, not
> > guaranteed.  In particular, it will go through a tough transition when
> > its founder eventually dies.  What is guaranteed is that they have built
> > a corpus of useful information: Millions of books, billions of web
> > pages, hundreds of thousands of concerts, decades of saved television
> > channels, etc.  They are absorbing a lot of archival microfilm, too,
> > including genealogical and census records, magazines, etc.  This corpus
> > will likely motivate people to preserve and replicate it into being
> > useful in the distant future.  They have tried to design the technical
> > storage to encourage that result.  Does anyone here know anybody who has
> > both the money and the motivation to make a complete and ongoing copy in
> > a separately administered, separately owned organization?  That would
> > significantly mitigate the long term risk of having all the replicated
> > copies of the corpus owned by a single US nonprofit.  It would probably
> > take a bare minimum staff of 10 people to run and manage such an
> > operation, with dozens of petabytes of rotating storage in multiple data
> > centers and a large collection of (mostly free) software keeping it all
> > organized and accessible.
> > 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From jack at 3kitty.org  Wed May 12 17:44:19 2021
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 17:44:19 -0700
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <20210512232213.GC40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
 <7A366161-2853-4040-8F36-16BD94E75A6A@webhistory.org>
 <401f9756-d888-fa3c-ba71-9744f166d0b2@dcrocker.net>
 <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>
 <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
 <d8412b9c-c85c-aaa5-70f5-191ce7df38aa@cavebear.com>
 <20210512232213.GC40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Message-ID: <30d52ad8-c868-7b52-a052-329ae024810d@3kitty.org>

In 2012-2013, I got involved as an Expert Witness in one of those huge
patent lawsuits, which had by then been going through the legal process
for about 30 years (!!).? One of the lessons learned was that although
documentation is useful, the most valuable evidence is physical.?

In this case, I noticed (and amazingly remembered) that the ARPANET IMP
program was a viable example of relevant "prior art", which is the holy
grail in patent battles.?? The ARPANET did what the patent covered, and
did it well before the patent was filed.? But proving that such an idea
was actually implemented and used almost 40 years earlier was the
necessary task.

A huge effort ensued, driven by the lawyers and their clients, trying to
find an old IMP and make it operable again, so that the "prior art"
behavior could be demonstrated at trial before a jury.?? No actual IMP
was unearthed (at least one that could still operate), but an early-70s
listing of the IMP software had survived in a basement.?? After a lot
more effort, that old software was brought back to life, running on an
emulator of the old Honeywell 316 computer that was used as an IMP.

The particular behavior of the IMP that demonstrated the prior art was
apparently never described in the documentation.?? It only could be
proven by looking at the code itself.? The old saying "The documentation
is in the code" was exactly correct.

Bottom line - don't just think about documents, which can be
insufficient to prove that something actually existed.?? Software, and
even hardware, is even better, at least for some patent fights.?? It
captures parts of history that never got into words.

For the curious, there's a good description of the "ARPANET
Resurrection" here:

https://walden-family.com/impcode/imp-code.pdf

Look around page 33.?? Also see https://walden-family.com/impcode/

/Jack Haverty


On 5/12/21 4:22 PM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote:
> To put Karls conerns into a maybe easier understood (but theoretical) example for those on the list that have not been involved in practical instances of the problem:
>
> - printed public/user product documentation from 2000 gets thrown out 15 years later because
>   of "we need to get rid of all this old junk", maybe because of refurnishing offices.
> - half a year later, a lawsuit with such a "bogus" patent that was filed in 2002 ensues.
> - Obviously, the 2000 public/user product documentation would exactly show the patent
>   claim to be "bogus" because the public documentation from 2000 explains exactly the same
>   thing the patent filed in 2002 claimed to be novel.
> - Online web page of the prior art product of course did not keep old version information reaching
>   that far back, and even if it would have, it would not have date information on it, but only
>   version numbers.
>
> These type of things easily happen in multi-million dollar lawsuits over and over.
>
> Going forwarding, IMHO, the best solution for e.g.: IETF documentation would be:
>
> a) have all data such as all of datatracker and IETF mailing list archive in an easy mirrored access form,
>    which i think we do not have, at least i have not found it, only for some subset of our data.
>
> b) Have multiple, independent of each other mirrors around the world that would create
>    signed/dated certificates for the hashes of each mirrored document - and keep old
>    (versions of) documents and their signatures even when they would be deleted/changed on the origin site.
>
>    Maybe those mirrors cost money, but IMHO worth it. especially for stuff like IETF whose overall
>    volume on disk is laughable small. And this becam standard tooling, folks like CHM should be
>    ideal places for such mirroring.
>
> Without something equivalent to a/b i fear it is way too easy to create fake evidence for anything,
> and the "evidence" may not hold up as well court as  the "good old printed evidence".
>
> This "creation time" tracking in a more trustworthy fashion will of course not
> work retroactively, which is why it would be even more important to understand the value of
> doing this now, so someone starts doing it for the benefit of future bogus lawsuits for
> stuff we start working on now. Especially given how paper already has disappeared as more
> reliable evidence.
>
> Cheers
>     Toerless
>
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 03:12:43PM -0700, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
>> I have also been highly concerned about the tendency of modern tech history
>> to erase its own records.
>>
>> My concern may, however, be in a different direction.
>>
>> I am concerned about the growth of specious patents.  There are a lot of
>> patent trolls out there who buy-up weak patents that got past the relatively
>> lax patent examiners in the US and elsewere, examiners who often have no
>> notion of ideas in networking or computer systems, whether embodied in
>> software or hardware.
>>
>> By erasing our past we make it difficult to rebut these bad patents - we
>> have discarded the evidence that the claims of those patents are neither
>> novel nor non-obvious.
>>
>> I think that over the last few years the IETF has done a spectacular job of
>> organizing and tracking the RFC series.
>>
>> However, we still have a tendency to forget the old when the newer, shinier
>> thing comes along.
>>
>> We should strive to make sure that our past is recorded.  And we ought to
>> consider legal evidentiary requirements so that one who is challenging
>> specious patents is not blocked by the complexities of the rules of
>> evidence.
>>
>> 	--karl--
>>
>>
>> On 5/9/21 1:23 AM, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote:
>>> Dave Crocker wrote:
>>>> Saving the RFCs is obvious.  What appears to be less obvious and, IMO,
>>>> is just as important in historical terms, is /all/ of the IETF-related
>>>> work materials.  Drafts.  Mailing list archives.  Session notes.
>>>> Everything.
>>> John Day wrote:
>>>> Agreed. It should go somewhere. Same for all of the other standards
>>>> groups, forums, consortia, etc.
>>> Re the IETF, look in:
>>>
>>>    https://archive-it.org/collections/11034
>>>
>>> A few years ago, I set up an Archive-It.org job to monitor the IETF's
>>> web presence.  I was disturbed at the deliberate ephemerality of the
>>> Internet-Draft ecosystem.  I had been looking back at a 10-year-old
>>> effort to eliminate some ridiculous restrictions on the IPv4 address
>>> space, and IETF had thrown away most of the relevant documents (though I
>>> found copies elsewhere once I knew their names).
>>>
>>> Archive-It is a service of the nonprofit Internet Archive (archive.org).
>>> So, the Internet Archive's robots are now crawling (various parts of)
>>> the IETF websites every week, month, and quarter, under my direction.
>>> And saving the results forever, or as long as the Internet Archive and
>>> the Wayback Machine exist.  Between 1998 and now it's pulled in about
>>> 1.8 TB of documents, which are accessible and searchable either from the
>>> above URL, or from the main Wayback Machine at web.archive.org.
>>>
>>> The IETF websites aren't organized for archiving.  I frankly don't
>>> understand their structure, so am probably missing some important
>>> things, and overcollecting other things.  But at least I tried.
>>> Suggestions are welcome.
>>>
>>> Just be glad the IETF is copying-friendly.  Imagine trying to archive
>>> the IEEE or OSI standards development process.  Then imagine big
>>> copyright lawsuits from self-serving people who tied their income
>>> stream to restricting who can access the standards and the
>>> standardization process.
>>>
>>> 	John
>>>
>>> PS: Anyone or any institution can get an Archive-It account for roughly
>>> $10K/year.  The service automates the collecting of *anything* you want
>>> from the web for posterity.  (If you want them to, the Internet Archive
>>> will also write copies of it on new hard drives and send them to you for
>>> your own archival collection.)  About 800 institutions are customers today.
>>> You can also get a low-support low-volume Archive-It Basic account for
>>> $500/year.  Or get custom Digital Preservation services to improve the
>>> likelihood that your own curated digital assets will survive into the
>>> distant future.  See https://Archive-It.org .
>>>
>>> PPS: The Internet Archive's long term survival is, of course, not
>>> guaranteed.  In particular, it will go through a tough transition when
>>> its founder eventually dies.  What is guaranteed is that they have built
>>> a corpus of useful information: Millions of books, billions of web
>>> pages, hundreds of thousands of concerts, decades of saved television
>>> channels, etc.  They are absorbing a lot of archival microfilm, too,
>>> including genealogical and census records, magazines, etc.  This corpus
>>> will likely motivate people to preserve and replicate it into being
>>> useful in the distant future.  They have tried to design the technical
>>> storage to encourage that result.  Does anyone here know anybody who has
>>> both the money and the motivation to make a complete and ongoing copy in
>>> a separately administered, separately owned organization?  That would
>>> significantly mitigate the long term risk of having all the replicated
>>> copies of the corpus owned by a single US nonprofit.  It would probably
>>> take a bare minimum staff of 10 people to run and manage such an
>>> operation, with dozens of petabytes of rotating storage in multiple data
>>> centers and a large collection of (mostly free) software keeping it all
>>> organized and accessible.
>>>
>> -- 
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From steve at shinkuro.com  Wed May 12 17:46:32 2021
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 17:46:32 -0700
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <30d52ad8-c868-7b52-a052-329ae024810d@3kitty.org>
References: <30d52ad8-c868-7b52-a052-329ae024810d@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <73C53701-9D7C-4801-9E28-B1475DB42AEB@shinkuro.com>

What was the relevant functionality?

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 12, 2021, at 5:44 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> ?In 2012-2013, I got involved as an Expert Witness in one of those huge
> patent lawsuits, which had by then been going through the legal process
> for about 30 years (!!).  One of the lessons learned was that although
> documentation is useful, the most valuable evidence is physical. 
> 
> In this case, I noticed (and amazingly remembered) that the ARPANET IMP
> program was a viable example of relevant "prior art", which is the holy
> grail in patent battles.   The ARPANET did what the patent covered, and
> did it well before the patent was filed.  But proving that such an idea
> was actually implemented and used almost 40 years earlier was the
> necessary task.
> 
> A huge effort ensued, driven by the lawyers and their clients, trying to
> find an old IMP and make it operable again, so that the "prior art"
> behavior could be demonstrated at trial before a jury.   No actual IMP
> was unearthed (at least one that could still operate), but an early-70s
> listing of the IMP software had survived in a basement.   After a lot
> more effort, that old software was brought back to life, running on an
> emulator of the old Honeywell 316 computer that was used as an IMP.
> 
> The particular behavior of the IMP that demonstrated the prior art was
> apparently never described in the documentation.   It only could be
> proven by looking at the code itself.  The old saying "The documentation
> is in the code" was exactly correct.
> 
> Bottom line - don't just think about documents, which can be
> insufficient to prove that something actually existed.   Software, and
> even hardware, is even better, at least for some patent fights.   It
> captures parts of history that never got into words.
> 
> For the curious, there's a good description of the "ARPANET
> Resurrection" here:
> 
> https://walden-family.com/impcode/imp-code.pdf
> 
> Look around page 33.   Also see https://walden-family.com/impcode/
> 
> /Jack Haverty
> 
> 
>> On 5/12/21 4:22 PM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote:
>> To put Karls conerns into a maybe easier understood (but theoretical) example for those on the list that have not been involved in practical instances of the problem:
>> 
>> - printed public/user product documentation from 2000 gets thrown out 15 years later because
>>  of "we need to get rid of all this old junk", maybe because of refurnishing offices.
>> - half a year later, a lawsuit with such a "bogus" patent that was filed in 2002 ensues.
>> - Obviously, the 2000 public/user product documentation would exactly show the patent
>>  claim to be "bogus" because the public documentation from 2000 explains exactly the same
>>  thing the patent filed in 2002 claimed to be novel.
>> - Online web page of the prior art product of course did not keep old version information reaching
>>  that far back, and even if it would have, it would not have date information on it, but only
>>  version numbers.
>> 
>> These type of things easily happen in multi-million dollar lawsuits over and over.
>> 
>> Going forwarding, IMHO, the best solution for e.g.: IETF documentation would be:
>> 
>> a) have all data such as all of datatracker and IETF mailing list archive in an easy mirrored access form,
>>   which i think we do not have, at least i have not found it, only for some subset of our data.
>> 
>> b) Have multiple, independent of each other mirrors around the world that would create
>>   signed/dated certificates for the hashes of each mirrored document - and keep old
>>   (versions of) documents and their signatures even when they would be deleted/changed on the origin site.
>> 
>>   Maybe those mirrors cost money, but IMHO worth it. especially for stuff like IETF whose overall
>>   volume on disk is laughable small. And this becam standard tooling, folks like CHM should be
>>   ideal places for such mirroring.
>> 
>> Without something equivalent to a/b i fear it is way too easy to create fake evidence for anything,
>> and the "evidence" may not hold up as well court as  the "good old printed evidence".
>> 
>> This "creation time" tracking in a more trustworthy fashion will of course not
>> work retroactively, which is why it would be even more important to understand the value of
>> doing this now, so someone starts doing it for the benefit of future bogus lawsuits for
>> stuff we start working on now. Especially given how paper already has disappeared as more
>> reliable evidence.
>> 
>> Cheers
>>    Toerless
>> 
>>> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 03:12:43PM -0700, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
>>> I have also been highly concerned about the tendency of modern tech history
>>> to erase its own records.
>>> 
>>> My concern may, however, be in a different direction.
>>> 
>>> I am concerned about the growth of specious patents.  There are a lot of
>>> patent trolls out there who buy-up weak patents that got past the relatively
>>> lax patent examiners in the US and elsewere, examiners who often have no
>>> notion of ideas in networking or computer systems, whether embodied in
>>> software or hardware.
>>> 
>>> By erasing our past we make it difficult to rebut these bad patents - we
>>> have discarded the evidence that the claims of those patents are neither
>>> novel nor non-obvious.
>>> 
>>> I think that over the last few years the IETF has done a spectacular job of
>>> organizing and tracking the RFC series.
>>> 
>>> However, we still have a tendency to forget the old when the newer, shinier
>>> thing comes along.
>>> 
>>> We should strive to make sure that our past is recorded.  And we ought to
>>> consider legal evidentiary requirements so that one who is challenging
>>> specious patents is not blocked by the complexities of the rules of
>>> evidence.
>>> 
>>>    --karl--
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/9/21 1:23 AM, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> Dave Crocker wrote:
>>>>> Saving the RFCs is obvious.  What appears to be less obvious and, IMO,
>>>>> is just as important in historical terms, is /all/ of the IETF-related
>>>>> work materials.  Drafts.  Mailing list archives.  Session notes.
>>>>> Everything.
>>>> John Day wrote:
>>>>> Agreed. It should go somewhere. Same for all of the other standards
>>>>> groups, forums, consortia, etc.
>>>> Re the IETF, look in:
>>>> 
>>>>   https://archive-it.org/collections/11034
>>>> 
>>>> A few years ago, I set up an Archive-It.org job to monitor the IETF's
>>>> web presence.  I was disturbed at the deliberate ephemerality of the
>>>> Internet-Draft ecosystem.  I had been looking back at a 10-year-old
>>>> effort to eliminate some ridiculous restrictions on the IPv4 address
>>>> space, and IETF had thrown away most of the relevant documents (though I
>>>> found copies elsewhere once I knew their names).
>>>> 
>>>> Archive-It is a service of the nonprofit Internet Archive (archive.org).
>>>> So, the Internet Archive's robots are now crawling (various parts of)
>>>> the IETF websites every week, month, and quarter, under my direction.
>>>> And saving the results forever, or as long as the Internet Archive and
>>>> the Wayback Machine exist.  Between 1998 and now it's pulled in about
>>>> 1.8 TB of documents, which are accessible and searchable either from the
>>>> above URL, or from the main Wayback Machine at web.archive.org.
>>>> 
>>>> The IETF websites aren't organized for archiving.  I frankly don't
>>>> understand their structure, so am probably missing some important
>>>> things, and overcollecting other things.  But at least I tried.
>>>> Suggestions are welcome.
>>>> 
>>>> Just be glad the IETF is copying-friendly.  Imagine trying to archive
>>>> the IEEE or OSI standards development process.  Then imagine big
>>>> copyright lawsuits from self-serving people who tied their income
>>>> stream to restricting who can access the standards and the
>>>> standardization process.
>>>> 
>>>>    John
>>>> 
>>>> PS: Anyone or any institution can get an Archive-It account for roughly
>>>> $10K/year.  The service automates the collecting of *anything* you want
>>>> from the web for posterity.  (If you want them to, the Internet Archive
>>>> will also write copies of it on new hard drives and send them to you for
>>>> your own archival collection.)  About 800 institutions are customers today.
>>>> You can also get a low-support low-volume Archive-It Basic account for
>>>> $500/year.  Or get custom Digital Preservation services to improve the
>>>> likelihood that your own curated digital assets will survive into the
>>>> distant future.  See https://Archive-It.org .
>>>> 
>>>> PPS: The Internet Archive's long term survival is, of course, not
>>>> guaranteed.  In particular, it will go through a tough transition when
>>>> its founder eventually dies.  What is guaranteed is that they have built
>>>> a corpus of useful information: Millions of books, billions of web
>>>> pages, hundreds of thousands of concerts, decades of saved television
>>>> channels, etc.  They are absorbing a lot of archival microfilm, too,
>>>> including genealogical and census records, magazines, etc.  This corpus
>>>> will likely motivate people to preserve and replicate it into being
>>>> useful in the distant future.  They have tried to design the technical
>>>> storage to encourage that result.  Does anyone here know anybody who has
>>>> both the money and the motivation to make a complete and ongoing copy in
>>>> a separately administered, separately owned organization?  That would
>>>> significantly mitigate the long term risk of having all the replicated
>>>> copies of the corpus owned by a single US nonprofit.  It would probably
>>>> take a bare minimum staff of 10 people to run and manage such an
>>>> operation, with dozens of petabytes of rotating storage in multiple data
>>>> centers and a large collection of (mostly free) software keeping it all
>>>> organized and accessible.
>>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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 May 12 17:54:02 2021
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 17:54:02 -0700
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <73C53701-9D7C-4801-9E28-B1475DB42AEB@shinkuro.com>
References: <30d52ad8-c868-7b52-a052-329ae024810d@3kitty.org>
 <73C53701-9D7C-4801-9E28-B1475DB42AEB@shinkuro.com>
Message-ID: <53a65208-58bb-3b8f-502a-86d182bb7bca@3kitty.org>

The actual patent claim was quite wordy, but the gist of it was
"downloading new versions of system software".??? The IMPs did this all
of the time.? Of course, billions (?) of computers could arguaby have
violated that subsequent patent over the 17 years that it was in effect.

Claim 12 of US Patent 5335277 for the legal aficionados out there.

/Jack


On 5/12/21 5:46 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
> What was the relevant functionality?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On May 12, 2021, at 5:44 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>> ?In 2012-2013, I got involved as an Expert Witness in one of those huge
>> patent lawsuits, which had by then been going through the legal process
>> for about 30 years (!!).  One of the lessons learned was that although
>> documentation is useful, the most valuable evidence is physical. 
>>
>> In this case, I noticed (and amazingly remembered) that the ARPANET IMP
>> program was a viable example of relevant "prior art", which is the holy
>> grail in patent battles.   The ARPANET did what the patent covered, and
>> did it well before the patent was filed.  But proving that such an idea
>> was actually implemented and used almost 40 years earlier was the
>> necessary task.
>>
>> A huge effort ensued, driven by the lawyers and their clients, trying to
>> find an old IMP and make it operable again, so that the "prior art"
>> behavior could be demonstrated at trial before a jury.   No actual IMP
>> was unearthed (at least one that could still operate), but an early-70s
>> listing of the IMP software had survived in a basement.   After a lot
>> more effort, that old software was brought back to life, running on an
>> emulator of the old Honeywell 316 computer that was used as an IMP.
>>
>> The particular behavior of the IMP that demonstrated the prior art was
>> apparently never described in the documentation.   It only could be
>> proven by looking at the code itself.  The old saying "The documentation
>> is in the code" was exactly correct.
>>
>> Bottom line - don't just think about documents, which can be
>> insufficient to prove that something actually existed.   Software, and
>> even hardware, is even better, at least for some patent fights.   It
>> captures parts of history that never got into words.
>>
>> For the curious, there's a good description of the "ARPANET
>> Resurrection" here:
>>
>> https://walden-family.com/impcode/imp-code.pdf
>>
>> Look around page 33.   Also see https://walden-family.com/impcode/
>>
>> /Jack Haverty
>>
>>
>>> On 5/12/21 4:22 PM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote:
>>> To put Karls conerns into a maybe easier understood (but theoretical) example for those on the list that have not been involved in practical instances of the problem:
>>>
>>> - printed public/user product documentation from 2000 gets thrown out 15 years later because
>>>  of "we need to get rid of all this old junk", maybe because of refurnishing offices.
>>> - half a year later, a lawsuit with such a "bogus" patent that was filed in 2002 ensues.
>>> - Obviously, the 2000 public/user product documentation would exactly show the patent
>>>  claim to be "bogus" because the public documentation from 2000 explains exactly the same
>>>  thing the patent filed in 2002 claimed to be novel.
>>> - Online web page of the prior art product of course did not keep old version information reaching
>>>  that far back, and even if it would have, it would not have date information on it, but only
>>>  version numbers.
>>>
>>> These type of things easily happen in multi-million dollar lawsuits over and over.
>>>
>>> Going forwarding, IMHO, the best solution for e.g.: IETF documentation would be:
>>>
>>> a) have all data such as all of datatracker and IETF mailing list archive in an easy mirrored access form,
>>>   which i think we do not have, at least i have not found it, only for some subset of our data.
>>>
>>> b) Have multiple, independent of each other mirrors around the world that would create
>>>   signed/dated certificates for the hashes of each mirrored document - and keep old
>>>   (versions of) documents and their signatures even when they would be deleted/changed on the origin site.
>>>
>>>   Maybe those mirrors cost money, but IMHO worth it. especially for stuff like IETF whose overall
>>>   volume on disk is laughable small. And this becam standard tooling, folks like CHM should be
>>>   ideal places for such mirroring.
>>>
>>> Without something equivalent to a/b i fear it is way too easy to create fake evidence for anything,
>>> and the "evidence" may not hold up as well court as  the "good old printed evidence".
>>>
>>> This "creation time" tracking in a more trustworthy fashion will of course not
>>> work retroactively, which is why it would be even more important to understand the value of
>>> doing this now, so someone starts doing it for the benefit of future bogus lawsuits for
>>> stuff we start working on now. Especially given how paper already has disappeared as more
>>> reliable evidence.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>    Toerless
>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 03:12:43PM -0700, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> I have also been highly concerned about the tendency of modern tech history
>>>> to erase its own records.
>>>>
>>>> My concern may, however, be in a different direction.
>>>>
>>>> I am concerned about the growth of specious patents.  There are a lot of
>>>> patent trolls out there who buy-up weak patents that got past the relatively
>>>> lax patent examiners in the US and elsewere, examiners who often have no
>>>> notion of ideas in networking or computer systems, whether embodied in
>>>> software or hardware.
>>>>
>>>> By erasing our past we make it difficult to rebut these bad patents - we
>>>> have discarded the evidence that the claims of those patents are neither
>>>> novel nor non-obvious.
>>>>
>>>> I think that over the last few years the IETF has done a spectacular job of
>>>> organizing and tracking the RFC series.
>>>>
>>>> However, we still have a tendency to forget the old when the newer, shinier
>>>> thing comes along.
>>>>
>>>> We should strive to make sure that our past is recorded.  And we ought to
>>>> consider legal evidentiary requirements so that one who is challenging
>>>> specious patents is not blocked by the complexities of the rules of
>>>> evidence.
>>>>
>>>>    --karl--
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/9/21 1:23 AM, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>> Dave Crocker wrote:
>>>>>> Saving the RFCs is obvious.  What appears to be less obvious and, IMO,
>>>>>> is just as important in historical terms, is /all/ of the IETF-related
>>>>>> work materials.  Drafts.  Mailing list archives.  Session notes.
>>>>>> Everything.
>>>>> John Day wrote:
>>>>>> Agreed. It should go somewhere. Same for all of the other standards
>>>>>> groups, forums, consortia, etc.
>>>>> Re the IETF, look in:
>>>>>
>>>>>   https://archive-it.org/collections/11034
>>>>>
>>>>> A few years ago, I set up an Archive-It.org job to monitor the IETF's
>>>>> web presence.  I was disturbed at the deliberate ephemerality of the
>>>>> Internet-Draft ecosystem.  I had been looking back at a 10-year-old
>>>>> effort to eliminate some ridiculous restrictions on the IPv4 address
>>>>> space, and IETF had thrown away most of the relevant documents (though I
>>>>> found copies elsewhere once I knew their names).
>>>>>
>>>>> Archive-It is a service of the nonprofit Internet Archive (archive.org).
>>>>> So, the Internet Archive's robots are now crawling (various parts of)
>>>>> the IETF websites every week, month, and quarter, under my direction.
>>>>> And saving the results forever, or as long as the Internet Archive and
>>>>> the Wayback Machine exist.  Between 1998 and now it's pulled in about
>>>>> 1.8 TB of documents, which are accessible and searchable either from the
>>>>> above URL, or from the main Wayback Machine at web.archive.org.
>>>>>
>>>>> The IETF websites aren't organized for archiving.  I frankly don't
>>>>> understand their structure, so am probably missing some important
>>>>> things, and overcollecting other things.  But at least I tried.
>>>>> Suggestions are welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just be glad the IETF is copying-friendly.  Imagine trying to archive
>>>>> the IEEE or OSI standards development process.  Then imagine big
>>>>> copyright lawsuits from self-serving people who tied their income
>>>>> stream to restricting who can access the standards and the
>>>>> standardization process.
>>>>>
>>>>>    John
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: Anyone or any institution can get an Archive-It account for roughly
>>>>> $10K/year.  The service automates the collecting of *anything* you want
>>>>> from the web for posterity.  (If you want them to, the Internet Archive
>>>>> will also write copies of it on new hard drives and send them to you for
>>>>> your own archival collection.)  About 800 institutions are customers today.
>>>>> You can also get a low-support low-volume Archive-It Basic account for
>>>>> $500/year.  Or get custom Digital Preservation services to improve the
>>>>> likelihood that your own curated digital assets will survive into the
>>>>> distant future.  See https://Archive-It.org .
>>>>>
>>>>> PPS: The Internet Archive's long term survival is, of course, not
>>>>> guaranteed.  In particular, it will go through a tough transition when
>>>>> its founder eventually dies.  What is guaranteed is that they have built
>>>>> a corpus of useful information: Millions of books, billions of web
>>>>> pages, hundreds of thousands of concerts, decades of saved television
>>>>> channels, etc.  They are absorbing a lot of archival microfilm, too,
>>>>> including genealogical and census records, magazines, etc.  This corpus
>>>>> will likely motivate people to preserve and replicate it into being
>>>>> useful in the distant future.  They have tried to design the technical
>>>>> storage to encourage that result.  Does anyone here know anybody who has
>>>>> both the money and the motivation to make a complete and ongoing copy in
>>>>> a separately administered, separately owned organization?  That would
>>>>> significantly mitigate the long term risk of having all the replicated
>>>>> copies of the corpus owned by a single US nonprofit.  It would probably
>>>>> take a bare minimum staff of 10 people to run and manage such an
>>>>> operation, with dozens of petabytes of rotating storage in multiple data
>>>>> centers and a large collection of (mostly free) software keeping it all
>>>>> organized and accessible.
>>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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  Wed May 12 17:56:19 2021
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 17:56:19 -0700
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <53a65208-58bb-3b8f-502a-86d182bb7bca@3kitty.org>
References: <53a65208-58bb-3b8f-502a-86d182bb7bca@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <9A75513E-7230-44F0-828C-95363EDDABC3@shinkuro.com>

Heh, heh.  Besides the prior art, it?s damn obvious.

Thanks,

Steve

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 12, 2021, at 5:54 PM, Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> wrote:
> 
> ?The actual patent claim was quite wordy, but the gist of it was
> "downloading new versions of system software".    The IMPs did this all
> of the time.  Of course, billions (?) of computers could arguaby have
> violated that subsequent patent over the 17 years that it was in effect.
> 
> Claim 12 of US Patent 5335277 for the legal aficionados out there.
> 
> /Jack
> 
> 
>> On 5/12/21 5:46 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
>> What was the relevant functionality?
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>>> On May 12, 2021, at 5:44 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ?In 2012-2013, I got involved as an Expert Witness in one of those huge
>>> patent lawsuits, which had by then been going through the legal process
>>> for about 30 years (!!).  One of the lessons learned was that although
>>> documentation is useful, the most valuable evidence is physical. 
>>> 
>>> In this case, I noticed (and amazingly remembered) that the ARPANET IMP
>>> program was a viable example of relevant "prior art", which is the holy
>>> grail in patent battles.   The ARPANET did what the patent covered, and
>>> did it well before the patent was filed.  But proving that such an idea
>>> was actually implemented and used almost 40 years earlier was the
>>> necessary task.
>>> 
>>> A huge effort ensued, driven by the lawyers and their clients, trying to
>>> find an old IMP and make it operable again, so that the "prior art"
>>> behavior could be demonstrated at trial before a jury.   No actual IMP
>>> was unearthed (at least one that could still operate), but an early-70s
>>> listing of the IMP software had survived in a basement.   After a lot
>>> more effort, that old software was brought back to life, running on an
>>> emulator of the old Honeywell 316 computer that was used as an IMP.
>>> 
>>> The particular behavior of the IMP that demonstrated the prior art was
>>> apparently never described in the documentation.   It only could be
>>> proven by looking at the code itself.  The old saying "The documentation
>>> is in the code" was exactly correct.
>>> 
>>> Bottom line - don't just think about documents, which can be
>>> insufficient to prove that something actually existed.   Software, and
>>> even hardware, is even better, at least for some patent fights.   It
>>> captures parts of history that never got into words.
>>> 
>>> For the curious, there's a good description of the "ARPANET
>>> Resurrection" here:
>>> 
>>> https://walden-family.com/impcode/imp-code.pdf
>>> 
>>> Look around page 33.   Also see https://walden-family.com/impcode/
>>> 
>>> /Jack Haverty
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 5/12/21 4:22 PM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> To put Karls conerns into a maybe easier understood (but theoretical) example for those on the list that have not been involved in practical instances of the problem:
>>>> 
>>>> - printed public/user product documentation from 2000 gets thrown out 15 years later because
>>>> of "we need to get rid of all this old junk", maybe because of refurnishing offices.
>>>> - half a year later, a lawsuit with such a "bogus" patent that was filed in 2002 ensues.
>>>> - Obviously, the 2000 public/user product documentation would exactly show the patent
>>>> claim to be "bogus" because the public documentation from 2000 explains exactly the same
>>>> thing the patent filed in 2002 claimed to be novel.
>>>> - Online web page of the prior art product of course did not keep old version information reaching
>>>> that far back, and even if it would have, it would not have date information on it, but only
>>>> version numbers.
>>>> 
>>>> These type of things easily happen in multi-million dollar lawsuits over and over.
>>>> 
>>>> Going forwarding, IMHO, the best solution for e.g.: IETF documentation would be:
>>>> 
>>>> a) have all data such as all of datatracker and IETF mailing list archive in an easy mirrored access form,
>>>>  which i think we do not have, at least i have not found it, only for some subset of our data.
>>>> 
>>>> b) Have multiple, independent of each other mirrors around the world that would create
>>>>  signed/dated certificates for the hashes of each mirrored document - and keep old
>>>>  (versions of) documents and their signatures even when they would be deleted/changed on the origin site.
>>>> 
>>>>  Maybe those mirrors cost money, but IMHO worth it. especially for stuff like IETF whose overall
>>>>  volume on disk is laughable small. And this becam standard tooling, folks like CHM should be
>>>>  ideal places for such mirroring.
>>>> 
>>>> Without something equivalent to a/b i fear it is way too easy to create fake evidence for anything,
>>>> and the "evidence" may not hold up as well court as  the "good old printed evidence".
>>>> 
>>>> This "creation time" tracking in a more trustworthy fashion will of course not
>>>> work retroactively, which is why it would be even more important to understand the value of
>>>> doing this now, so someone starts doing it for the benefit of future bogus lawsuits for
>>>> stuff we start working on now. Especially given how paper already has disappeared as more
>>>> reliable evidence.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers
>>>>   Toerless
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 03:12:43PM -0700, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>> I have also been highly concerned about the tendency of modern tech history
>>>>> to erase its own records.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My concern may, however, be in a different direction.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am concerned about the growth of specious patents.  There are a lot of
>>>>> patent trolls out there who buy-up weak patents that got past the relatively
>>>>> lax patent examiners in the US and elsewere, examiners who often have no
>>>>> notion of ideas in networking or computer systems, whether embodied in
>>>>> software or hardware.
>>>>> 
>>>>> By erasing our past we make it difficult to rebut these bad patents - we
>>>>> have discarded the evidence that the claims of those patents are neither
>>>>> novel nor non-obvious.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think that over the last few years the IETF has done a spectacular job of
>>>>> organizing and tracking the RFC series.
>>>>> 
>>>>> However, we still have a tendency to forget the old when the newer, shinier
>>>>> thing comes along.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We should strive to make sure that our past is recorded.  And we ought to
>>>>> consider legal evidentiary requirements so that one who is challenging
>>>>> specious patents is not blocked by the complexities of the rules of
>>>>> evidence.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   --karl--
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 5/9/21 1:23 AM, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>>> Dave Crocker wrote:
>>>>>>> Saving the RFCs is obvious.  What appears to be less obvious and, IMO,
>>>>>>> is just as important in historical terms, is /all/ of the IETF-related
>>>>>>> work materials.  Drafts.  Mailing list archives.  Session notes.
>>>>>>> Everything.
>>>>>> John Day wrote:
>>>>>>> Agreed. It should go somewhere. Same for all of the other standards
>>>>>>> groups, forums, consortia, etc.
>>>>>> Re the IETF, look in:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  https://archive-it.org/collections/11034
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A few years ago, I set up an Archive-It.org job to monitor the IETF's
>>>>>> web presence.  I was disturbed at the deliberate ephemerality of the
>>>>>> Internet-Draft ecosystem.  I had been looking back at a 10-year-old
>>>>>> effort to eliminate some ridiculous restrictions on the IPv4 address
>>>>>> space, and IETF had thrown away most of the relevant documents (though I
>>>>>> found copies elsewhere once I knew their names).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Archive-It is a service of the nonprofit Internet Archive (archive.org).
>>>>>> So, the Internet Archive's robots are now crawling (various parts of)
>>>>>> the IETF websites every week, month, and quarter, under my direction.
>>>>>> And saving the results forever, or as long as the Internet Archive and
>>>>>> the Wayback Machine exist.  Between 1998 and now it's pulled in about
>>>>>> 1.8 TB of documents, which are accessible and searchable either from the
>>>>>> above URL, or from the main Wayback Machine at web.archive.org.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The IETF websites aren't organized for archiving.  I frankly don't
>>>>>> understand their structure, so am probably missing some important
>>>>>> things, and overcollecting other things.  But at least I tried.
>>>>>> Suggestions are welcome.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Just be glad the IETF is copying-friendly.  Imagine trying to archive
>>>>>> the IEEE or OSI standards development process.  Then imagine big
>>>>>> copyright lawsuits from self-serving people who tied their income
>>>>>> stream to restricting who can access the standards and the
>>>>>> standardization process.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   John
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> PS: Anyone or any institution can get an Archive-It account for roughly
>>>>>> $10K/year.  The service automates the collecting of *anything* you want
>>>>>> from the web for posterity.  (If you want them to, the Internet Archive
>>>>>> will also write copies of it on new hard drives and send them to you for
>>>>>> your own archival collection.)  About 800 institutions are customers today.
>>>>>> You can also get a low-support low-volume Archive-It Basic account for
>>>>>> $500/year.  Or get custom Digital Preservation services to improve the
>>>>>> likelihood that your own curated digital assets will survive into the
>>>>>> distant future.  See https://Archive-It.org .
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> PPS: The Internet Archive's long term survival is, of course, not
>>>>>> guaranteed.  In particular, it will go through a tough transition when
>>>>>> its founder eventually dies.  What is guaranteed is that they have built
>>>>>> a corpus of useful information: Millions of books, billions of web
>>>>>> pages, hundreds of thousands of concerts, decades of saved television
>>>>>> channels, etc.  They are absorbing a lot of archival microfilm, too,
>>>>>> including genealogical and census records, magazines, etc.  This corpus
>>>>>> will likely motivate people to preserve and replicate it into being
>>>>>> useful in the distant future.  They have tried to design the technical
>>>>>> storage to encourage that result.  Does anyone here know anybody who has
>>>>>> both the money and the motivation to make a complete and ongoing copy in
>>>>>> a separately administered, separately owned organization?  That would
>>>>>> significantly mitigate the long term risk of having all the replicated
>>>>>> copies of the corpus owned by a single US nonprofit.  It would probably
>>>>>> take a bare minimum staff of 10 people to run and manage such an
>>>>>> operation, with dozens of petabytes of rotating storage in multiple data
>>>>>> centers and a large collection of (mostly free) software keeping it all
>>>>>> organized and accessible.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 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 dhc at dcrocker.net  Wed May 12 18:06:17 2021
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 18:06:17 -0700
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <53a65208-58bb-3b8f-502a-86d182bb7bca@3kitty.org>
References: <30d52ad8-c868-7b52-a052-329ae024810d@3kitty.org>
 <73C53701-9D7C-4801-9E28-B1475DB42AEB@shinkuro.com>
 <53a65208-58bb-3b8f-502a-86d182bb7bca@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <836d7f64-cc3e-f405-8776-2e3d94af2e81@dcrocker.net>


> "downloading new versions of system software".

Arpanet coming out party, Fall, 1972, bowels of the Washington DC 
Hilton.  I was asked to demo the net to Lipinski, Sr., of the IFF.  I 
connect to BBN and run something.  Then connect to ISI and run 
something.  He's thoroughly bored.  Too easy, quick and unengaging.  I 
could tell that he was not appreciating what this was..

Then the TIP crashes.  We wait a moment and he asks how long before we 
can continue.  I check and am told a reload is needed.  I tell him that 
and he says he'll go off to a conference session until the system is 
reloaded.  I explain the delay will only be a few minutes.

He says that can't be.  They haven't even rolled out the paper tape 
reader yet.  I explain they won't be doing that, and tell him that 
Boston will be directing a download over the net from a neighbor.

This is a bright, experienced guy.  He takes in what I just said and 
THEN he finally understands the net.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net


From dave.walden.family at gmail.com  Wed May 12 18:28:17 2021
From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (David Walden)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 21:28:17 -0400
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
Message-ID: <bfi0lsd27m93tv4ygwb0479d.1620868897158@email.android.com>

The 1973 IMP listing Jack speaks of is now archived at the Software History Center (https://computerhistory.org/software-history-center/) of the Computer History Museum.


From jack at 3kitty.org  Wed May 12 19:04:06 2021
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 19:04:06 -0700
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <836d7f64-cc3e-f405-8776-2e3d94af2e81@dcrocker.net>
References: <30d52ad8-c868-7b52-a052-329ae024810d@3kitty.org>
 <73C53701-9D7C-4801-9E28-B1475DB42AEB@shinkuro.com>
 <53a65208-58bb-3b8f-502a-86d182bb7bca@3kitty.org>
 <836d7f64-cc3e-f405-8776-2e3d94af2e81@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <324d038f-145e-98fd-9123-4a9ef85b0501@3kitty.org>

The listing I analyzed was from 1973.? By then it was no longer
necessary for any human intervention.?? If the IMP crashed, or simply
became nonresponsive, the hardware would force it to jump into a set of
instructions that sought out a neighbor and asked for a reload.

As part of that patent effort, I analyzed the reload-related parts of
the IMP code, instruction by instruction, and the interactions between
the 2 IMPs involved.?? I suspect it violated more core principles of
layering, software engineering, coding structure, and other such rules
than any software had to date.?? The part where the network I/O
overwrote the memory while the processor was executing from it was
especially clever.

Most importantly, it worked.

/Jack


On 5/12/21 6:06 PM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
>
>> "downloading new versions of system software".
>
> Arpanet coming out party, Fall, 1972, bowels of the Washington DC
> Hilton.? I was asked to demo the net to Lipinski, Sr., of the IFF.? I
> connect to BBN and run something.? Then connect to ISI and run
> something.? He's thoroughly bored.? Too easy, quick and unengaging.? I
> could tell that he was not appreciating what this was..
>
> Then the TIP crashes.? We wait a moment and he asks how long before we
> can continue.? I check and am told a reload is needed.? I tell him
> that and he says he'll go off to a conference session until the system
> is reloaded.? I explain the delay will only be a few minutes.
>
> He says that can't be.? They haven't even rolled out the paper tape
> reader yet.? I explain they won't be doing that, and tell him that
> Boston will be directing a download over the net from a neighbor.
>
> This is a bright, experienced guy.? He takes in what I just said and
> THEN he finally understands the net.
>
> d/
>



From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Wed May 12 20:23:13 2021
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 15:23:13 +1200
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <20210512232213.GC40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
 <7A366161-2853-4040-8F36-16BD94E75A6A@webhistory.org>
 <401f9756-d888-fa3c-ba71-9744f166d0b2@dcrocker.net>
 <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>
 <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
 <d8412b9c-c85c-aaa5-70f5-191ce7df38aa@cavebear.com>
 <20210512232213.GC40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Message-ID: <48122add-2607-5442-1eb9-288fbbca82f3@gmail.com>

On 13-May-21 11:22, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote:
...
> Going forwarding, IMHO, the best solution for e.g.: IETF documentation would be:

This isn't an IETF mailing list, but if it was, I'd suggest finding out what the IETF Secretariat plus the RFC Editor already archive. The RFC (+IEN) archive is certainly pretty solid. As far as I know, the I-D archive has been used many times in prior art searches, including litigation. Whether mailing list archives and meeting minutes have been used too, I don't know. Certainly, some list archives prior to ietf.org hosting the lists can be hard to find.

The same question could be asked about the IRTF too.

    Brian

> 
> a) have all data such as all of datatracker and IETF mailing list archive in an easy mirrored access form,
>    which i think we do not have, at least i have not found it, only for some subset of our data.
> 
> b) Have multiple, independent of each other mirrors around the world that would create
>    signed/dated certificates for the hashes of each mirrored document - and keep old
>    (versions of) documents and their signatures even when they would be deleted/changed on the origin site.
> 
>    Maybe those mirrors cost money, but IMHO worth it. especially for stuff like IETF whose overall
>    volume on disk is laughable small. And this becam standard tooling, folks like CHM should be
>    ideal places for such mirroring.
> 
> Without something equivalent to a/b i fear it is way too easy to create fake evidence for anything,
> and the "evidence" may not hold up as well court as  the "good old printed evidence".
> 
> This "creation time" tracking in a more trustworthy fashion will of course not
> work retroactively, which is why it would be even more important to understand the value of
> doing this now, so someone starts doing it for the benefit of future bogus lawsuits for
> stuff we start working on now. Especially given how paper already has disappeared as more
> reliable evidence.
> 
> Cheers
>     Toerless
> 
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 03:12:43PM -0700, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
>> I have also been highly concerned about the tendency of modern tech history
>> to erase its own records.
>>
>> My concern may, however, be in a different direction.
>>
>> I am concerned about the growth of specious patents.  There are a lot of
>> patent trolls out there who buy-up weak patents that got past the relatively
>> lax patent examiners in the US and elsewere, examiners who often have no
>> notion of ideas in networking or computer systems, whether embodied in
>> software or hardware.
>>
>> By erasing our past we make it difficult to rebut these bad patents - we
>> have discarded the evidence that the claims of those patents are neither
>> novel nor non-obvious.
>>
>> I think that over the last few years the IETF has done a spectacular job of
>> organizing and tracking the RFC series.
>>
>> However, we still have a tendency to forget the old when the newer, shinier
>> thing comes along.
>>
>> We should strive to make sure that our past is recorded.  And we ought to
>> consider legal evidentiary requirements so that one who is challenging
>> specious patents is not blocked by the complexities of the rules of
>> evidence.
>>
>> 	--karl--
>>
>>
>> On 5/9/21 1:23 AM, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote:
>>> Dave Crocker wrote:
>>>> Saving the RFCs is obvious.  What appears to be less obvious and, IMO,
>>>> is just as important in historical terms, is /all/ of the IETF-related
>>>> work materials.  Drafts.  Mailing list archives.  Session notes.
>>>> Everything.
>>>
>>> John Day wrote:
>>>> Agreed. It should go somewhere. Same for all of the other standards
>>>> groups, forums, consortia, etc.
>>>
>>> Re the IETF, look in:
>>>
>>>    https://archive-it.org/collections/11034
>>>
>>> A few years ago, I set up an Archive-It.org job to monitor the IETF's
>>> web presence.  I was disturbed at the deliberate ephemerality of the
>>> Internet-Draft ecosystem.  I had been looking back at a 10-year-old
>>> effort to eliminate some ridiculous restrictions on the IPv4 address
>>> space, and IETF had thrown away most of the relevant documents (though I
>>> found copies elsewhere once I knew their names).
>>>
>>> Archive-It is a service of the nonprofit Internet Archive (archive.org).
>>> So, the Internet Archive's robots are now crawling (various parts of)
>>> the IETF websites every week, month, and quarter, under my direction.
>>> And saving the results forever, or as long as the Internet Archive and
>>> the Wayback Machine exist.  Between 1998 and now it's pulled in about
>>> 1.8 TB of documents, which are accessible and searchable either from the
>>> above URL, or from the main Wayback Machine at web.archive.org.
>>>
>>> The IETF websites aren't organized for archiving.  I frankly don't
>>> understand their structure, so am probably missing some important
>>> things, and overcollecting other things.  But at least I tried.
>>> Suggestions are welcome.
>>>
>>> Just be glad the IETF is copying-friendly.  Imagine trying to archive
>>> the IEEE or OSI standards development process.  Then imagine big
>>> copyright lawsuits from self-serving people who tied their income
>>> stream to restricting who can access the standards and the
>>> standardization process.
>>>
>>> 	John
>>>
>>> PS: Anyone or any institution can get an Archive-It account for roughly
>>> $10K/year.  The service automates the collecting of *anything* you want
>>> from the web for posterity.  (If you want them to, the Internet Archive
>>> will also write copies of it on new hard drives and send them to you for
>>> your own archival collection.)  About 800 institutions are customers today.
>>> You can also get a low-support low-volume Archive-It Basic account for
>>> $500/year.  Or get custom Digital Preservation services to improve the
>>> likelihood that your own curated digital assets will survive into the
>>> distant future.  See https://Archive-It.org .
>>>
>>> PPS: The Internet Archive's long term survival is, of course, not
>>> guaranteed.  In particular, it will go through a tough transition when
>>> its founder eventually dies.  What is guaranteed is that they have built
>>> a corpus of useful information: Millions of books, billions of web
>>> pages, hundreds of thousands of concerts, decades of saved television
>>> channels, etc.  They are absorbing a lot of archival microfilm, too,
>>> including genealogical and census records, magazines, etc.  This corpus
>>> will likely motivate people to preserve and replicate it into being
>>> useful in the distant future.  They have tried to design the technical
>>> storage to encourage that result.  Does anyone here know anybody who has
>>> both the money and the motivation to make a complete and ongoing copy in
>>> a separately administered, separately owned organization?  That would
>>> significantly mitigate the long term risk of having all the replicated
>>> copies of the corpus owned by a single US nonprofit.  It would probably
>>> take a bare minimum staff of 10 people to run and manage such an
>>> operation, with dozens of petabytes of rotating storage in multiple data
>>> centers and a large collection of (mostly free) software keeping it all
>>> organized and accessible.
>>>
>> -- 
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> 


From tte at cs.fau.de  Wed May 12 20:27:14 2021
From: tte at cs.fau.de (Toerless Eckert)
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 05:27:14 +0200
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <324d038f-145e-98fd-9123-4a9ef85b0501@3kitty.org>
References: <30d52ad8-c868-7b52-a052-329ae024810d@3kitty.org>
 <73C53701-9D7C-4801-9E28-B1475DB42AEB@shinkuro.com>
 <53a65208-58bb-3b8f-502a-86d182bb7bca@3kitty.org>
 <836d7f64-cc3e-f405-8776-2e3d94af2e81@dcrocker.net>
 <324d038f-145e-98fd-9123-4a9ef85b0501@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <20210513032714.GF40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 07:04:06PM -0700, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> As part of that patent effort, I analyzed the reload-related parts of
> the IMP code, instruction by instruction, and the interactions between
> the 2 IMPs involved.?? I suspect it violated more core principles of
> layering, software engineering, coding structure, and other such rules
> than any software had to date.?? The part where the network I/O
> overwrote the memory while the processor was executing from it was
> especially clever.
> 
> Most importantly, it worked.

;-) Software patches/upgrades in the past seem to have often been done by
starting with a base code that had a lot of interspersed NOPs and the new
code would change those accordingly... in  running system not knowing where
the CPU was... incrementally as necessary. I have no idea when this practice
was stopped though. Sounds like a real cool coding puzzle. But i wouldn't
want to be the developer applying this to e.g.: NASA deep space exploration
vehicles code. But i know companies that kept senior engineers with nothing else
to do than being able to fabricarte such paths - as late as the late 1990th.

Cheers
    Toerless
> 
> /Jack
> 
> 
> On 5/12/21 6:06 PM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
> >
> >> "downloading new versions of system software".
> >
> > Arpanet coming out party, Fall, 1972, bowels of the Washington DC
> > Hilton.? I was asked to demo the net to Lipinski, Sr., of the IFF.? I
> > connect to BBN and run something.? Then connect to ISI and run
> > something.? He's thoroughly bored.? Too easy, quick and unengaging.? I
> > could tell that he was not appreciating what this was..
> >
> > Then the TIP crashes.? We wait a moment and he asks how long before we
> > can continue.? I check and am told a reload is needed.? I tell him
> > that and he says he'll go off to a conference session until the system
> > is reloaded.? I explain the delay will only be a few minutes.
> >
> > He says that can't be.? They haven't even rolled out the paper tape
> > reader yet.? I explain they won't be doing that, and tell him that
> > Boston will be directing a download over the net from a neighbor.
> >
> > This is a bright, experienced guy.? He takes in what I just said and
> > THEN he finally understands the net.
> >
> > d/
> >
> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

-- 
---
tte at cs.fau.de


From tte at cs.fau.de  Wed May 12 20:21:43 2021
From: tte at cs.fau.de (Toerless Eckert)
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 05:21:43 +0200
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <30d52ad8-c868-7b52-a052-329ae024810d@3kitty.org>
References: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
 <7A366161-2853-4040-8F36-16BD94E75A6A@webhistory.org>
 <401f9756-d888-fa3c-ba71-9744f166d0b2@dcrocker.net>
 <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>
 <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
 <d8412b9c-c85c-aaa5-70f5-191ce7df38aa@cavebear.com>
 <20210512232213.GC40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <30d52ad8-c868-7b52-a052-329ae024810d@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <20210513032142.GE40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>

Thanks for the story, Jack.

Given how much of a believer in good public documentation i am, however curious:

Was the functionality in question well enough publically documented with
according early dates ? I suspect not befcause i would be surprised if the documentation
would not have been good enough, if it existed. After all, most patents are also graanted
without evidence that they work, so its patenting of concept, not evidence
thereof (which might have been different in decades before my time though..).

Cheers
    Toerless

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 05:44:19PM -0700, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> In 2012-2013, I got involved as an Expert Witness in one of those huge
> patent lawsuits, which had by then been going through the legal process
> for about 30 years (!!).? One of the lessons learned was that although
> documentation is useful, the most valuable evidence is physical.?
> 
> In this case, I noticed (and amazingly remembered) that the ARPANET IMP
> program was a viable example of relevant "prior art", which is the holy
> grail in patent battles.?? The ARPANET did what the patent covered, and
> did it well before the patent was filed.? But proving that such an idea
> was actually implemented and used almost 40 years earlier was the
> necessary task.
> 
> A huge effort ensued, driven by the lawyers and their clients, trying to
> find an old IMP and make it operable again, so that the "prior art"
> behavior could be demonstrated at trial before a jury.?? No actual IMP
> was unearthed (at least one that could still operate), but an early-70s
> listing of the IMP software had survived in a basement.?? After a lot
> more effort, that old software was brought back to life, running on an
> emulator of the old Honeywell 316 computer that was used as an IMP.
> 
> The particular behavior of the IMP that demonstrated the prior art was
> apparently never described in the documentation.?? It only could be
> proven by looking at the code itself.? The old saying "The documentation
> is in the code" was exactly correct.
> 
> Bottom line - don't just think about documents, which can be
> insufficient to prove that something actually existed.?? Software, and
> even hardware, is even better, at least for some patent fights.?? It
> captures parts of history that never got into words.
> 
> For the curious, there's a good description of the "ARPANET
> Resurrection" here:
> 
> https://walden-family.com/impcode/imp-code.pdf
> 
> Look around page 33.?? Also see https://walden-family.com/impcode/
> 
> /Jack Haverty
> 
> 
> On 5/12/21 4:22 PM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote:
> > To put Karls conerns into a maybe easier understood (but theoretical) example for those on the list that have not been involved in practical instances of the problem:
> >
> > - printed public/user product documentation from 2000 gets thrown out 15 years later because
> >   of "we need to get rid of all this old junk", maybe because of refurnishing offices.
> > - half a year later, a lawsuit with such a "bogus" patent that was filed in 2002 ensues.
> > - Obviously, the 2000 public/user product documentation would exactly show the patent
> >   claim to be "bogus" because the public documentation from 2000 explains exactly the same
> >   thing the patent filed in 2002 claimed to be novel.
> > - Online web page of the prior art product of course did not keep old version information reaching
> >   that far back, and even if it would have, it would not have date information on it, but only
> >   version numbers.
> >
> > These type of things easily happen in multi-million dollar lawsuits over and over.
> >
> > Going forwarding, IMHO, the best solution for e.g.: IETF documentation would be:
> >
> > a) have all data such as all of datatracker and IETF mailing list archive in an easy mirrored access form,
> >    which i think we do not have, at least i have not found it, only for some subset of our data.
> >
> > b) Have multiple, independent of each other mirrors around the world that would create
> >    signed/dated certificates for the hashes of each mirrored document - and keep old
> >    (versions of) documents and their signatures even when they would be deleted/changed on the origin site.
> >
> >    Maybe those mirrors cost money, but IMHO worth it. especially for stuff like IETF whose overall
> >    volume on disk is laughable small. And this becam standard tooling, folks like CHM should be
> >    ideal places for such mirroring.
> >
> > Without something equivalent to a/b i fear it is way too easy to create fake evidence for anything,
> > and the "evidence" may not hold up as well court as  the "good old printed evidence".
> >
> > This "creation time" tracking in a more trustworthy fashion will of course not
> > work retroactively, which is why it would be even more important to understand the value of
> > doing this now, so someone starts doing it for the benefit of future bogus lawsuits for
> > stuff we start working on now. Especially given how paper already has disappeared as more
> > reliable evidence.
> >
> > Cheers
> >     Toerless
> >
> > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 03:12:43PM -0700, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
> >> I have also been highly concerned about the tendency of modern tech history
> >> to erase its own records.
> >>
> >> My concern may, however, be in a different direction.
> >>
> >> I am concerned about the growth of specious patents.  There are a lot of
> >> patent trolls out there who buy-up weak patents that got past the relatively
> >> lax patent examiners in the US and elsewere, examiners who often have no
> >> notion of ideas in networking or computer systems, whether embodied in
> >> software or hardware.
> >>
> >> By erasing our past we make it difficult to rebut these bad patents - we
> >> have discarded the evidence that the claims of those patents are neither
> >> novel nor non-obvious.
> >>
> >> I think that over the last few years the IETF has done a spectacular job of
> >> organizing and tracking the RFC series.
> >>
> >> However, we still have a tendency to forget the old when the newer, shinier
> >> thing comes along.
> >>
> >> We should strive to make sure that our past is recorded.  And we ought to
> >> consider legal evidentiary requirements so that one who is challenging
> >> specious patents is not blocked by the complexities of the rules of
> >> evidence.
> >>
> >> 	--karl--
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/9/21 1:23 AM, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote:
> >>> Dave Crocker wrote:
> >>>> Saving the RFCs is obvious.  What appears to be less obvious and, IMO,
> >>>> is just as important in historical terms, is /all/ of the IETF-related
> >>>> work materials.  Drafts.  Mailing list archives.  Session notes.
> >>>> Everything.
> >>> John Day wrote:
> >>>> Agreed. It should go somewhere. Same for all of the other standards
> >>>> groups, forums, consortia, etc.
> >>> Re the IETF, look in:
> >>>
> >>>    https://archive-it.org/collections/11034
> >>>
> >>> A few years ago, I set up an Archive-It.org job to monitor the IETF's
> >>> web presence.  I was disturbed at the deliberate ephemerality of the
> >>> Internet-Draft ecosystem.  I had been looking back at a 10-year-old
> >>> effort to eliminate some ridiculous restrictions on the IPv4 address
> >>> space, and IETF had thrown away most of the relevant documents (though I
> >>> found copies elsewhere once I knew their names).
> >>>
> >>> Archive-It is a service of the nonprofit Internet Archive (archive.org).
> >>> So, the Internet Archive's robots are now crawling (various parts of)
> >>> the IETF websites every week, month, and quarter, under my direction.
> >>> And saving the results forever, or as long as the Internet Archive and
> >>> the Wayback Machine exist.  Between 1998 and now it's pulled in about
> >>> 1.8 TB of documents, which are accessible and searchable either from the
> >>> above URL, or from the main Wayback Machine at web.archive.org.
> >>>
> >>> The IETF websites aren't organized for archiving.  I frankly don't
> >>> understand their structure, so am probably missing some important
> >>> things, and overcollecting other things.  But at least I tried.
> >>> Suggestions are welcome.
> >>>
> >>> Just be glad the IETF is copying-friendly.  Imagine trying to archive
> >>> the IEEE or OSI standards development process.  Then imagine big
> >>> copyright lawsuits from self-serving people who tied their income
> >>> stream to restricting who can access the standards and the
> >>> standardization process.
> >>>
> >>> 	John
> >>>
> >>> PS: Anyone or any institution can get an Archive-It account for roughly
> >>> $10K/year.  The service automates the collecting of *anything* you want
> >>> from the web for posterity.  (If you want them to, the Internet Archive
> >>> will also write copies of it on new hard drives and send them to you for
> >>> your own archival collection.)  About 800 institutions are customers today.
> >>> You can also get a low-support low-volume Archive-It Basic account for
> >>> $500/year.  Or get custom Digital Preservation services to improve the
> >>> likelihood that your own curated digital assets will survive into the
> >>> distant future.  See https://Archive-It.org .
> >>>
> >>> PPS: The Internet Archive's long term survival is, of course, not
> >>> guaranteed.  In particular, it will go through a tough transition when
> >>> its founder eventually dies.  What is guaranteed is that they have built
> >>> a corpus of useful information: Millions of books, billions of web
> >>> pages, hundreds of thousands of concerts, decades of saved television
> >>> channels, etc.  They are absorbing a lot of archival microfilm, too,
> >>> including genealogical and census records, magazines, etc.  This corpus
> >>> will likely motivate people to preserve and replicate it into being
> >>> useful in the distant future.  They have tried to design the technical
> >>> storage to encourage that result.  Does anyone here know anybody who has
> >>> both the money and the motivation to make a complete and ongoing copy in
> >>> a separately administered, separately owned organization?  That would
> >>> significantly mitigate the long term risk of having all the replicated
> >>> copies of the corpus owned by a single US nonprofit.  It would probably
> >>> take a bare minimum staff of 10 people to run and manage such an
> >>> operation, with dozens of petabytes of rotating storage in multiple data
> >>> centers and a large collection of (mostly free) software keeping it all
> >>> organized and accessible.
> >>>
> >> -- 
> >> 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 jack at 3kitty.org  Wed May 12 21:50:50 2021
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 21:50:50 -0700
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <20210513032142.GE40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
 <7A366161-2853-4040-8F36-16BD94E75A6A@webhistory.org>
 <401f9756-d888-fa3c-ba71-9744f166d0b2@dcrocker.net>
 <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>
 <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
 <d8412b9c-c85c-aaa5-70f5-191ce7df38aa@cavebear.com>
 <20210512232213.GC40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <30d52ad8-c868-7b52-a052-329ae024810d@3kitty.org>
 <20210513032142.GE40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Message-ID: <7dbbf0d3-7680-888f-d1e7-cba107b9021d@3kitty.org>

Well, it's complicated.? Real answer is "probably not".? The actual
claim is written in Patentese, and translating it into "download new
versions of system software" was not straightforward.?

FYI, here's the actual claim:

=====

12. A reprogrammable system comprising: 

  a digital detector for 
receiving information of a transmission and detecting digital signals in
 said transmission, said digital signals including new operating 
instructions; 

  a processor operatively connected to said digital
 detector for receiving and processing information of some of said 
digital signals, said processor identifying those of said operating 
instructions addressed to said processor, said processor instructing 
said detector to detect and pass specified signals; 

  a memory 
device operatively connected to said processor for holding operating 
instructions addressed to said processor, said operating instructions 
controlling the operation of said processor; and 

  said processor
 loading said operating instructions that are addressed to said 
processor into said memory device to thereby reprogram said processor, 
said operating instructions including instructions to cause said 
processor to cause said detector to detect different signals.

=====

That's probably not what you would consider a description of what an IMP
does.?? It was a bit of a leap to go from that description to the IMP
software, and unlikely that any old documentation would make the argument.

Every word matters, and every word is a subject of argument, sometimes
for years.
E.g., what is "memory"?? Is it just RAM?? If a device has any ROM, does
that mean it doesn't qualify since it can't be reprogrammed? ? What is
the difference between "programming" and "reprogramming"?

Also, a jury trial was expected.? Imagine 12 people, plus a gaggle of
lawyers, and a judge, none of whom understand much about computers at
all.? Yet they make the decisions.?? That's why a demo was a goal - it's
much easier to show something happening than to convince someone that
some old document proves it happened long ago.

/Jack



On 5/12/21 8:21 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Thanks for the story, Jack.
>
> Given how much of a believer in good public documentation i am, however curious:
>
> Was the functionality in question well enough publically documented with
> according early dates ? I suspect not befcause i would be surprised if the documentation
> would not have been good enough, if it existed. After all, most patents are also graanted
> without evidence that they work, so its patenting of concept, not evidence
> thereof (which might have been different in decades before my time though..).
>
> Cheers
>     Toerless
>
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 05:44:19PM -0700, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
>> In 2012-2013, I got involved as an Expert Witness in one of those huge
>> patent lawsuits, which had by then been going through the legal process
>> for about 30 years (!!).? One of the lessons learned was that although
>> documentation is useful, the most valuable evidence is physical.?
>>
>> In this case, I noticed (and amazingly remembered) that the ARPANET IMP
>> program was a viable example of relevant "prior art", which is the holy
>> grail in patent battles.?? The ARPANET did what the patent covered, and
>> did it well before the patent was filed.? But proving that such an idea
>> was actually implemented and used almost 40 years earlier was the
>> necessary task.
>>
>> A huge effort ensued, driven by the lawyers and their clients, trying to
>> find an old IMP and make it operable again, so that the "prior art"
>> behavior could be demonstrated at trial before a jury.?? No actual IMP
>> was unearthed (at least one that could still operate), but an early-70s
>> listing of the IMP software had survived in a basement.?? After a lot
>> more effort, that old software was brought back to life, running on an
>> emulator of the old Honeywell 316 computer that was used as an IMP.
>>
>> The particular behavior of the IMP that demonstrated the prior art was
>> apparently never described in the documentation.?? It only could be
>> proven by looking at the code itself.? The old saying "The documentation
>> is in the code" was exactly correct.
>>
>> Bottom line - don't just think about documents, which can be
>> insufficient to prove that something actually existed.?? Software, and
>> even hardware, is even better, at least for some patent fights.?? It
>> captures parts of history that never got into words.
>>
>> For the curious, there's a good description of the "ARPANET
>> Resurrection" here:
>>
>> https://walden-family.com/impcode/imp-code.pdf
>>
>> Look around page 33.?? Also see https://walden-family.com/impcode/
>>
>> /Jack Haverty
>>
>>
>> On 5/12/21 4:22 PM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote:
>>> To put Karls conerns into a maybe easier understood (but theoretical) example for those on the list that have not been involved in practical instances of the problem:
>>>
>>> - printed public/user product documentation from 2000 gets thrown out 15 years later because
>>>   of "we need to get rid of all this old junk", maybe because of refurnishing offices.
>>> - half a year later, a lawsuit with such a "bogus" patent that was filed in 2002 ensues.
>>> - Obviously, the 2000 public/user product documentation would exactly show the patent
>>>   claim to be "bogus" because the public documentation from 2000 explains exactly the same
>>>   thing the patent filed in 2002 claimed to be novel.
>>> - Online web page of the prior art product of course did not keep old version information reaching
>>>   that far back, and even if it would have, it would not have date information on it, but only
>>>   version numbers.
>>>
>>> These type of things easily happen in multi-million dollar lawsuits over and over.
>>>
>>> Going forwarding, IMHO, the best solution for e.g.: IETF documentation would be:
>>>
>>> a) have all data such as all of datatracker and IETF mailing list archive in an easy mirrored access form,
>>>    which i think we do not have, at least i have not found it, only for some subset of our data.
>>>
>>> b) Have multiple, independent of each other mirrors around the world that would create
>>>    signed/dated certificates for the hashes of each mirrored document - and keep old
>>>    (versions of) documents and their signatures even when they would be deleted/changed on the origin site.
>>>
>>>    Maybe those mirrors cost money, but IMHO worth it. especially for stuff like IETF whose overall
>>>    volume on disk is laughable small. And this becam standard tooling, folks like CHM should be
>>>    ideal places for such mirroring.
>>>
>>> Without something equivalent to a/b i fear it is way too easy to create fake evidence for anything,
>>> and the "evidence" may not hold up as well court as  the "good old printed evidence".
>>>
>>> This "creation time" tracking in a more trustworthy fashion will of course not
>>> work retroactively, which is why it would be even more important to understand the value of
>>> doing this now, so someone starts doing it for the benefit of future bogus lawsuits for
>>> stuff we start working on now. Especially given how paper already has disappeared as more
>>> reliable evidence.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>     Toerless
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 03:12:43PM -0700, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> I have also been highly concerned about the tendency of modern tech history
>>>> to erase its own records.
>>>>
>>>> My concern may, however, be in a different direction.
>>>>
>>>> I am concerned about the growth of specious patents.  There are a lot of
>>>> patent trolls out there who buy-up weak patents that got past the relatively
>>>> lax patent examiners in the US and elsewere, examiners who often have no
>>>> notion of ideas in networking or computer systems, whether embodied in
>>>> software or hardware.
>>>>
>>>> By erasing our past we make it difficult to rebut these bad patents - we
>>>> have discarded the evidence that the claims of those patents are neither
>>>> novel nor non-obvious.
>>>>
>>>> I think that over the last few years the IETF has done a spectacular job of
>>>> organizing and tracking the RFC series.
>>>>
>>>> However, we still have a tendency to forget the old when the newer, shinier
>>>> thing comes along.
>>>>
>>>> We should strive to make sure that our past is recorded.  And we ought to
>>>> consider legal evidentiary requirements so that one who is challenging
>>>> specious patents is not blocked by the complexities of the rules of
>>>> evidence.
>>>>
>>>> 	--karl--
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/9/21 1:23 AM, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>> Dave Crocker wrote:
>>>>>> Saving the RFCs is obvious.  What appears to be less obvious and, IMO,
>>>>>> is just as important in historical terms, is /all/ of the IETF-related
>>>>>> work materials.  Drafts.  Mailing list archives.  Session notes.
>>>>>> Everything.
>>>>> John Day wrote:
>>>>>> Agreed. It should go somewhere. Same for all of the other standards
>>>>>> groups, forums, consortia, etc.
>>>>> Re the IETF, look in:
>>>>>
>>>>>    https://archive-it.org/collections/11034
>>>>>
>>>>> A few years ago, I set up an Archive-It.org job to monitor the IETF's
>>>>> web presence.  I was disturbed at the deliberate ephemerality of the
>>>>> Internet-Draft ecosystem.  I had been looking back at a 10-year-old
>>>>> effort to eliminate some ridiculous restrictions on the IPv4 address
>>>>> space, and IETF had thrown away most of the relevant documents (though I
>>>>> found copies elsewhere once I knew their names).
>>>>>
>>>>> Archive-It is a service of the nonprofit Internet Archive (archive.org).
>>>>> So, the Internet Archive's robots are now crawling (various parts of)
>>>>> the IETF websites every week, month, and quarter, under my direction.
>>>>> And saving the results forever, or as long as the Internet Archive and
>>>>> the Wayback Machine exist.  Between 1998 and now it's pulled in about
>>>>> 1.8 TB of documents, which are accessible and searchable either from the
>>>>> above URL, or from the main Wayback Machine at web.archive.org.
>>>>>
>>>>> The IETF websites aren't organized for archiving.  I frankly don't
>>>>> understand their structure, so am probably missing some important
>>>>> things, and overcollecting other things.  But at least I tried.
>>>>> Suggestions are welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just be glad the IETF is copying-friendly.  Imagine trying to archive
>>>>> the IEEE or OSI standards development process.  Then imagine big
>>>>> copyright lawsuits from self-serving people who tied their income
>>>>> stream to restricting who can access the standards and the
>>>>> standardization process.
>>>>>
>>>>> 	John
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: Anyone or any institution can get an Archive-It account for roughly
>>>>> $10K/year.  The service automates the collecting of *anything* you want
>>>>> from the web for posterity.  (If you want them to, the Internet Archive
>>>>> will also write copies of it on new hard drives and send them to you for
>>>>> your own archival collection.)  About 800 institutions are customers today.
>>>>> You can also get a low-support low-volume Archive-It Basic account for
>>>>> $500/year.  Or get custom Digital Preservation services to improve the
>>>>> likelihood that your own curated digital assets will survive into the
>>>>> distant future.  See https://Archive-It.org .
>>>>>
>>>>> PPS: The Internet Archive's long term survival is, of course, not
>>>>> guaranteed.  In particular, it will go through a tough transition when
>>>>> its founder eventually dies.  What is guaranteed is that they have built
>>>>> a corpus of useful information: Millions of books, billions of web
>>>>> pages, hundreds of thousands of concerts, decades of saved television
>>>>> channels, etc.  They are absorbing a lot of archival microfilm, too,
>>>>> including genealogical and census records, magazines, etc.  This corpus
>>>>> will likely motivate people to preserve and replicate it into being
>>>>> useful in the distant future.  They have tried to design the technical
>>>>> storage to encourage that result.  Does anyone here know anybody who has
>>>>> both the money and the motivation to make a complete and ongoing copy in
>>>>> a separately administered, separately owned organization?  That would
>>>>> significantly mitigate the long term risk of having all the replicated
>>>>> copies of the corpus owned by a single US nonprofit.  It would probably
>>>>> take a bare minimum staff of 10 people to run and manage such an
>>>>> operation, with dozens of petabytes of rotating storage in multiple data
>>>>> centers and a large collection of (mostly free) software keeping it all
>>>>> organized and accessible.
>>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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 paf at frobbit.se  Wed May 12 22:45:59 2021
From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=)
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 07:45:59 +0200
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <48122add-2607-5442-1eb9-288fbbca82f3@gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
 <7A366161-2853-4040-8F36-16BD94E75A6A@webhistory.org>
 <401f9756-d888-fa3c-ba71-9744f166d0b2@dcrocker.net>
 <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>
 <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
 <d8412b9c-c85c-aaa5-70f5-191ce7df38aa@cavebear.com>
 <20210512232213.GC40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <48122add-2607-5442-1eb9-288fbbca82f3@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CF687E84-4A44-4E7D-B8EF-DFEA4BF5E70B@frobbit.se>

On 13 May 2021, at 5:23, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:

> This isn't an IETF mailing list, but if it was, I'd suggest finding out what the IETF Secretariat plus the RFC Editor already archive. The RFC (+IEN) archive is certainly pretty solid.

FWIW, the RFC series is digitally archived by the National Library of Sweden <https://www.kb.se/in-english.html>.

   Patrik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20210513/11d9be26/attachment.asc>

From sob at sobco.com  Thu May 13 03:50:11 2021
From: sob at sobco.com (Scott Bradner)
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 06:50:11 -0400
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <48122add-2607-5442-1eb9-288fbbca82f3@gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
 <7A366161-2853-4040-8F36-16BD94E75A6A@webhistory.org>
 <401f9756-d888-fa3c-ba71-9744f166d0b2@dcrocker.net>
 <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>
 <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
 <d8412b9c-c85c-aaa5-70f5-191ce7df38aa@cavebear.com>
 <20210512232213.GC40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <48122add-2607-5442-1eb9-288fbbca82f3@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D410F1E7-BE13-4ECD-9A02-75C67DFDC152@sobco.com>

the IETF has a well oiled procedure for verifying when RFCs and Internet Drafts were published, including producing
authenticated copies of them for litigation (I've was somewhat involved in developing of the process
and have used the process in multiple patent cases)

file creation dates & announcements posted to IETF mailing lists (which are archived) are used in the 
verification process

Scott

> On May 12, 2021, at 11:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> On 13-May-21 11:22, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote:
> ...
>> Going forwarding, IMHO, the best solution for e.g.: IETF documentation would be:
> 
> This isn't an IETF mailing list, but if it was, I'd suggest finding out what the IETF Secretariat plus the RFC Editor already archive. The RFC (+IEN) archive is certainly pretty solid. As far as I know, the I-D archive has been used many times in prior art searches, including litigation. Whether mailing list archives and meeting minutes have been used too, I don't know. Certainly, some list archives prior to ietf.org hosting the lists can be hard to find.
> 
> The same question could be asked about the IRTF too.
> 
>    Brian
> 
>> 
>> a) have all data such as all of datatracker and IETF mailing list archive in an easy mirrored access form,
>>   which i think we do not have, at least i have not found it, only for some subset of our data.
>> 
>> b) Have multiple, independent of each other mirrors around the world that would create
>>   signed/dated certificates for the hashes of each mirrored document - and keep old
>>   (versions of) documents and their signatures even when they would be deleted/changed on the origin site.
>> 
>>   Maybe those mirrors cost money, but IMHO worth it. especially for stuff like IETF whose overall
>>   volume on disk is laughable small. And this becam standard tooling, folks like CHM should be
>>   ideal places for such mirroring.
>> 
>> Without something equivalent to a/b i fear it is way too easy to create fake evidence for anything,
>> and the "evidence" may not hold up as well court as  the "good old printed evidence".
>> 
>> This "creation time" tracking in a more trustworthy fashion will of course not
>> work retroactively, which is why it would be even more important to understand the value of
>> doing this now, so someone starts doing it for the benefit of future bogus lawsuits for
>> stuff we start working on now. Especially given how paper already has disappeared as more
>> reliable evidence.
>> 
>> Cheers
>>    Toerless
>> 
>> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 03:12:43PM -0700, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
>>> I have also been highly concerned about the tendency of modern tech history
>>> to erase its own records.
>>> 
>>> My concern may, however, be in a different direction.
>>> 
>>> I am concerned about the growth of specious patents.  There are a lot of
>>> patent trolls out there who buy-up weak patents that got past the relatively
>>> lax patent examiners in the US and elsewere, examiners who often have no
>>> notion of ideas in networking or computer systems, whether embodied in
>>> software or hardware.
>>> 
>>> By erasing our past we make it difficult to rebut these bad patents - we
>>> have discarded the evidence that the claims of those patents are neither
>>> novel nor non-obvious.
>>> 
>>> I think that over the last few years the IETF has done a spectacular job of
>>> organizing and tracking the RFC series.
>>> 
>>> However, we still have a tendency to forget the old when the newer, shinier
>>> thing comes along.
>>> 
>>> We should strive to make sure that our past is recorded.  And we ought to
>>> consider legal evidentiary requirements so that one who is challenging
>>> specious patents is not blocked by the complexities of the rules of
>>> evidence.
>>> 
>>> 	--karl--
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/9/21 1:23 AM, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> Dave Crocker wrote:
>>>>> Saving the RFCs is obvious.  What appears to be less obvious and, IMO,
>>>>> is just as important in historical terms, is /all/ of the IETF-related
>>>>> work materials.  Drafts.  Mailing list archives.  Session notes.
>>>>> Everything.
>>>> 
>>>> John Day wrote:
>>>>> Agreed. It should go somewhere. Same for all of the other standards
>>>>> groups, forums, consortia, etc.
>>>> 
>>>> Re the IETF, look in:
>>>> 
>>>>   https://archive-it.org/collections/11034
>>>> 
>>>> A few years ago, I set up an Archive-It.org job to monitor the IETF's
>>>> web presence.  I was disturbed at the deliberate ephemerality of the
>>>> Internet-Draft ecosystem.  I had been looking back at a 10-year-old
>>>> effort to eliminate some ridiculous restrictions on the IPv4 address
>>>> space, and IETF had thrown away most of the relevant documents (though I
>>>> found copies elsewhere once I knew their names).
>>>> 
>>>> Archive-It is a service of the nonprofit Internet Archive (archive.org).
>>>> So, the Internet Archive's robots are now crawling (various parts of)
>>>> the IETF websites every week, month, and quarter, under my direction.
>>>> And saving the results forever, or as long as the Internet Archive and
>>>> the Wayback Machine exist.  Between 1998 and now it's pulled in about
>>>> 1.8 TB of documents, which are accessible and searchable either from the
>>>> above URL, or from the main Wayback Machine at web.archive.org.
>>>> 
>>>> The IETF websites aren't organized for archiving.  I frankly don't
>>>> understand their structure, so am probably missing some important
>>>> things, and overcollecting other things.  But at least I tried.
>>>> Suggestions are welcome.
>>>> 
>>>> Just be glad the IETF is copying-friendly.  Imagine trying to archive
>>>> the IEEE or OSI standards development process.  Then imagine big
>>>> copyright lawsuits from self-serving people who tied their income
>>>> stream to restricting who can access the standards and the
>>>> standardization process.
>>>> 
>>>> 	John
>>>> 
>>>> PS: Anyone or any institution can get an Archive-It account for roughly
>>>> $10K/year.  The service automates the collecting of *anything* you want
>>>> from the web for posterity.  (If you want them to, the Internet Archive
>>>> will also write copies of it on new hard drives and send them to you for
>>>> your own archival collection.)  About 800 institutions are customers today.
>>>> You can also get a low-support low-volume Archive-It Basic account for
>>>> $500/year.  Or get custom Digital Preservation services to improve the
>>>> likelihood that your own curated digital assets will survive into the
>>>> distant future.  See https://Archive-It.org .
>>>> 
>>>> PPS: The Internet Archive's long term survival is, of course, not
>>>> guaranteed.  In particular, it will go through a tough transition when
>>>> its founder eventually dies.  What is guaranteed is that they have built
>>>> a corpus of useful information: Millions of books, billions of web
>>>> pages, hundreds of thousands of concerts, decades of saved television
>>>> channels, etc.  They are absorbing a lot of archival microfilm, too,
>>>> including genealogical and census records, magazines, etc.  This corpus
>>>> will likely motivate people to preserve and replicate it into being
>>>> useful in the distant future.  They have tried to design the technical
>>>> storage to encourage that result.  Does anyone here know anybody who has
>>>> both the money and the motivation to make a complete and ongoing copy in
>>>> a separately administered, separately owned organization?  That would
>>>> significantly mitigate the long term risk of having all the replicated
>>>> copies of the corpus owned by a single US nonprofit.  It would probably
>>>> take a bare minimum staff of 10 people to run and manage such an
>>>> operation, with dozens of petabytes of rotating storage in multiple data
>>>> centers and a large collection of (mostly free) software keeping it all
>>>> organized and accessible.
>>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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 york at isoc.org  Thu May 13 05:04:52 2021
From: york at isoc.org (Dan York)
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 12:04:52 +0000
Subject: [ih] Archive-It - Re:  Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
References: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
 <7A366161-2853-4040-8F36-16BD94E75A6A@webhistory.org>
 <401f9756-d888-fa3c-ba71-9744f166d0b2@dcrocker.net>
 <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>
 <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
Message-ID: <E79B1C49-F3C8-49AC-8158-63A4F0C35F67@isoc.org>

John,

On May 9, 2021, at 4:23 AM, John Gilmore via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org<mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:

Re the IETF, look in:

 https://archive-it.org/collections/11034
<snip>
Archive-It is a service of the nonprofit Internet Archive (archive.org<http://archive.org>).
So, the Internet Archive's robots are now crawling (various parts of)
the IETF websites every week, month, and quarter, under my direction.
And saving the results forever, or as long as the Internet Archive and
the Wayback Machine exist.  Between 1998 and now it's pulled in about
1.8 TB of documents, which are accessible and searchable either from the
above URL, or from the main Wayback Machine at web.archive.org<http://web.archive.org>.

Very cool that you are doing this.

I?m also a big believer in archiving and set up the Internet Society with an Archive-It account back in 2017:

https://archive-it.org/home/internetsociety

We use it as a way to regularly archive our various sites, crawling them weekly, monthly, quarterly, or manually depending upon the amount of change (or not) on any given site. Beyond the historical preservation aspect, we?ve also used it as a quick way to verify older content (when we had a database error on the current site), and a way to no longer maintain older content on our current site. The archiving has also allowed us to shut down the web servers operating temporary microsites (reducing security and maintenance issues) and redirect URLs to the archived site at the Wayback Machine. For example,  https://www.openwsis2015.org/

As I?ve participated in the Archive-It member quarterly briefings, I?ve become an even stronger supporter. They are doing good work! (And yes, this does have a reliance in the continued / ongoing existence and operation of the Internet Archive. It *would* be good to ultimately have some type of redundancy there.)

Regards,
Dan

--
Dan York, Director, Online Content |  Internet Society
york at isoc.org<mailto:york at isoc.org> | +1-603-439-0024 | @danyork<https://twitter.com/danyork>
<https://www.internetsociety.org/>

[cid:image001.png at 01D5D03B.DF736FF0]
internetsociety.org<https://www.internetsociety.org/> | @internetsociety<https://twitter.com/internetsociety>


From amckenzie3 at yahoo.com  Thu May 13 06:09:58 2021
From: amckenzie3 at yahoo.com (Alex McKenzie)
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 13:09:58 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <20210513032142.GE40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
 <7A366161-2853-4040-8F36-16BD94E75A6A@webhistory.org>
 <401f9756-d888-fa3c-ba71-9744f166d0b2@dcrocker.net>
 <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>
 <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
 <d8412b9c-c85c-aaa5-70f5-191ce7df38aa@cavebear.com>
 <20210512232213.GC40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <30d52ad8-c868-7b52-a052-329ae024810d@3kitty.org>
 <20210513032142.GE40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Message-ID: <1999694887.157236.1620911398145@mail.yahoo.com>

 Yes, the process of downloading code from a neighbor IMP was described in a paper presented at the ACM/IEEE 4th Data Communication Symposium, October 1975, in Quebec City, Canada.? The paper was "The ARPA Network Control Center" by Alexander A. McKenzie (me).? Perhaps the lawyers did not discover this paper, or perhaps they wanted a demo.? Maybe Jack knows.
Alex

    On Wednesday, May 12, 2021, 11:31:16 PM EDT, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:  
 
 Thanks for the story, Jack.

Given how much of a believer in good public documentation i am, however curious:

Was the functionality in question well enough publically documented with
according early dates ? I suspect not befcause i would be surprised if the documentation
would not have been good enough, if it existed. After all, most patents are also graanted
without evidence that they work, so its patenting of concept, not evidence
thereof (which might have been different in decades before my time though..).

Cheers
? ? Toerless

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 05:44:19PM -0700, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> In 2012-2013, I got involved as an Expert Witness in one of those huge
> patent lawsuits, which had by then been going through the legal process
> for about 30 years (!!).? One of the lessons learned was that although
> documentation is useful, the most valuable evidence is physical.?
> 
> In this case, I noticed (and amazingly remembered) that the ARPANET IMP
> program was a viable example of relevant "prior art", which is the holy
> grail in patent battles.?? The ARPANET did what the patent covered, and
> did it well before the patent was filed.? But proving that such an idea
> was actually implemented and used almost 40 years earlier was the
> necessary task.
> 
> A huge effort ensued, driven by the lawyers and their clients, trying to
> find an old IMP and make it operable again, so that the "prior art"
> behavior could be demonstrated at trial before a jury.?? No actual IMP
> was unearthed (at least one that could still operate), but an early-70s
> listing of the IMP software had survived in a basement.?? After a lot
> more effort, that old software was brought back to life, running on an
> emulator of the old Honeywell 316 computer that was used as an IMP.
> 
> The particular behavior of the IMP that demonstrated the prior art was
> apparently never described in the documentation.?? It only could be
> proven by looking at the code itself.? The old saying "The documentation
> is in the code" was exactly correct.
> 
> Bottom line - don't just think about documents, which can be
> insufficient to prove that something actually existed.?? Software, and
> even hardware, is even better, at least for some patent fights.?? It
> captures parts of history that never got into words.
> 
> For the curious, there's a good description of the "ARPANET
> Resurrection" here:
> 
> https://walden-family.com/impcode/imp-code.pdf
> 
> Look around page 33.?? Also see https://walden-family.com/impcode/
> 
> /Jack Haverty
> 
> 
> On 5/12/21 4:22 PM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote:
> > To put Karls conerns into a maybe easier understood (but theoretical) example for those on the list that have not been involved in practical instances of the problem:
> >
> > - printed public/user product documentation from 2000 gets thrown out 15 years later because
> >? of "we need to get rid of all this old junk", maybe because of refurnishing offices.
> > - half a year later, a lawsuit with such a "bogus" patent that was filed in 2002 ensues.
> > - Obviously, the 2000 public/user product documentation would exactly show the patent
> >? claim to be "bogus" because the public documentation from 2000 explains exactly the same
> >? thing the patent filed in 2002 claimed to be novel.
> > - Online web page of the prior art product of course did not keep old version information reaching
> >? that far back, and even if it would have, it would not have date information on it, but only
> >? version numbers.
> >
> > These type of things easily happen in multi-million dollar lawsuits over and over.
> >
> > Going forwarding, IMHO, the best solution for e.g.: IETF documentation would be:
> >
> > a) have all data such as all of datatracker and IETF mailing list archive in an easy mirrored access form,
> >? ? which i think we do not have, at least i have not found it, only for some subset of our data.
> >
> > b) Have multiple, independent of each other mirrors around the world that would create
> >? ? signed/dated certificates for the hashes of each mirrored document - and keep old
> >? ? (versions of) documents and their signatures even when they would be deleted/changed on the origin site.
> >
> >? ? Maybe those mirrors cost money, but IMHO worth it. especially for stuff like IETF whose overall
> >? ? volume on disk is laughable small. And this becam standard tooling, folks like CHM should be
> >? ? ideal places for such mirroring.
> >
> > Without something equivalent to a/b i fear it is way too easy to create fake evidence for anything,
> > and the "evidence" may not hold up as well court as? the "good old printed evidence".
> >
> > This "creation time" tracking in a more trustworthy fashion will of course not
> > work retroactively, which is why it would be even more important to understand the value of
> > doing this now, so someone starts doing it for the benefit of future bogus lawsuits for
> > stuff we start working on now. Especially given how paper already has disappeared as more
> > reliable evidence.
> >
> > Cheers
> >? ? Toerless
> >
> > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 03:12:43PM -0700, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
> >> I have also been highly concerned about the tendency of modern tech history
> >> to erase its own records.
> >>
> >> My concern may, however, be in a different direction.
> >>
> >> I am concerned about the growth of specious patents.? There are a lot of
> >> patent trolls out there who buy-up weak patents that got past the relatively
> >> lax patent examiners in the US and elsewere, examiners who often have no
> >> notion of ideas in networking or computer systems, whether embodied in
> >> software or hardware.
> >>
> >> By erasing our past we make it difficult to rebut these bad patents - we
> >> have discarded the evidence that the claims of those patents are neither
> >> novel nor non-obvious.
> >>
> >> I think that over the last few years the IETF has done a spectacular job of
> >> organizing and tracking the RFC series.
> >>
> >> However, we still have a tendency to forget the old when the newer, shinier
> >> thing comes along.
> >>
> >> We should strive to make sure that our past is recorded.? And we ought to
> >> consider legal evidentiary requirements so that one who is challenging
> >> specious patents is not blocked by the complexities of the rules of
> >> evidence.
> >>
> >> ??? --karl--
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/9/21 1:23 AM, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote:
> >>> Dave Crocker wrote:
> >>>> Saving the RFCs is obvious.? What appears to be less obvious and, IMO,
> >>>> is just as important in historical terms, is /all/ of the IETF-related
> >>>> work materials.? Drafts.? Mailing list archives.? Session notes.
> >>>> Everything.
> >>> John Day wrote:
> >>>> Agreed. It should go somewhere. Same for all of the other standards
> >>>> groups, forums, consortia, etc.
> >>> Re the IETF, look in:
> >>>
> >>>? ? https://archive-it.org/collections/11034
> >>>
> >>> A few years ago, I set up an Archive-It.org job to monitor the IETF's
> >>> web presence.? I was disturbed at the deliberate ephemerality of the
> >>> Internet-Draft ecosystem.? I had been looking back at a 10-year-old
> >>> effort to eliminate some ridiculous restrictions on the IPv4 address
> >>> space, and IETF had thrown away most of the relevant documents (though I
> >>> found copies elsewhere once I knew their names).
> >>>
> >>> Archive-It is a service of the nonprofit Internet Archive (archive.org).
> >>> So, the Internet Archive's robots are now crawling (various parts of)
> >>> the IETF websites every week, month, and quarter, under my direction.
> >>> And saving the results forever, or as long as the Internet Archive and
> >>> the Wayback Machine exist.? Between 1998 and now it's pulled in about
> >>> 1.8 TB of documents, which are accessible and searchable either from the
> >>> above URL, or from the main Wayback Machine at web.archive.org.
> >>>
> >>> The IETF websites aren't organized for archiving.? I frankly don't
> >>> understand their structure, so am probably missing some important
> >>> things, and overcollecting other things.? But at least I tried.
> >>> Suggestions are welcome.
> >>>
> >>> Just be glad the IETF is copying-friendly.? Imagine trying to archive
> >>> the IEEE or OSI standards development process.? Then imagine big
> >>> copyright lawsuits from self-serving people who tied their income
> >>> stream to restricting who can access the standards and the
> >>> standardization process.
> >>>
> >>> ??? John
> >>>
> >>> PS: Anyone or any institution can get an Archive-It account for roughly
> >>> $10K/year.? The service automates the collecting of *anything* you want
> >>> from the web for posterity.? (If you want them to, the Internet Archive
> >>> will also write copies of it on new hard drives and send them to you for
> >>> your own archival collection.)? About 800 institutions are customers today.
> >>> You can also get a low-support low-volume Archive-It Basic account for
> >>> $500/year.? Or get custom Digital Preservation services to improve the
> >>> likelihood that your own curated digital assets will survive into the
> >>> distant future.? See https://Archive-It.org .
> >>>
> >>> PPS: The Internet Archive's long term survival is, of course, not
> >>> guaranteed.? In particular, it will go through a tough transition when
> >>> its founder eventually dies.? What is guaranteed is that they have built
> >>> a corpus of useful information: Millions of books, billions of web
> >>> pages, hundreds of thousands of concerts, decades of saved television
> >>> channels, etc.? They are absorbing a lot of archival microfilm, too,
> >>> including genealogical and census records, magazines, etc.? This corpus
> >>> will likely motivate people to preserve and replicate it into being
> >>> useful in the distant future.? They have tried to design the technical
> >>> storage to encourage that result.? Does anyone here know anybody who has
> >>> both the money and the motivation to make a complete and ongoing copy in
> >>> a separately administered, separately owned organization?? That would
> >>> significantly mitigate the long term risk of having all the replicated
> >>> copies of the corpus owned by a single US nonprofit.? It would probably
> >>> take a bare minimum staff of 10 people to run and manage such an
> >>> operation, with dozens of petabytes of rotating storage in multiple data
> >>> centers and a large collection of (mostly free) software keeping it all
> >>> organized and accessible.
> >>>
> >> -- 
> >> 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
-- 
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  Thu May 13 06:30:21 2021
From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (dave walden)
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 09:30:21 -0400
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <20210513032142.GE40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
 <7A366161-2853-4040-8F36-16BD94E75A6A@webhistory.org>
 <401f9756-d888-fa3c-ba71-9744f166d0b2@dcrocker.net>
 <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>
 <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
 <d8412b9c-c85c-aaa5-70f5-191ce7df38aa@cavebear.com>
 <20210512232213.GC40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <30d52ad8-c868-7b52-a052-329ae024810d@3kitty.org>
 <20210513032142.GE40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Message-ID: <329bc039-7f08-fd16-e9e4-d7d140c5b7b5@gmail.com>

The 1973 IMP had extensive documentation although not for the purpose of 
a patent dispute and not exactly for the same listing version as we were 
analyzing.
See 
https://walden-family.com/impcode/IMPSYS-Document-with-flowcharts.pdf and'
https://walden-family.com/impcode/Technical_Information_Report_89.pdf
These also are now archived at the Software History Center of the 
Computer History Museum.

Such documentation was not our normal practice.? It was required one 
year by whichever government person was managing our contract --- for a 
purpose I do not remember.? More normally, the documentation was the 
listing and in the memory of the program maintainer.


On 5/12/2021 11:21 PM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote:
> Thanks for the story, Jack.
>
> Given how much of a believer in good public documentation i am, however curious:
>
> Was the functionality in question well enough publically documented with
> according early dates ? I suspect not befcause i would be surprised if the documentation
> would not have been good enough, if it existed. After all, most patents are also graanted
> without evidence that they work, so its patenting of concept, not evidence
> thereof (which might have been different in decades before my time though..).
>
> Cheers
>      Toerless
>
>


From tte at cs.fau.de  Thu May 13 11:51:01 2021
From: tte at cs.fau.de (Toerless Eckert)
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 20:51:01 +0200
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <7dbbf0d3-7680-888f-d1e7-cba107b9021d@3kitty.org>
References: <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
 <7A366161-2853-4040-8F36-16BD94E75A6A@webhistory.org>
 <401f9756-d888-fa3c-ba71-9744f166d0b2@dcrocker.net>
 <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>
 <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
 <d8412b9c-c85c-aaa5-70f5-191ce7df38aa@cavebear.com>
 <20210512232213.GC40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <30d52ad8-c868-7b52-a052-329ae024810d@3kitty.org>
 <20210513032142.GE40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <7dbbf0d3-7680-888f-d1e7-cba107b9021d@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <20210513185101.GI40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>

Hah. Your last paragraph was the interesting aspect i completely ignored "Jury trial" ;-)

Cheers
    Toerless

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 09:50:50PM -0700, Jack Haverty wrote:
> Well, it's complicated.? Real answer is "probably not".? The actual
> claim is written in Patentese, and translating it into "download new
> versions of system software" was not straightforward.?
> 
> FYI, here's the actual claim:
> 
> =====
> 
> 12. A reprogrammable system comprising: 
> 
>   a digital detector for 
> receiving information of a transmission and detecting digital signals in
>  said transmission, said digital signals including new operating 
> instructions; 
> 
>   a processor operatively connected to said digital
>  detector for receiving and processing information of some of said 
> digital signals, said processor identifying those of said operating 
> instructions addressed to said processor, said processor instructing 
> said detector to detect and pass specified signals; 
> 
>   a memory 
> device operatively connected to said processor for holding operating 
> instructions addressed to said processor, said operating instructions 
> controlling the operation of said processor; and 
> 
>   said processor
>  loading said operating instructions that are addressed to said 
> processor into said memory device to thereby reprogram said processor, 
> said operating instructions including instructions to cause said 
> processor to cause said detector to detect different signals.
> 
> =====
> 
> That's probably not what you would consider a description of what an IMP
> does.?? It was a bit of a leap to go from that description to the IMP
> software, and unlikely that any old documentation would make the argument.
> 
> Every word matters, and every word is a subject of argument, sometimes
> for years.
> E.g., what is "memory"?? Is it just RAM?? If a device has any ROM, does
> that mean it doesn't qualify since it can't be reprogrammed? ? What is
> the difference between "programming" and "reprogramming"?
> 
> Also, a jury trial was expected.? Imagine 12 people, plus a gaggle of
> lawyers, and a judge, none of whom understand much about computers at
> all.? Yet they make the decisions.?? That's why a demo was a goal - it's
> much easier to show something happening than to convince someone that
> some old document proves it happened long ago.
> 
> /Jack
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/12/21 8:21 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > Thanks for the story, Jack.
> >
> > Given how much of a believer in good public documentation i am, however curious:
> >
> > Was the functionality in question well enough publically documented with
> > according early dates ? I suspect not befcause i would be surprised if the documentation
> > would not have been good enough, if it existed. After all, most patents are also graanted
> > without evidence that they work, so its patenting of concept, not evidence
> > thereof (which might have been different in decades before my time though..).
> >
> > Cheers
> >     Toerless
> >
> > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 05:44:19PM -0700, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> >> In 2012-2013, I got involved as an Expert Witness in one of those huge
> >> patent lawsuits, which had by then been going through the legal process
> >> for about 30 years (!!).? One of the lessons learned was that although
> >> documentation is useful, the most valuable evidence is physical.?
> >>
> >> In this case, I noticed (and amazingly remembered) that the ARPANET IMP
> >> program was a viable example of relevant "prior art", which is the holy
> >> grail in patent battles.?? The ARPANET did what the patent covered, and
> >> did it well before the patent was filed.? But proving that such an idea
> >> was actually implemented and used almost 40 years earlier was the
> >> necessary task.
> >>
> >> A huge effort ensued, driven by the lawyers and their clients, trying to
> >> find an old IMP and make it operable again, so that the "prior art"
> >> behavior could be demonstrated at trial before a jury.?? No actual IMP
> >> was unearthed (at least one that could still operate), but an early-70s
> >> listing of the IMP software had survived in a basement.?? After a lot
> >> more effort, that old software was brought back to life, running on an
> >> emulator of the old Honeywell 316 computer that was used as an IMP.
> >>
> >> The particular behavior of the IMP that demonstrated the prior art was
> >> apparently never described in the documentation.?? It only could be
> >> proven by looking at the code itself.? The old saying "The documentation
> >> is in the code" was exactly correct.
> >>
> >> Bottom line - don't just think about documents, which can be
> >> insufficient to prove that something actually existed.?? Software, and
> >> even hardware, is even better, at least for some patent fights.?? It
> >> captures parts of history that never got into words.
> >>
> >> For the curious, there's a good description of the "ARPANET
> >> Resurrection" here:
> >>
> >> https://walden-family.com/impcode/imp-code.pdf
> >>
> >> Look around page 33.?? Also see https://walden-family.com/impcode/
> >>
> >> /Jack Haverty
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/12/21 4:22 PM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote:
> >>> To put Karls conerns into a maybe easier understood (but theoretical) example for those on the list that have not been involved in practical instances of the problem:
> >>>
> >>> - printed public/user product documentation from 2000 gets thrown out 15 years later because
> >>>   of "we need to get rid of all this old junk", maybe because of refurnishing offices.
> >>> - half a year later, a lawsuit with such a "bogus" patent that was filed in 2002 ensues.
> >>> - Obviously, the 2000 public/user product documentation would exactly show the patent
> >>>   claim to be "bogus" because the public documentation from 2000 explains exactly the same
> >>>   thing the patent filed in 2002 claimed to be novel.
> >>> - Online web page of the prior art product of course did not keep old version information reaching
> >>>   that far back, and even if it would have, it would not have date information on it, but only
> >>>   version numbers.
> >>>
> >>> These type of things easily happen in multi-million dollar lawsuits over and over.
> >>>
> >>> Going forwarding, IMHO, the best solution for e.g.: IETF documentation would be:
> >>>
> >>> a) have all data such as all of datatracker and IETF mailing list archive in an easy mirrored access form,
> >>>    which i think we do not have, at least i have not found it, only for some subset of our data.
> >>>
> >>> b) Have multiple, independent of each other mirrors around the world that would create
> >>>    signed/dated certificates for the hashes of each mirrored document - and keep old
> >>>    (versions of) documents and their signatures even when they would be deleted/changed on the origin site.
> >>>
> >>>    Maybe those mirrors cost money, but IMHO worth it. especially for stuff like IETF whose overall
> >>>    volume on disk is laughable small. And this becam standard tooling, folks like CHM should be
> >>>    ideal places for such mirroring.
> >>>
> >>> Without something equivalent to a/b i fear it is way too easy to create fake evidence for anything,
> >>> and the "evidence" may not hold up as well court as  the "good old printed evidence".
> >>>
> >>> This "creation time" tracking in a more trustworthy fashion will of course not
> >>> work retroactively, which is why it would be even more important to understand the value of
> >>> doing this now, so someone starts doing it for the benefit of future bogus lawsuits for
> >>> stuff we start working on now. Especially given how paper already has disappeared as more
> >>> reliable evidence.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>>     Toerless
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 03:12:43PM -0700, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
> >>>> I have also been highly concerned about the tendency of modern tech history
> >>>> to erase its own records.
> >>>>
> >>>> My concern may, however, be in a different direction.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am concerned about the growth of specious patents.  There are a lot of
> >>>> patent trolls out there who buy-up weak patents that got past the relatively
> >>>> lax patent examiners in the US and elsewere, examiners who often have no
> >>>> notion of ideas in networking or computer systems, whether embodied in
> >>>> software or hardware.
> >>>>
> >>>> By erasing our past we make it difficult to rebut these bad patents - we
> >>>> have discarded the evidence that the claims of those patents are neither
> >>>> novel nor non-obvious.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think that over the last few years the IETF has done a spectacular job of
> >>>> organizing and tracking the RFC series.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, we still have a tendency to forget the old when the newer, shinier
> >>>> thing comes along.
> >>>>
> >>>> We should strive to make sure that our past is recorded.  And we ought to
> >>>> consider legal evidentiary requirements so that one who is challenging
> >>>> specious patents is not blocked by the complexities of the rules of
> >>>> evidence.
> >>>>
> >>>> 	--karl--
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 5/9/21 1:23 AM, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote:
> >>>>> Dave Crocker wrote:
> >>>>>> Saving the RFCs is obvious.  What appears to be less obvious and, IMO,
> >>>>>> is just as important in historical terms, is /all/ of the IETF-related
> >>>>>> work materials.  Drafts.  Mailing list archives.  Session notes.
> >>>>>> Everything.
> >>>>> John Day wrote:
> >>>>>> Agreed. It should go somewhere. Same for all of the other standards
> >>>>>> groups, forums, consortia, etc.
> >>>>> Re the IETF, look in:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>    https://archive-it.org/collections/11034
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A few years ago, I set up an Archive-It.org job to monitor the IETF's
> >>>>> web presence.  I was disturbed at the deliberate ephemerality of the
> >>>>> Internet-Draft ecosystem.  I had been looking back at a 10-year-old
> >>>>> effort to eliminate some ridiculous restrictions on the IPv4 address
> >>>>> space, and IETF had thrown away most of the relevant documents (though I
> >>>>> found copies elsewhere once I knew their names).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Archive-It is a service of the nonprofit Internet Archive (archive.org).
> >>>>> So, the Internet Archive's robots are now crawling (various parts of)
> >>>>> the IETF websites every week, month, and quarter, under my direction.
> >>>>> And saving the results forever, or as long as the Internet Archive and
> >>>>> the Wayback Machine exist.  Between 1998 and now it's pulled in about
> >>>>> 1.8 TB of documents, which are accessible and searchable either from the
> >>>>> above URL, or from the main Wayback Machine at web.archive.org.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The IETF websites aren't organized for archiving.  I frankly don't
> >>>>> understand their structure, so am probably missing some important
> >>>>> things, and overcollecting other things.  But at least I tried.
> >>>>> Suggestions are welcome.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just be glad the IETF is copying-friendly.  Imagine trying to archive
> >>>>> the IEEE or OSI standards development process.  Then imagine big
> >>>>> copyright lawsuits from self-serving people who tied their income
> >>>>> stream to restricting who can access the standards and the
> >>>>> standardization process.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 	John
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PS: Anyone or any institution can get an Archive-It account for roughly
> >>>>> $10K/year.  The service automates the collecting of *anything* you want
> >>>>> from the web for posterity.  (If you want them to, the Internet Archive
> >>>>> will also write copies of it on new hard drives and send them to you for
> >>>>> your own archival collection.)  About 800 institutions are customers today.
> >>>>> You can also get a low-support low-volume Archive-It Basic account for
> >>>>> $500/year.  Or get custom Digital Preservation services to improve the
> >>>>> likelihood that your own curated digital assets will survive into the
> >>>>> distant future.  See https://Archive-It.org .
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PPS: The Internet Archive's long term survival is, of course, not
> >>>>> guaranteed.  In particular, it will go through a tough transition when
> >>>>> its founder eventually dies.  What is guaranteed is that they have built
> >>>>> a corpus of useful information: Millions of books, billions of web
> >>>>> pages, hundreds of thousands of concerts, decades of saved television
> >>>>> channels, etc.  They are absorbing a lot of archival microfilm, too,
> >>>>> including genealogical and census records, magazines, etc.  This corpus
> >>>>> will likely motivate people to preserve and replicate it into being
> >>>>> useful in the distant future.  They have tried to design the technical
> >>>>> storage to encourage that result.  Does anyone here know anybody who has
> >>>>> both the money and the motivation to make a complete and ongoing copy in
> >>>>> a separately administered, separately owned organization?  That would
> >>>>> significantly mitigate the long term risk of having all the replicated
> >>>>> copies of the corpus owned by a single US nonprofit.  It would probably
> >>>>> take a bare minimum staff of 10 people to run and manage such an
> >>>>> operation, with dozens of petabytes of rotating storage in multiple data
> >>>>> centers and a large collection of (mostly free) software keeping it all
> >>>>> organized and accessible.
> >>>>>
> >>>> -- 
> >>>> 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 tte at cs.fau.de  Thu May 13 11:59:25 2021
From: tte at cs.fau.de (Toerless Eckert)
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 20:59:25 +0200
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <329bc039-7f08-fd16-e9e4-d7d140c5b7b5@gmail.com>
References: <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
 <7A366161-2853-4040-8F36-16BD94E75A6A@webhistory.org>
 <401f9756-d888-fa3c-ba71-9744f166d0b2@dcrocker.net>
 <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>
 <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
 <d8412b9c-c85c-aaa5-70f5-191ce7df38aa@cavebear.com>
 <20210512232213.GC40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <30d52ad8-c868-7b52-a052-329ae024810d@3kitty.org>
 <20210513032142.GE40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <329bc039-7f08-fd16-e9e4-d7d140c5b7b5@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20210513185925.GJ40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>

So who would back in the day read this documentation, and at which point in
time did it become "public" ?

If it was produced grudgingly and maybe not even read by government folks
funding the project, one can still be very happy about at that point in time
maybe seemingly useless bureaucracy now. Very interesting read.

Cheers
    Toerless


On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 09:30:21AM -0400, dave walden via Internet-history wrote:
> The 1973 IMP had extensive documentation although not for the purpose of a
> patent dispute and not exactly for the same listing version as we were
> analyzing.
> See https://walden-family.com/impcode/IMPSYS-Document-with-flowcharts.pdf
> and'
> https://walden-family.com/impcode/Technical_Information_Report_89.pdf
> These also are now archived at the Software History Center of the Computer
> History Museum.
> 
> Such documentation was not our normal practice.? It was required one year by
> whichever government person was managing our contract --- for a purpose I do
> not remember.? More normally, the documentation was the listing and in the
> memory of the program maintainer.
> 
> 
> On 5/12/2021 11:21 PM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote:
> > Thanks for the story, Jack.
> > 
> > Given how much of a believer in good public documentation i am, however curious:
> > 
> > Was the functionality in question well enough publically documented with
> > according early dates ? I suspect not befcause i would be surprised if the documentation
> > would not have been good enough, if it existed. After all, most patents are also graanted
> > without evidence that they work, so its patenting of concept, not evidence
> > thereof (which might have been different in decades before my time though..).
> > 
> > Cheers
> >      Toerless
> > 
> > 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

-- 
---
tte at cs.fau.de


From dave.walden.family at gmail.com  Thu May 13 12:16:48 2021
From: dave.walden.family at gmail.com (Dave Walden)
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 15:16:48 -0400
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <20210513185925.GJ40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
 <7A366161-2853-4040-8F36-16BD94E75A6A@webhistory.org>
 <401f9756-d888-fa3c-ba71-9744f166d0b2@dcrocker.net>
 <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>
 <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
 <d8412b9c-c85c-aaa5-70f5-191ce7df38aa@cavebear.com>
 <20210512232213.GC40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <30d52ad8-c868-7b52-a052-329ae024810d@3kitty.org>
 <20210513032142.GE40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <329bc039-7f08-fd16-e9e4-d7d140c5b7b5@gmail.com>
 <20210513185925.GJ40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Message-ID: <CAM1V=pnWHNOkdvK+rxFXoQhAram=GC_FrUWDG_K4eaH_KcvOxQ@mail.gmail.com>

I assume it was always public since the listing itself was public -- for a
small shipping fee we sent a mag tape of the listing to people who
requested it. I worked on the similar TIP documentation while watching the
Watergate hearings on TV.
The imp doc has been very useful as my memory got weaker.

On Thu, May 13, 2021, 2:59 PM Toerless Eckert <tte at cs.fau.de> wrote:

> So who would back in the day read this documentation, and at which point in
> time did it become "public" ?
>
> If it was produced grudgingly and maybe not even read by government folks
> funding the project, one can still be very happy about at that point in
> time
> maybe seemingly useless bureaucracy now. Very interesting read.
>
> Cheers
>     Toerless
>
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 09:30:21AM -0400, dave walden via Internet-history
> wrote:
> > The 1973 IMP had extensive documentation although not for the purpose of
> a
> > patent dispute and not exactly for the same listing version as we were
> > analyzing.
> > See
> https://walden-family.com/impcode/IMPSYS-Document-with-flowcharts.pdf
> > and'
> > https://walden-family.com/impcode/Technical_Information_Report_89.pdf
> > These also are now archived at the Software History Center of the
> Computer
> > History Museum.
> >
> > Such documentation was not our normal practice.  It was required one
> year by
> > whichever government person was managing our contract --- for a purpose
> I do
> > not remember.  More normally, the documentation was the listing and in
> the
> > memory of the program maintainer.
> >
> >
> > On 5/12/2021 11:21 PM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote:
> > > Thanks for the story, Jack.
> > >
> > > Given how much of a believer in good public documentation i am,
> however curious:
> > >
> > > Was the functionality in question well enough publically documented
> with
> > > according early dates ? I suspect not befcause i would be surprised if
> the documentation
> > > would not have been good enough, if it existed. After all, most
> patents are also graanted
> > > without evidence that they work, so its patenting of concept, not
> evidence
> > > thereof (which might have been different in decades before my time
> though..).
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >      Toerless
> > >
> > >
> > --
> > 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  Thu May 13 13:03:13 2021
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 13:03:13 -0700
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <20210513185925.GJ40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
 <7A366161-2853-4040-8F36-16BD94E75A6A@webhistory.org>
 <401f9756-d888-fa3c-ba71-9744f166d0b2@dcrocker.net>
 <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>
 <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
 <d8412b9c-c85c-aaa5-70f5-191ce7df38aa@cavebear.com>
 <20210512232213.GC40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <30d52ad8-c868-7b52-a052-329ae024810d@3kitty.org>
 <20210513032142.GE40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <329bc039-7f08-fd16-e9e4-d7d140c5b7b5@gmail.com>
 <20210513185925.GJ40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Message-ID: <d18bc30e-8d31-b890-0698-6c903b1b786c@3kitty.org>

PatentLand really is complicated to navigate through, and I'm not
competent to explain it.? I did learn a lot from the lawyers I worked
with about the legal jungle, and they learned a bit too about how
computers really work.

We did find Alex's paper and many others.?? But like most of the
paperwork, it lacked detail to show, to judges and juries who probably
don't understand the words, that the IMP did all of those things
described in that "claim" verbiage.

There are other aspects that lawyers argue about.? For example, one can
argue that it is not sufficient that some idea was published.??? For
something to qualify as "prior art" it has to be some design detail, or
technique, or practice that would have "been known by an ordinary
practitioner of the art", or could have been known if that person had
managed to read about it.? In other words, it has to have been used, in
some kind of public way, so that other everyday engineers could have
used the same approach.

Of course, one can bring in a person to testify about that, assuming
that such people can be found after 40 years, and, as the lawyer told
me, "still have all their marbles."?? As an expert witness who was
actually an engineer in that time frame, I could give first-hand
testimony. ? But that could be challenged by pointing out that an
"expert" is not necessarily indicative of "an ordinary practitioner of
the art".

Take all of what I just said with the caveat IANAL.?? Talk to your
patent attorneys.?? I've learned you'll likely never get the Truth, but
you'll be able to get informed Opinions -- for a judge/jury to make the
final decision.?? That's why working hardware/software was so desirable
-- you can see it in action.?? The old mantra "Rough Consensus and
Running Code" applies in courthouses too.

FYI, the way I got involved in this battle happened when a researcher
working on the case stumbled across an old document I wrote about "XNET"
(IEN 158), somehow found me and asked if I was the author of that
then-34-year-old document.?? They surmised that XNET might be a lead
toward some possible prior art, but the 1980 date of that IEN was
uncomfortably close to the relevant cutoff date.? I mentioned that XNET
was just documenting for the Internet in 1980 what had been going on for
more than a decade? earlier in the ARPANET.?? That's when the IMP became
the very interesting candidate as source of proof of prior art.

In digging through all sorts of old IENs, RFCs, papers, et al, one issue
that frequently came up was whether or not a technique described was
ever actually implemented and available to "ordinary practitioners of
the art".?? RFCs and IENs describe hundreds, maybe thousands, of
protocols, algorithms, etc., but it's very difficult to determine which
of them have actually ever operated in real hardware and software.??

IENs, RFCs, et al seem to describe lots of ideas but little about how
those ideas have actually been used in the operational Internet.?? I've
wondered how many of those legions of protocols and algorithms are
actually present in the computer I'm using now.?? More documentation of
that aspect of the Internet would be welcome.

You can't patent an idea or concept.?? It has to be captured in some
real implementation, or at least a design of one.?? That's why the
patent claim describes processors connected to memories, etc.

/Jack Haverty




On 5/13/21 11:59 AM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote:
> So who would back in the day read this documentation, and at which point in
> time did it become "public" ?
>
> If it was produced grudgingly and maybe not even read by government folks
> funding the project, one can still be very happy about at that point in time
> maybe seemingly useless bureaucracy now. Very interesting read.
>
> Cheers
>     Toerless
>
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 09:30:21AM -0400, dave walden via Internet-history wrote:
>> The 1973 IMP had extensive documentation although not for the purpose of a
>> patent dispute and not exactly for the same listing version as we were
>> analyzing.
>> See https://walden-family.com/impcode/IMPSYS-Document-with-flowcharts.pdf
>> and'
>> https://walden-family.com/impcode/Technical_Information_Report_89.pdf
>> These also are now archived at the Software History Center of the Computer
>> History Museum.
>>
>> Such documentation was not our normal practice.? It was required one year by
>> whichever government person was managing our contract --- for a purpose I do
>> not remember.? More normally, the documentation was the listing and in the
>> memory of the program maintainer.
>>
>>
>> On 5/12/2021 11:21 PM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote:
>>> Thanks for the story, Jack.
>>>
>>> Given how much of a believer in good public documentation i am, however curious:
>>>
>>> Was the functionality in question well enough publically documented with
>>> according early dates ? I suspect not befcause i would be surprised if the documentation
>>> would not have been good enough, if it existed. After all, most patents are also graanted
>>> without evidence that they work, so its patenting of concept, not evidence
>>> thereof (which might have been different in decades before my time though..).
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>      Toerless
>>>
>>>
>> -- 
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From tte at cs.fau.de  Thu May 13 16:02:05 2021
From: tte at cs.fau.de (Toerless Eckert)
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 01:02:05 +0200
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <CAM1V=pnWHNOkdvK+rxFXoQhAram=GC_FrUWDG_K4eaH_KcvOxQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <401f9756-d888-fa3c-ba71-9744f166d0b2@dcrocker.net>
 <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>
 <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
 <d8412b9c-c85c-aaa5-70f5-191ce7df38aa@cavebear.com>
 <20210512232213.GC40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <30d52ad8-c868-7b52-a052-329ae024810d@3kitty.org>
 <20210513032142.GE40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <329bc039-7f08-fd16-e9e4-d7d140c5b7b5@gmail.com>
 <20210513185925.GJ40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <CAM1V=pnWHNOkdvK+rxFXoQhAram=GC_FrUWDG_K4eaH_KcvOxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20210513230205.GO40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>

Strange. First pages say:

MEMORANDUM
To: Recipients of IMPSYS document (herewith)
From: B. Brooks
Subject: IMPSYS document
Date: February 16, 1973
"This document is being given only to a few people in the IMP
group; please guard your copy and -keep it from prying eyes. 

THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN
BOLT BERANEK AND NEWMAN, INC . . PROPRIETARY INFORMATION.
FURNISHED FOR U. S. GOVERNMENT
END USE ONLY. 

Sounded confidential to me

Cheers
    Toerless

On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 03:16:48PM -0400, Dave Walden wrote:
> I assume it was always public since the listing itself was public -- for a
> small shipping fee we sent a mag tape of the listing to people who
> requested it. I worked on the similar TIP documentation while watching the
> Watergate hearings on TV.
> The imp doc has been very useful as my memory got weaker.
> 
> On Thu, May 13, 2021, 2:59 PM Toerless Eckert <tte at cs.fau.de> wrote:
> 
> > So who would back in the day read this documentation, and at which point in
> > time did it become "public" ?
> >
> > If it was produced grudgingly and maybe not even read by government folks
> > funding the project, one can still be very happy about at that point in
> > time
> > maybe seemingly useless bureaucracy now. Very interesting read.
> >
> > Cheers
> >     Toerless
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 09:30:21AM -0400, dave walden via Internet-history
> > wrote:
> > > The 1973 IMP had extensive documentation although not for the purpose of
> > a
> > > patent dispute and not exactly for the same listing version as we were
> > > analyzing.
> > > See
> > https://walden-family.com/impcode/IMPSYS-Document-with-flowcharts.pdf
> > > and'
> > > https://walden-family.com/impcode/Technical_Information_Report_89.pdf
> > > These also are now archived at the Software History Center of the
> > Computer
> > > History Museum.
> > >
> > > Such documentation was not our normal practice.  It was required one
> > year by
> > > whichever government person was managing our contract --- for a purpose
> > I do
> > > not remember.  More normally, the documentation was the listing and in
> > the
> > > memory of the program maintainer.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/12/2021 11:21 PM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote:
> > > > Thanks for the story, Jack.
> > > >
> > > > Given how much of a believer in good public documentation i am,
> > however curious:
> > > >
> > > > Was the functionality in question well enough publically documented
> > with
> > > > according early dates ? I suspect not befcause i would be surprised if
> > the documentation
> > > > would not have been good enough, if it existed. After all, most
> > patents are also graanted
> > > > without evidence that they work, so its patenting of concept, not
> > evidence
> > > > thereof (which might have been different in decades before my time
> > though..).
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >      Toerless
> > > >
> > > >
> > > --
> > > Internet-history mailing list
> > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >
> > --
> > ---
> > tte at cs.fau.de
> >

-- 
---
tte at cs.fau.de


From karl at cavebear.com  Thu May 13 17:14:22 2021
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 17:14:22 -0700
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <d18bc30e-8d31-b890-0698-6c903b1b786c@3kitty.org>
References: <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
 <7A366161-2853-4040-8F36-16BD94E75A6A@webhistory.org>
 <401f9756-d888-fa3c-ba71-9744f166d0b2@dcrocker.net>
 <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>
 <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
 <d8412b9c-c85c-aaa5-70f5-191ce7df38aa@cavebear.com>
 <20210512232213.GC40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <30d52ad8-c868-7b52-a052-329ae024810d@3kitty.org>
 <20210513032142.GE40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <329bc039-7f08-fd16-e9e4-d7d140c5b7b5@gmail.com>
 <20210513185925.GJ40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <d18bc30e-8d31-b890-0698-6c903b1b786c@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <04cdd5b9-a22a-8f98-8c4b-e7b536ab77ef@cavebear.com>

One thing about patents and "prior art" is the frequent unwillingness of 
people to look outside of their own disciplines.

Let's look at the notion of the IMP reloading its memory when it forgot.

In our human world one might say "I forget Joe's address, do you 
remember it?"? That's similar to the IMPs request for a software image.? 
And the human response, "Oh, it's 123 Imp Lane" is similar to the 
forgetful IMP getting a refresher from a neighbor IMP.

In a patent one might start with a broad claim such as "Refreshing 
memory from neighbor" and then narrow that down with subsequent claims 
such as "Computer refreshing memory from a neighbor computer via a network".

That's perhaps a weak example.?? I have long been intrigued by learning 
from biology - plants and animals are amazing robust - to see what we 
can do to improve network reliability and reduce operating costs.? There 
are a lot of lessons - such as aim for survival rather than optimum or 
most efficient use of resources. Another is to layer mechanisms so that 
if one fails there is a backup - this is how trees, for instance, often 
show surprising resilience to new conditions - and could perhaps help us 
harden the Internet's routing systems.

Given a quite synoptic view one could see how a patent on a Covid RNA 
vaccine technique that informs a person's immune systems of 
yet-to-be-experienced viruses could arguably be applied to the sharing 
of Snort intrusion signatures (rules) - both are informing defensive 
systems about ways to identify an attacker.

Everyone here on this list has a deep education that feeds imaginative 
intellects.? I suspect that everyone here has at one time or another had 
an insight that bridged between disciplines.

The Patent Office isn't so smart, informed, or imaginative. While we may 
say "but that's obvious" the patent examiners may be unwilling to 
quickly agree.

It is for that reason that I have been concerned that many of our 
Internet documents have become dry specifications without expressing the 
reasoning and experimentation behind those specifications, or discussing 
the paths not taken (and why.) [Indeed those mentions of the paths not 
taken could sometimes be more important in a patent fight than the 
reasoning that was adopted for a particular Internet technology.]

When fighting patents the goal is often not to fight the patent in its 
entirety but to restrict the scope of the patent to the most narrow of 
its sequence of ever-tightening claims.

 ??? ??? --karl--





From tte at cs.fau.de  Thu May 13 17:58:08 2021
From: tte at cs.fau.de (Toerless Eckert)
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 02:58:08 +0200
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <04cdd5b9-a22a-8f98-8c4b-e7b536ab77ef@cavebear.com>
References: <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>
 <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
 <d8412b9c-c85c-aaa5-70f5-191ce7df38aa@cavebear.com>
 <20210512232213.GC40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <30d52ad8-c868-7b52-a052-329ae024810d@3kitty.org>
 <20210513032142.GE40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <329bc039-7f08-fd16-e9e4-d7d140c5b7b5@gmail.com>
 <20210513185925.GJ40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <d18bc30e-8d31-b890-0698-6c903b1b786c@3kitty.org>
 <04cdd5b9-a22a-8f98-8c4b-e7b536ab77ef@cavebear.com>
Message-ID: <20210514005808.GR40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>

On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 05:14:22PM -0700, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
> One thing about patents and "prior art" is the frequent unwillingness of
> people to look outside of their own disciplines.

Sure, but often there is a patent worthy step involved in porting an idea
into another discipline as well.

> Let's look at the notion of the IMP reloading its memory when it forgot.
> 
> In our human world one might say "I forget Joe's address, do you remember
> it?"? That's similar to the IMPs request for a software image.? And the
> human response, "Oh, it's 123 Imp Lane" is similar to the forgetful IMP
> getting a refresher from a neighbor IMP.
> 
> In a patent one might start with a broad claim such as "Refreshing memory
> from neighbor" and then narrow that down with subsequent claims such as
> "Computer refreshing memory from a neighbor computer via a network".
> 
> That's perhaps a weak example.?? I have long been intrigued by learning from
> biology - plants and animals are amazing robust - to see what we can do to
> improve network reliability and reduce operating costs.? There are a lot of
> lessons - such as aim for survival rather than optimum or most efficient use
> of resources. Another is to layer mechanisms so that if one fails there is a
> backup - this is how trees, for instance, often show surprising resilience
> to new conditions - and could perhaps help us harden the Internet's routing
> systems.

Interestingly thats not too far off from the military. History books always
point to distributed routing protocols having been developed for
survivability under attack. Whether thats a true Arpanet creation goal or
just a nice historic myth, it is still a good problem to consider today:
"what happens if i shoot down this component (how about that SDN controller)".
And then the backup and the backup...

Ultimately, this almost-fully self-forming/self-repairing
and self-securing network completely at device level (as opposed to only
at the routing subsystem level) is at the core of what we are doing in ANIMA-WG.

> Given a quite synoptic view one could see how a patent on a Covid RNA
> vaccine technique that informs a person's immune systems of
> yet-to-be-experienced viruses could arguably be applied to the sharing of
> Snort intrusion signatures (rules) - both are informing defensive systems
> about ways to identify an attacker.

Do you want to write a draft about that for ANIMA ? We should have a
good underlying secure messaging system to do th dissemination of that data ;-))

> Everyone here on this list has a deep education that feeds imaginative
> intellects.? I suspect that everyone here has at one time or another had an
> insight that bridged between disciplines.
> 
> The Patent Office isn't so smart, informed, or imaginative.

The only person having worked at a patent office i know by name is Albert Einstein ;-)

I think nowadays there is a lot of name-calling based pattern matching.
The feedback received for patent submissions typically are:
I found your component 1 word in patent 1, ... your component N word in
patent N. How can your patent be novel, i just need to put patent 1...N
into a mixer, press start, and e voila your new patent smoothie.

Maybe there are no humans by AI working in the patent office nowadays. At least
the logic of responses often sounds like cheap & silly logics.

> While we may say
> "but that's obvious" the patent examiners may be unwilling to quickly agree.
> 
> It is for that reason that I have been concerned that many of our Internet
> documents have become dry specifications without expressing the reasoning
> and experimentation behind those specifications, or discussing the paths not
> taken (and why.) [Indeed those mentions of the paths not taken could
> sometimes be more important in a patent fight than the reasoning that was
> adopted for a particular Internet technology.]

Well... My theory is that prudent engineers simply put into RFCs the minimum
necessary specification text so that the all 3 company developers involved
in writing the RFC have a good chance their implementations interoperate.

I say prudent, because whenever you start writing more than this, you are
not helping yourself: You may encourage even more competing implementations,
such as from tier 2 vendors who do not bother to participate in the IETF
process at all. And you have to edit more text which takes longer.

I specifically dislike the standard behavior of prudent engineers to simply
answer (IESG or other) reviewer questions only in email. I for once answered
them by adding the answer text to the draft. But trust me, thats not prudent when you are
interested in getting an RFC out in any reasonable time.

Aka: fully agree with you, but its a bit part of being successful in IETF.
> 
> When fighting patents the goal is often not to fight the patent in its
> entirety but to restrict the scope of the patent to the most narrow of its
> sequence of ever-tightening claims.

I think there needs to be more fundamental reform than these struggles.

Cheers
    Toerless

> ??? ??? --karl--
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

-- 
---
tte at cs.fau.de


From agmalis at gmail.com  Fri May 14 04:14:05 2021
From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis)
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 07:14:05 -0400
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <20210514005808.GR40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>
 <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
 <d8412b9c-c85c-aaa5-70f5-191ce7df38aa@cavebear.com>
 <20210512232213.GC40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <30d52ad8-c868-7b52-a052-329ae024810d@3kitty.org>
 <20210513032142.GE40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <329bc039-7f08-fd16-e9e4-d7d140c5b7b5@gmail.com>
 <20210513185925.GJ40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <d18bc30e-8d31-b890-0698-6c903b1b786c@3kitty.org>
 <04cdd5b9-a22a-8f98-8c4b-e7b536ab77ef@cavebear.com>
 <20210514005808.GR40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Message-ID: <CAA=duU0VU09=-yr0udr2nsqXpn-Q+PC4dz0yQzN70Mh+unuzkA@mail.gmail.com>

Toerless and Karl,

As you well know (but others on this last may not), IETF WGs sometimes use
an informational "framework" or "architecture" RFC separate from the actual
protocol specification RFC to document the possible approaches to the
problem, and explain why the particular solution was chosen. So when
reading a protocol spec, it's good to check the references for such
other documents.

Cheers,
Andy


On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 8:58 PM Toerless Eckert via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 05:14:22PM -0700, Karl Auerbach via
> Internet-history wrote:
> > One thing about patents and "prior art" is the frequent unwillingness of
> > people to look outside of their own disciplines.
>
> Sure, but often there is a patent worthy step involved in porting an idea
> into another discipline as well.
>
> > Let's look at the notion of the IMP reloading its memory when it forgot.
> >
> > In our human world one might say "I forget Joe's address, do you remember
> > it?"  That's similar to the IMPs request for a software image.  And the
> > human response, "Oh, it's 123 Imp Lane" is similar to the forgetful IMP
> > getting a refresher from a neighbor IMP.
> >
> > In a patent one might start with a broad claim such as "Refreshing memory
> > from neighbor" and then narrow that down with subsequent claims such as
> > "Computer refreshing memory from a neighbor computer via a network".
> >
> > That's perhaps a weak example.   I have long been intrigued by learning
> from
> > biology - plants and animals are amazing robust - to see what we can do
> to
> > improve network reliability and reduce operating costs.  There are a lot
> of
> > lessons - such as aim for survival rather than optimum or most efficient
> use
> > of resources. Another is to layer mechanisms so that if one fails there
> is a
> > backup - this is how trees, for instance, often show surprising
> resilience
> > to new conditions - and could perhaps help us harden the Internet's
> routing
> > systems.
>
> Interestingly thats not too far off from the military. History books always
> point to distributed routing protocols having been developed for
> survivability under attack. Whether thats a true Arpanet creation goal or
> just a nice historic myth, it is still a good problem to consider today:
> "what happens if i shoot down this component (how about that SDN
> controller)".
> And then the backup and the backup...
>
> Ultimately, this almost-fully self-forming/self-repairing
> and self-securing network completely at device level (as opposed to only
> at the routing subsystem level) is at the core of what we are doing in
> ANIMA-WG.
>
> > Given a quite synoptic view one could see how a patent on a Covid RNA
> > vaccine technique that informs a person's immune systems of
> > yet-to-be-experienced viruses could arguably be applied to the sharing of
> > Snort intrusion signatures (rules) - both are informing defensive systems
> > about ways to identify an attacker.
>
> Do you want to write a draft about that for ANIMA ? We should have a
> good underlying secure messaging system to do th dissemination of that
> data ;-))
>
> > Everyone here on this list has a deep education that feeds imaginative
> > intellects.  I suspect that everyone here has at one time or another had
> an
> > insight that bridged between disciplines.
> >
> > The Patent Office isn't so smart, informed, or imaginative.
>
> The only person having worked at a patent office i know by name is Albert
> Einstein ;-)
>
> I think nowadays there is a lot of name-calling based pattern matching.
> The feedback received for patent submissions typically are:
> I found your component 1 word in patent 1, ... your component N word in
> patent N. How can your patent be novel, i just need to put patent 1...N
> into a mixer, press start, and e voila your new patent smoothie.
>
> Maybe there are no humans by AI working in the patent office nowadays. At
> least
> the logic of responses often sounds like cheap & silly logics.
>
> > While we may say
> > "but that's obvious" the patent examiners may be unwilling to quickly
> agree.
> >
> > It is for that reason that I have been concerned that many of our
> Internet
> > documents have become dry specifications without expressing the reasoning
> > and experimentation behind those specifications, or discussing the paths
> not
> > taken (and why.) [Indeed those mentions of the paths not taken could
> > sometimes be more important in a patent fight than the reasoning that was
> > adopted for a particular Internet technology.]
>
> Well... My theory is that prudent engineers simply put into RFCs the
> minimum
> necessary specification text so that the all 3 company developers involved
> in writing the RFC have a good chance their implementations interoperate.
>
> I say prudent, because whenever you start writing more than this, you are
> not helping yourself: You may encourage even more competing
> implementations,
> such as from tier 2 vendors who do not bother to participate in the IETF
> process at all. And you have to edit more text which takes longer.
>
> I specifically dislike the standard behavior of prudent engineers to simply
> answer (IESG or other) reviewer questions only in email. I for once
> answered
> them by adding the answer text to the draft. But trust me, thats not
> prudent when you are
> interested in getting an RFC out in any reasonable time.
>
> Aka: fully agree with you, but its a bit part of being successful in IETF.
> >
> > When fighting patents the goal is often not to fight the patent in its
> > entirety but to restrict the scope of the patent to the most narrow of
> its
> > sequence of ever-tightening claims.
>
> I think there needs to be more fundamental reform than these struggles.
>
> Cheers
>     Toerless
>
> >         --karl--
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
> --
> ---
> tte at cs.fau.de
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From lars at eggert.org  Fri May 14 09:31:49 2021
From: lars at eggert.org (Lars Eggert)
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 19:31:49 +0300
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <48122add-2607-5442-1eb9-288fbbca82f3@gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1620500402.10798.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <04BAB0F6-3A5D-4A8B-952C-817A21DF3EA7@earthlink.net>
 <7A366161-2853-4040-8F36-16BD94E75A6A@webhistory.org>
 <401f9756-d888-fa3c-ba71-9744f166d0b2@dcrocker.net>
 <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>
 <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
 <d8412b9c-c85c-aaa5-70f5-191ce7df38aa@cavebear.com>
 <20210512232213.GC40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <48122add-2607-5442-1eb9-288fbbca82f3@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F0D85E5B-57EA-4917-B70B-DEE3688D0C34@eggert.org>

Hi,

On 2021-5-13, at 6:23, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> This isn't an IETF mailing list, but if it was, I'd suggest finding out what the IETF Secretariat plus the RFC Editor already archive. The RFC (+IEN) archive is certainly pretty solid. As far as I know, the I-D archive has been used many times in prior art searches, including litigation. Whether mailing list archives and meeting minutes have been used too, I don't know. Certainly, some list archives prior to ietf.org hosting the lists can be hard to find.

the IETF data has been the target for quite a bit of analysis by researchers in recent years, and there are scripts to grab a copy of (much of) the data, prior to analysis. See https://datactive.github.io/bigbang/

Thanks,
Lars

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20210514/63518db2/attachment.asc>

From jack at 3kitty.org  Fri May 14 19:42:53 2021
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 19:42:53 -0700
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <20210514005808.GR40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>
 <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
 <d8412b9c-c85c-aaa5-70f5-191ce7df38aa@cavebear.com>
 <20210512232213.GC40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <30d52ad8-c868-7b52-a052-329ae024810d@3kitty.org>
 <20210513032142.GE40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <329bc039-7f08-fd16-e9e4-d7d140c5b7b5@gmail.com>
 <20210513185925.GJ40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <d18bc30e-8d31-b890-0698-6c903b1b786c@3kitty.org>
 <04cdd5b9-a22a-8f98-8c4b-e7b536ab77ef@cavebear.com>
 <20210514005808.GR40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Message-ID: <db96b1dc-a328-c5a1-1f09-e61acb3facb7@3kitty.org>

The particular patent I mentioned is one of those cross-discipline
situations.? It came out of the Television industry, who apparently
discovered computers when they became cheap enough to become the core
component of set-top boxes.? So, of course they encountered the same
issues as computer network people had hit a decade or two earlier, when
computers were scarce and expensive.? So they invented, and patented,
similar solutions.?? During the 70s era of computers and networking, I
don't recall anyone ever mentioning or discussing the patentability of
anything we did.?? It just wasn't the culture at the time.?? But we
apparently created a lot of prior art.?? If you can find it.

Re the relation to military history...?? In high school I learned about
Roman history, and still remembered some of it circa 1978-9 as we were
defining the next generation TCP (v4).? Roman generals had problems in
communicating from the hinterlands of the Empire back to Rome.? No fiber
or satellites, but they did build an impressive network of roads and
marine routes.

Still, there were problems with "dropouts" (e.g., courier captured by
bandits) and such events.? So they developed techniques such as sending
a message by several different couriers to assure that at least one copy
got through.?? They might also dispatch one by land over some mountain
range, and another by sea, to mitigate the threat of pirates or highway
robbers.?? For especially secret messages, they might split the message
up into pieces, and send different pieces by different couriers, so that
capturing one or two wouldn't reveal the message contents.

Of course the contemporary military has exactly the same kinds of
problems in assuring that messages get through.?? If you think of
packets as "couriers", you can get some very similar solutions for
today's networks.? Similarly, you might think of a TCP connection as one
"courier route", and use multiple such "connections" to get reliable
communications.

As an example of "looking outside your discipline", I remember
discussing the Roman "protocols" in some Internet meetings of the late
70s era.?? The discussion generated some entries on the list of "things
we have to work on someday".?? One example is "Multi-homed Hosts", i.e.,
how to operate TCP connections where one or both endpoints are attached
to multiple distinct networks.?? AFAIK we still don't support that.??
Same with "Diversity Routing" (sending packets by intentionally
different routes).

Caesar apparently never patented any of these inventions, probably
preferring to keep them as trade secrets.?? Even if he had, the patent
lifetime has probably run out by now.?? 2000 years or so should be
sufficient...assuming it's not still in litigation of course.

/Jack Haverty




On 5/13/21 5:58 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 05:14:22PM -0700, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
>> One thing about patents and "prior art" is the frequent unwillingness of
>> people to look outside of their own disciplines.
> Sure, but often there is a patent worthy step involved in porting an idea
> into another discipline as well.
>
>> Let's look at the notion of the IMP reloading its memory when it forgot.
>>
>> In our human world one might say "I forget Joe's address, do you remember
>> it?"? That's similar to the IMPs request for a software image.? And the
>> human response, "Oh, it's 123 Imp Lane" is similar to the forgetful IMP
>> getting a refresher from a neighbor IMP.
>>
>> In a patent one might start with a broad claim such as "Refreshing memory
>> from neighbor" and then narrow that down with subsequent claims such as
>> "Computer refreshing memory from a neighbor computer via a network".
>>
>> That's perhaps a weak example.?? I have long been intrigued by learning from
>> biology - plants and animals are amazing robust - to see what we can do to
>> improve network reliability and reduce operating costs.? There are a lot of
>> lessons - such as aim for survival rather than optimum or most efficient use
>> of resources. Another is to layer mechanisms so that if one fails there is a
>> backup - this is how trees, for instance, often show surprising resilience
>> to new conditions - and could perhaps help us harden the Internet's routing
>> systems.
> Interestingly thats not too far off from the military. History books always
> point to distributed routing protocols having been developed for
> survivability under attack. Whether thats a true Arpanet creation goal or
> just a nice historic myth, it is still a good problem to consider today:
> "what happens if i shoot down this component (how about that SDN controller)".
> And then the backup and the backup...
>
> Ultimately, this almost-fully self-forming/self-repairing
> and self-securing network completely at device level (as opposed to only
> at the routing subsystem level) is at the core of what we are doing in ANIMA-WG.
>
>> Given a quite synoptic view one could see how a patent on a Covid RNA
>> vaccine technique that informs a person's immune systems of
>> yet-to-be-experienced viruses could arguably be applied to the sharing of
>> Snort intrusion signatures (rules) - both are informing defensive systems
>> about ways to identify an attacker.
> Do you want to write a draft about that for ANIMA ? We should have a
> good underlying secure messaging system to do th dissemination of that data ;-))
>
>> Everyone here on this list has a deep education that feeds imaginative
>> intellects.? I suspect that everyone here has at one time or another had an
>> insight that bridged between disciplines.
>>
>> The Patent Office isn't so smart, informed, or imaginative.
> The only person having worked at a patent office i know by name is Albert Einstein ;-)
>
> I think nowadays there is a lot of name-calling based pattern matching.
> The feedback received for patent submissions typically are:
> I found your component 1 word in patent 1, ... your component N word in
> patent N. How can your patent be novel, i just need to put patent 1...N
> into a mixer, press start, and e voila your new patent smoothie.
>
> Maybe there are no humans by AI working in the patent office nowadays. At least
> the logic of responses often sounds like cheap & silly logics.
>
>> While we may say
>> "but that's obvious" the patent examiners may be unwilling to quickly agree.
>>
>> It is for that reason that I have been concerned that many of our Internet
>> documents have become dry specifications without expressing the reasoning
>> and experimentation behind those specifications, or discussing the paths not
>> taken (and why.) [Indeed those mentions of the paths not taken could
>> sometimes be more important in a patent fight than the reasoning that was
>> adopted for a particular Internet technology.]
> Well... My theory is that prudent engineers simply put into RFCs the minimum
> necessary specification text so that the all 3 company developers involved
> in writing the RFC have a good chance their implementations interoperate.
>
> I say prudent, because whenever you start writing more than this, you are
> not helping yourself: You may encourage even more competing implementations,
> such as from tier 2 vendors who do not bother to participate in the IETF
> process at all. And you have to edit more text which takes longer.
>
> I specifically dislike the standard behavior of prudent engineers to simply
> answer (IESG or other) reviewer questions only in email. I for once answered
> them by adding the answer text to the draft. But trust me, thats not prudent when you are
> interested in getting an RFC out in any reasonable time.
>
> Aka: fully agree with you, but its a bit part of being successful in IETF.
>> When fighting patents the goal is often not to fight the patent in its
>> entirety but to restrict the scope of the patent to the most narrow of its
>> sequence of ever-tightening claims.
> I think there needs to be more fundamental reform than these struggles.
>
> Cheers
>     Toerless
>
>> ??? ??? --karl--
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From steffen at sdaoden.eu  Sat May 15 10:59:59 2021
From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso)
Date: Sat, 15 May 2021 19:59:59 +0200
Subject: [ih] Saving IETF history
In-Reply-To: <db96b1dc-a328-c5a1-1f09-e61acb3facb7@3kitty.org>
References: <568172E2-79A0-4FD1-ABBD-88ED8962B9F9@comcast.net>
 <11637.1620548612@hop.toad.com>
 <d8412b9c-c85c-aaa5-70f5-191ce7df38aa@cavebear.com>
 <20210512232213.GC40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <30d52ad8-c868-7b52-a052-329ae024810d@3kitty.org>
 <20210513032142.GE40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <329bc039-7f08-fd16-e9e4-d7d140c5b7b5@gmail.com>
 <20210513185925.GJ40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <d18bc30e-8d31-b890-0698-6c903b1b786c@3kitty.org>
 <04cdd5b9-a22a-8f98-8c4b-e7b536ab77ef@cavebear.com>
 <20210514005808.GR40483@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
 <db96b1dc-a328-c5a1-1f09-e61acb3facb7@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <20210515175959.BkOiE%steffen@sdaoden.eu>

Jack Haverty wrote in
 <db96b1dc-a328-c5a1-1f09-e61acb3facb7 at 3kitty.org>:
 ...
 |Re the relation to military history...?? In high school I learned about
 |Roman history, and still remembered some of it circa 1978-9 as we were
 |defining the next generation TCP (v4).? Roman generals had problems in
 |communicating from the hinterlands of the Empire back to Rome.? No fiber
 |or satellites, but they did build an impressive network of roads and
 |marine routes.
 ...
 |Caesar apparently never patented any of these inventions, probably
 |preferring to keep them as trade secrets.?? Even if he had, the patent
 |lifetime has probably run out by now.?? 2000 years or so should be
 |sufficient...assuming it's not still in litigation of course.

I think Gauls could become angry reading this.
It is assumed that there was already a good road system which is
why Caesar could move so rapidly down there in Gaul.
(Rome is known for its splendidly constructed road system beside
that, of course: mostly straight, mostly flat, often
hard-surfaced, and even more.  Thousands of kilometres thereof.)

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)


From york at isoc.org  Sun May 16 18:28:50 2021
From: york at isoc.org (Dan York)
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 01:28:50 +0000
Subject: [ih] Anyone know about Unison Online Service from back in 1985-1987?
Message-ID: <DB09C494-1EE6-492E-962E-124DB4864E01@isoc.org>

Low priority question for the group - anyone know about ?Unison Online Service? that was apparently an online service from 1985-1987?

In my personal late-night Wikipedia editing, I came across a notice that this page has no references supporting any of the text, seems to have been created BY the person originally involved (Fred Dudden), and should probably be deleted (given that there are no sources that talk about the service):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unison_Online_Service

The editor raising this point asked, before kicking off the deletion process, if anyone had any info about the service, or any links to online sources or journals that might have any info about it. The idea being to establish that the service was ?notable? enough to warrant a Wikipedia page.

In doing some various searches, I couldn?t find any sources with info, but thought I?d ask here. If anyone remembers that service or can point to any info about it, I would appreciate the info.

And if not, that?s fine, too. I just thought I?d ask.

Dan

P.S. I also looked in the good old book ?!%@::? from O?Reilly (1994 version) and found no reference, but the book was looking mostly at larger networks. This service sounds like it might have been a BBS someone was running.

From joly at punkcast.com  Mon May 17 01:02:51 2021
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 04:02:51 -0400
Subject: [ih] Anyone know about Unison Online Service from back in
 1985-1987?
In-Reply-To: <DB09C494-1EE6-492E-962E-124DB4864E01@isoc.org>
References: <DB09C494-1EE6-492E-962E-124DB4864E01@isoc.org>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk2h8A+oaYxbkiW4KdZQBo99GukxiRDB4JnohYCM05d+Pw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Dan,

I see it a mention here https://www1.freewebs.com/gordonlaird/2-7ecun.htm

*Later that year (1986), the UNISON system became involved in an ownership
issue. This caused a great deal of concern over the future of Ecunet, Inc.
on Unison, and a group was delegated to explore potential new homes. The
"scouts" eventually recommended a move to a system based out of Hartford,
Connecticut, using the same "Participate" software we had worked with on
UNISON.*

joly

On Sun, May 16, 2021 at 9:28 PM Dan York via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Low priority question for the group - anyone know about ?Unison Online
> Service? that was apparently an online service from 1985-1987?
>
> In my personal late-night Wikipedia editing, I came across a notice that
> this page has no references supporting any of the text, seems to have been
> created BY the person originally involved (Fred Dudden), and should
> probably be deleted (given that there are no sources that talk about the
> service):
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unison_Online_Service
>
> The editor raising this point asked, before kicking off the deletion
> process, if anyone had any info about the service, or any links to online
> sources or journals that might have any info about it. The idea being to
> establish that the service was ?notable? enough to warrant a Wikipedia page.
>
> In doing some various searches, I couldn?t find any sources with info, but
> thought I?d ask here. If anyone remembers that service or can point to any
> info about it, I would appreciate the info.
>
> And if not, that?s fine, too. I just thought I?d ask.
>
> Dan
>
> P.S. I also looked in the good old book ?!%@::? from O?Reilly (1994
> version) and found no reference, but the book was looking mostly at larger
> networks. This service sounds like it might have been a BBS someone was
> running.
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


-- 
--------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  +12185659365
--------------------------------------
-


From dan at lynch.com  Tue May 18 14:24:08 2021
From: dan at lynch.com (Dan Lynch)
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 14:24:08 -0700
Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 20, Issue 4
In-Reply-To: <811E6714-AB49-457D-A1FA-021EDCCB7F75@comcast.net>
References: <811E6714-AB49-457D-A1FA-021EDCCB7F75@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <E02FB27E-0C26-4347-87EC-AB276C0A1B0B@lynch.com>

Yes it is a severe problem. And the costs of creating a fairly foolproof mechanism are turning out to be huge in the case of the 10,000 year clock that a few of our friends have found out in the past few decades. 

Dan

Cell 650-776-7313

> On May 8, 2021, at 5:17 PM, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> ?We have had that discussion on this list before. It isn?t a question of changing technologies. None of those technologies are known to last as long as paper, even if there was equipment to read them. This is a severe problem.
> 
> John
> 
>> On May 8, 2021, at 17:24, Jake Feinler via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>> I am jumping into the middle of this and haven?t seen what went before, but thought you would like to know
>> 
>> A full set of (paper) IENs is contained in the collection I gave to the Computer History Museum, Mountain View, CA..
>> 
>> And you will be amused to know that when I told a group at ISOC that my wish was for a computer storage medium that lasted as long as paper, everyone laughed and thought I was joking.  I wasn?t.  So far I have lived through:  library catalogs on cards, microfilm, microfiche, punched cards, computer tapes (both 7 and 9 track), floppy disks, small and large hard disks, thumb drives, information servers, the web, and the cloud (and probably a few I?ve forgotten).  Each has had more or less a 10 year time frame, before we moved on to something else and obsoleted everything that came before.  And try to find something that stands still on the web - now you see it, now you don?t. True, all these processes are faster and more portable, but not necessarily more durable. I say, historians should not count paper out, until they have something that can outlast it.
>> 
>> My 2c for what it is worth.
>> 
>> Jake
>> 
>>>> On May 8, 2021, at 12:00 PM, internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org 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. Fwd:  [xbbn] Re: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs) (John Day)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Sat, 8 May 2021 14:41:47 -0400
>>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
>>> To: BBN Alumni <xbbn at xbbn.org>, internet-history
>>>    <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>>> Subject: [ih] Fwd:  [xbbn] Re: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
>>> Message-ID: <34EF09B8-F26E-49B0-B982-096AA220DD13 at comcast.net>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset=utf-8
>>> 
>>> Sorry forgot Reply-All
>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [ih] [xbbn] Re: Museum archiving (was: Re: IENs)
>>>> Date: May 8, 2021 at 14:39:47 EDT
>>>> To: vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com>
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, I know. They weren?t my concern. Generally, it isn?t librarians who have these ideas. They understand. It is further up the chain that there are barbaric ideas. Much of CBI is available on-line. I thought that once they scanned material it became available.
>>>> 
>>>> They are currently renovating the ?math building? at Illinois. Altgeld is one of the oldest buildings on campus and the original library, now the math library. It has a glorious reading room with those great ?working and learning? murals of the early 20thC and they are making sure that they preserve and repair the glass floors of the stacks!! (Only have to light every other row on two floors.) The building and the math dept deserve each other. The floor plan has half floors and other twists and turns that make it almost a maze, and the secreted Bourbaki?s office!  ;-)
>>>> 
>>>>> On May 8, 2021, at 12:07, vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com <mailto:vgcerf at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> that is not the case here. Univ MN Library retains the originals.
>>>>> v
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 11:36 AM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>>> The thing that scares me are the administrators who think that that because the material has been scanned the original artifacts are no longer needed and can be discarded. It is far more important than that. At best, it means the artifacts don?t need to be handled as often, which as the centuries go on becomes more and more critical.
>>>>> 
>>>>> John
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On May 8, 2021, at 11:12, David Walden <dave.walden.family at gmail.com <mailto:dave.walden.family at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> i have been an amateur but serious historian for a couple of decades and accessing archives and observing professional historians over that time.  I think commitment to scanning/digitizing documents is important. Archives with tight budgets employing people not used to engineering level salaries and other compensation tend to see scanning/digitizing as *very*, perhaps prohibitively, expensively.  Document contributors on this list might be able to help them think about digitizing costs and methods.  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Back maybe to the sense of Dave's question, archives may not be interested in everything one has to give.  It may take more than one archive to find homes for one's materials.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Finding aids are important, as Craig noted.  An archive depending on google-like searches is less desirable in my view.  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On May 8, 2021, at 10:11 AM, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A slight correction, Craig. 
>>>>>>> I am a recognized historian in the History of Science and Cartography, primarily 17thC-18thC China and published widely. I have spent considerable time in archives across Asia and Europe and with private collectors. My experience goes well beyond computer museums, as I told Dave off-list, including junk rooms in the Vatican. (Sometimes one finds things in the oddest places.) ;-)
>>>>>>> You are right about access. Electronic copies can be nice, but there are important things about provenance, etc. that one can only learn by seeing the artifact itself.
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>> On May 8, 2021, at 08:50, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net <mailto:craig at tereschau.net> <mailto:craig at tereschau.net <mailto:craig at tereschau.net>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi Dave:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> You asked about museums and their commitment to archiving.  As someone who was trained as a historian and still does occasional archival work for fun, I'll hazard a somewhat structural answer and then John D. can comment on computing museums.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> One can assess archives on at least three dimensions:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> * Commitment to ensuring their collections are preserved for centuries to come.  This requires money (for fire suppression and temperature monitoring and the like) and also requires careful evaluation and planning (preserving paper for instance, is different from preserving paintings, which is different from preserving fabrics).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> * Commitment to creating finding aids (catalogs, indexes, collection descriptions) that enable researchers to find items in the collections.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> * Commitment to making their collections available for research (or public display).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The last may surprise folks but there are a number of institutions that have strong views about who should and should not be able to use their collections, usually to the detriment of scholarship and the public interest.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> (And, if you want an example of exactly how not to do all three, consider the team of scholars who were originally given control of the Dead Sea Scrolls).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> *****
>>>>>>>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists.
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
>>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history> <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "xBBN" group.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com <mailto:xbbn%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com> <mailto:xbbn+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com <mailto:xbbn%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com>>.
>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/xbbn/4leaofhw9jqn1xyb6xf2rhgb.1620486753719%40email.android.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ------------------------------
>>> 
>>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>> 
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ------------------------------
>>> 
>>> End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 20, Issue 4
>>> ***********************************************
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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