From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Aug 8 12:28:54 2022 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2022 15:28:54 -0400 Subject: [ih] Does anyone have a copy of this? Message-ID: <56D4B5BE-CF0B-4BCC-BB86-3AC3C5260462@comcast.net> I am looking for a copy of this paper: R. Kahn, Communications Principles for Operating Systems. Internal BBN memorandum, Jan. 1972. Proceedings of the IEEE, Special Issue on Packet Communication Networks, Volume 66, No. 11, November 1978. (Guest editor: Robert Kahn, associate guest editors: Keith Uncapher and Harry van Trees) I don?t know why the citation to the Proceedings of the IEEE was with the citation. The paper is not in that issue. The paper seems to be cited often, but finding a copy seems to be much more difficult. ;-) I have consulted the BBN library, the Computer History Museum, and the Charles Babbage Institute. None of them believe they have a copy. I have sent an email to Bob, but so far no reply. I am not sure where else to look. Suggestions? Thanks, John Day From amckenzie3 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 8 14:12:42 2022 From: amckenzie3 at yahoo.com (Alex McKenzie) Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2022 21:12:42 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] Article by Walden, Barker & McKenzie on ARPAnet Maintenance In-Reply-To: <816789611.1371814.1659993062457@mail.yahoo.com> References: <816789611.1371814.1659993062457.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <816789611.1371814.1659993062457@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <390846699.1373847.1659993162032@mail.yahoo.com> An article titled "Seeking High IMP Reliability in Maintenance of the 1970s ARPAnet" was recently published in the IEEE Annals of the History of Computing.? A copy of the version submitted by the authors prior to final editing and formatting is available at http://alexmckenzie.weebly.com/seeking-high-imp-reliability.html Cheers,Alex From joly at punkcast.com Thu Aug 18 12:58:34 2022 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 15:58:34 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?WEBCAST_AUG_18_=E2=80=93_Internet_Law_=26_Policy_?= =?utf-8?q?Foundry_=E2=80=93_The_Internet=3A_Past=2C_Present=2C_and?= =?utf-8?q?_Future_w/_Vint_Cerf_and_Steve_Crocker?= Message-ID: According to ISOC Live's long memory, the last time Vint & Steve sat down for one of these was Nov 12 2011 at the Smithsonian ! Video (ustream) no longer available, although no doubt stored somewhere in the vaults. [image: isoc live] On *Thursday August 18 2022* from *4pm-5pm EDT* (20:00-21:00 UTC) the *Internet Law & Policy Foundry * (The Foundry) will host Internet pioneers* Vint Cerf* and *Steve Crocker* at WeWork White House in Washington DC. The topic will be '*The Internet: Past, Present, and Future*'. The event is a recording for The Foundry's *'Tech Policy Grind' Podcast *. *SPEAKERS* *Vint Cerf*, Chief Internet Evangelist, Google *Steve Crocker*, CEO and co-founder, Shinkuro, Inc. *MODERATORS* *Joe Catapano*, Fellow, Internet Law & Policy Foundry *Reema Moussa*, Fellow, Internet Law & Policy Foundry *LIVESTREAM http://livestream.com/internetsociety/foundry-cerf-crocker * *PARTICIPATE IN PERSON / YOUTUBE https://cerf-crocker.eventbrite.com * *REAL TIME TEXT https://bit.ly/3KjmojT * *TWITTER #TechPolicyGrind @ILPFoundry @vgcerf @JosephCatapano @Reema_Moussa* *SIMULCASTS* *https://youtu.be/HW95aTTVUqQ* (Congressional Internet Caucus Academy) *https://www.twitter.com/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * *https://www.facebook.com/liveisoc/ *(AI Captions) *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/foundry-cerf-crocker * Permalink https://isoc.live/15691/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Thu Aug 18 14:07:20 2022 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 09:07:20 +1200 Subject: [ih] Fwd: STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) In-Reply-To: <20220818135827.DF5931527DC@rfcpa.amsl.com> References: <20220818135827.DF5931527DC@rfcpa.amsl.com> Message-ID: <01a2634b-bd5c-5347-540e-2dcaca3440bb@gmail.com> I'm thinking this is a big deal, historically: -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 06:58:27 -0700 (PDT) From: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org To: ietf-announce at ietf.org, rfc-dist at rfc-editor.org CC: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref at iana.org, tcpm at ietf.org A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. STD 7 RFC 9293 Title: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Author: W. Eddy, Ed. Status: Standards Track Stream: IETF Date: August 2022 Mailbox: wes at mti-systems.com Pages: 98 Obsoletes: RFC 793, RFC 879, RFC 2873, RFC 6093, RFC 6429, RFC 6528, RFC 6691 Updates: RFC 1011, RFC 1122, RFC 5961 See Also: STD 7 I-D Tag: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-28.txt URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9293 DOI: 10.17487/RFC9293 This document specifies the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). TCP is an important transport-layer protocol in the Internet protocol stack, and it has continuously evolved over decades of use and growth of the Internet. Over this time, a number of changes have been made to TCP as it was specified in RFC 793, though these have only been documented in a piecemeal fashion. This document collects and brings those changes together with the protocol specification from RFC 793. This document obsoletes RFC 793, as well as RFCs 879, 2873, 6093, 6429, 6528, and 6691 that updated parts of RFC 793. It updates RFCs 1011 and 1122, and it should be considered as a replacement for the portions of those documents dealing with TCP requirements. It also updates RFC 5961 by adding a small clarification in reset handling while in the SYN-RECEIVED state. The TCP header control bits from RFC 793 have also been updated based on RFC 3168. This document is a product of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group of the IETF. This is now an Internet Standard. STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce From tte at cs.fau.de Thu Aug 18 14:22:12 2022 From: tte at cs.fau.de (Toerless Eckert) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 23:22:12 +0200 Subject: [ih] Fwd: STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) In-Reply-To: <01a2634b-bd5c-5347-540e-2dcaca3440bb@gmail.com> References: <20220818135827.DF5931527DC@rfcpa.amsl.com> <01a2634b-bd5c-5347-540e-2dcaca3440bb@gmail.com> Message-ID: Indeed. Does RFC8200 qualify as an equal amount of improvements from RFC791 ? ;-) (yes unfair comparison). On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 09:07:20AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > I'm thinking this is a big deal, historically: > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) > Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 06:58:27 -0700 (PDT) > From: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org > To: ietf-announce at ietf.org, rfc-dist at rfc-editor.org > CC: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref at iana.org, tcpm at ietf.org > > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > > STD 7 > RFC 9293 > > Title: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) > Author: W. Eddy, Ed. > Status: Standards Track > Stream: IETF > Date: August 2022 > Mailbox: wes at mti-systems.com > Pages: 98 > Obsoletes: RFC 793, RFC 879, RFC 2873, RFC 6093, > RFC 6429, RFC 6528, RFC 6691 > Updates: RFC 1011, RFC 1122, RFC 5961 > See Also: STD 7 > > I-D Tag: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-28.txt > > URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9293 > > DOI: 10.17487/RFC9293 > > This document specifies the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). TCP > is an important transport-layer protocol in the Internet protocol > stack, and it has continuously evolved over decades of use and growth > of the Internet. Over this time, a number of changes have been made > to TCP as it was specified in RFC 793, though these have only been > documented in a piecemeal fashion. This document collects and brings > those changes together with the protocol specification from RFC 793. > This document obsoletes RFC 793, as well as RFCs 879, 2873, 6093, > 6429, 6528, and 6691 that updated parts of RFC 793. It updates RFCs > 1011 and 1122, and it should be considered as a replacement for the > portions of those documents dealing with TCP requirements. It also > updates RFC 5961 by adding a small clarification in reset handling > while in the SYN-RECEIVED state. The TCP header control bits from > RFC 793 have also been updated based on RFC 3168. > > This document is a product of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group of the IETF. > > This is now an Internet Standard. > > STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track > protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions > for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official > Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the > standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this > memo is unlimited. > > This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. > To subscribe or unsubscribe, see > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist > > For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search > For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk > > Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the > author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org. Unless > specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for > unlimited distribution. > > > The RFC Editor Team > Association Management Solutions, LLC > > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce at ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- --- tte at cs.fau.de From vgcerf at gmail.com Thu Aug 18 17:13:19 2022 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 20:13:19 -0400 Subject: [ih] Fwd: STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) In-Reply-To: <01a2634b-bd5c-5347-540e-2dcaca3440bb@gmail.com> References: <20220818135827.DF5931527DC@rfcpa.amsl.com> <01a2634b-bd5c-5347-540e-2dcaca3440bb@gmail.com> Message-ID: it is certainly a great consolidation of the evolution since 1974. v On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 5:07 PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > I'm thinking this is a big deal, historically: > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) > Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 06:58:27 -0700 (PDT) > From: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org > To: ietf-announce at ietf.org, rfc-dist at rfc-editor.org > CC: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref at iana.org, tcpm at ietf.org > > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > > STD 7 > RFC 9293 > > Title: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) > Author: W. Eddy, Ed. > Status: Standards Track > Stream: IETF > Date: August 2022 > Mailbox: wes at mti-systems.com > Pages: 98 > Obsoletes: RFC 793, RFC 879, RFC 2873, RFC 6093, > RFC 6429, RFC 6528, RFC 6691 > Updates: RFC 1011, RFC 1122, RFC 5961 > See Also: STD 7 > > I-D Tag: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-28.txt > > URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9293 > > DOI: 10.17487/RFC9293 > > This document specifies the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). TCP > is an important transport-layer protocol in the Internet protocol > stack, and it has continuously evolved over decades of use and growth > of the Internet. Over this time, a number of changes have been made > to TCP as it was specified in RFC 793, though these have only been > documented in a piecemeal fashion. This document collects and brings > those changes together with the protocol specification from RFC 793. > This document obsoletes RFC 793, as well as RFCs 879, 2873, 6093, > 6429, 6528, and 6691 that updated parts of RFC 793. It updates RFCs > 1011 and 1122, and it should be considered as a replacement for the > portions of those documents dealing with TCP requirements. It also > updates RFC 5961 by adding a small clarification in reset handling > while in the SYN-RECEIVED state. The TCP header control bits from > RFC 793 have also been updated based on RFC 3168. > > This document is a product of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions > Working Group of the IETF. > > This is now an Internet Standard. > > STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track > protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and > suggestions > for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official > Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the > standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this > memo is unlimited. > > This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. > To subscribe or unsubscribe, see > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist > > For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search > For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk > > Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the > author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org. Unless > specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for > unlimited distribution. > > > The RFC Editor Team > Association Management Solutions, LLC > > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce at ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From jeanjour at comcast.net Fri Aug 19 04:52:23 2022 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 07:52:23 -0400 Subject: [ih] STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) In-Reply-To: References: <20220818135827.DF5931527DC@rfcpa.amsl.com> <01a2634b-bd5c-5347-540e-2dcaca3440bb@gmail.com> Message-ID: ;-) Interesting point. Just out of curiosity. Question: How many RFCs were there between RFC791 and RFC2460 that directly relate to the use of RFC791? And How many RFCs were there between RFC2460 and RFC8200 that directly relate to the use of RFC2460? > On Aug 18, 2022, at 17:22, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote: > > Indeed. > > Does RFC8200 qualify as an equal amount of improvements from RFC791 ? > > ;-) (yes unfair comparison). > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 09:07:20AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >> I'm thinking this is a big deal, historically: >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) >> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 06:58:27 -0700 (PDT) >> From: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org >> To: ietf-announce at ietf.org, rfc-dist at rfc-editor.org >> CC: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref at iana.org, tcpm at ietf.org >> >> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. >> >> STD 7 >> RFC 9293 >> >> Title: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) >> Author: W. Eddy, Ed. >> Status: Standards Track >> Stream: IETF >> Date: August 2022 >> Mailbox: wes at mti-systems.com >> Pages: 98 >> Obsoletes: RFC 793, RFC 879, RFC 2873, RFC 6093, >> RFC 6429, RFC 6528, RFC 6691 >> Updates: RFC 1011, RFC 1122, RFC 5961 >> See Also: STD 7 >> >> I-D Tag: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-28.txt >> >> URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9293 >> >> DOI: 10.17487/RFC9293 >> >> This document specifies the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). TCP >> is an important transport-layer protocol in the Internet protocol >> stack, and it has continuously evolved over decades of use and growth >> of the Internet. Over this time, a number of changes have been made >> to TCP as it was specified in RFC 793, though these have only been >> documented in a piecemeal fashion. This document collects and brings >> those changes together with the protocol specification from RFC 793. >> This document obsoletes RFC 793, as well as RFCs 879, 2873, 6093, >> 6429, 6528, and 6691 that updated parts of RFC 793. It updates RFCs >> 1011 and 1122, and it should be considered as a replacement for the >> portions of those documents dealing with TCP requirements. It also >> updates RFC 5961 by adding a small clarification in reset handling >> while in the SYN-RECEIVED state. The TCP header control bits from >> RFC 793 have also been updated based on RFC 3168. >> >> This document is a product of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group of the IETF. >> >> This is now an Internet Standard. >> >> STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track >> protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions >> for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official >> Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the >> standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this >> memo is unlimited. >> >> This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. >> To subscribe or unsubscribe, see >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist >> >> For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search >> For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk >> >> Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the >> author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org. Unless >> specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for >> unlimited distribution. >> >> >> The RFC Editor Team >> Association Management Solutions, LLC >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IETF-Announce mailing list >> IETF-Announce at ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >> -- >> 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 tte at cs.fau.de Fri Aug 19 11:37:18 2022 From: tte at cs.fau.de (Toerless Eckert) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 20:37:18 +0200 Subject: [ih] STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) In-Reply-To: References: <20220818135827.DF5931527DC@rfcpa.amsl.com> <01a2634b-bd5c-5347-540e-2dcaca3440bb@gmail.com> Message-ID: I don't think this is the internet-history-working-group mailing list ;-)) aka: sounds like a real research work project, but certainly would have been interesting to hear a nice historical summary of TCP/IP evolution for the 40 year birthday. Cheers Toerless On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 07:52:23AM -0400, John Day wrote: > ;-) Interesting point. > > Just out of curiosity. > > Question: How many RFCs were there between RFC791 and RFC2460 that directly relate to the use of RFC791? > > And > > How many RFCs were there between RFC2460 and RFC8200 that directly relate to the use of RFC2460? > > > > > On Aug 18, 2022, at 17:22, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote: > > > > Indeed. > > > > Does RFC8200 qualify as an equal amount of improvements from RFC791 ? > > > > ;-) (yes unfair comparison). > > > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 09:07:20AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > >> I'm thinking this is a big deal, historically: > >> > >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- > >> Subject: STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) > >> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 06:58:27 -0700 (PDT) > >> From: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org > >> To: ietf-announce at ietf.org, rfc-dist at rfc-editor.org > >> CC: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref at iana.org, tcpm at ietf.org > >> > >> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > >> > >> STD 7 > >> RFC 9293 > >> > >> Title: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) > >> Author: W. Eddy, Ed. > >> Status: Standards Track > >> Stream: IETF > >> Date: August 2022 > >> Mailbox: wes at mti-systems.com > >> Pages: 98 > >> Obsoletes: RFC 793, RFC 879, RFC 2873, RFC 6093, > >> RFC 6429, RFC 6528, RFC 6691 > >> Updates: RFC 1011, RFC 1122, RFC 5961 > >> See Also: STD 7 > >> > >> I-D Tag: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-28.txt > >> > >> URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9293 > >> > >> DOI: 10.17487/RFC9293 > >> > >> This document specifies the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). TCP > >> is an important transport-layer protocol in the Internet protocol > >> stack, and it has continuously evolved over decades of use and growth > >> of the Internet. Over this time, a number of changes have been made > >> to TCP as it was specified in RFC 793, though these have only been > >> documented in a piecemeal fashion. This document collects and brings > >> those changes together with the protocol specification from RFC 793. > >> This document obsoletes RFC 793, as well as RFCs 879, 2873, 6093, > >> 6429, 6528, and 6691 that updated parts of RFC 793. It updates RFCs > >> 1011 and 1122, and it should be considered as a replacement for the > >> portions of those documents dealing with TCP requirements. It also > >> updates RFC 5961 by adding a small clarification in reset handling > >> while in the SYN-RECEIVED state. The TCP header control bits from > >> RFC 793 have also been updated based on RFC 3168. > >> > >> This document is a product of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group of the IETF. > >> > >> This is now an Internet Standard. > >> > >> STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track > >> protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions > >> for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official > >> Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the > >> standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this > >> memo is unlimited. > >> > >> This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe, see > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > >> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist > >> > >> For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search > >> For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk > >> > >> Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the > >> author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org. Unless > >> specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for > >> unlimited distribution. > >> > >> > >> The RFC Editor Team > >> Association Management Solutions, LLC > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> IETF-Announce mailing list > >> IETF-Announce at ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > >> -- > >> 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 -- --- tte at cs.fau.de From jeanjour at comcast.net Fri Aug 19 12:00:53 2022 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 15:00:53 -0400 Subject: [ih] STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) In-Reply-To: References: <20220818135827.DF5931527DC@rfcpa.amsl.com> <01a2634b-bd5c-5347-540e-2dcaca3440bb@gmail.com> Message-ID: <19DB3735-3C33-4BFE-A27C-3419E0110231@comcast.net> Perhaps. I was just going by the documents that 9293 listed and your question, if 8200 qualified. Such quantitative analysis is often done in history. But just by chance, I noticed that 9293 omitted 813 and 814 from its list. I was wondering if they were superseded. Some standards organizations require this process every 5 years rather than every 50. ;-) > On Aug 19, 2022, at 14:37, Toerless Eckert wrote: > > I don't think this is the internet-history-working-group mailing list ;-)) > aka: sounds like a real research work project, but certainly would have been > interesting to hear a nice historical summary of TCP/IP evolution for the 40 year birthday. > > Cheers > Toerless > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 07:52:23AM -0400, John Day wrote: >> ;-) Interesting point. >> >> Just out of curiosity. >> >> Question: How many RFCs were there between RFC791 and RFC2460 that directly relate to the use of RFC791? >> >> And >> >> How many RFCs were there between RFC2460 and RFC8200 that directly relate to the use of RFC2460? >> >> >> >>> On Aug 18, 2022, at 17:22, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote: >>> >>> Indeed. >>> >>> Does RFC8200 qualify as an equal amount of improvements from RFC791 ? >>> >>> ;-) (yes unfair comparison). >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 09:07:20AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >>>> I'm thinking this is a big deal, historically: >>>> >>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>> Subject: STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) >>>> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 06:58:27 -0700 (PDT) >>>> From: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org >>>> To: ietf-announce at ietf.org, rfc-dist at rfc-editor.org >>>> CC: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref at iana.org, tcpm at ietf.org >>>> >>>> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. >>>> >>>> STD 7 >>>> RFC 9293 >>>> >>>> Title: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) >>>> Author: W. Eddy, Ed. >>>> Status: Standards Track >>>> Stream: IETF >>>> Date: August 2022 >>>> Mailbox: wes at mti-systems.com >>>> Pages: 98 >>>> Obsoletes: RFC 793, RFC 879, RFC 2873, RFC 6093, >>>> RFC 6429, RFC 6528, RFC 6691 >>>> Updates: RFC 1011, RFC 1122, RFC 5961 >>>> See Also: STD 7 >>>> >>>> I-D Tag: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-28.txt >>>> >>>> URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9293 >>>> >>>> DOI: 10.17487/RFC9293 >>>> >>>> This document specifies the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). TCP >>>> is an important transport-layer protocol in the Internet protocol >>>> stack, and it has continuously evolved over decades of use and growth >>>> of the Internet. Over this time, a number of changes have been made >>>> to TCP as it was specified in RFC 793, though these have only been >>>> documented in a piecemeal fashion. This document collects and brings >>>> those changes together with the protocol specification from RFC 793. >>>> This document obsoletes RFC 793, as well as RFCs 879, 2873, 6093, >>>> 6429, 6528, and 6691 that updated parts of RFC 793. It updates RFCs >>>> 1011 and 1122, and it should be considered as a replacement for the >>>> portions of those documents dealing with TCP requirements. It also >>>> updates RFC 5961 by adding a small clarification in reset handling >>>> while in the SYN-RECEIVED state. The TCP header control bits from >>>> RFC 793 have also been updated based on RFC 3168. >>>> >>>> This document is a product of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group of the IETF. >>>> >>>> This is now an Internet Standard. >>>> >>>> STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track >>>> protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions >>>> for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official >>>> Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the >>>> standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this >>>> memo is unlimited. >>>> >>>> This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. >>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe, see >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >>>> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist >>>> >>>> For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search >>>> For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk >>>> >>>> Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the >>>> author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org. Unless >>>> specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for >>>> unlimited distribution. >>>> >>>> >>>> The RFC Editor Team >>>> Association Management Solutions, LLC >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> IETF-Announce mailing list >>>> IETF-Announce at ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >>>> -- >>>> 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 > > -- > --- > tte at cs.fau.de From touch at strayalpha.com Fri Aug 19 12:16:23 2022 From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 12:16:23 -0700 Subject: [ih] STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) In-Reply-To: <01a2634b-bd5c-5347-540e-2dcaca3440bb@gmail.com> References: <20220818135827.DF5931527DC@rfcpa.amsl.com> <01a2634b-bd5c-5347-540e-2dcaca3440bb@gmail.com> Message-ID: <023FF940-0D47-4C43-A290-BBF93670B1BD@strayalpha.com> It was a lot of work and a lot of the credit goes to Wes, but FWIW the task was scoped to NOT change the spec or TCP, but rather just roll in changes that have accumulated. It wasn?t a ?hey, let?s fix what we think needs fixing?? - that work has been happening through various other RFCs developed separately over the past decades. This helps developers start with a better ?checkpoint? and not need to keep tracking all the various corrections and errata. I don?t know how ?historical? I would call that sort of thing, though (IMO). Again, not to undervalue the effort, though. Joe ? Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist www.strayalpha.com > On Aug 18, 2022, at 2:07 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > > I'm thinking this is a big deal, historically: > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) > Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 06:58:27 -0700 (PDT) > From: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org > To: ietf-announce at ietf.org, rfc-dist at rfc-editor.org > CC: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref at iana.org, tcpm at ietf.org > > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > > STD 7 > RFC 9293 > > Title: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) > Author: W. Eddy, Ed. > Status: Standards Track > Stream: IETF > Date: August 2022 > Mailbox: wes at mti-systems.com > Pages: 98 > Obsoletes: RFC 793, RFC 879, RFC 2873, RFC 6093, > RFC 6429, RFC 6528, RFC 6691 > Updates: RFC 1011, RFC 1122, RFC 5961 > See Also: STD 7 > > I-D Tag: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-28.txt > > URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9293 > > DOI: 10.17487/RFC9293 > > This document specifies the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). TCP > is an important transport-layer protocol in the Internet protocol > stack, and it has continuously evolved over decades of use and growth > of the Internet. Over this time, a number of changes have been made > to TCP as it was specified in RFC 793, though these have only been > documented in a piecemeal fashion. This document collects and brings > those changes together with the protocol specification from RFC 793. > This document obsoletes RFC 793, as well as RFCs 879, 2873, 6093, > 6429, 6528, and 6691 that updated parts of RFC 793. It updates RFCs > 1011 and 1122, and it should be considered as a replacement for the > portions of those documents dealing with TCP requirements. It also > updates RFC 5961 by adding a small clarification in reset handling > while in the SYN-RECEIVED state. The TCP header control bits from > RFC 793 have also been updated based on RFC 3168. > > This document is a product of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group of the IETF. > > This is now an Internet Standard. > > STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track > protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions > for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official > Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the > standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this > memo is unlimited. > > This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. > To subscribe or unsubscribe, see > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist > > For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search > For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk > > Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the > author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org. Unless > specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for > unlimited distribution. > > > The RFC Editor Team > Association Management Solutions, LLC > > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce at ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From touch at strayalpha.com Fri Aug 19 12:19:40 2022 From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 12:19:40 -0700 Subject: [ih] STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) In-Reply-To: References: <20220818135827.DF5931527DC@rfcpa.amsl.com> <01a2634b-bd5c-5347-540e-2dcaca3440bb@gmail.com> Message-ID: 8200 is to 2460 as 9293 is to 793 (speaking in ?SAT? analogy terms) As 8200 is to 791, there is no equivalent for 793/9273. There?s no ?TCP-ng? per se. IPv6 isn?t backward compatible with IPv4, so you could argue that any of the new transport protocols (SCTP, QUIC) is ?TCP-ng?, but there?s no version field in the TCP protocol (!) so there?s no opportunity to even officially call something TCP-ng rather than just a new transport. Joe ? Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist www.strayalpha.com > On Aug 18, 2022, at 2:22 PM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote: > > Indeed. > > Does RFC8200 qualify as an equal amount of improvements from RFC791 ? > > ;-) (yes unfair comparison). > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 09:07:20AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >> I'm thinking this is a big deal, historically: >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) >> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 06:58:27 -0700 (PDT) >> From: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org >> To: ietf-announce at ietf.org, rfc-dist at rfc-editor.org >> CC: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref at iana.org, tcpm at ietf.org >> >> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. >> >> STD 7 >> RFC 9293 >> >> Title: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) >> Author: W. Eddy, Ed. >> Status: Standards Track >> Stream: IETF >> Date: August 2022 >> Mailbox: wes at mti-systems.com >> Pages: 98 >> Obsoletes: RFC 793, RFC 879, RFC 2873, RFC 6093, >> RFC 6429, RFC 6528, RFC 6691 >> Updates: RFC 1011, RFC 1122, RFC 5961 >> See Also: STD 7 >> >> I-D Tag: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-28.txt >> >> URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9293 >> >> DOI: 10.17487/RFC9293 >> >> This document specifies the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). TCP >> is an important transport-layer protocol in the Internet protocol >> stack, and it has continuously evolved over decades of use and growth >> of the Internet. Over this time, a number of changes have been made >> to TCP as it was specified in RFC 793, though these have only been >> documented in a piecemeal fashion. This document collects and brings >> those changes together with the protocol specification from RFC 793. >> This document obsoletes RFC 793, as well as RFCs 879, 2873, 6093, >> 6429, 6528, and 6691 that updated parts of RFC 793. It updates RFCs >> 1011 and 1122, and it should be considered as a replacement for the >> portions of those documents dealing with TCP requirements. It also >> updates RFC 5961 by adding a small clarification in reset handling >> while in the SYN-RECEIVED state. The TCP header control bits from >> RFC 793 have also been updated based on RFC 3168. >> >> This document is a product of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group of the IETF. >> >> This is now an Internet Standard. >> >> STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track >> protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions >> for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official >> Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the >> standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this >> memo is unlimited. >> >> This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. >> To subscribe or unsubscribe, see >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist >> >> For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search >> For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk >> >> Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the >> author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org. Unless >> specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for >> unlimited distribution. >> >> >> The RFC Editor Team >> Association Management Solutions, LLC >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IETF-Announce mailing list >> IETF-Announce at ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >> -- >> 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 jeanjour at comcast.net Fri Aug 19 13:38:04 2022 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 16:38:04 -0400 Subject: [ih] STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) In-Reply-To: References: <20220818135827.DF5931527DC@rfcpa.amsl.com> <01a2634b-bd5c-5347-540e-2dcaca3440bb@gmail.com> Message-ID: <72AD93F9-BCAF-4E8D-90F6-7D1A05C59B37@comcast.net> > On Aug 19, 2022, at 15:19, touch--- via Internet-history wrote: > > 8200 is to 2460 as 9293 is to 793 (speaking in ?SAT? analogy terms) Right, that is why I phrased my question as I did. To compare the number clarifications, changes, updates, whatever you want to call them between the first version of v6 and the current version. And then trying to minimize the difference of comparison, the number of similar RFCs applying to IPv4 before it was ?replaced? by 2460. Clearly, IPv6 isn?t to IPv4 as 793 is to 9293, but I was assuming that modifications, updates, whatever you call them would pretty much stop with the advent of v6. It was close as I thought one could come to a comparison. 9293 had done that exercise in its intro. Just thought it would be interesting. The really hard work (folding in the changes for TCP had already been done. > > As 8200 is to 791, there is no equivalent for 793/9273. There?s no ?TCP-ng? per se. IPv6 isn?t backward compatible with IPv4, so you could argue that any of the new transport protocols (SCTP, QUIC) is ?TCP-ng?, but there?s no version field in the TCP protocol (!) so there?s no opportunity to even officially call something TCP-ng rather than just a new transport. > > Joe > > ? > Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist > www.strayalpha.com > >> On Aug 18, 2022, at 2:22 PM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote: >> >> Indeed. >> >> Does RFC8200 qualify as an equal amount of improvements from RFC791 ? >> >> ;-) (yes unfair comparison). >> >> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 09:07:20AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >>> I'm thinking this is a big deal, historically: >>> >>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> Subject: STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) >>> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 06:58:27 -0700 (PDT) >>> From: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org >>> To: ietf-announce at ietf.org, rfc-dist at rfc-editor.org >>> CC: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref at iana.org, tcpm at ietf.org >>> >>> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. >>> >>> STD 7 >>> RFC 9293 >>> >>> Title: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) >>> Author: W. Eddy, Ed. >>> Status: Standards Track >>> Stream: IETF >>> Date: August 2022 >>> Mailbox: wes at mti-systems.com >>> Pages: 98 >>> Obsoletes: RFC 793, RFC 879, RFC 2873, RFC 6093, >>> RFC 6429, RFC 6528, RFC 6691 >>> Updates: RFC 1011, RFC 1122, RFC 5961 >>> See Also: STD 7 >>> >>> I-D Tag: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-28.txt >>> >>> URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9293 >>> >>> DOI: 10.17487/RFC9293 >>> >>> This document specifies the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). TCP >>> is an important transport-layer protocol in the Internet protocol >>> stack, and it has continuously evolved over decades of use and growth >>> of the Internet. Over this time, a number of changes have been made >>> to TCP as it was specified in RFC 793, though these have only been >>> documented in a piecemeal fashion. This document collects and brings >>> those changes together with the protocol specification from RFC 793. >>> This document obsoletes RFC 793, as well as RFCs 879, 2873, 6093, >>> 6429, 6528, and 6691 that updated parts of RFC 793. It updates RFCs >>> 1011 and 1122, and it should be considered as a replacement for the >>> portions of those documents dealing with TCP requirements. It also >>> updates RFC 5961 by adding a small clarification in reset handling >>> while in the SYN-RECEIVED state. The TCP header control bits from >>> RFC 793 have also been updated based on RFC 3168. >>> >>> This document is a product of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group of the IETF. >>> >>> This is now an Internet Standard. >>> >>> STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track >>> protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions >>> for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official >>> Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the >>> standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this >>> memo is unlimited. >>> >>> This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe, see >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >>> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist >>> >>> For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search >>> For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk >>> >>> Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the >>> author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org. Unless >>> specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for >>> unlimited distribution. >>> >>> >>> The RFC Editor Team >>> Association Management Solutions, LLC >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IETF-Announce mailing list >>> IETF-Announce at ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >>> -- >>> 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 > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jeanjour at comcast.net Fri Aug 19 13:42:58 2022 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 16:42:58 -0400 Subject: [ih] STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) In-Reply-To: <023FF940-0D47-4C43-A290-BBF93670B1BD@strayalpha.com> References: <20220818135827.DF5931527DC@rfcpa.amsl.com> <01a2634b-bd5c-5347-540e-2dcaca3440bb@gmail.com> <023FF940-0D47-4C43-A290-BBF93670B1BD@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: <406AF0CC-8A6D-45C0-B6A2-67B8A9342DCA@comcast.net> > On Aug 19, 2022, at 15:16, touch--- via Internet-history wrote: > > It was a lot of work and a lot of the credit goes to Wes, but FWIW the task was scoped to NOT change the spec or TCP, but rather just roll in changes that have accumulated. That is abundantly clear! At least to those of us who know the spec inside out. > > It wasn?t a ?hey, let?s fix what we think needs fixing?? - that work has been happening through various other RFCs developed separately over the past decades. O, no. that wouldn?t have been the intent. But as long as you brought it up, which sort of RFCs did you have in mind that weren?t included? > > This helps developers start with a better ?checkpoint? and not need to keep tracking all the various corrections and errata. O, absolutely. It should have been done a long time ago. Developers wanting to do a TCP implementation shouldn?t have to buy one of the books telling you how or search through all of the RFCs to find which ones are relevant. > > I don?t know how ?historical? I would call that sort of thing, though (IMO). Again, not to undervalue the effort, though. Good heavens! No! It was an incredible amount of work. > > Joe > > ? > Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist > www.strayalpha.com > >> On Aug 18, 2022, at 2:07 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >> >> I'm thinking this is a big deal, historically: >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) >> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 06:58:27 -0700 (PDT) >> From: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org >> To: ietf-announce at ietf.org, rfc-dist at rfc-editor.org >> CC: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref at iana.org, tcpm at ietf.org >> >> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. >> >> STD 7 >> RFC 9293 >> >> Title: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) >> Author: W. Eddy, Ed. >> Status: Standards Track >> Stream: IETF >> Date: August 2022 >> Mailbox: wes at mti-systems.com >> Pages: 98 >> Obsoletes: RFC 793, RFC 879, RFC 2873, RFC 6093, >> RFC 6429, RFC 6528, RFC 6691 >> Updates: RFC 1011, RFC 1122, RFC 5961 >> See Also: STD 7 >> >> I-D Tag: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-28.txt >> >> URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9293 >> >> DOI: 10.17487/RFC9293 >> >> This document specifies the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). TCP >> is an important transport-layer protocol in the Internet protocol >> stack, and it has continuously evolved over decades of use and growth >> of the Internet. Over this time, a number of changes have been made >> to TCP as it was specified in RFC 793, though these have only been >> documented in a piecemeal fashion. This document collects and brings >> those changes together with the protocol specification from RFC 793. >> This document obsoletes RFC 793, as well as RFCs 879, 2873, 6093, >> 6429, 6528, and 6691 that updated parts of RFC 793. It updates RFCs >> 1011 and 1122, and it should be considered as a replacement for the >> portions of those documents dealing with TCP requirements. It also >> updates RFC 5961 by adding a small clarification in reset handling >> while in the SYN-RECEIVED state. The TCP header control bits from >> RFC 793 have also been updated based on RFC 3168. >> >> This document is a product of the TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group of the IETF. >> >> This is now an Internet Standard. >> >> STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track >> protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions >> for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official >> Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the >> standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this >> memo is unlimited. >> >> This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. >> To subscribe or unsubscribe, see >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist >> >> For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search >> For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk >> >> Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the >> author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org. Unless >> specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for >> unlimited distribution. >> >> >> The RFC Editor Team >> Association Management Solutions, LLC >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IETF-Announce mailing list >> IETF-Announce at ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From touch at strayalpha.com Fri Aug 19 17:41:29 2022 From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com) Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 17:41:29 -0700 Subject: [ih] STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) In-Reply-To: <406AF0CC-8A6D-45C0-B6A2-67B8A9342DCA@comcast.net> References: <20220818135827.DF5931527DC@rfcpa.amsl.com> <01a2634b-bd5c-5347-540e-2dcaca3440bb@gmail.com> <023FF940-0D47-4C43-A290-BBF93670B1BD@strayalpha.com> <406AF0CC-8A6D-45C0-B6A2-67B8A9342DCA@comcast.net> Message-ID: Notes below.. ? Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist www.strayalpha.com > On Aug 19, 2022, at 1:42 PM, John Day wrote: > > >> On Aug 19, 2022, at 15:16, touch--- via Internet-history wrote: >> >> It was a lot of work and a lot of the credit goes to Wes, but FWIW the task was scoped to NOT change the spec or TCP, but rather just roll in changes that have accumulated. > > That is abundantly clear! At least to those of us who know the spec inside out. >> >> It wasn?t a ?hey, let?s fix what we think needs fixing?? - that work has been happening through various other RFCs developed separately over the past decades. > > O, no. that wouldn?t have been the intent. But as long as you brought it up, which sort of RFCs did you have in mind that weren?t included? They?re cited in 9273, but not rolled in. And they keep on coming. But that?s not what I?m referring to - I?m noting that we specifically did NOT try to open ?new cans of worms? and solve problems that had not already been documented when the process began 7 years ago. >> This helps developers start with a better ?checkpoint? and not need to keep tracking all the various corrections and errata. > > O, absolutely. It should have been done a long time ago. Developers wanting to do a TCP implementation shouldn?t have to buy one of the books telling you how or search through all of the RFCs to find which ones are relevant. Note that this issue was partly addressed in 2006 by RFC 4164, which was revised again in 2015. But even a roadmap didn?t help roll in the errata or make the original text more clear, something we only learned over the past decades. Joe From craig at tereschau.net Wed Aug 24 00:58:11 2022 From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 09:58:11 +0200 Subject: [ih] STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) In-Reply-To: References: <20220818135827.DF5931527DC@rfcpa.amsl.com> <01a2634b-bd5c-5347-540e-2dcaca3440bb@gmail.com> Message-ID: As notes have pointed out, summarizing TCP evolution wasn't the point of this document. But given the question is a fun one, here's my rough and ready 40 years evolution. Broadly, evolution in the following areas: * Window management for error recovery. Key point here, TCP uses sliding windows to acknowledge data as it is received - confusingly it is used for both flow control [is the receiver ready for more data?] and error recovery [what TCP segments have reached the receiver?]. TCP did not specify a retransmission approach (go-back-N, selective go-back-N, something else) and the community had to feel its way forward. Current practice is that, unless using extended ACKs, only retransmit the oldest outstanding segment. Extended ACKs (which are negotiated with an option) make it possible to better understand the state of the receiver's window and retransmit multiple outstanding/lost segments concurrently. These issues were mostly solved in the 1980s and 1990s. * Window management for flow control. Various dysfunctions, most notably "Silly Window Syndrome", if the receiver does not update the window intelligently. (Another example is reducing the window from the right). Issues were found and solved in the 1980s. * The TCP sequence and window spaces were far too small. The sequence space was expanded using PAWS in the 1990s. * TCP suffers from retransmission ambiguity. The sender cannot tell if an ACK is for the original transmission or a retransmission. As a result, round-trip estimation can fail catastrophically. Karn's algorithm provides a workaround solution. If PAWS is enabled on a connection, PAWS solves this problem. Solved in late 1980s/early 1990s. * TCP's round-trip time estimator was not very good. Solved in 1988 by Jacobson. * Congestion control. TCP's interaction with IP routers to manage congestion was poorly understood when TCP was specified. Aspects of the problem remain open, but the core solution remains some form of Additive-Increase-Multiplicative-Decrease -- solved semi-independently by Jain & Ramakrishnan and Jacobson in papers presented in 1988. Elements remain a vexing problem -- cf. buffer bloat. * A wide range of ways to attack TCP have been discovered. Core issues include the ability to guess sequence numbers to break into connections and to create partial connections (consuming resources). I have not tracked closely in a while but believe that we haven't seen a new attack in over 10 years and that various TCP tweaks have dealt with these issues. Solutions include random starting sequence numbers and various ways to mitigate half-open connections. This is off the top of my head and I've likely forgotten a few items. I also note that some challenges overlap whereas I've treated them separately. Craig On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 8:37 PM Toerless Eckert via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > I don't think this is the internet-history-working-group mailing list ;-)) > aka: sounds like a real research work project, but certainly would have > been > interesting to hear a nice historical summary of TCP/IP evolution for the > 40 year birthday. > > Cheers > Toerless > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 07:52:23AM -0400, John Day wrote: > > ;-) Interesting point. > > > > Just out of curiosity. > > > > Question: How many RFCs were there between RFC791 and RFC2460 that > directly relate to the use of RFC791? > > > > And > > > > How many RFCs were there between RFC2460 and RFC8200 that directly > relate to the use of RFC2460? > > > > > > > > > On Aug 18, 2022, at 17:22, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > Does RFC8200 qualify as an equal amount of improvements from RFC791 ? > > > > > > ;-) (yes unfair comparison). > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 09:07:20AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter via > Internet-history wrote: > > >> I'm thinking this is a big deal, historically: > > >> > > >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > >> Subject: STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) > > >> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 06:58:27 -0700 (PDT) > > >> From: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org > > >> To: ietf-announce at ietf.org, rfc-dist at rfc-editor.org > > >> CC: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref at iana.org, > tcpm at ietf.org > > >> > > >> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > > >> > > >> STD 7 > > >> RFC 9293 > > >> > > >> Title: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) > > >> Author: W. Eddy, Ed. > > >> Status: Standards Track > > >> Stream: IETF > > >> Date: August 2022 > > >> Mailbox: wes at mti-systems.com > > >> Pages: 98 > > >> Obsoletes: RFC 793, RFC 879, RFC 2873, RFC 6093, > > >> RFC 6429, RFC 6528, RFC 6691 > > >> Updates: RFC 1011, RFC 1122, RFC 5961 > > >> See Also: STD 7 > > >> > > >> I-D Tag: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-28.txt > > >> > > >> URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9293 > > >> > > >> DOI: 10.17487/RFC9293 > > >> > > >> This document specifies the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). TCP > > >> is an important transport-layer protocol in the Internet protocol > > >> stack, and it has continuously evolved over decades of use and growth > > >> of the Internet. Over this time, a number of changes have been made > > >> to TCP as it was specified in RFC 793, though these have only been > > >> documented in a piecemeal fashion. This document collects and brings > > >> those changes together with the protocol specification from RFC 793. > > >> This document obsoletes RFC 793, as well as RFCs 879, 2873, 6093, > > >> 6429, 6528, and 6691 that updated parts of RFC 793. It updates RFCs > > >> 1011 and 1122, and it should be considered as a replacement for the > > >> portions of those documents dealing with TCP requirements. It also > > >> updates RFC 5961 by adding a small clarification in reset handling > > >> while in the SYN-RECEIVED state. The TCP header control bits from > > >> RFC 793 have also been updated based on RFC 3168. > > >> > > >> This document is a product of the TCP Maintenance and Minor > Extensions Working Group of the IETF. > > >> > > >> This is now an Internet Standard. > > >> > > >> STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track > > >> protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and > suggestions > > >> for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official > > >> Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) > for the > > >> standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of > this > > >> memo is unlimited. > > >> > > >> This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. > > >> To subscribe or unsubscribe, see > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > > >> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist > > >> > > >> For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search > > >> For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk > > >> > > >> Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the > > >> author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org. > Unless > > >> specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for > > >> unlimited distribution. > > >> > > >> > > >> The RFC Editor Team > > >> Association Management Solutions, LLC > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> IETF-Announce mailing list > > >> IETF-Announce at ietf.org > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce > > >> -- > > >> 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 > > -- > --- > tte at cs.fau.de > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- ***** Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. From olejacobsen at me.com Wed Aug 24 05:59:35 2022 From: olejacobsen at me.com (Ole Jacobsen) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 05:59:35 -0700 Subject: [ih] STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) In-Reply-To: References: <20220818135827.DF5931527DC@rfcpa.amsl.com> <01a2634b-bd5c-5347-540e-2dcaca3440bb@gmail.com> Message-ID: <83EA3947-D8AA-4927-9673-CE6CD10390CA@me.com> Hi, It might be interesting to look at several articles written by Craig (and one by Phil Karn) under the heading "Improving Your TCP" published in ConneXions--The Interoperability Report as follows (snipped from the ASCII index files): * Volume 1, No. 3, July, 1987: Improving Your TCP: Look at the Timers Craig Partridge 13 * Volume 1, No. 7, November 1987: Improving Your TCP: Handling Source Quench Craig Partridge 13 * Volume 2, No. 6, June 1988: Improving Your TCP: Look under the hood! Craig Partridge 15 * Volume 2, No. 10, October 1988: Improving Your TCP: "Karn's Algorithm" Phil Karn 23 ConneXions ? The Interoperability Report was published monthly from 1987 through 1996. The Charles Babbage Institute at the University of Minnesota has scanned the complete collection of ConneXions (117 issues) and it is now available here: https://cse.umn.edu/cbi/hosted-publications Then scroll down to ?Outside Authors? and select: ?ConneXions?The Interoperability Report (1987-1996) Edited by Ole Jacobsen.? Ole > On Aug 24, 2022, at 00:58, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote: > > As notes have pointed out, summarizing TCP evolution wasn't the point of > this document. But given the question is a fun one, here's my rough and > ready 40 years evolution. > > Broadly, evolution in the following areas: > > * Window management for error recovery. Key point here, TCP uses sliding > windows to acknowledge data as it is received - confusingly it is used for > both flow control [is the receiver ready for more data?] and error recovery > [what TCP segments have reached the receiver?]. TCP did not specify a > retransmission approach (go-back-N, selective go-back-N, something else) > and the community had to feel its way forward. Current practice is that, > unless using extended ACKs, only retransmit the oldest outstanding > segment. Extended ACKs (which are negotiated with an option) make it > possible to better understand the state of the receiver's window and > retransmit multiple outstanding/lost segments concurrently. These issues > were mostly solved in the 1980s and 1990s. > > * Window management for flow control. Various dysfunctions, most notably > "Silly Window Syndrome", if the receiver does not update the window > intelligently. (Another example is reducing the window from the right). > Issues were found and solved in the 1980s. > > * The TCP sequence and window spaces were far too small. The sequence > space was expanded using PAWS in the 1990s. > > * TCP suffers from retransmission ambiguity. The sender cannot tell if an > ACK is for the original transmission or a retransmission. As a result, > round-trip estimation can fail catastrophically. Karn's algorithm provides > a workaround solution. If PAWS is enabled on a connection, PAWS solves > this problem. Solved in late 1980s/early 1990s. > > * TCP's round-trip time estimator was not very good. Solved in 1988 by > Jacobson. > > * Congestion control. TCP's interaction with IP routers to manage > congestion was poorly understood when TCP was specified. Aspects of the > problem remain open, but the core solution remains some form of > Additive-Increase-Multiplicative-Decrease -- solved semi-independently by > Jain & Ramakrishnan and Jacobson in papers presented in 1988. Elements > remain a vexing problem -- cf. buffer bloat. > > * A wide range of ways to attack TCP have been discovered. Core issues > include the ability to guess sequence numbers to break into connections and > to create partial connections (consuming resources). I have not tracked > closely in a while but believe that we haven't seen a new attack in over 10 > years and that various TCP tweaks have dealt with these issues. Solutions > include random starting sequence numbers and various ways to mitigate > half-open connections. > > This is off the top of my head and I've likely forgotten a few items. I > also note that some challenges overlap whereas I've treated them separately. > > Craig > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 8:37 PM Toerless Eckert via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> I don't think this is the internet-history-working-group mailing list ;-)) >> aka: sounds like a real research work project, but certainly would have >> been >> interesting to hear a nice historical summary of TCP/IP evolution for the >> 40 year birthday. >> >> Cheers >> Toerless >> >> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 07:52:23AM -0400, John Day wrote: >>> ;-) Interesting point. >>> >>> Just out of curiosity. >>> >>> Question: How many RFCs were there between RFC791 and RFC2460 that >> directly relate to the use of RFC791? >>> >>> And >>> >>> How many RFCs were there between RFC2460 and RFC8200 that directly >> relate to the use of RFC2460? >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Aug 18, 2022, at 17:22, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Indeed. >>>> >>>> Does RFC8200 qualify as an equal amount of improvements from RFC791 ? >>>> >>>> ;-) (yes unfair comparison). >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 09:07:20AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter via >> Internet-history wrote: >>>>> I'm thinking this is a big deal, historically: >>>>> >>>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>>> Subject: STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) >>>>> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 06:58:27 -0700 (PDT) >>>>> From: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org >>>>> To: ietf-announce at ietf.org, rfc-dist at rfc-editor.org >>>>> CC: rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org, drafts-update-ref at iana.org, >> tcpm at ietf.org >>>>> >>>>> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. >>>>> >>>>> STD 7 >>>>> RFC 9293 >>>>> >>>>> Title: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) >>>>> Author: W. Eddy, Ed. >>>>> Status: Standards Track >>>>> Stream: IETF >>>>> Date: August 2022 >>>>> Mailbox: wes at mti-systems.com >>>>> Pages: 98 >>>>> Obsoletes: RFC 793, RFC 879, RFC 2873, RFC 6093, >>>>> RFC 6429, RFC 6528, RFC 6691 >>>>> Updates: RFC 1011, RFC 1122, RFC 5961 >>>>> See Also: STD 7 >>>>> >>>>> I-D Tag: draft-ietf-tcpm-rfc793bis-28.txt >>>>> >>>>> URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9293 >>>>> >>>>> DOI: 10.17487/RFC9293 >>>>> >>>>> This document specifies the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). TCP >>>>> is an important transport-layer protocol in the Internet protocol >>>>> stack, and it has continuously evolved over decades of use and growth >>>>> of the Internet. Over this time, a number of changes have been made >>>>> to TCP as it was specified in RFC 793, though these have only been >>>>> documented in a piecemeal fashion. This document collects and brings >>>>> those changes together with the protocol specification from RFC 793. >>>>> This document obsoletes RFC 793, as well as RFCs 879, 2873, 6093, >>>>> 6429, 6528, and 6691 that updated parts of RFC 793. It updates RFCs >>>>> 1011 and 1122, and it should be considered as a replacement for the >>>>> portions of those documents dealing with TCP requirements. It also >>>>> updates RFC 5961 by adding a small clarification in reset handling >>>>> while in the SYN-RECEIVED state. The TCP header control bits from >>>>> RFC 793 have also been updated based on RFC 3168. >>>>> >>>>> This document is a product of the TCP Maintenance and Minor >> Extensions Working Group of the IETF. >>>>> >>>>> This is now an Internet Standard. >>>>> >>>>> STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track >>>>> protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and >> suggestions >>>>> for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the Official >>>>> Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) >> for the >>>>> standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of >> this >>>>> memo is unlimited. >>>>> >>>>> This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. >>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe, see >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >>>>> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist >>>>> >>>>> For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search >>>>> For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk >>>>> >>>>> Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the >>>>> author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor at rfc-editor.org. >> Unless >>>>> specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for >>>>> unlimited distribution. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The RFC Editor Team >>>>> Association Management Solutions, LLC >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> IETF-Announce mailing list >>>>> IETF-Announce at ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >> >> -- >> --- >> tte at cs.fau.de >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > > > -- > ***** > 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 jtk at dataplane.org Wed Aug 24 06:28:51 2022 From: jtk at dataplane.org (John Kristoff) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 08:28:51 -0500 Subject: [ih] STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) In-Reply-To: References: <20220818135827.DF5931527DC@rfcpa.amsl.com> <01a2634b-bd5c-5347-540e-2dcaca3440bb@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20220824082851.3086008c@dataplane.org> On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 09:58:11 +0200 Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote: > I have not tracked closely in a while but believe that we haven't > seen a new attack in over 10 years and that various TCP tweaks have > dealt with these issues. While not an attack directly on TCP, it has been shown there is a way to conduct source address-spoofed TCP-based amplification and reflection attacks with relatively little effort. The problem is not in TCP itself, but in how middle boxes maintain TCP state for the end points between boundaries, or don't maintain state as is the case here. Most attacks are mostly now found in the larger tweaks. For those that haven't seen this paper, it is worth a look, and may result in a lot of "I told you so's" for those who have been skeptical of middle boxes. :-) John From geoff at iconia.com Wed Aug 24 07:42:55 2022 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 07:42:55 -0700 Subject: [ih] Weaponizing Middleboxes for TCP Reflected Amplification (was Fwd: STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)) In-Reply-To: <20220824082851.3086008c@dataplane.org> References: <20220818135827.DF5931527DC@rfcpa.amsl.com> <01a2634b-bd5c-5347-540e-2dcaca3440bb@gmail.com> <20220824082851.3086008c@dataplane.org> Message-ID: Weaponizing Censorship Infrastructure Abstract Reflective amplification attacks are a powerful tool in the arsenal of a DDoS attacker, but to date have almost exclusively targeted UDP-based protocols. In this paper, we demonstrate that non-trivial TCP-based amplification is possible and can be orders of magnitude more effective than well-known UDP-based amplification. By taking advantage of TCP-noncompliance in network middleboxes, we show that attackers can induce middleboxes to respond and amplify network traffic. With the novel application of a recent genetic algorithm, we discover and maximize the efficacy of new TCP-based reflective amplification attacks, and present several packet sequences that cause network middleboxes to respond with substantially more packets than we send. We scanned the entire IPv4 Internet to measure how many IP addresses permit reflected amplification. We find hundreds of thousands of IP addresses that offer amplification factors greater than 100?. Through our Internet-wide measurements, we explore several open questions regarding DoS attacks, including the root cause of so-called mega amplifiers. We also report on network phenomena that causes some of the TCP-based attacks to be so effective as to technically have infinite amplification factor (after the attacker sends a constant number of bytes, the reflector generates traffic indefinitely). We have made our code publicly available. Date Aug 11, 2021 1:30 PM Event USENIX Security 2021 Location USENIX Security 2021 https://www.cs.umd.edu/~kbock/talk/usenix21/ ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: John Kristoff via Internet-history Date: Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 6:29 AM Subject: Re: [ih] STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) To: On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 09:58:11 +0200 Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote: > I have not tracked closely in a while but believe that we haven't > seen a new attack in over 10 years and that various TCP tweaks have > dealt with these issues. While not an attack directly on TCP, it has been shown there is a way to conduct source address-spoofed TCP-based amplification and reflection attacks with relatively little effort. The problem is not in TCP itself, but in how middle boxes maintain TCP state for the end points between boundaries, or don't maintain state as is the case here. Most attacks are mostly now found in the larger tweaks. For those that haven't seen this paper, it is worth a look, and may result in a lot of "I told you so's" for those who have been skeptical of middle boxes. :-) John -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True From gnu at toad.com Wed Aug 24 16:07:36 2022 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 16:07:36 -0700 Subject: [ih] STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) In-Reply-To: <83EA3947-D8AA-4927-9673-CE6CD10390CA@me.com> References: <20220818135827.DF5931527DC@rfcpa.amsl.com> <01a2634b-bd5c-5347-540e-2dcaca3440bb@gmail.com> <83EA3947-D8AA-4927-9673-CE6CD10390CA@me.com> Message-ID: <1921.1661382456@hop.toad.com> Ole Jacobsen via Internet-history wrote: > ConneXions - The Interoperability Report was published monthly from > 1987 through 1996. The Charles Babbage Institute at the University of > Minnesota has scanned the complete collection of ConneXions (117 > issues) and it is now available here: > https://cse.umn.edu/cbi/hosted-publications I followed the link, and, wow. ConneXions is not available there. It is available VIA a link from there to a cryptic URL at Google Drive. So a university has scanned in some key Internet history, and is now storing it for public access only via Google Drive? Not only is it a painful interface (not having a Google account, nor enabling Google javascript nor any Google cookies, I have still been unable to download nor read any of the issues). But more important, someday it will just go poof, at the discretion of a company that cares only about monetizing your eyeballs, and all that history will be lost. John From olejacobsen at me.com Wed Aug 24 16:39:58 2022 From: olejacobsen at me.com (Ole Jacobsen) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 16:39:58 -0700 Subject: [ih] STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) In-Reply-To: <1921.1661382456@hop.toad.com> References: <20220818135827.DF5931527DC@rfcpa.amsl.com> <01a2634b-bd5c-5347-540e-2dcaca3440bb@gmail.com> <83EA3947-D8AA-4927-9673-CE6CD10390CA@me.com> <1921.1661382456@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: <1E81C7AA-0EFA-4325-AA09-2811AF6EC68A@me.com> John, I have the the whole collection. Let me know where we can place it more "openly" (The Internet Archive?) and I'll be happy to make it happen. Copying Carl Malamud who knows about such things. Ole > On Aug 24, 2022, at 16:07, John Gilmore wrote: > > Ole Jacobsen via Internet-history wrote: >> ConneXions - The Interoperability Report was published monthly from >> 1987 through 1996. The Charles Babbage Institute at the University of >> Minnesota has scanned the complete collection of ConneXions (117 >> issues) and it is now available here: >> https://cse.umn.edu/cbi/hosted-publications > > I followed the link, and, wow. ConneXions is not available there. It > is available VIA a link from there to a cryptic URL at Google Drive. > > So a university has scanned in some key Internet history, and is now > storing it for public access only via Google Drive? Not only is it a > painful interface (not having a Google account, nor enabling Google > javascript nor any Google cookies, I have still been unable to download > nor read any of the issues). But more important, someday it will just go > poof, at the discretion of a company that cares only about monetizing > your eyeballs, and all that history will be lost. > > John > 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 john.nolan at firstmilenetworks.co.uk Fri Aug 26 00:21:06 2022 From: john.nolan at firstmilenetworks.co.uk (john.nolan at firstmilenetworks.co.uk) Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 08:21:06 +0100 Subject: [ih] RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001d8b91c$68c148b0$3a43da10$@firstmilenetworks.co.uk> Ahoy, I met Ole at Interop in Paris, 94 (if I recall correctly) so I have some minor "skin in the game." It seems to me that Ole deserves some recognition for attempting to preserve such a valuable historical source. The IPJ also deserves a mention here and is where a book review on John Day's "Patterns, etc" led me to me a rethink. John -----Original Message----- From: Internet-history On Behalf Of internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org Sent: 25 August 2022 20:00 To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org Subject: Internet-history Digest, Vol 35, Issue 8 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. Re: STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) (John Gilmore) 2. Re: STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) (Ole Jacobsen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 16:07:36 -0700 From: John Gilmore To: Ole Jacobsen Cc: Internet-history Subject: Re: [ih] STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Message-ID: <1921.1661382456 at hop.toad.com> Ole Jacobsen via Internet-history wrote: > ConneXions - The Interoperability Report was published monthly from > 1987 through 1996. The Charles Babbage Institute at the University of > Minnesota has scanned the complete collection of ConneXions (117 > issues) and it is now available here: > https://cse.umn.edu/cbi/hosted-publications I followed the link, and, wow. ConneXions is not available there. It is available VIA a link from there to a cryptic URL at Google Drive. So a university has scanned in some key Internet history, and is now storing it for public access only via Google Drive? Not only is it a painful interface (not having a Google account, nor enabling Google javascript nor any Google cookies, I have still been unable to download nor read any of the issues). But more important, someday it will just go poof, at the discretion of a company that cares only about monetizing your eyeballs, and all that history will be lost. John ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 16:39:58 -0700 From: Ole Jacobsen To: John Gilmore , Carl Malamud Cc: Ole Jacobsen , Internet-history Subject: Re: [ih] STD 7, RFC 9293 on Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Message-ID: <1E81C7AA-0EFA-4325-AA09-2811AF6EC68A at me.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii John, I have the the whole collection. Let me know where we can place it more "openly" (The Internet Archive?) and I'll be happy to make it happen. Copying Carl Malamud who knows about such things. Ole > On Aug 24, 2022, at 16:07, John Gilmore wrote: > > Ole Jacobsen via Internet-history wrote: >> ConneXions - The Interoperability Report was published monthly from >> 1987 through 1996. The Charles Babbage Institute at the University of >> Minnesota has scanned the complete collection of ConneXions (117 >> issues) and it is now available here: >> https://cse.umn.edu/cbi/hosted-publications > > I followed the link, and, wow. ConneXions is not available there. It > is available VIA a link from there to a cryptic URL at Google Drive. > > So a university has scanned in some key Internet history, and is now > storing it for public access only via Google Drive? Not only is it a > painful interface (not having a Google account, nor enabling Google > javascript nor any Google cookies, I have still been unable to > download nor read any of the issues). But more important, someday it > will just go poof, at the discretion of a company that cares only > about monetizing your eyeballs, and all that history will be lost. > > John > 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 ------------------------------ 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 35, Issue 8 *********************************************** From geoff at iconia.com Mon Aug 29 08:31:12 2022 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 08:31:12 -0700 Subject: [ih] BufferBloat: What's Wrong with the Internet? Message-ID: *A discussion with Vint Cerf, Van Jacobson, Nick Weaver, and Jim Gettys* December 7, 2011 Volume 9, issue 12 Note: Be sure to read the companion article to this one, Bufferbloat: Dark Buffers in the Internet ( https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2012/1/144810-bufferbloat/fulltext)*. - Ed.* *Internet delays are now as common as they are maddening. That means they end up affecting system engineers just like all the rest of us. And when system engineers get irritated, they often go looking for what's at the root of the problem. Take Jim Gettys, for example. His slow home network had repeatedly proved to be the source of considerable frustration, so he set out to determine what was wrong, and he even coined a term for what he found: bufferbloat.* *Bufferbloat refers to excess buffering inside a network, resulting in high latency and reduced throughput. Some buffering is needed; it provides space to queue packets waiting for transmission, thus minimizing data loss. In the past, the high cost of memory kept buffers fairly small, so they filled quickly and packets began to drop shortly after the link became saturated, signaling to the communications protocol the presence of congestion and thus the need for compensating adjustments.* *Because memory now is significantly cheaper than it used to be, buffering has been overdone in all manner of network devices, without consideration for the consequences. Manufacturers have reflexively acted to prevent any and all packet loss and, by doing so, have inadvertently defeated a critical TCP congestion-detection mechanism, with the result being worsened congestion and increased latency.* *Now that the problem has been diagnosed, people are working feverishly to fix it. This case study considers the extent of the bufferbloat problem and its potential implications. Working to steer the discussion is Vint Cerf, popularly known as one of the "fathers of the Internet." As the co-designer of the TCP/IP protocols, Cerf did indeed play a key role in developing the Internet and related packet data and security technologies while at Stanford University from 1972-1976 and with DARPA (the U.S. Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency) from 1976-1982. He currently serves as Google's chief Internet evangelist.* *Van Jacobson, presently a research fellow at PARC where he leads the networking research program, is also central to this discussion. Considered one of the world's leading authorities on TCP, he helped develop the RED (random early detection) queue management algorithm that has been widely credited with allowing the Internet to grow and meet ever-increasing throughput demands over the years. Prior to joining PARC, Jacobson was a chief scientist at Cisco Systems and later at Packet Design Networks.* *Also participating is Nick Weaver, a researcher at ICSI (International Computer Science Institute in Berkeley where he was part of the team that developed Netalyzr, a tool that analyzes network connections and has been instrumental in detecting bufferbloat and measuring its impact across the Internet.* *Rounding out the discussion is Gettys, who edited the HTTP/1.1 specification and was a co-designer of the X Window System. He now is a member of the technical staff at Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs, where he focuses on systems design and engineering, protocol design, and free software development...* [...] https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2076798 also at https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2012/2/145415-bufferbloat-whats-wrong-with-the-internet/fulltext -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True From dave.taht at gmail.com Mon Aug 29 09:32:03 2022 From: dave.taht at gmail.com (Dave Taht) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 09:32:03 -0700 Subject: [ih] BufferBloat: What's Wrong with the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 8:32 AM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history wrote: > > *A discussion with Vint Cerf, Van Jacobson, Nick Weaver, and Jim Gettys* > > December 7, 2011 > Volume 9, issue 12 > > Note: Be sure to read the companion article to this one, Bufferbloat: Dark > Buffers in the Internet ( > https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2012/1/144810-bufferbloat/fulltext)*. - Ed.* > > *Internet delays are now as common as they are maddening. That means they > end up affecting system engineers just like all the rest of us. And when > system engineers get irritated, they often go looking for what's at the > root of the problem. Take Jim Gettys, for example. His slow home network > had repeatedly proved to be the source of considerable frustration, so he > set out to determine what was wrong, and he even coined a term for what he > found: bufferbloat.* > > *Bufferbloat refers to excess buffering inside a network, resulting in high > latency and reduced throughput. Some buffering is needed; it provides space > to queue packets waiting for transmission, thus minimizing data loss. In > the past, the high cost of memory kept buffers fairly small, so they filled > quickly and packets began to drop shortly after the link became saturated, > signaling to the communications protocol the presence of congestion and > thus the need for compensating adjustments.* > > *Because memory now is significantly cheaper than it used to be, buffering > has been overdone in all manner of network devices, without consideration > for the consequences. Manufacturers have reflexively acted to prevent any > and all packet loss and, by doing so, have inadvertently defeated a > critical TCP congestion-detection mechanism, with the result being worsened > congestion and increased latency.* > > *Now that the problem has been diagnosed, people are working feverishly to > fix it. This case study considers the extent of the bufferbloat problem and > its potential implications. Working to steer the discussion is Vint Cerf, > popularly known as one of the "fathers of the Internet." As the co-designer > of the TCP/IP protocols, Cerf did indeed play a key role in developing the > Internet and related packet data and security technologies while at > Stanford University from 1972-1976 and with DARPA (the U.S. Department of > Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency) from 1976-1982. He currently > serves as Google's chief Internet evangelist.* > > *Van Jacobson, presently a research fellow at PARC where he leads the > networking research program, is also central to this discussion. Considered > one of the world's leading authorities on TCP, he helped develop the RED > (random early detection) queue management algorithm that has been widely > credited with allowing the Internet to grow and meet ever-increasing > throughput demands over the years. Prior to joining PARC, Jacobson was a > chief scientist at Cisco Systems and later at Packet Design Networks.* > > *Also participating is Nick Weaver, a researcher at ICSI (International > Computer Science Institute in Berkeley where he was part of the team that > developed Netalyzr, a tool that analyzes network connections and has been > instrumental in detecting bufferbloat and measuring its impact across the > Internet.* > > *Rounding out the discussion is Gettys, who edited the HTTP/1.1 > specification and was a co-designer of the X Window System. He now is a > member of the technical staff at Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs, where he focuses > on systems design and engineering, protocol design, and free software > development...* > > [...] > > https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2076798 > > also at > > https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2012/2/145415-bufferbloat-whats-wrong-with-the-internet/fulltext Yes, 11 years after this, the internet - even and especially on new tech like 5G and Starlink, is still horrifically overbuffered. Given how rapidly "slow start" had rolled out in the 80s, I would have thought that the 300 or so lines of code in the fq_codel or pie algorithms would have rolled out more universally than they have. I figured we'd be done in 7 years, but it looks to me to be another 14, if ever. There's been a LOT of progress though (see my .sig), and most recently both ookla and speedtest.net have added tests for latency under up or down load. Those bloated results keep popping up in article after article online with people complaining about their "bandwidth", with few to none even noticing those numbers point at the bloat problem. I yearn for a very public experiment, like this one, where in a flash, everyone suddenly realizes where the real problem was. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rwcbsn19c0 -- FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/ Dave T?ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC From robert.mcmillan at wsj.com Mon Aug 29 10:34:43 2022 From: robert.mcmillan at wsj.com (McMillan, Robert) Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 10:34:43 -0700 Subject: [ih] BufferBloat: What's Wrong with the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >I >yearn for a very public experiment, like this one, where in a flash, >everyone suddenly realizes where the real problem was. I would love to see that too. Is that even possible? Bob From bpurvy at gmail.com Wed Aug 31 15:53:23 2022 From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 15:53:23 -0700 Subject: [ih] Chat room and forum archives Message-ID: Something you wouldn't think would be a problem: I'm planning out my next novel, and I want to have a character haunting the chat rooms and forums on investing, around 1995 and on. I don't want to quote anything or dox anyone -- I just want to get the tone and format back then, as well as the topics they were talking about. The Wayback Machine seems to have started at the end of 1996. Does anyone have links to earlier archives? From olejacobsen at me.com Wed Aug 31 16:08:29 2022 From: olejacobsen at me.com (Ole Jacobsen) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 16:08:29 -0700 Subject: [ih] Chat room and forum archives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1C1BB674-F423-43C5-B981-FDAD3FA9F738@me.com> I don?t know about ?chat rooms? exactly, but mailing lists have been around since the ARPANET days, wine-lovers, sf-lovers, etc, not to mention Usenet news groups. On ANY topic?. Ole J. Jacobsen Editor & Publisher The Internet Protocol Journal Office: +1 415 550-9433 Cell: +1 415 370-4628 T-Mobile: +1 415 889-9821 Docomo: +81 90 3337 9311? http://protocoljournal.org Sent from my iPhone > On 31 Aug 2022, at 15:53, Bob Purvy via Internet-history wrote: > > ?Something you wouldn't think would be a problem: > > I'm planning out my next novel, and I want to have a character haunting the > chat rooms and forums on investing, around 1995 and on. I don't want to > quote anything or dox anyone -- I just want to get the tone and format back > then, as well as the topics they were talking about. > > The Wayback Machine seems to have started at the end of 1996. Does anyone > have links to earlier archives? > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From geoff at iconia.com Wed Aug 31 16:24:59 2022 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 16:24:59 -0700 Subject: [ih] Chat room and forum archives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=human-nets+archive On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 3:53 PM Bob Purvy via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Something you wouldn't think would be a problem: > > I'm planning out my next novel, and I want to have a character haunting the > chat rooms and forums on investing, around 1995 and on. I don't want to > quote anything or dox anyone -- I just want to get the tone and format back > then, as well as the topics they were talking about. > > The Wayback Machine seems to have started at the end of 1996. Does anyone > have links to earlier archives? > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True From leo at vegoda.org Wed Aug 31 16:28:18 2022 From: leo at vegoda.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 16:28:18 -0700 Subject: [ih] Chat room and forum archives In-Reply-To: <1C1BB674-F423-43C5-B981-FDAD3FA9F738@me.com> References: <1C1BB674-F423-43C5-B981-FDAD3FA9F738@me.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 4:08 PM Ole Jacobsen via Internet-history wrote: > > I don?t know about ?chat rooms? exactly, but mailing lists have been around since the ARPANET days, wine-lovers, sf-lovers, etc, not to mention Usenet news groups. On ANY topic?. Also look for usenet archives of discussion in alt.invest Kind regards, Leo From jmamodio at gmail.com Wed Aug 31 16:30:50 2022 From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 18:30:50 -0500 Subject: [ih] Chat room and forum archives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A5DB231-30F6-4B77-B6A8-9F7392B4F549@gmail.com> Usenet news was extremely active during those days, you may find some archives. IRC was very popular and cucme, I met my wife on IRC during 1995 ;-), we had some interesting opers wars to take control of channels. Cheers -Jorge > On Aug 31, 2022, at 5:53 PM, Bob Purvy via Internet-history wrote: > > ?Something you wouldn't think would be a problem: > > I'm planning out my next novel, and I want to have a character haunting the > chat rooms and forums on investing, around 1995 and on. I don't want to > quote anything or dox anyone -- I just want to get the tone and format back > then, as well as the topics they were talking about. > > The Wayback Machine seems to have started at the end of 1996. Does anyone > have links to earlier archives? > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From dhc at dcrocker.net Wed Aug 31 16:41:29 2022 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 16:41:29 -0700 Subject: [ih] Chat room and forum archives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39ca04a9-ef27-5c36-2406-e8fe3414199c@dcrocker.net> On 8/31/2022 3:53 PM, Bob Purvy via Internet-history wrote: > a character haunting the > chat rooms and forums on investing, around 1995 and on So, this was just as the Internet went mass-market.? Web coming into its own.? No social networking yet. There was 1:1 chat going back forever on many systems, but 1:many group venues were, I think, still only in specialized teleconferencing systems, dating from the gas crisis in 1972. Enterprise tool, not mass-market. The closest would be public discussion lists via email or, of course, Usenet.? I'm not sure, but I think by the 1995 timeframe, the latter had become established as, shall we say, mostly noise... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From bpurvy at gmail.com Wed Aug 31 16:42:47 2022 From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 16:42:47 -0700 Subject: [ih] Chat room and forum archives In-Reply-To: <9A5DB231-30F6-4B77-B6A8-9F7392B4F549@gmail.com> References: <9A5DB231-30F6-4B77-B6A8-9F7392B4F549@gmail.com> Message-ID: I should have mentioned that Usenet and mailing lists were kinda techie back then. I'm thinking my guy would have started with CompuServe, Prodigy, AOL... something less intimidating for a noobie guy. On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 4:30 PM Jorge Amodio wrote: > > Usenet news was extremely active during those days, you may find some > archives. > > IRC was very popular and cucme, I met my wife on IRC during 1995 ;-), we > had some interesting opers wars to take control of channels. > > Cheers > -Jorge > > > On Aug 31, 2022, at 5:53 PM, Bob Purvy via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > ?Something you wouldn't think would be a problem: > > > > I'm planning out my next novel, and I want to have a character haunting > the > > chat rooms and forums on investing, around 1995 and on. I don't want to > > quote anything or dox anyone -- I just want to get the tone and format > back > > then, as well as the topics they were talking about. > > > > The Wayback Machine seems to have started at the end of 1996. Does anyone > > have links to earlier archives? > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From jmamodio at gmail.com Wed Aug 31 17:07:48 2022 From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 19:07:48 -0500 Subject: [ih] Chat room and forum archives In-Reply-To: <39ca04a9-ef27-5c36-2406-e8fe3414199c@dcrocker.net> References: <39ca04a9-ef27-5c36-2406-e8fe3414199c@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: Internet Relay Chat (aka IRC) was released in 1988... there were a couple networks of servers like EFnet, Undernet, IRCnet, etc, and a handful of servers on each network with a multi-channel (sort of chat room) multi participant distributed chat protocol. You had the option to have 1:1 conversation but most of the activity was on #channels you joined and chatted with others on that channel. Some networks are still active and you can download desktop clients or use some web based clients. -J On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 6:41 PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > On 8/31/2022 3:53 PM, Bob Purvy via Internet-history wrote: > > a character haunting the > > chat rooms and forums on investing, around 1995 and on > > So, this was just as the Internet went mass-market. Web coming into its > own. No social networking yet. > > There was 1:1 chat going back forever on many systems, but 1:many group > venues were, I think, still only in specialized teleconferencing > systems, dating from the gas crisis in 1972. Enterprise tool, not > mass-market. > > The closest would be public discussion lists via email or, of course, > Usenet. I'm not sure, but I think by the 1995 timeframe, the latter had > become established as, shall we say, mostly noise... > > 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 jmamodio at gmail.com Wed Aug 31 17:12:13 2022 From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 19:12:13 -0500 Subject: [ih] Chat room and forum archives In-Reply-To: References: <9A5DB231-30F6-4B77-B6A8-9F7392B4F549@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yup alt.sex was a very techie channel back then LOL -J On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 6:42 PM Bob Purvy wrote: > I should have mentioned that Usenet and mailing lists were kinda techie > back then. I'm thinking my guy would have started with CompuServe, Prodigy, > AOL... something less intimidating for a noobie guy. > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 4:30 PM Jorge Amodio wrote: > >> >> Usenet news was extremely active during those days, you may find some >> archives. >> >> IRC was very popular and cucme, I met my wife on IRC during 1995 ;-), we >> had some interesting opers wars to take control of channels. >> >> Cheers >> -Jorge >> >> > On Aug 31, 2022, at 5:53 PM, Bob Purvy via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> > >> > ?Something you wouldn't think would be a problem: >> > >> > I'm planning out my next novel, and I want to have a character haunting >> the >> > chat rooms and forums on investing, around 1995 and on. I don't want to >> > quote anything or dox anyone -- I just want to get the tone and format >> back >> > then, as well as the topics they were talking about. >> > >> > The Wayback Machine seems to have started at the end of 1996. Does >> anyone >> > have links to earlier archives? >> > -- >> > Internet-history mailing list >> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > From jack at 3kitty.org Wed Aug 31 18:14:11 2022 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 18:14:11 -0700 Subject: [ih] Chat room and forum archives In-Reply-To: References: <9A5DB231-30F6-4B77-B6A8-9F7392B4F549@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7bf9e128-1077-6482-3878-e30a0215e349@3kitty.org> IIRC, I had a Compuserve account, although I can't remember exactly when.? But I think I remember that Compuserve's charges were based on hours of connect time.?? So there was financial pressure on Users to dial up, do what you wanted to do, and hang up as quickly as possible.?? That's very different from today's always-connected world.?? I thought that might matter for your novel.? Good writing! Jack On 8/31/22 16:42, Bob Purvy via Internet-history wrote: > I should have mentioned that Usenet and mailing lists were kinda techie > back then. I'm thinking my guy would have started with CompuServe, Prodigy, > AOL... something less intimidating for a noobie guy. > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 4:30 PM Jorge Amodio wrote: > >> Usenet news was extremely active during those days, you may find some >> archives. >> >> IRC was very popular and cucme, I met my wife on IRC during 1995 ;-), we >> had some interesting opers wars to take control of channels. >> >> Cheers >> -Jorge >> >>> On Aug 31, 2022, at 5:53 PM, Bob Purvy via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>> ?Something you wouldn't think would be a problem: >>> >>> I'm planning out my next novel, and I want to have a character haunting >> the >>> chat rooms and forums on investing, around 1995 and on. I don't want to >>> quote anything or dox anyone -- I just want to get the tone and format >> back >>> then, as well as the topics they were talking about. >>> >>> The Wayback Machine seems to have started at the end of 1996. Does anyone >>> have links to earlier archives? >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From cos at aaaaa.org Wed Aug 31 18:14:09 2022 From: cos at aaaaa.org (Ofer Inbar) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 21:14:09 -0400 Subject: [ih] Chat room and forum archives In-Reply-To: References: <9A5DB231-30F6-4B77-B6A8-9F7392B4F549@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20220901011409.GX11251@miplet.aaaaa.org> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 04:42:47PM -0700, Bob Purvy via Internet-history wrote: > I should have mentioned that Usenet and mailing lists were kinda techie > back then. I'm thinking my guy would have started with CompuServe, Prodigy, > AOL... something less intimidating for a noobie guy. Depends on what sort of noob. If this character was in high school in the 80s or early 90s, there's a good chance some of his friends ran or knew someone who ran a BBS, so FidoNet and BBS message groups might be his "online" context. -- Cos From johnl at iecc.com Wed Aug 31 18:22:00 2022 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 31 Aug 2022 21:22:00 -0400 Subject: [ih] Chat room and forum archives In-Reply-To: <7bf9e128-1077-6482-3878-e30a0215e349@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <20220901012200.B6EE448C3211@ary.qy> It appears that Jack Haverty via Internet-history said: >IIRC, I had a Compuserve account, although I can't remember exactly >when.? But I think I remember that Compuserve's charges were based on >hours of connect time.?? So there was financial pressure on Users to >dial up, do what you wanted to do, and hang up as quickly as possible. Yup. There were programs for your PC that would connect, upload whatever you had written, download all the messages in groups of interest, and then hang up, so you could peruse them and reply offline. AOL was like that until they switched to unmetered service. From fergdawgster at mykolab.com Wed Aug 31 18:27:41 2022 From: fergdawgster at mykolab.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 18:27:41 -0700 Subject: [ih] Chat room and forum archives In-Reply-To: <20220901012200.B6EE448C3211@ary.qy> References: <20220901012200.B6EE448C3211@ary.qy> Message-ID: <2fd8ce60-6ef5-27b1-5d4f-7e74a0986c12@mykolab.com> On 8/31/22 6:22 PM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: > It appears that Jack Haverty via Internet-history said: >> IIRC, I had a Compuserve account, although I can't remember exactly >> when.? But I think I remember that Compuserve's charges were based on >> hours of connect time.?? So there was financial pressure on Users to >> dial up, do what you wanted to do, and hang up as quickly as possible. > > Yup. There were programs for your PC that would connect, upload > whatever you had written, download all the messages in groups of > interest, and then hang up, so you could peruse them and reply > offline. > > AOL was like that until they switched to unmetered service. > FWIW, this topic/thread made me seek-and-find some old cypherpunk archive threads I had contributed to from an old FIDOnet gateway account. FIDO was really big in the amateur BBS community prior to the early 90's and the commercial availability of 'the Internet'. :-) Cheers, - ferg -- Paul Ferguson Tacoma, WA USA Illegitimi non carborundum. From dave.taht at gmail.com Wed Aug 31 18:53:16 2022 From: dave.taht at gmail.com (Dave Taht) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 18:53:16 -0700 Subject: [ih] Chat room and forum archives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The cellar.org BBS 1990-2020 had a colorful history and was run by at least two folk that held jobs on the philly stock exchange, and the "undertoad". (ubbs, I think it was called). Some history: https://cellar.org/faq.php?faq=what_it_is#faq_cellar_history It was one of the first bbs's that had multiple modems, so chat was one of it's pulls. I bear no resemblance to the guy that gave them sco Xenix in 1990. None, whatsoever. On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 3:53 PM Bob Purvy via Internet-history wrote: > > Something you wouldn't think would be a problem: > > I'm planning out my next novel, and I want to have a character haunting the > chat rooms and forums on investing, around 1995 and on. I don't want to > quote anything or dox anyone -- I just want to get the tone and format back > then, as well as the topics they were talking about. > > The Wayback Machine seems to have started at the end of 1996. Does anyone > have links to earlier archives? > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/ Dave T?ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC From york at isoc.org Wed Aug 31 19:06:02 2022 From: york at isoc.org (Dan York) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2022 02:06:02 +0000 Subject: [ih] Chat room and forum archives In-Reply-To: <2fd8ce60-6ef5-27b1-5d4f-7e74a0986c12@mykolab.com> References: <20220901012200.B6EE448C3211@ary.qy> <2fd8ce60-6ef5-27b1-5d4f-7e74a0986c12@mykolab.com> Message-ID: <523DBA28-4E23-4948-BBF3-00234ACE9697@isoc.org> On Aug 31, 2022, at 9:27 PM, Paul Ferguson via Internet-history > wrote: FWIW, this topic/thread made me seek-and-find some old cypherpunk archive threads I had contributed to from an old FIDOnet gateway account. FIDO was really big in the amateur BBS community prior to the early 90's and the commercial availability of 'the Internet'. :-) Ah, FIDOnet? I remember it well! A friend operated a BBS and was connected out via FIDOnet to the wider world. But back to Bob?s question: On Aug 31, 2022, at 6:53 PM, Bob Purvy via Internet-history > wrote: The Wayback Machine seems to have started at the end of 1996. Does anyone have links to earlier archives? As others have noted, there wasn?t much of the Web to archive before 1995/1996, since the Web had only started a few years earlier. I don?t know if anyone ever archived much of gopher space. And the proprietary walled gardens of CompuServe, AOL, Prodigy, etc., were exactly that? walled gardens under the control of their owners. I doubt there are major archives of those. I?ve heard the WELL has archives going back to the 1980s? but you?d have to pay to get access: https://www.well.com/ DejaNews was the first I recall trying to make a comprehensive archive of USENET newsgroups. They started in 1995 but at one point I recall they were actively going back to retrieve earlier postings and add them to their archive. They were bought by Google who eventually merged that all into Google Groups. However, the archives seem to live on in Google Groups via https://groups.google.com - If you can make the right combination of UI choices, you can get back into early USENET groups. Reaching back into the crevices of my mind to remember some of the groups I used to follow, I was able to work my way back in alt.tv.babylon-5 to February 1993 - https://groups.google.com/g/alt.tv.babylon-5/search?q=after%3A1985-08-07%20before%3A1993-07-09 Going back into those archives could possibly help give you some flavor for your character. (Well, maybe not the B5 group, but some of the other ones of that era.) Hope some of that helps, Dan From bpurvy at gmail.com Wed Aug 31 21:49:40 2022 From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 21:49:40 -0700 Subject: [ih] Chat room and forum archives In-Reply-To: <7bf9e128-1077-6482-3878-e30a0215e349@3kitty.org> References: <9A5DB231-30F6-4B77-B6A8-9F7392B4F549@gmail.com> <7bf9e128-1077-6482-3878-e30a0215e349@3kitty.org> Message-ID: thanks, all. My character, Len, will have just retired from Chrysler recently, as a financial analyst. He was fascinated by VisiCalc & the Apple II; in fact, he's the one who told his daughter Janet about it, and she was working on the Xerox Star! But I don't think he'd be very Internet-savvy, at first. I kinda think it'd be fun to have him be a clueless AOL user at first, and then slowly grow in sophistication. I recall that the "walled garden" idea was pretty attractive to AOL & others at first -- "the Internet is a scary place! We bring you the best of it in a safe way!" as silly as that sounds now. On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 6:14 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > IIRC, I had a Compuserve account, although I can't remember exactly > when. But I think I remember that Compuserve's charges were based on > hours of connect time. So there was financial pressure on Users to > dial up, do what you wanted to do, and hang up as quickly as possible. > That's very different from today's always-connected world. I thought > that might matter for your novel. Good writing! > Jack > > > On 8/31/22 16:42, Bob Purvy via Internet-history wrote: > > I should have mentioned that Usenet and mailing lists were kinda techie > > back then. I'm thinking my guy would have started with CompuServe, > Prodigy, > > AOL... something less intimidating for a noobie guy. > > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 4:30 PM Jorge Amodio wrote: > > > >> Usenet news was extremely active during those days, you may find some > >> archives. > >> > >> IRC was very popular and cucme, I met my wife on IRC during 1995 ;-), we > >> had some interesting opers wars to take control of channels. > >> > >> Cheers > >> -Jorge > >> > >>> On Aug 31, 2022, at 5:53 PM, Bob Purvy via Internet-history < > >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >>> ?Something you wouldn't think would be a problem: > >>> > >>> I'm planning out my next novel, and I want to have a character haunting > >> the > >>> chat rooms and forums on investing, around 1995 and on. I don't want to > >>> quote anything or dox anyone -- I just want to get the tone and format > >> back > >>> then, as well as the topics they were talking about. > >>> > >>> The Wayback Machine seems to have started at the end of 1996. Does > anyone > >>> have links to earlier archives? > >>> -- > >>> 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 >