From geoff at iconia.com Sat Jun 11 07:32:08 2022 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2022 07:32:08 -0700 Subject: [ih] Web5: An extra decentralized web platform In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SaHGyY9TjPg4a0VNLCsfchoVG1yU3ffTDsPRcU99H1E/edit#slide=id.g11b904107df_0_1 via https://twitter.com/TBD54566975/status/1535303403361824768 -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True From geoff at iconia.com Sat Jun 11 07:39:14 2022 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2022 07:39:14 -0700 Subject: [ih] WEB5: AN EXTRA DECENTRALIZED WEB PLATFORM Message-ID: *Building an extra decentralized web that puts you in control of your data and identity* The web democratized the exchange of information, but it's missing a key layer: identity. We struggle to secure personal data with hundreds of accounts and passwords we can?t remember. On the web today, identity and personal data have become the property of third parties. Web5 brings decentralized identity and data storage to your applications. It lets devs focus on creating delightful user experiences, while returning ownership of data and identity to individuals. [Web2] and [Web3] => [Web5] https://developer.tbd.website/projects/web5/ -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Mon Jun 13 10:01:51 2022 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:01:51 -0400 Subject: [ih] WEB5: AN EXTRA DECENTRALIZED WEB PLATFORM In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8e4ee291-691d-e35b-05b3-167d3e346c94@meetinghouse.net> the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history wrote: > *Building an extra decentralized web that puts you in control of your data > and identity* > > The web democratized the exchange of information, but it's missing a key > layer: identity. We struggle to secure personal data with hundreds of > accounts and passwords we can?t remember. On the web today, identity and > personal data have become the property of third parties. > > Web5 brings decentralized identity and data storage to your applications. > It lets devs focus on creating delightful user experiences, while returning > ownership of data and identity to individuals. > > [Web2] and [Web3] => [Web5] > > https://developer.tbd.website/projects/web5/ > So maybe this we should just skip all the intermediate steps and go right to one big cloud of URLs, Processes, and Files.? "The Network is the Computer" and all that. ------- Distributed, Replicated Files as the bottom layer - IPFS kind of meets the bill - Add some kind of DCVS - Git, WebDAV, DIS, HLA, XMPP Universal Messaging - Unicast, Group, Broadcast - IP, XMPP, NNTP, AQMP, Link16, take us in the right direction Universal Real-Time Connectivity - DDS, SIP/H.323 for establishing real-time associations Erlang-Style Actors, Mobile Agents A local environment that looks like HyperCard (stacks of cards - each stack a namespace, each card a bundle of data & processes - i.e., files & actors) [Or Smalltalk, or OpenDoc, or Apollo Domain, or a Lisp Machine] --------- Or... maybe we just all adopt Plan9, and move on to doing useful things with it. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. Practice is when everything works but no one knows why. In our lab, theory and practice are combined: nothing works and no one knows why. ... unknown From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Thu Jun 23 00:15:57 2022 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 03:15:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP Message-ID: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> I'm interested in finding out more about the process by which TCP and IP were separated: to begin with, how it came to be recognized that this separation was a good thing. (This split was what enabled the later creation of UDP, of course.) In particular, that the basic service model (of what later became the internet layer) should be directly usable by applications, and that the complete data network be accessible not _just_ only via TCP. I am also interested in who drove this change (if any players in particular stand out). I have poked around a bit in the early IEN's, but I didn't find much on this specific area - either why, or who. From comments in IEN-22 "Internet Meeting Notes - 1 February 1978" (in "Introduction and Objectives) it sounds like the formal decision to do the split was made at the TCP meeting the day before. The minutes from that meeting, IEN-67 "TCP Meeting Notes - 30 & 31 January 1978", don't provide much, though. IEN-66 "TCP Meeting Notes - 13 & 14 October 1977" shows that there had been a drift in this direction for a while; it didn't seem to be present as of IEN-3, "Internet Meeting Notes - 15 August 1977", though. I arrived on the scene shortly after this happened (my first meeting was the August 1978 one), but I retain some impressions (gained no doubt from discussions with people like Clark and Reed). These are the impressions that I retain: that Danny was _a_ significant force in making this happen, because of his voice work - for which timeliness was important, not correctness. (In IEN-67, "Arrangements - Cohen" Danny "complain[ed] about TCP-3 becoming all things to all people".) Is that correct? (If so, it's probably his most significant technical legacy.) For others, I think Dave Reed may have been in favour too (perhaps he'd already started to think of RPC-like things). And perhaps some of the other voice people - e.g. Forgie? And I'm sure the PARC guys were trying to throw a few clues our way. Am I missing anyone? Did anyone stand out as being a bigger influence than the rest? Maybe there's some significan paper that discusses the architectural benefit of making the basic unreliable data carriage substrate accessible to _some_ applications, but the concept didn't seem to get much coverage in the IENs. Maybe it was so obviously the Right Thing that not much discussion was needed, and the only question was when/how to do it? Noel From sob at sobco.com Thu Jun 23 03:31:09 2022 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott Bradner) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 06:31:09 -0400 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <87230B5F-79BF-4821-8356-D20D89F37BAA@sobco.com> a good source is the Cohen/Casner lecture that they gave at Google in August 2010 A Brief Prehistory of Voice over IP parts 1 & 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av4KF1j-wp4 I have a copy of the slides (44 MB) - let me know if you would like a copy Scott > On Jun 23, 2022, at 3:15 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: > > I'm interested in finding out more about the process by which TCP and IP were > separated: to begin with, how it came to be recognized that this separation > was a good thing. (This split was what enabled the later creation of UDP, of > course.) In particular, that the basic service model (of what later became > the internet layer) should be directly usable by applications, and that the > complete data network be accessible not _just_ only via TCP. I am also > interested in who drove this change (if any players in particular stand out). > > I have poked around a bit in the early IEN's, but I didn't find much on this > specific area - either why, or who. From comments in IEN-22 "Internet Meeting > Notes - 1 February 1978" (in "Introduction and Objectives) it sounds like the > formal decision to do the split was made at the TCP meeting the day before. > The minutes from that meeting, IEN-67 "TCP Meeting Notes - 30 & 31 January > 1978", don't provide much, though. IEN-66 "TCP Meeting Notes - 13 & 14 > October 1977" shows that there had been a drift in this direction for a > while; it didn't seem to be present as of IEN-3, "Internet Meeting Notes - 15 > August 1977", though. > > I arrived on the scene shortly after this happened (my first meeting was the > August 1978 one), but I retain some impressions (gained no doubt from > discussions with people like Clark and Reed). These are the impressions that > I retain: that Danny was _a_ significant force in making this happen, because > of his voice work - for which timeliness was important, not correctness. (In > IEN-67, "Arrangements - Cohen" Danny "complain[ed] about TCP-3 becoming all > things to all people".) Is that correct? (If so, it's probably his most > significant technical legacy.) For others, I think Dave Reed may have been in > favour too (perhaps he'd already started to think of RPC-like things). And > perhaps some of the other voice people - e.g. Forgie? And I'm sure the PARC > guys were trying to throw a few clues our way. Am I missing anyone? Did > anyone stand out as being a bigger influence than the rest? > > Maybe there's some significan paper that discusses the architectural benefit > of making the basic unreliable data carriage substrate accessible to _some_ > applications, but the concept didn't seem to get much coverage in the IENs. > Maybe it was so obviously the Right Thing that not much discussion was > needed, and the only question was when/how to do it? > > Noel > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From craig at tereschau.net Thu Jun 23 05:32:00 2022 From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 06:32:00 -0600 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: I looked at this question twenty (?) years ago and swapped notes with Dave Reed and I think Danny Cohen. >From what I recall (and I think I have notes somewhere but not immediately to hand). Yes Danny was doing voice experiments and TCP wasn't cutting it. There was a hallway discussion of Jon Postel, Danny and Dave (and I think that's the list) in early '78 (so you've correctly dated it) and the agreement was to split TCP in two and create UDP. Key point is splitting TCP and creating UDP happened at the same time. Craig On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 1:16 AM Noel Chiappa via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > I'm interested in finding out more about the process by which TCP and IP > were > separated: to begin with, how it came to be recognized that this separation > was a good thing. (This split was what enabled the later creation of UDP, > of > course.) In particular, that the basic service model (of what later became > the internet layer) should be directly usable by applications, and that the > complete data network be accessible not _just_ only via TCP. I am also > interested in who drove this change (if any players in particular stand > out). > > I have poked around a bit in the early IEN's, but I didn't find much on > this > specific area - either why, or who. From comments in IEN-22 "Internet > Meeting > Notes - 1 February 1978" (in "Introduction and Objectives) it sounds like > the > formal decision to do the split was made at the TCP meeting the day before. > The minutes from that meeting, IEN-67 "TCP Meeting Notes - 30 & 31 January > 1978", don't provide much, though. IEN-66 "TCP Meeting Notes - 13 & 14 > October 1977" shows that there had been a drift in this direction for a > while; it didn't seem to be present as of IEN-3, "Internet Meeting Notes - > 15 > August 1977", though. > > I arrived on the scene shortly after this happened (my first meeting was > the > August 1978 one), but I retain some impressions (gained no doubt from > discussions with people like Clark and Reed). These are the impressions > that > I retain: that Danny was _a_ significant force in making this happen, > because > of his voice work - for which timeliness was important, not correctness. > (In > IEN-67, "Arrangements - Cohen" Danny "complain[ed] about TCP-3 becoming all > things to all people".) Is that correct? (If so, it's probably his most > significant technical legacy.) For others, I think Dave Reed may have been > in > favour too (perhaps he'd already started to think of RPC-like things). And > perhaps some of the other voice people - e.g. Forgie? And I'm sure the PARC > guys were trying to throw a few clues our way. Am I missing anyone? Did > anyone stand out as being a bigger influence than the rest? > > Maybe there's some significan paper that discusses the architectural > benefit > of making the basic unreliable data carriage substrate accessible to _some_ > applications, but the concept didn't seem to get much coverage in the IENs. > Maybe it was so obviously the Right Thing that not much discussion was > needed, and the only question was when/how to do it? > > Noel > -- > 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 vgcerf at gmail.com Thu Jun 23 05:35:19 2022 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 08:35:19 -0400 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: <87230B5F-79BF-4821-8356-D20D89F37BAA@sobco.com> References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <87230B5F-79BF-4821-8356-D20D89F37BAA@sobco.com> Message-ID: 1. Danny was a strong proponent of the split - he had a Milk/Wine metaphor (this might be in one of his Oceanview Tales) - wine takes time to mature, but milk spoils. 2. Jon Postel and David Reed were very supportive of that view. 3. The split came with TCP v4 (TCP v3 and v3.1 did not split IP off) 4. Craig's note is correct: UDP is created along with IP to give application access to low latency service. v On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 6:31 AM Scott Bradner via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > a good source is the Cohen/Casner lecture that they gave at Google in > August 2010 > > A Brief Prehistory of Voice over IP parts 1 & 2 - > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av4KF1j-wp4 > > I have a copy of the slides (44 MB) - let me know if you would like a copy > > Scott > > > On Jun 23, 2022, at 3:15 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > I'm interested in finding out more about the process by which TCP and IP > were > > separated: to begin with, how it came to be recognized that this > separation > > was a good thing. (This split was what enabled the later creation of > UDP, of > > course.) In particular, that the basic service model (of what later > became > > the internet layer) should be directly usable by applications, and that > the > > complete data network be accessible not _just_ only via TCP. I am also > > interested in who drove this change (if any players in particular stand > out). > > > > I have poked around a bit in the early IEN's, but I didn't find much on > this > > specific area - either why, or who. From comments in IEN-22 "Internet > Meeting > > Notes - 1 February 1978" (in "Introduction and Objectives) it sounds > like the > > formal decision to do the split was made at the TCP meeting the day > before. > > The minutes from that meeting, IEN-67 "TCP Meeting Notes - 30 & 31 > January > > 1978", don't provide much, though. IEN-66 "TCP Meeting Notes - 13 & 14 > > October 1977" shows that there had been a drift in this direction for a > > while; it didn't seem to be present as of IEN-3, "Internet Meeting Notes > - 15 > > August 1977", though. > > > > I arrived on the scene shortly after this happened (my first meeting was > the > > August 1978 one), but I retain some impressions (gained no doubt from > > discussions with people like Clark and Reed). These are the impressions > that > > I retain: that Danny was _a_ significant force in making this happen, > because > > of his voice work - for which timeliness was important, not correctness. > (In > > IEN-67, "Arrangements - Cohen" Danny "complain[ed] about TCP-3 becoming > all > > things to all people".) Is that correct? (If so, it's probably his most > > significant technical legacy.) For others, I think Dave Reed may have > been in > > favour too (perhaps he'd already started to think of RPC-like things). > And > > perhaps some of the other voice people - e.g. Forgie? And I'm sure the > PARC > > guys were trying to throw a few clues our way. Am I missing anyone? Did > > anyone stand out as being a bigger influence than the rest? > > > > Maybe there's some significan paper that discusses the architectural > benefit > > of making the basic unreliable data carriage substrate accessible to > _some_ > > applications, but the concept didn't seem to get much coverage in the > IENs. > > Maybe it was so obviously the Right Thing that not much discussion was > > needed, and the only question was when/how to do it? > > > > Noel > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From sob at sobco.com Thu Jun 23 05:38:09 2022 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott Bradner) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 08:38:09 -0400 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <87230B5F-79BF-4821-8356-D20D89F37BAA@sobco.com> Message-ID: from the presentation "realtime is like milk: keep the newest non-realtime is like wine: keep the oldest" Scott > On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:35 AM, vinton cerf wrote: > > 1. Danny was a strong proponent of the split - he had a Milk/Wine metaphor (this might be in one of his Oceanview Tales) - wine takes time to mature, but milk spoils. > 2. Jon Postel and David Reed were very supportive of that view. > 3. The split came with TCP v4 (TCP v3 and v3.1 did not split IP off) > 4. Craig's note is correct: UDP is created along with IP to give application access to low latency service. > > v > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 6:31 AM Scott Bradner via Internet-history wrote: > a good source is the Cohen/Casner lecture that they gave at Google in August 2010 > > A Brief Prehistory of Voice over IP parts 1 & 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av4KF1j-wp4 > > I have a copy of the slides (44 MB) - let me know if you would like a copy > > Scott > > > On Jun 23, 2022, at 3:15 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: > > > > I'm interested in finding out more about the process by which TCP and IP were > > separated: to begin with, how it came to be recognized that this separation > > was a good thing. (This split was what enabled the later creation of UDP, of > > course.) In particular, that the basic service model (of what later became > > the internet layer) should be directly usable by applications, and that the > > complete data network be accessible not _just_ only via TCP. I am also > > interested in who drove this change (if any players in particular stand out). > > > > I have poked around a bit in the early IEN's, but I didn't find much on this > > specific area - either why, or who. From comments in IEN-22 "Internet Meeting > > Notes - 1 February 1978" (in "Introduction and Objectives) it sounds like the > > formal decision to do the split was made at the TCP meeting the day before. > > The minutes from that meeting, IEN-67 "TCP Meeting Notes - 30 & 31 January > > 1978", don't provide much, though. IEN-66 "TCP Meeting Notes - 13 & 14 > > October 1977" shows that there had been a drift in this direction for a > > while; it didn't seem to be present as of IEN-3, "Internet Meeting Notes - 15 > > August 1977", though. > > > > I arrived on the scene shortly after this happened (my first meeting was the > > August 1978 one), but I retain some impressions (gained no doubt from > > discussions with people like Clark and Reed). These are the impressions that > > I retain: that Danny was _a_ significant force in making this happen, because > > of his voice work - for which timeliness was important, not correctness. (In > > IEN-67, "Arrangements - Cohen" Danny "complain[ed] about TCP-3 becoming all > > things to all people".) Is that correct? (If so, it's probably his most > > significant technical legacy.) For others, I think Dave Reed may have been in > > favour too (perhaps he'd already started to think of RPC-like things). And > > perhaps some of the other voice people - e.g. Forgie? And I'm sure the PARC > > guys were trying to throw a few clues our way. Am I missing anyone? Did > > anyone stand out as being a bigger influence than the rest? > > > > Maybe there's some significan paper that discusses the architectural benefit > > of making the basic unreliable data carriage substrate accessible to _some_ > > applications, but the concept didn't seem to get much coverage in the IENs. > > Maybe it was so obviously the Right Thing that not much discussion was > > needed, and the only question was when/how to do it? > > > > Noel > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From sob at sobco.com Thu Jun 23 06:05:55 2022 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott Bradner) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:05:55 -0400 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <87230B5F-79BF-4821-8356-D20D89F37BAA@sobco.com> Message-ID: <892DF42D-7D86-4A55-8565-42060F07CCAE@sobco.com> I put a pdf of a 4-up handout of the Cohen/Casner talk at https://www.sobco.com/presentations/voip-prehistory.pdf Scott > On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:38 AM, Scott Bradner via Internet-history wrote: > > from the presentation > > "realtime is like milk: keep the newest > non-realtime is like wine: keep the oldest" > > Scott > >> On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:35 AM, vinton cerf wrote: >> >> 1. Danny was a strong proponent of the split - he had a Milk/Wine metaphor (this might be in one of his Oceanview Tales) - wine takes time to mature, but milk spoils. >> 2. Jon Postel and David Reed were very supportive of that view. >> 3. The split came with TCP v4 (TCP v3 and v3.1 did not split IP off) >> 4. Craig's note is correct: UDP is created along with IP to give application access to low latency service. >> >> v >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 6:31 AM Scott Bradner via Internet-history wrote: >> a good source is the Cohen/Casner lecture that they gave at Google in August 2010 >> >> A Brief Prehistory of Voice over IP parts 1 & 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av4KF1j-wp4 >> >> I have a copy of the slides (44 MB) - let me know if you would like a copy >> >> Scott >> >>> On Jun 23, 2022, at 3:15 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: >>> >>> I'm interested in finding out more about the process by which TCP and IP were >>> separated: to begin with, how it came to be recognized that this separation >>> was a good thing. (This split was what enabled the later creation of UDP, of >>> course.) In particular, that the basic service model (of what later became >>> the internet layer) should be directly usable by applications, and that the >>> complete data network be accessible not _just_ only via TCP. I am also >>> interested in who drove this change (if any players in particular stand out). >>> >>> I have poked around a bit in the early IEN's, but I didn't find much on this >>> specific area - either why, or who. From comments in IEN-22 "Internet Meeting >>> Notes - 1 February 1978" (in "Introduction and Objectives) it sounds like the >>> formal decision to do the split was made at the TCP meeting the day before. >>> The minutes from that meeting, IEN-67 "TCP Meeting Notes - 30 & 31 January >>> 1978", don't provide much, though. IEN-66 "TCP Meeting Notes - 13 & 14 >>> October 1977" shows that there had been a drift in this direction for a >>> while; it didn't seem to be present as of IEN-3, "Internet Meeting Notes - 15 >>> August 1977", though. >>> >>> I arrived on the scene shortly after this happened (my first meeting was the >>> August 1978 one), but I retain some impressions (gained no doubt from >>> discussions with people like Clark and Reed). These are the impressions that >>> I retain: that Danny was _a_ significant force in making this happen, because >>> of his voice work - for which timeliness was important, not correctness. (In >>> IEN-67, "Arrangements - Cohen" Danny "complain[ed] about TCP-3 becoming all >>> things to all people".) Is that correct? (If so, it's probably his most >>> significant technical legacy.) For others, I think Dave Reed may have been in >>> favour too (perhaps he'd already started to think of RPC-like things). And >>> perhaps some of the other voice people - e.g. Forgie? And I'm sure the PARC >>> guys were trying to throw a few clues our way. Am I missing anyone? Did >>> anyone stand out as being a bigger influence than the rest? >>> >>> Maybe there's some significan paper that discusses the architectural benefit >>> of making the basic unreliable data carriage substrate accessible to _some_ >>> applications, but the concept didn't seem to get much coverage in the IENs. >>> Maybe it was so obviously the Right Thing that not much discussion was >>> needed, and the only question was when/how to do it? >>> >>> Noel >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From vint at google.com Thu Jun 23 06:10:32 2022 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:10:32 -0400 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: <892DF42D-7D86-4A55-8565-42060F07CCAE@sobco.com> References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <87230B5F-79BF-4821-8356-D20D89F37BAA@sobco.com> <892DF42D-7D86-4A55-8565-42060F07CCAE@sobco.com> Message-ID: Does anyone have a copy of the Ocean View Tales - I was unable to turn them up by searching for the ISI/RR report. v On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:06 AM Scott Bradner via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > I put a pdf of a 4-up handout of the Cohen/Casner talk at > https://www.sobco.com/presentations/voip-prehistory.pdf > > Scott > > > On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:38 AM, Scott Bradner via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > from the presentation > > > > "realtime is like milk: keep the newest > > non-realtime is like wine: keep the oldest" > > > > Scott > > > >> On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:35 AM, vinton cerf wrote: > >> > >> 1. Danny was a strong proponent of the split - he had a Milk/Wine > metaphor (this might be in one of his Oceanview Tales) - wine takes time to > mature, but milk spoils. > >> 2. Jon Postel and David Reed were very supportive of that view. > >> 3. The split came with TCP v4 (TCP v3 and v3.1 did not split IP off) > >> 4. Craig's note is correct: UDP is created along with IP to give > application access to low latency service. > >> > >> v > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 6:31 AM Scott Bradner via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> a good source is the Cohen/Casner lecture that they gave at Google in > August 2010 > >> > >> A Brief Prehistory of Voice over IP parts 1 & 2 - > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av4KF1j-wp4 > >> > >> I have a copy of the slides (44 MB) - let me know if you would like a > copy > >> > >> Scott > >> > >>> On Jun 23, 2022, at 3:15 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> I'm interested in finding out more about the process by which TCP and > IP were > >>> separated: to begin with, how it came to be recognized that this > separation > >>> was a good thing. (This split was what enabled the later creation of > UDP, of > >>> course.) In particular, that the basic service model (of what later > became > >>> the internet layer) should be directly usable by applications, and > that the > >>> complete data network be accessible not _just_ only via TCP. I am also > >>> interested in who drove this change (if any players in particular > stand out). > >>> > >>> I have poked around a bit in the early IEN's, but I didn't find much > on this > >>> specific area - either why, or who. From comments in IEN-22 "Internet > Meeting > >>> Notes - 1 February 1978" (in "Introduction and Objectives) it sounds > like the > >>> formal decision to do the split was made at the TCP meeting the day > before. > >>> The minutes from that meeting, IEN-67 "TCP Meeting Notes - 30 & 31 > January > >>> 1978", don't provide much, though. IEN-66 "TCP Meeting Notes - 13 & 14 > >>> October 1977" shows that there had been a drift in this direction for a > >>> while; it didn't seem to be present as of IEN-3, "Internet Meeting > Notes - 15 > >>> August 1977", though. > >>> > >>> I arrived on the scene shortly after this happened (my first meeting > was the > >>> August 1978 one), but I retain some impressions (gained no doubt from > >>> discussions with people like Clark and Reed). These are the > impressions that > >>> I retain: that Danny was _a_ significant force in making this happen, > because > >>> of his voice work - for which timeliness was important, not > correctness. (In > >>> IEN-67, "Arrangements - Cohen" Danny "complain[ed] about TCP-3 > becoming all > >>> things to all people".) Is that correct? (If so, it's probably his most > >>> significant technical legacy.) For others, I think Dave Reed may have > been in > >>> favour too (perhaps he'd already started to think of RPC-like things). > And > >>> perhaps some of the other voice people - e.g. Forgie? And I'm sure the > PARC > >>> guys were trying to throw a few clues our way. Am I missing anyone? Did > >>> anyone stand out as being a bigger influence than the rest? > >>> > >>> Maybe there's some significan paper that discusses the architectural > benefit > >>> of making the basic unreliable data carriage substrate accessible to > _some_ > >>> applications, but the concept didn't seem to get much coverage in the > IENs. > >>> Maybe it was so obviously the Right Thing that not much discussion was > >>> needed, and the only question was when/how to do it? > >>> > >>> Noel > >>> -- > >>> Internet-history mailing list > >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >> > >> -- > >> Internet-history mailing list > >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: Vint Cerf 1435 Woodhurst Blvd McLean, VA 22102 703-448-0965 until further notice From touch at strayalpha.com Thu Jun 23 08:39:22 2022 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 11:39:22 -0400 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4EB8E637-AB4B-4F13-8CAD-4EE3CDF0B223@strayalpha.com> > On Jun 23, 2022, at 9:10 AM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: > > ?Does anyone have a copy of the Ocean View Tales - I was unable to turn them > up by searching for the ISI/RR report. There are no such things anymore (the paper ones were tossed and digital is spotty) since they dismantled the ISI library (too long ago to recall). It wasn?t incorporated into the Viterbi School library despite very active objections. Joe From amckenzie3 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 23 08:46:46 2022 From: amckenzie3 at yahoo.com (Alex McKenzie) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 15:46:46 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <87230B5F-79BF-4821-8356-D20D89F37BAA@sobco.com> <892DF42D-7D86-4A55-8565-42060F07CCAE@sobco.com> Message-ID: <1906745218.2182493.1655999206396@mail.yahoo.com> I'm pretty sure I have a copy at home that I bought from Amazon.? However I won't be home until mid-July, so I can't check the exact title, and I can't remember the "author".? Perhaps someone with a better memory can find a current listing. Cheers,Alex On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 09:10:57 AM EDT, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: Does anyone have a copy of the Ocean View Tales - I was unable to turn them up by searching for the ISI/RR report. v From pugs at ieee.org Thu Jun 23 08:57:41 2022 From: pugs at ieee.org (Tom Lyon) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 08:57:41 -0700 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <87230B5F-79BF-4821-8356-D20D89F37BAA@sobco.com> <892DF42D-7D86-4A55-8565-42060F07CCAE@sobco.com> Message-ID: Do you mean this? https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1495220850/ "The World According to Professor James A. Finnegan..." On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 6:10 AM Vint Cerf via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Does anyone have a copy of the Ocean View Tales - I was unable to turn them > up by searching for the ISI/RR report. > > v > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:06 AM Scott Bradner via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > I put a pdf of a 4-up handout of the Cohen/Casner talk at > > https://www.sobco.com/presentations/voip-prehistory.pdf > > > > Scott > > > > > On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:38 AM, Scott Bradner via Internet-history < > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > > > from the presentation > > > > > > "realtime is like milk: keep the newest > > > non-realtime is like wine: keep the oldest" > > > > > > Scott > > > > > >> On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:35 AM, vinton cerf wrote: > > >> > > >> 1. Danny was a strong proponent of the split - he had a Milk/Wine > > metaphor (this might be in one of his Oceanview Tales) - wine takes time > to > > mature, but milk spoils. > > >> 2. Jon Postel and David Reed were very supportive of that view. > > >> 3. The split came with TCP v4 (TCP v3 and v3.1 did not split IP off) > > >> 4. Craig's note is correct: UDP is created along with IP to give > > application access to low latency service. > > >> > > >> v > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 6:31 AM Scott Bradner via Internet-history < > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > >> a good source is the Cohen/Casner lecture that they gave at Google in > > August 2010 > > >> > > >> A Brief Prehistory of Voice over IP parts 1 & 2 - > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av4KF1j-wp4 > > >> > > >> I have a copy of the slides (44 MB) - let me know if you would like a > > copy > > >> > > >> Scott > > >> > > >>> On Jun 23, 2022, at 3:15 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history < > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> I'm interested in finding out more about the process by which TCP and > > IP were > > >>> separated: to begin with, how it came to be recognized that this > > separation > > >>> was a good thing. (This split was what enabled the later creation of > > UDP, of > > >>> course.) In particular, that the basic service model (of what later > > became > > >>> the internet layer) should be directly usable by applications, and > > that the > > >>> complete data network be accessible not _just_ only via TCP. I am > also > > >>> interested in who drove this change (if any players in particular > > stand out). > > >>> > > >>> I have poked around a bit in the early IEN's, but I didn't find much > > on this > > >>> specific area - either why, or who. From comments in IEN-22 "Internet > > Meeting > > >>> Notes - 1 February 1978" (in "Introduction and Objectives) it sounds > > like the > > >>> formal decision to do the split was made at the TCP meeting the day > > before. > > >>> The minutes from that meeting, IEN-67 "TCP Meeting Notes - 30 & 31 > > January > > >>> 1978", don't provide much, though. IEN-66 "TCP Meeting Notes - 13 & > 14 > > >>> October 1977" shows that there had been a drift in this direction > for a > > >>> while; it didn't seem to be present as of IEN-3, "Internet Meeting > > Notes - 15 > > >>> August 1977", though. > > >>> > > >>> I arrived on the scene shortly after this happened (my first meeting > > was the > > >>> August 1978 one), but I retain some impressions (gained no doubt from > > >>> discussions with people like Clark and Reed). These are the > > impressions that > > >>> I retain: that Danny was _a_ significant force in making this happen, > > because > > >>> of his voice work - for which timeliness was important, not > > correctness. (In > > >>> IEN-67, "Arrangements - Cohen" Danny "complain[ed] about TCP-3 > > becoming all > > >>> things to all people".) Is that correct? (If so, it's probably his > most > > >>> significant technical legacy.) For others, I think Dave Reed may have > > been in > > >>> favour too (perhaps he'd already started to think of RPC-like > things). > > And > > >>> perhaps some of the other voice people - e.g. Forgie? And I'm sure > the > > PARC > > >>> guys were trying to throw a few clues our way. Am I missing anyone? > Did > > >>> anyone stand out as being a bigger influence than the rest? > > >>> > > >>> Maybe there's some significan paper that discusses the architectural > > benefit > > >>> of making the basic unreliable data carriage substrate accessible to > > _some_ > > >>> applications, but the concept didn't seem to get much coverage in the > > IENs. > > >>> Maybe it was so obviously the Right Thing that not much discussion > was > > >>> needed, and the only question was when/how to do it? > > >>> > > >>> Noel > > >>> -- > > >>> Internet-history mailing list > > >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Internet-history mailing list > > >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > > > -- > > > Internet-history mailing list > > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > > -- > Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: > Vint Cerf > 1435 Woodhurst Blvd > McLean, VA 22102 > 703-448-0965 > > until further notice > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- - Tom From stewart at serissa.com Thu Jun 23 09:07:13 2022 From: stewart at serissa.com (Larry Stewart) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 12:07:13 -0400 Subject: [ih] Oceanview Tales Message-ID: <98AB9691-1AA1-49FC-B4CC-1171B467A8C3@serissa.com> ref Oceanview Tales. I think many of them are in The World According to Professor... https://www.amazon.com/dp/1495220850?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share > On Jun 23, 2022, at 11:58 AM, internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org wrote: > > ?Send Internet-history mailing list submissions to > internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > internet-history-owner at elists.isoc.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Internet-history digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Separation of TCP and IP (Scott Bradner) > 2. Re: Separation of TCP and IP (Vint Cerf) > 3. Re: Separation of TCP and IP (Joe Touch) > 4. Re: Separation of TCP and IP (Alex McKenzie) > 5. Re: Separation of TCP and IP (Tom Lyon) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:05:55 -0400 > From: Scott Bradner > To: internet-history > Subject: Re: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP > Message-ID: <892DF42D-7D86-4A55-8565-42060F07CCAE at sobco.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > I put a pdf of a 4-up handout of the Cohen/Casner talk at https://www.sobco.com/presentations/voip-prehistory.pdf > > Scott > >> On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:38 AM, Scott Bradner via Internet-history wrote: >> >> from the presentation >> >> "realtime is like milk: keep the newest >> non-realtime is like wine: keep the oldest" >> >> Scott >> >>>> On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:35 AM, vinton cerf wrote: >>> >>> 1. Danny was a strong proponent of the split - he had a Milk/Wine metaphor (this might be in one of his Oceanview Tales) - wine takes time to mature, but milk spoils. >>> 2. Jon Postel and David Reed were very supportive of that view. >>> 3. The split came with TCP v4 (TCP v3 and v3.1 did not split IP off) >>> 4. Craig's note is correct: UDP is created along with IP to give application access to low latency service. >>> >>> v >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 6:31 AM Scott Bradner via Internet-history wrote: >>> a good source is the Cohen/Casner lecture that they gave at Google in August 2010 >>> >>> A Brief Prehistory of Voice over IP parts 1 & 2 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av4KF1j-wp4 >>> >>> I have a copy of the slides (44 MB) - let me know if you would like a copy >>> >>> Scott >>> >>>> On Jun 23, 2022, at 3:15 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm interested in finding out more about the process by which TCP and IP were >>>> separated: to begin with, how it came to be recognized that this separation >>>> was a good thing. (This split was what enabled the later creation of UDP, of >>>> course.) In particular, that the basic service model (of what later became >>>> the internet layer) should be directly usable by applications, and that the >>>> complete data network be accessible not _just_ only via TCP. I am also >>>> interested in who drove this change (if any players in particular stand out). >>>> >>>> I have poked around a bit in the early IEN's, but I didn't find much on this >>>> specific area - either why, or who. From comments in IEN-22 "Internet Meeting >>>> Notes - 1 February 1978" (in "Introduction and Objectives) it sounds like the >>>> formal decision to do the split was made at the TCP meeting the day before. >>>> The minutes from that meeting, IEN-67 "TCP Meeting Notes - 30 & 31 January >>>> 1978", don't provide much, though. IEN-66 "TCP Meeting Notes - 13 & 14 >>>> October 1977" shows that there had been a drift in this direction for a >>>> while; it didn't seem to be present as of IEN-3, "Internet Meeting Notes - 15 >>>> August 1977", though. >>>> >>>> I arrived on the scene shortly after this happened (my first meeting was the >>>> August 1978 one), but I retain some impressions (gained no doubt from >>>> discussions with people like Clark and Reed). These are the impressions that >>>> I retain: that Danny was _a_ significant force in making this happen, because >>>> of his voice work - for which timeliness was important, not correctness. (In >>>> IEN-67, "Arrangements - Cohen" Danny "complain[ed] about TCP-3 becoming all >>>> things to all people".) Is that correct? (If so, it's probably his most >>>> significant technical legacy.) For others, I think Dave Reed may have been in >>>> favour too (perhaps he'd already started to think of RPC-like things). And >>>> perhaps some of the other voice people - e.g. Forgie? And I'm sure the PARC >>>> guys were trying to throw a few clues our way. Am I missing anyone? Did >>>> anyone stand out as being a bigger influence than the rest? >>>> >>>> Maybe there's some significan paper that discusses the architectural benefit >>>> of making the basic unreliable data carriage substrate accessible to _some_ >>>> applications, but the concept didn't seem to get much coverage in the IENs. >>>> Maybe it was so obviously the Right Thing that not much discussion was >>>> needed, and the only question was when/how to do it? >>>> >>>> Noel >>>> -- >>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:10:32 -0400 > From: Vint Cerf > To: Scott Bradner > Cc: internet-history > Subject: Re: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Does anyone have a copy of the Ocean View Tales - I was unable to turn them > up by searching for the ISI/RR report. > > v > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:06 AM Scott Bradner via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> I put a pdf of a 4-up handout of the Cohen/Casner talk at >> https://www.sobco.com/presentations/voip-prehistory.pdf >> >> Scott >> >>> On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:38 AM, Scott Bradner via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>> >>> from the presentation >>> >>> "realtime is like milk: keep the newest >>> non-realtime is like wine: keep the oldest" >>> >>> Scott >>> >>>> On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:35 AM, vinton cerf wrote: >>>> >>>> 1. Danny was a strong proponent of the split - he had a Milk/Wine >> metaphor (this might be in one of his Oceanview Tales) - wine takes time to >> mature, but milk spoils. >>>> 2. Jon Postel and David Reed were very supportive of that view. >>>> 3. The split came with TCP v4 (TCP v3 and v3.1 did not split IP off) >>>> 4. Craig's note is correct: UDP is created along with IP to give >> application access to low latency service. >>>> >>>> v >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 6:31 AM Scott Bradner via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>>> a good source is the Cohen/Casner lecture that they gave at Google in >> August 2010 >>>> >>>> A Brief Prehistory of Voice over IP parts 1 & 2 - >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av4KF1j-wp4 >>>> >>>> I have a copy of the slides (44 MB) - let me know if you would like a >> copy >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>>> On Jun 23, 2022, at 3:15 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'm interested in finding out more about the process by which TCP and >> IP were >>>>> separated: to begin with, how it came to be recognized that this >> separation >>>>> was a good thing. (This split was what enabled the later creation of >> UDP, of >>>>> course.) In particular, that the basic service model (of what later >> became >>>>> the internet layer) should be directly usable by applications, and >> that the >>>>> complete data network be accessible not _just_ only via TCP. I am also >>>>> interested in who drove this change (if any players in particular >> stand out). >>>>> >>>>> I have poked around a bit in the early IEN's, but I didn't find much >> on this >>>>> specific area - either why, or who. From comments in IEN-22 "Internet >> Meeting >>>>> Notes - 1 February 1978" (in "Introduction and Objectives) it sounds >> like the >>>>> formal decision to do the split was made at the TCP meeting the day >> before. >>>>> The minutes from that meeting, IEN-67 "TCP Meeting Notes - 30 & 31 >> January >>>>> 1978", don't provide much, though. IEN-66 "TCP Meeting Notes - 13 & 14 >>>>> October 1977" shows that there had been a drift in this direction for a >>>>> while; it didn't seem to be present as of IEN-3, "Internet Meeting >> Notes - 15 >>>>> August 1977", though. >>>>> >>>>> I arrived on the scene shortly after this happened (my first meeting >> was the >>>>> August 1978 one), but I retain some impressions (gained no doubt from >>>>> discussions with people like Clark and Reed). These are the >> impressions that >>>>> I retain: that Danny was _a_ significant force in making this happen, >> because >>>>> of his voice work - for which timeliness was important, not >> correctness. (In >>>>> IEN-67, "Arrangements - Cohen" Danny "complain[ed] about TCP-3 >> becoming all >>>>> things to all people".) Is that correct? (If so, it's probably his most >>>>> significant technical legacy.) For others, I think Dave Reed may have >> been in >>>>> favour too (perhaps he'd already started to think of RPC-like things). >> And >>>>> perhaps some of the other voice people - e.g. Forgie? And I'm sure the >> PARC >>>>> guys were trying to throw a few clues our way. Am I missing anyone? Did >>>>> anyone stand out as being a bigger influence than the rest? >>>>> >>>>> Maybe there's some significan paper that discusses the architectural >> benefit >>>>> of making the basic unreliable data carriage substrate accessible to >> _some_ >>>>> applications, but the concept didn't seem to get much coverage in the >> IENs. >>>>> Maybe it was so obviously the Right Thing that not much discussion was >>>>> needed, and the only question was when/how to do it? >>>>> >>>>> Noel >>>>> -- >>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > > > -- > Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: > Vint Cerf > 1435 Woodhurst Blvd > McLean, VA 22102 > 703-448-0965 > > until further notice > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 11:39:22 -0400 > From: Joe Touch > To: Vint Cerf > Cc: Scott Bradner , internet-history > > Subject: Re: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP > Message-ID: <4EB8E637-AB4B-4F13-8CAD-4EE3CDF0B223 at strayalpha.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > >> On Jun 23, 2022, at 9:10 AM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: >> >> ?Does anyone have a copy of the Ocean View Tales - I was unable to turn them >> up by searching for the ISI/RR report. > > There are no such things anymore (the paper ones were tossed and digital is spotty) since they dismantled the ISI library (too long ago to recall). It wasn?t incorporated into the Viterbi School library despite very active objections. > > Joe > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 15:46:46 +0000 (UTC) > From: Alex McKenzie > To: Internet-history > Subject: Re: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP > Message-ID: <1906745218.2182493.1655999206396 at mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I'm pretty sure I have a copy at home that I bought from Amazon.? However I won't be home until mid-July, so I can't check the exact title, and I can't remember the "author".? Perhaps someone with a better memory can find a current listing. > Cheers,Alex > > On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 09:10:57 AM EDT, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: > > Does anyone have a copy of the Ocean View Tales - I was unable to turn them > up by searching for the ISI/RR report. > > v > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 08:57:41 -0700 > From: Tom Lyon > To: Vint Cerf > Cc: Scott Bradner , internet-history > > Subject: Re: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Do you mean this? https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1495220850/ > "The World According to Professor James A. Finnegan..." > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 6:10 AM Vint Cerf via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> Does anyone have a copy of the Ocean View Tales - I was unable to turn them >> up by searching for the ISI/RR report. >> >> v >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:06 AM Scott Bradner via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >>> I put a pdf of a 4-up handout of the Cohen/Casner talk at >>> https://www.sobco.com/presentations/voip-prehistory.pdf >>> >>> Scott >>> >>>> On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:38 AM, Scott Bradner via Internet-history < >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> from the presentation >>>> >>>> "realtime is like milk: keep the newest >>>> non-realtime is like wine: keep the oldest" >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>>> On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:35 AM, vinton cerf wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Danny was a strong proponent of the split - he had a Milk/Wine >>> metaphor (this might be in one of his Oceanview Tales) - wine takes time >> to >>> mature, but milk spoils. >>>>> 2. Jon Postel and David Reed were very supportive of that view. >>>>> 3. The split came with TCP v4 (TCP v3 and v3.1 did not split IP off) >>>>> 4. Craig's note is correct: UDP is created along with IP to give >>> application access to low latency service. >>>>> >>>>> v >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 6:31 AM Scott Bradner via Internet-history < >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>>>> a good source is the Cohen/Casner lecture that they gave at Google in >>> August 2010 >>>>> >>>>> A Brief Prehistory of Voice over IP parts 1 & 2 - >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av4KF1j-wp4 >>>>> >>>>> I have a copy of the slides (44 MB) - let me know if you would like a >>> copy >>>>> >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 23, 2022, at 3:15 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history < >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm interested in finding out more about the process by which TCP and >>> IP were >>>>>> separated: to begin with, how it came to be recognized that this >>> separation >>>>>> was a good thing. (This split was what enabled the later creation of >>> UDP, of >>>>>> course.) In particular, that the basic service model (of what later >>> became >>>>>> the internet layer) should be directly usable by applications, and >>> that the >>>>>> complete data network be accessible not _just_ only via TCP. I am >> also >>>>>> interested in who drove this change (if any players in particular >>> stand out). >>>>>> >>>>>> I have poked around a bit in the early IEN's, but I didn't find much >>> on this >>>>>> specific area - either why, or who. From comments in IEN-22 "Internet >>> Meeting >>>>>> Notes - 1 February 1978" (in "Introduction and Objectives) it sounds >>> like the >>>>>> formal decision to do the split was made at the TCP meeting the day >>> before. >>>>>> The minutes from that meeting, IEN-67 "TCP Meeting Notes - 30 & 31 >>> January >>>>>> 1978", don't provide much, though. IEN-66 "TCP Meeting Notes - 13 & >> 14 >>>>>> October 1977" shows that there had been a drift in this direction >> for a >>>>>> while; it didn't seem to be present as of IEN-3, "Internet Meeting >>> Notes - 15 >>>>>> August 1977", though. >>>>>> >>>>>> I arrived on the scene shortly after this happened (my first meeting >>> was the >>>>>> August 1978 one), but I retain some impressions (gained no doubt from >>>>>> discussions with people like Clark and Reed). These are the >>> impressions that >>>>>> I retain: that Danny was _a_ significant force in making this happen, >>> because >>>>>> of his voice work - for which timeliness was important, not >>> correctness. (In >>>>>> IEN-67, "Arrangements - Cohen" Danny "complain[ed] about TCP-3 >>> becoming all >>>>>> things to all people".) Is that correct? (If so, it's probably his >> most >>>>>> significant technical legacy.) For others, I think Dave Reed may have >>> been in >>>>>> favour too (perhaps he'd already started to think of RPC-like >> things). >>> And >>>>>> perhaps some of the other voice people - e.g. Forgie? And I'm sure >> the >>> PARC >>>>>> guys were trying to throw a few clues our way. Am I missing anyone? >> Did >>>>>> anyone stand out as being a bigger influence than the rest? >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe there's some significan paper that discusses the architectural >>> benefit >>>>>> of making the basic unreliable data carriage substrate accessible to >>> _some_ >>>>>> applications, but the concept didn't seem to get much coverage in the >>> IENs. >>>>>> Maybe it was so obviously the Right Thing that not much discussion >> was >>>>>> needed, and the only question was when/how to do it? >>>>>> >>>>>> Noel >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> >> >> -- >> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: >> Vint Cerf >> 1435 Woodhurst Blvd >> McLean, VA 22102 >> 703-448-0965 >> >> until further notice >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > > > -- > - Tom > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 33, Issue 4 > *********************************************** From bpurvy at gmail.com Thu Jun 23 09:21:09 2022 From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:21:09 -0700 Subject: [ih] Oceanview Tales In-Reply-To: <98AB9691-1AA1-49FC-B4CC-1171B467A8C3@serissa.com> References: <98AB9691-1AA1-49FC-B4CC-1171B467A8C3@serissa.com> Message-ID: OK, book time. That was all the excuse I needed. I just published my 2nd book , which takes place in the 80s, largely at 3Com. Dave Crocker helped with the Wollongong chapter, and Gordon Peterson (architect of ARCNet) helped with Datapoint. Bob Metcalfe appears in a couple places as "Bob Metcalfe." It's a novel, so it's not all techie stuff. If you were around then, you know that 3Com wasn't *too* much involved in the Internet, but we were aware of it and that does creep in. As does OSI and even the Minitel. On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:07 AM Larry Stewart via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > ref Oceanview Tales. I think many of them are in The World According to > Professor... https://www.amazon.com/dp/1495220850?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share > > > On Jun 23, 2022, at 11:58 AM, internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org > wrote: > > > > ?Send Internet-history mailing list submissions to > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > internet-history-owner at elists.isoc.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Internet-history digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Separation of TCP and IP (Scott Bradner) > > 2. Re: Separation of TCP and IP (Vint Cerf) > > 3. Re: Separation of TCP and IP (Joe Touch) > > 4. Re: Separation of TCP and IP (Alex McKenzie) > > 5. Re: Separation of TCP and IP (Tom Lyon) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:05:55 -0400 > > From: Scott Bradner > > To: internet-history > > Subject: Re: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP > > Message-ID: <892DF42D-7D86-4A55-8565-42060F07CCAE at sobco.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > I put a pdf of a 4-up handout of the Cohen/Casner talk at > https://www.sobco.com/presentations/voip-prehistory.pdf > > > > Scott > > > >> On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:38 AM, Scott Bradner via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> > >> from the presentation > >> > >> "realtime is like milk: keep the newest > >> non-realtime is like wine: keep the oldest" > >> > >> Scott > >> > >>>> On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:35 AM, vinton cerf wrote: > >>> > >>> 1. Danny was a strong proponent of the split - he had a Milk/Wine > metaphor (this might be in one of his Oceanview Tales) - wine takes time to > mature, but milk spoils. > >>> 2. Jon Postel and David Reed were very supportive of that view. > >>> 3. The split came with TCP v4 (TCP v3 and v3.1 did not split IP off) > >>> 4. Craig's note is correct: UDP is created along with IP to give > application access to low latency service. > >>> > >>> v > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 6:31 AM Scott Bradner via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >>> a good source is the Cohen/Casner lecture that they gave at Google in > August 2010 > >>> > >>> A Brief Prehistory of Voice over IP parts 1 & 2 - > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av4KF1j-wp4 > >>> > >>> I have a copy of the slides (44 MB) - let me know if you would like a > copy > >>> > >>> Scott > >>> > >>>> On Jun 23, 2022, at 3:15 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I'm interested in finding out more about the process by which TCP and > IP were > >>>> separated: to begin with, how it came to be recognized that this > separation > >>>> was a good thing. (This split was what enabled the later creation of > UDP, of > >>>> course.) In particular, that the basic service model (of what later > became > >>>> the internet layer) should be directly usable by applications, and > that the > >>>> complete data network be accessible not _just_ only via TCP. I am also > >>>> interested in who drove this change (if any players in particular > stand out). > >>>> > >>>> I have poked around a bit in the early IEN's, but I didn't find much > on this > >>>> specific area - either why, or who. From comments in IEN-22 "Internet > Meeting > >>>> Notes - 1 February 1978" (in "Introduction and Objectives) it sounds > like the > >>>> formal decision to do the split was made at the TCP meeting the day > before. > >>>> The minutes from that meeting, IEN-67 "TCP Meeting Notes - 30 & 31 > January > >>>> 1978", don't provide much, though. IEN-66 "TCP Meeting Notes - 13 & 14 > >>>> October 1977" shows that there had been a drift in this direction for > a > >>>> while; it didn't seem to be present as of IEN-3, "Internet Meeting > Notes - 15 > >>>> August 1977", though. > >>>> > >>>> I arrived on the scene shortly after this happened (my first meeting > was the > >>>> August 1978 one), but I retain some impressions (gained no doubt from > >>>> discussions with people like Clark and Reed). These are the > impressions that > >>>> I retain: that Danny was _a_ significant force in making this happen, > because > >>>> of his voice work - for which timeliness was important, not > correctness. (In > >>>> IEN-67, "Arrangements - Cohen" Danny "complain[ed] about TCP-3 > becoming all > >>>> things to all people".) Is that correct? (If so, it's probably his > most > >>>> significant technical legacy.) For others, I think Dave Reed may have > been in > >>>> favour too (perhaps he'd already started to think of RPC-like > things). And > >>>> perhaps some of the other voice people - e.g. Forgie? And I'm sure > the PARC > >>>> guys were trying to throw a few clues our way. Am I missing anyone? > Did > >>>> anyone stand out as being a bigger influence than the rest? > >>>> > >>>> Maybe there's some significan paper that discusses the architectural > benefit > >>>> of making the basic unreliable data carriage substrate accessible to > _some_ > >>>> applications, but the concept didn't seem to get much coverage in the > IENs. > >>>> Maybe it was so obviously the Right Thing that not much discussion was > >>>> needed, and the only question was when/how to do it? > >>>> > >>>> Noel > >>>> -- > >>>> Internet-history mailing list > >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Internet-history mailing list > >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >> > >> -- > >> Internet-history mailing list > >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:10:32 -0400 > > From: Vint Cerf > > To: Scott Bradner > > Cc: internet-history > > Subject: Re: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP > > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > Does anyone have a copy of the Ocean View Tales - I was unable to turn > them > > up by searching for the ISI/RR report. > > > > v > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:06 AM Scott Bradner via Internet-history < > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > >> I put a pdf of a 4-up handout of the Cohen/Casner talk at > >> https://www.sobco.com/presentations/voip-prehistory.pdf > >> > >> Scott > >> > >>> On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:38 AM, Scott Bradner via Internet-history < > >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> from the presentation > >>> > >>> "realtime is like milk: keep the newest > >>> non-realtime is like wine: keep the oldest" > >>> > >>> Scott > >>> > >>>> On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:35 AM, vinton cerf wrote: > >>>> > >>>> 1. Danny was a strong proponent of the split - he had a Milk/Wine > >> metaphor (this might be in one of his Oceanview Tales) - wine takes > time to > >> mature, but milk spoils. > >>>> 2. Jon Postel and David Reed were very supportive of that view. > >>>> 3. The split came with TCP v4 (TCP v3 and v3.1 did not split IP off) > >>>> 4. Craig's note is correct: UDP is created along with IP to give > >> application access to low latency service. > >>>> > >>>> v > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 6:31 AM Scott Bradner via Internet-history < > >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >>>> a good source is the Cohen/Casner lecture that they gave at Google in > >> August 2010 > >>>> > >>>> A Brief Prehistory of Voice over IP parts 1 & 2 - > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av4KF1j-wp4 > >>>> > >>>> I have a copy of the slides (44 MB) - let me know if you would like a > >> copy > >>>> > >>>> Scott > >>>> > >>>>> On Jun 23, 2022, at 3:15 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history < > >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm interested in finding out more about the process by which TCP and > >> IP were > >>>>> separated: to begin with, how it came to be recognized that this > >> separation > >>>>> was a good thing. (This split was what enabled the later creation of > >> UDP, of > >>>>> course.) In particular, that the basic service model (of what later > >> became > >>>>> the internet layer) should be directly usable by applications, and > >> that the > >>>>> complete data network be accessible not _just_ only via TCP. I am > also > >>>>> interested in who drove this change (if any players in particular > >> stand out). > >>>>> > >>>>> I have poked around a bit in the early IEN's, but I didn't find much > >> on this > >>>>> specific area - either why, or who. From comments in IEN-22 "Internet > >> Meeting > >>>>> Notes - 1 February 1978" (in "Introduction and Objectives) it sounds > >> like the > >>>>> formal decision to do the split was made at the TCP meeting the day > >> before. > >>>>> The minutes from that meeting, IEN-67 "TCP Meeting Notes - 30 & 31 > >> January > >>>>> 1978", don't provide much, though. IEN-66 "TCP Meeting Notes - 13 & > 14 > >>>>> October 1977" shows that there had been a drift in this direction > for a > >>>>> while; it didn't seem to be present as of IEN-3, "Internet Meeting > >> Notes - 15 > >>>>> August 1977", though. > >>>>> > >>>>> I arrived on the scene shortly after this happened (my first meeting > >> was the > >>>>> August 1978 one), but I retain some impressions (gained no doubt from > >>>>> discussions with people like Clark and Reed). These are the > >> impressions that > >>>>> I retain: that Danny was _a_ significant force in making this happen, > >> because > >>>>> of his voice work - for which timeliness was important, not > >> correctness. (In > >>>>> IEN-67, "Arrangements - Cohen" Danny "complain[ed] about TCP-3 > >> becoming all > >>>>> things to all people".) Is that correct? (If so, it's probably his > most > >>>>> significant technical legacy.) For others, I think Dave Reed may have > >> been in > >>>>> favour too (perhaps he'd already started to think of RPC-like > things). > >> And > >>>>> perhaps some of the other voice people - e.g. Forgie? And I'm sure > the > >> PARC > >>>>> guys were trying to throw a few clues our way. Am I missing anyone? > Did > >>>>> anyone stand out as being a bigger influence than the rest? > >>>>> > >>>>> Maybe there's some significan paper that discusses the architectural > >> benefit > >>>>> of making the basic unreliable data carriage substrate accessible to > >> _some_ > >>>>> applications, but the concept didn't seem to get much coverage in the > >> IENs. > >>>>> Maybe it was so obviously the Right Thing that not much discussion > was > >>>>> needed, and the only question was when/how to do it? > >>>>> > >>>>> Noel > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Internet-history mailing list > >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Internet-history mailing list > >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Internet-history mailing list > >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >> > >> -- > >> Internet-history mailing list > >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >> > > > > > > -- > > Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: > > Vint Cerf > > 1435 Woodhurst Blvd > > McLean, VA 22102 > > 703-448-0965 > > > > until further notice > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 11:39:22 -0400 > > From: Joe Touch > > To: Vint Cerf > > Cc: Scott Bradner , internet-history > > > > Subject: Re: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP > > Message-ID: <4EB8E637-AB4B-4F13-8CAD-4EE3CDF0B223 at strayalpha.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > > > > > >> On Jun 23, 2022, at 9:10 AM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> > >> ?Does anyone have a copy of the Ocean View Tales - I was unable to turn > them > >> up by searching for the ISI/RR report. > > > > There are no such things anymore (the paper ones were tossed and digital > is spotty) since they dismantled the ISI library (too long ago to recall). > It wasn?t incorporated into the Viterbi School library despite very active > objections. > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 4 > > Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 15:46:46 +0000 (UTC) > > From: Alex McKenzie > > To: Internet-history > > Subject: Re: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP > > Message-ID: <1906745218.2182493.1655999206396 at mail.yahoo.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > > I'm pretty sure I have a copy at home that I bought from Amazon.? > However I won't be home until mid-July, so I can't check the exact title, > and I can't remember the "author".? Perhaps someone with a better memory > can find a current listing. > > Cheers,Alex > > > > On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 09:10:57 AM EDT, Vint Cerf via > Internet-history wrote: > > > > Does anyone have a copy of the Ocean View Tales - I was unable to turn > them > > up by searching for the ISI/RR report. > > > > v > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 5 > > Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 08:57:41 -0700 > > From: Tom Lyon > > To: Vint Cerf > > Cc: Scott Bradner , internet-history > > > > Subject: Re: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP > > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Do you mean this? https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1495220850/ > > "The World According to Professor James A. Finnegan..." > > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 6:10 AM Vint Cerf via Internet-history < > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > >> Does anyone have a copy of the Ocean View Tales - I was unable to turn > them > >> up by searching for the ISI/RR report. > >> > >> v > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:06 AM Scott Bradner via Internet-history < > >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> > >>> I put a pdf of a 4-up handout of the Cohen/Casner talk at > >>> https://www.sobco.com/presentations/voip-prehistory.pdf > >>> > >>> Scott > >>> > >>>> On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:38 AM, Scott Bradner via Internet-history < > >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> from the presentation > >>>> > >>>> "realtime is like milk: keep the newest > >>>> non-realtime is like wine: keep the oldest" > >>>> > >>>> Scott > >>>> > >>>>> On Jun 23, 2022, at 8:35 AM, vinton cerf wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. Danny was a strong proponent of the split - he had a Milk/Wine > >>> metaphor (this might be in one of his Oceanview Tales) - wine takes > time > >> to > >>> mature, but milk spoils. > >>>>> 2. Jon Postel and David Reed were very supportive of that view. > >>>>> 3. The split came with TCP v4 (TCP v3 and v3.1 did not split IP off) > >>>>> 4. Craig's note is correct: UDP is created along with IP to give > >>> application access to low latency service. > >>>>> > >>>>> v > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 6:31 AM Scott Bradner via Internet-history < > >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >>>>> a good source is the Cohen/Casner lecture that they gave at Google in > >>> August 2010 > >>>>> > >>>>> A Brief Prehistory of Voice over IP parts 1 & 2 - > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av4KF1j-wp4 > >>>>> > >>>>> I have a copy of the slides (44 MB) - let me know if you would like a > >>> copy > >>>>> > >>>>> Scott > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 23, 2022, at 3:15 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history < > >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm interested in finding out more about the process by which TCP > and > >>> IP were > >>>>>> separated: to begin with, how it came to be recognized that this > >>> separation > >>>>>> was a good thing. (This split was what enabled the later creation of > >>> UDP, of > >>>>>> course.) In particular, that the basic service model (of what later > >>> became > >>>>>> the internet layer) should be directly usable by applications, and > >>> that the > >>>>>> complete data network be accessible not _just_ only via TCP. I am > >> also > >>>>>> interested in who drove this change (if any players in particular > >>> stand out). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I have poked around a bit in the early IEN's, but I didn't find much > >>> on this > >>>>>> specific area - either why, or who. From comments in IEN-22 > "Internet > >>> Meeting > >>>>>> Notes - 1 February 1978" (in "Introduction and Objectives) it sounds > >>> like the > >>>>>> formal decision to do the split was made at the TCP meeting the day > >>> before. > >>>>>> The minutes from that meeting, IEN-67 "TCP Meeting Notes - 30 & 31 > >>> January > >>>>>> 1978", don't provide much, though. IEN-66 "TCP Meeting Notes - 13 & > >> 14 > >>>>>> October 1977" shows that there had been a drift in this direction > >> for a > >>>>>> while; it didn't seem to be present as of IEN-3, "Internet Meeting > >>> Notes - 15 > >>>>>> August 1977", though. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I arrived on the scene shortly after this happened (my first meeting > >>> was the > >>>>>> August 1978 one), but I retain some impressions (gained no doubt > from > >>>>>> discussions with people like Clark and Reed). These are the > >>> impressions that > >>>>>> I retain: that Danny was _a_ significant force in making this > happen, > >>> because > >>>>>> of his voice work - for which timeliness was important, not > >>> correctness. (In > >>>>>> IEN-67, "Arrangements - Cohen" Danny "complain[ed] about TCP-3 > >>> becoming all > >>>>>> things to all people".) Is that correct? (If so, it's probably his > >> most > >>>>>> significant technical legacy.) For others, I think Dave Reed may > have > >>> been in > >>>>>> favour too (perhaps he'd already started to think of RPC-like > >> things). > >>> And > >>>>>> perhaps some of the other voice people - e.g. Forgie? And I'm sure > >> the > >>> PARC > >>>>>> guys were trying to throw a few clues our way. Am I missing anyone? > >> Did > >>>>>> anyone stand out as being a bigger influence than the rest? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Maybe there's some significan paper that discusses the architectural > >>> benefit > >>>>>> of making the basic unreliable data carriage substrate accessible to > >>> _some_ > >>>>>> applications, but the concept didn't seem to get much coverage in > the > >>> IENs. > >>>>>> Maybe it was so obviously the Right Thing that not much discussion > >> was > >>>>>> needed, and the only question was when/how to do it? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Noel > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Internet-history mailing list > >>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Internet-history mailing list > >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Internet-history mailing list > >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Internet-history mailing list > >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: > >> Vint Cerf > >> 1435 Woodhurst Blvd > >> McLean, VA 22102 > >> 703-448-0965 > >> > >> until further notice > >> -- > >> Internet-history mailing list > >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >> > > > > > > -- > > - Tom > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > 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 33, Issue 4 > > *********************************************** > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From b_a_denny at yahoo.com Thu Jun 23 09:56:11 2022 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 16:56:11 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <87230B5F-79BF-4821-8356-D20D89F37BAA@sobco.com> Message-ID: <189906074.7957187.1656003371881@mail.yahoo.com> If you can contact Jim Mathis, he might have some additional memories.? I remember him mentioning the split to me once but my memory is too foggy to feel I can accurately recall what he said.? It was just in passing. barbara? On Thursday, June 23, 2022, 05:35:40 AM PDT, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: 1. Danny was a strong proponent of the split - he had a Milk/Wine metaphor (this might be in one of his Oceanview Tales) - wine takes time to mature, but milk spoils. 2. Jon Postel and David Reed were very supportive of that view. 3. The split came with TCP v4 (TCP v3 and v3.1 did not split IP off) 4. Craig's note is correct: UDP is created along with IP to give application access to low latency service. v On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 6:31 AM Scott Bradner via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > a good source is the Cohen/Casner lecture that they gave at Google in > August 2010 > > A Brief Prehistory of Voice over IP parts 1 & 2 - > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av4KF1j-wp4 > > I have a copy of the slides (44 MB) - let me know if you would like a copy > > Scott > > > On Jun 23, 2022, at 3:15 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > I'm interested in finding out more about the process by which TCP and IP > were > > separated: to begin with, how it came to be recognized that this > separation > > was a good thing. (This split was what enabled the later creation of > UDP, of > > course.) In particular, that the basic service model (of what later > became > > the internet layer) should be directly usable by applications, and that > the > > complete data network be accessible not _just_ only via TCP. I am also > > interested in who drove this change (if any players in particular stand > out). > > > > I have poked around a bit in the early IEN's, but I didn't find much on > this > > specific area - either why, or who. From comments in IEN-22 "Internet > Meeting > > Notes - 1 February 1978" (in "Introduction and Objectives) it sounds > like the > > formal decision to do the split was made at the TCP meeting the day > before. > > The minutes from that meeting, IEN-67 "TCP Meeting Notes - 30 & 31 > January > > 1978", don't provide much, though. IEN-66 "TCP Meeting Notes - 13 & 14 > > October 1977" shows that there had been a drift in this direction for a > > while; it didn't seem to be present as of IEN-3, "Internet Meeting Notes > - 15 > > August 1977", though. > > > > I arrived on the scene shortly after this happened (my first meeting was > the > > August 1978 one), but I retain some impressions (gained no doubt from > > discussions with people like Clark and Reed). These are the impressions > that > > I retain: that Danny was _a_ significant force in making this happen, > because > > of his voice work - for which timeliness was important, not correctness. > (In > > IEN-67, "Arrangements - Cohen" Danny "complain[ed] about TCP-3 becoming > all > > things to all people".) Is that correct? (If so, it's probably his most > > significant technical legacy.) For others, I think Dave Reed may have > been in > > favour too (perhaps he'd already started to think of RPC-like things). > And > > perhaps some of the other voice people - e.g. Forgie? And I'm sure the > PARC > > guys were trying to throw a few clues our way. Am I missing anyone? Did > > anyone stand out as being a bigger influence than the rest? > > > > Maybe there's some significan paper that discusses the architectural > benefit > > of making the basic unreliable data carriage substrate accessible to > _some_ > > applications, but the concept didn't seem to get much coverage in the > IENs. > > Maybe it was so obviously the Right Thing that not much discussion was > > needed, and the only question was when/how to do it? > > > >? ? ? Noel > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Thu Jun 23 09:57:36 2022 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 12:57:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] Oceanview Tales Message-ID: <20220623165736.C06C818C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Vint Cerf > Does anyone have a copy of the Ocean View Tales - I was unable to turn > them up by searching for the ISI/RR report. My archives contain original (i.e. IEN-era) hardcopies of several 'Dannyisms', among them "Oceanview Tales". I also have "Local Transportation in Surfcove" (which I have a vague memory is the first in the series), and "Holy Wars and a Plea for Peace". I think the latter is a printout of the IEN-137 version, but I will check it and make sure. My scanner is currently offline (the desktop which drives it is having disk issues), but if you want either of the first two scanned, I can try and get it running again. Noel From vgcerf at gmail.com Thu Jun 23 10:02:42 2022 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 13:02:42 -0400 Subject: [ih] Oceanview Tales In-Reply-To: <20220623165736.C06C818C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20220623165736.C06C818C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: i ordered copies of finnegan from amazon - maybe that has all the stories? v On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 12:57 PM Noel Chiappa via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > From: Vint Cerf > > > Does anyone have a copy of the Ocean View Tales - I was unable to > turn > > them up by searching for the ISI/RR report. > > My archives contain original (i.e. IEN-era) hardcopies of several > 'Dannyisms', among them "Oceanview Tales". I also have "Local > Transportation > in Surfcove" (which I have a vague memory is the first in the series), and > "Holy Wars and a Plea for Peace". I think the latter is a printout of the > IEN-137 version, but I will check it and make sure. > > My scanner is currently offline (the desktop which drives it is having > disk issues), but if you want either of the first two scanned, I can > try and get it running again. > > Noel > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Thu Jun 23 10:18:31 2022 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 13:18:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] Oceanview Tales Message-ID: <20220623171831.D747E18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> PS: > My archives contain original (i.e. IEN-era) hardcopies of several > 'Dannyisms', among them "Oceanview Tales". FWIW: the contents of "Oceanview Tales" are: - 1 The Servant's Dilemma - 2 A Modern Application of Teleprocessing (IEN-84) - 3 A response to IEN-84, by Ed Cain, DCEC - 4 Protocols for Dating Coordination > From: Vint Cerf > i ordered copies of finnegan .. maybe that has all the stories? No idea. I too will order a copy, and will be able to check. Noel From j at shoch.com Thu Jun 23 17:17:16 2022 From: j at shoch.com (John Shoch) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 17:17:16 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 33, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Noel, A good question, about an important set of experiences splitting TCP. A few comments: 1. In fairness to the meeting scribes, the minutes of Internet and TCP Working Groups were not meant to be comprehensive. They included status reports, action items, and summaries; they did not try to capture all of the details of the debates. 2. Vint and others organized these meetings with a broad group of participants; there were lots of opportunities for informal discussions -- in the hallway, in the bar, over lunch or dinner, etc. A lot of information was shared outside the formal meetings, which won't be found in the minutes. (In spite of Zoom, there is an important role for face-to-face meetings.) 3. The TCP and Internet meetings in Jan-Feb 1978, in LA, were the key moments when the decision to split TCP into TCP/IP was finally taken. But that was only the culmination of lots of work and discussion. 4. Danny Cohen was, of course, a passionate advocate for more flexible packet-level access, especially for carrying real-time voice. (In addition to "milk vs wine" Danny wrote a wonderful parable titled "The Servant's Dilemma" -- it's included in his collection "The World According to Professor James A. Finnegan," available on Amazon.) 5. Beyond voice, though, some of us argued that, in a distributed computing architecture, there were many other uses for packets other than just reliable byte streams. At Parc we already had a lot of experience with layering in Pup, designed and implemented about 2 years before this meeting. Corporate issues prevented us from sharing the details of Pup but, as best we could, we were trying to share some of our general experience: --At a July 1977 TCP meeting at MIT we (Dalal and I) outlined the scope of our internet, captured by Jon Postel in his "TCP Meeting Notes" (published later, I think, as IEN 65): "PARC has 5 different types of networks with peices [sic] in Palo Alto, Los Angeles, and various places on the East Coast. Approximately 14 different networks. approximately 300 hosts connected." --You mentioned IEN 3, Postel's minutes of an Internet meeting at ISI in August 1977 (5 months before "the split.") -- Jon kindly included a brief summary of our update, and a list of services we had implemented (many, we hoped, highlighting the value of a raw packet interface!): "Shoch: Gateways exchange routing tables perodically [sic] gratuitously. Many processes in a gateway for example time server, name lookup server, boot loaders, measurement process, echo server, source, sink, trace." Some of the things we had done included 1-way unreliable raw packets (e.g., logging a memory error, caught by the Alto ECC, to a log server). Some were a simple 2-packet exchange (time request, name lookup, page-level file access to the Woodstock File Server, etc.). Some were reliable packet streams, but not byte streams (boot loader sending a boot file to an Alto, EFTP, etc.). 6. The split of TCP into TCP/IP provided a lot more flexibility -- a critical move which contributed to its ultimate success. A very fun time. John Shoch PS: We were fortunate that Vint invited us to attend these meetings. I went to many of them, but the bulk of the Pup work was done by Ed Taft and Dave Boggs. Some examples, from over 45 years ago: 2/2/1975, Ed Taft, "Implementation of Pup in Tenex" "Since I am about to begin implementation, I would appreciate receiving any comments...." "Raw Packet Mode: In raw packet mode, entire Pups are transferred to and from the user address space, including Pup headers. ... Acknowledgements, timeouts, duplicate message detection, flow control, and similar functions are left entirely up to the user program to perform" "Byte Stream Mode: ... The general idea of byte stream mode is that the user program simply reads and writes streams of pure data bytes...." 6/28/1975, Ed Taft, "Implementation of Pup in Tenex" "This is another revision of a memo with the same title dated Feb. 2, 1975. Pup transfers in raw packet mode are now implemented." 9/18/1975, Ed Taft, "Implementation of Pup in Tenex" [About 7 months after Taft started. About 2 years before the meeting in IEN 3.] "This is another revision of a memo with the same title dated June 28, 1975. All facilities described in this document are now implemented." 9/27/1975, Ed Taft, "Pup Servers on Maxc" Includes descriptions of: Telnet (Byte Stream), Gateway Information (Raw Packet), File Transfer (Byte Stream), Misc. Services (Date & Time, Mail Check, Network Directory Lookup, Where is [Maxc] user; Raw Packet), Echo (Raw Packet). From jack at 3kitty.org Thu Jun 23 18:41:44 2022 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:41:44 -0700 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <7206faa4-554f-73e9-fe13-366827893f4b@3kitty.org> Memories fade, and so does the ink in my ancient notebooks. But I think the motivation for the TCP/IP split started much earlier than when it actually happened.? E.g., I have a faded copy of "Comparison of TCP and DSP" by Dave Clark (MIT Local Network Note #7, April 28, 1977). This paper proposes changes to TCP to base it on a much simpler core set of services, with mechanisms for adding things like a reliable byte stream as optional.?? It's not quite the same as proposing a separate TCP and IP but it's the same concept - a lowest level unreliable packet transport, with optional addons to build things like byte-stream connections on top. Toward the end of that paper is a section on "Transmission of Speech Using TCP", which describes how "reliability considerations must not be allowed to get in the way of timely delivery of the packets containing digitized speech information.?? It proposed adding a "new control flag" to TCP, that would implement such a mechanism. So there was motivation for re-architecting TCP to separate out the "unreliable datagram" mechanisms from the "reliable byte stream" well before the actual TCP/IP split. Elsewhere in my notes from that era there are other discussions mentioned of other possible changes to TCP to accomplish the same goals.?? So the need and desire to somehow split apart the datagram and byte-steam aspects of TCP came at least before April 1977. In retrospect, I think that this was the beginning of the migration away from the "OSI Model", which was (and I guess still is) based on the "telephone" view of communications as always involving "sessions" and "presentation", i.e., following the tradition of the timesharing world where only people used computers, and they did so by "connecting" their terminal to the machine and having an interactive "session". That's not how the Internet works.? Humans don't talk to computers. A human's computer talks to other computers, and they have no need for "sessions". I was at MIT in early 1977 but never saw Dave's paper (I was in a different group).? But by then I had been indoctrinated by Lick(lider) for 7+ years in his vision of the "galactic network" where computers talked to other computers in support of all kinds of human activities.?? So perhaps the eventual split of TCP into TCP/IP was a reflection of that shift from human-to-computer to computer-to-computer communications, and the need to support all sorts of human activities including interactive (low latency) ones. So I wholeheartedly supported the notion of a separate IP layer, and reworked my Unix TCP code to migrate it from TCP2 to TCP4 (skipped TCP3 though). Jack Haverty MIT 1966-1977; BBN 1977-1990 On 6/23/22 00:15, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: > I'm interested in finding out more about the process by which TCP and IP were > separated: to begin with, how it came to be recognized that this separation > was a good thing. (This split was what enabled the later creation of UDP, of > course.) In particular, that the basic service model (of what later became > the internet layer) should be directly usable by applications, and that the > complete data network be accessible not _just_ only via TCP. I am also > interested in who drove this change (if any players in particular stand out). > > I have poked around a bit in the early IEN's, but I didn't find much on this > specific area - either why, or who. From comments in IEN-22 "Internet Meeting > Notes - 1 February 1978" (in "Introduction and Objectives) it sounds like the > formal decision to do the split was made at the TCP meeting the day before. > The minutes from that meeting, IEN-67 "TCP Meeting Notes - 30 & 31 January > 1978", don't provide much, though. IEN-66 "TCP Meeting Notes - 13 & 14 > October 1977" shows that there had been a drift in this direction for a > while; it didn't seem to be present as of IEN-3, "Internet Meeting Notes - 15 > August 1977", though. > > I arrived on the scene shortly after this happened (my first meeting was the > August 1978 one), but I retain some impressions (gained no doubt from > discussions with people like Clark and Reed). These are the impressions that > I retain: that Danny was _a_ significant force in making this happen, because > of his voice work - for which timeliness was important, not correctness. (In > IEN-67, "Arrangements - Cohen" Danny "complain[ed] about TCP-3 becoming all > things to all people".) Is that correct? (If so, it's probably his most > significant technical legacy.) For others, I think Dave Reed may have been in > favour too (perhaps he'd already started to think of RPC-like things). And > perhaps some of the other voice people - e.g. Forgie? And I'm sure the PARC > guys were trying to throw a few clues our way. Am I missing anyone? Did > anyone stand out as being a bigger influence than the rest? > > Maybe there's some significan paper that discusses the architectural benefit > of making the basic unreliable data carriage substrate accessible to _some_ > applications, but the concept didn't seem to get much coverage in the IENs. > Maybe it was so obviously the Right Thing that not much discussion was > needed, and the only question was when/how to do it? > > Noel From dhc at dcrocker.net Thu Jun 23 18:52:48 2022 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:52:48 -0700 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: <7206faa4-554f-73e9-fe13-366827893f4b@3kitty.org> References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <7206faa4-554f-73e9-fe13-366827893f4b@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <0aee4e92-0be0-dd61-ad15-57f167f0be00@dcrocker.net> On 6/23/2022 6:41 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > and they have no need for "sessions". This is a squirrel and I'm inclined to chase after it. In the context you've used this clause, sure.? But I suspect we'd be in better shape if we'd actually taken advantage of the construct more generally. I was intrigued to discover, some years back, that TLS is actually specified within a session layer model, though this bit of generality has apparently not been otherwise exploited. The benefit of this layer is the tiresome one of indirection. The current reality is that one process interacts with another through a transport protocol. If this interaction is based on continuing state, there is no convention for maintaining process-process context if that transport interaction is lost. So the interaction has no robustness against outages or mobility. A session layer can fix that, hiding changes from one transport 'connection' to another. Move from Wi-Fi access to cell-based access and the applications see only some performance hiccups, but no loss of the... session. woof. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Thu Jun 23 19:20:21 2022 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 14:20:21 +1200 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: <0aee4e92-0be0-dd61-ad15-57f167f0be00@dcrocker.net> References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <7206faa4-554f-73e9-fe13-366827893f4b@3kitty.org> <0aee4e92-0be0-dd61-ad15-57f167f0be00@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: Woof woof woof! I was just curious to see where OSI stood on this question in the 1980 Zimmermann paper. No trace of datagrams really, at that time, except as a possible future addition. But on the session layer, he wrote: "Protocols for the Session Layer No standard exists and no proposal has been currently available, since in most networks, session functions were often considered as part of higher layer functions such as Virtual Terminal and File Transfer. A standard Session Layer Protocol can easily be extracted from existing higher layer protocols." There is no suggestion that the session layer was intended to provide resilience and/or security, which I think is how we'd look at it today. In their own ways, SCTP, MPTCP, TLS and QUIC are all about that. All the same, I think Zimmermann was right - what OSI conceived of as session layer functions have always been mainly embedded in apps, and the same goes for the elusive Presentation Layer. Regards Brian Carpenter On 24-Jun-22 13:52, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > On 6/23/2022 6:41 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >> and they have no need for "sessions". > > > This is a squirrel and I'm inclined to chase after it. > > In the context you've used this clause, sure.? But I suspect we'd be in > better shape if we'd actually taken advantage of the construct more > generally. > > I was intrigued to discover, some years back, that TLS is actually > specified within a session layer model, though this bit of generality > has apparently not been otherwise exploited. > > The benefit of this layer is the tiresome one of indirection. The > current reality is that one process interacts with another through a > transport protocol. If this interaction is based on continuing state, > there is no convention for maintaining process-process context if that > transport interaction is lost. So the interaction has no robustness > against outages or mobility. > > A session layer can fix that, hiding changes from one transport > 'connection' to another. Move from Wi-Fi access to cell-based access and > the applications see only some performance hiccups, but no loss of > the... session. > > woof. > > d/ > From johnl at iecc.com Thu Jun 23 19:37:37 2022 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 23 Jun 2022 22:37:37 -0400 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: <7206faa4-554f-73e9-fe13-366827893f4b@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <20220624023738.2E173442F701@ary.qy> It appears that Jack Haverty via Internet-history said: >But I think the motivation for the TCP/IP split started much earlier >than when it actually happened.? E.g., I have a faded copy of >"Comparison of TCP and DSP" by Dave Clark (MIT Local Network Note #7, >April 28, 1977). ... I've never understood what the motivation for splitting TCP and IP was, not that there wasn't one, but there were so many. It allows UDP for latency critical stuff. Was there per-flow state in the routers before the split or was allowing stateless routers another benefit? Other things? R's, John From tte at cs.fau.de Thu Jun 23 19:44:56 2022 From: tte at cs.fau.de (Toerless Eckert) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 04:44:56 +0200 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <7206faa4-554f-73e9-fe13-366827893f4b@3kitty.org> <0aee4e92-0be0-dd61-ad15-57f167f0be00@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 02:20:21PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > Woof woof woof! The two squirrels on my patio fence typically manage to shoo away the chihuahuas typically worn by people around here as fashion accessories easily. Alas, i wouldn't know how to transcribe those squirrels screams. (oops.. and i didn't mean to imply you're a chihuahua ;-) I wonder how you define app vs. non-app. And whether/how that distinction was perceived or considered relevant back in the days. Recent wisdom would makes me think that it would be nice to have protocol stacks designed to let my (e.g.: linux userland) application code do everything it can, and leave only those parts to (e.g.: linux kernel) land that MUST run there because it multiplexec across applications. Alas, this is not how TCP stacks where written. Instead they moved the whole TCP protocol into the system level (linux kernel), making per-application optimizations quite painful and slow to evolve. All the Foo-over-UDP that has evolved is at least in part prove of that problem. Starting maybe with Steve Casners unwillingness?/inability? (don't remember which one it was ;-) to hack SunOS kernel sources when implementing RTP and renewed ever since, not QUIC to the latest. Of course, userland accurate scheduling of packet sending/processing was back then too expensive, so one can see why one wanted to keep this all out of 'userland', but even in the 80th microkernel designs started to appear to solve that problem, and nowadays it _should_ really not be a problem anymore with quite efficient multithreading in user land. Cheers Toerless > I was just curious to see where OSI stood on this question in the > 1980 Zimmermann paper. No trace of datagrams really, at that time, > except as a possible future addition. But on the session layer, he > wrote: > > "Protocols for the Session Layer > No standard exists and no proposal has been currently available, > since in most networks, session functions were often considered as > part of higher layer functions such as Virtual Terminal and File > Transfer. > A standard Session Layer Protocol can easily be extracted > from existing higher layer protocols." > > There is no suggestion that the session layer was intended > to provide resilience and/or security, which I think is > how we'd look at it today. In their own ways, SCTP, MPTCP, > TLS and QUIC are all about that. > > All the same, I think Zimmermann was right - what OSI conceived > of as session layer functions have always been mainly embedded > in apps, and the same goes for the elusive Presentation Layer. > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 24-Jun-22 13:52, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > > On 6/23/2022 6:41 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > > > and they have no need for "sessions". > > > > > > This is a squirrel and I'm inclined to chase after it. > > > > In the context you've used this clause, sure.? But I suspect we'd be in > > better shape if we'd actually taken advantage of the construct more > > generally. > > > > I was intrigued to discover, some years back, that TLS is actually > > specified within a session layer model, though this bit of generality > > has apparently not been otherwise exploited. > > > > The benefit of this layer is the tiresome one of indirection. The > > current reality is that one process interacts with another through a > > transport protocol. If this interaction is based on continuing state, > > there is no convention for maintaining process-process context if that > > transport interaction is lost. So the interaction has no robustness > > against outages or mobility. > > > > A session layer can fix that, hiding changes from one transport > > 'connection' to another. Move from Wi-Fi access to cell-based access and > > the applications see only some performance hiccups, but no loss of > > the... session. > > > > woof. > > > > d/ > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- --- tte at cs.fau.de From tte at cs.fau.de Thu Jun 23 19:56:46 2022 From: tte at cs.fau.de (Toerless Eckert) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 04:56:46 +0200 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: <20220624023738.2E173442F701@ary.qy> References: <7206faa4-554f-73e9-fe13-366827893f4b@3kitty.org> <20220624023738.2E173442F701@ary.qy> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 10:37:37PM -0400, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: > It appears that Jack Haverty via Internet-history said: > >But I think the motivation for the TCP/IP split started much earlier > >than when it actually happened.? E.g., I have a faded copy of > >"Comparison of TCP and DSP" by Dave Clark (MIT Local Network Note #7, > >April 28, 1977). ... > > I've never understood what the motivation for splitting TCP and IP was, > not that there wasn't one, but there were so many. For someone who has not lived through the time of separation, it is more like "whot ? why would anybody ever think to stick them together" > It allows UDP for latency critical stuff. Was there per-flow state in > the routers before the split or was allowing stateless routers another > benefit? Other things? Not knowing the history before end of the 80th, let me at least add the fun experience that even into the 2000th, vendors tried to sell equipment using per-5-tuple flow forwarding because TCAMs where cheap back then at linerate and longest-prefix-match lookups where not. These "routers" if you dare to call them that did explode in the face of the sales people who pitched them to service providers by angry engineers of said service providers. Since then at least that one vendor i remember has become more careful into what type of forwarding technologies qualify to have that device be called "router" (hint: it most NOT only do per-flow forwarding). Cheers Toerless > > R's, > John > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- --- tte at cs.fau.de From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Thu Jun 23 20:22:10 2022 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 21:22:10 -0600 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <7206faa4-554f-73e9-fe13-366827893f4b@3kitty.org> <0aee4e92-0be0-dd61-ad15-57f167f0be00@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <6f66536b-2cc1-ea98-2c2f-b9370a741c64@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 6/23/22 8:44 PM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote: > Alas, this is not how TCP stacks where written. Instead they moved > the whole TCP protocol into the system level (linux kernel), making > per-application optimizations quite painful and slow to evolve. All > the Foo-over-UDP that has evolved is at least in part prove of that > problem. Perhaps I'm going to show my ignorance here, but I've got to ask: Where does ping's use of raw sockets fit in this paradigm? It seems to me like that is lower than the typical TCP application but definitely more creating an entire TCP/IP stack in user space. Aside: I know that there are multiple TCP/IP stacks in user space from different people / companies. My employer uses (at least) one for very specific things. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Thu Jun 23 20:28:35 2022 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 21:28:35 -0600 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <6c8c6254-0e8f-c978-baf7-97380eb3fe05@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 6/23/22 1:15 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: > These are the impressions that I retain: that Danny was _a_ > significant force in making this happen, because of his voice work > - for which timeliness was important, not correctness. (In IEN-67, > "Arrangements - Cohen" Danny "complain[ed] about TCP-3 becoming all > things to all people".) Is that correct? (If so, it's probably his > most significant technical legacy.) For others, I think Dave Reed > may have been in favour too (perhaps he'd already started to think > of RPC-like things). And perhaps some of the other voice people - > e.g. Forgie? And I'm sure the PARC guys were trying to throw a few > clues our way. Am I missing anyone? Did anyone stand out as being a > bigger influence than the rest? Can anyone give, or point to a quick (1~3 paragraph) summary of said voice work? I remember VoIP landing on the scene I was in during the early 2000s, but I don't remember hearing about it before that. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From tte at cs.fau.de Thu Jun 23 21:19:50 2022 From: tte at cs.fau.de (Toerless Eckert) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 06:19:50 +0200 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: <6f66536b-2cc1-ea98-2c2f-b9370a741c64@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <7206faa4-554f-73e9-fe13-366827893f4b@3kitty.org> <0aee4e92-0be0-dd61-ad15-57f167f0be00@dcrocker.net> <6f66536b-2cc1-ea98-2c2f-b9370a741c64@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 09:22:10PM -0600, Grant Taylor via Internet-history wrote: > On 6/23/22 8:44 PM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote: > > Alas, this is not how TCP stacks where written. Instead they moved the > > whole TCP protocol into the system level (linux kernel), making > > per-application optimizations quite painful and slow to evolve. All the > > Foo-over-UDP that has evolved is at least in part prove of that problem. > > Perhaps I'm going to show my ignorance here, but I've got to ask: > > Where does ping's use of raw sockets fit in this paradigm? Good point: Raw sockets allow to build protocols like TCP at process level, BUT: because their only demux point is the IP layer proto / IPv6 next-proto field (and maybe the local ip address, not sure), the kernel can not demux the packets towards an actual application owner and hence this just allows to outsource a single TCP implementation into userland. But not for example having two competing browser apps in userland, each one bringing its own "perfected/optimized" TCP implementation. > It seems to me like that is lower than the typical TCP application but > definitely more creating an entire TCP/IP stack in user space. > > Aside: I know that there are multiple TCP/IP stacks in user space from > different people / companies. My employer uses (at least) one for very > specific things. I have not looked into the details for a long time, but i think that if you wanted to separate apps to run their own independent TCP stacks in userland with raw sockets, both would need to run with root privilege and have separate IP addresses (aka: require multiple addresses on the host). Of course, if we would have started with everything on top of UDP, including TCP, that would have resulted in a whole other set of interesting challenges over the decades, some of which i think we haven't even solved well today. Cheers Toerless > > > -- > Grant. . . . > unix || die > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- --- tte at cs.fau.de From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Thu Jun 23 21:35:20 2022 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 22:35:20 -0600 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <7206faa4-554f-73e9-fe13-366827893f4b@3kitty.org> <0aee4e92-0be0-dd61-ad15-57f167f0be00@dcrocker.net> <6f66536b-2cc1-ea98-2c2f-b9370a741c64@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <5e0ca437-a938-3845-d91b-dfee5a079493@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 6/23/22 10:19 PM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote: > Good point: Raw sockets allow to build protocols like TCP at process > level, BUT: because their only demux point is the IP layer proto / > IPv6 next-proto field (and maybe the local ip address, not sure), the > kernel can not demux the packets towards an actual application owner > and hence this just allows to outsource a single TCP implementation > into userland. I think I understand your concern. However I question the veracity of your concern. > I have not looked into the details for a long time, but i think > that if you wanted to separate apps to run their own independent > TCP stacks in userland with raw sockets, both would need to run with > root privilege and have separate IP addresses (aka: require multiple > addresses on the host). I was wondering about multiple IP addresses, one (or more) per TCP/IP stack. > Of course, if we would have started with everything on top of UDP, > including TCP, that would have resulted in a whole other set of > interesting challenges over the decades, some of which i think we > haven't even solved well today. Would you be willing to elaborate? P.S. Please reply to the Internet History mailing list, I don't want my own direct copy. -- Grant. . . . unix || die From tte at cs.fau.de Thu Jun 23 21:52:40 2022 From: tte at cs.fau.de (Toerless Eckert) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 06:52:40 +0200 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: <5e0ca437-a938-3845-d91b-dfee5a079493@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <7206faa4-554f-73e9-fe13-366827893f4b@3kitty.org> <0aee4e92-0be0-dd61-ad15-57f167f0be00@dcrocker.net> <6f66536b-2cc1-ea98-2c2f-b9370a741c64@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <5e0ca437-a938-3845-d91b-dfee5a079493@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 10:35:20PM -0600, Grant Taylor via Internet-history wrote: > I think I understand your concern. However I question the veracity of your > concern. Well, the contributors who wanted fast and wide spread of their transport work certainly choose the "over UDP" route instead of other routes. The next best thing i remember is LD_PRELOAD solutions, but those overloaded TCP sockets without actually doing TCP stacks. So i am not aware of recent RAW socket TCP stacks. Happy to learn what you remember/know! > > > Of course, if we would have started with everything on top of UDP, > > including TCP, that would have resulted in a whole other set of > > interesting challenges over the decades, some of which i think we > > haven't even solved well today. > > Would you be willing to elaborate? We have multiple decades of managing network traffic based on 5-tuple with well-known port numbres. This has eroded in the past decade for Internet traffic due to end-to-end encryption and will erode even more due to QUIC. There where a few drafts pointing out the issues that are yet to come with QUIC proliferation. If we would not have had this history, but one where like we will get it with QUIC now there are only meaningless UDP port numbers and no other visibility, then i wouldn't even dare to predict how a lot of the stuff we did with those 5 tuples would have evolved over the decades. Granted, we could probably had it half way, so i was justing about the extreme case. Cheers Toerless > > P.S. Please reply to the Internet History mailing list, I don't want my own > direct copy. > > > > -- > Grant. . . . > unix || die > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- --- tte at cs.fau.de From internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net Thu Jun 23 22:02:21 2022 From: internet-history at gtaylor.tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 23:02:21 -0600 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <7206faa4-554f-73e9-fe13-366827893f4b@3kitty.org> <0aee4e92-0be0-dd61-ad15-57f167f0be00@dcrocker.net> <6f66536b-2cc1-ea98-2c2f-b9370a741c64@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <5e0ca437-a938-3845-d91b-dfee5a079493@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <945c78f6-d484-dd9f-4742-fad4f770279a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 6/23/22 10:52 PM, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote: > Well, the contributors who wanted fast and wide spread of their > transport work certainly choose the "over UDP" route instead of other > routes. The next best thing i remember is LD_PRELOAD solutions, but > those overloaded TCP sockets without actually doing TCP stacks. So > i am not aware of recent RAW socket TCP stacks. Happy to learn what > you remember/know! I think that I've read public accounts of CloudFlare and / or Netflix doing user space TCP/IP stacks. Sorry, I'm not at liberty to discuss what my $EMPLOYER does. > We have multiple decades of managing network traffic based on 5-tuple > with well-known port numbres. This has eroded in the past decade for > Internet traffic due to end-to-end encryption and will erode even > more due to QUIC. I've long been a fan of discrete ports for things and not shoving everything over -- what I'll call -- bearer protocols; e.g. HTTP(S) / QUIC. Maybe it's my preference for the esoteric, but I'm actually quite happy with IPsec transport mode mesh between my servers. > There where a few drafts pointing out the issues that are yet to come > with QUIC proliferation. If we would not have had this history, but > one where like we will get it with QUIC now there are only meaningless > UDP port numbers and no other visibility, then i wouldn't even dare > to predict how a lot of the stuff we did with those 5 tuples would > have evolved over the decades. I think we're about to enter a time when the only way to viably do anything is to actively monkey in the middle traffic so that we have application layer visibility into the data streams. > Granted, we could probably had it half way, so i was justing about > the extreme case. ACK -- Grant. . . . unix || die From craig at tereschau.net Fri Jun 24 06:47:55 2022 From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 07:47:55 -0600 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: <6c8c6254-0e8f-c978-baf7-97380eb3fe05@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <6c8c6254-0e8f-c978-baf7-97380eb3fe05@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: Voice over Ethernet existed from the 1970s. You can get a sense by looking at the citations in a 1983 paper on the subject by Gonsalves in ACM SIGCOMM '83. Multiple papers by Danny on his Voice over Internet work ("Packet communication of online speech", AFIPS '81; "Issues in transnet packetized voice communication" in ACM SIGCOMM '77). His Internet Hall of Fame citation notes his work in this area started in 1973. I once saw a video, showing Danny running around Marina del Rey, using packet voice. Rettberg and team also created the Voice Funnel, attached to ARPANET in 1979 (BBN report 4098). Work persisted through the 1980s and 1990s. The Wideband network (Edmond et al in ACM SIGCOMM '90) was used for experiments in multimedia conferencing from the late 1980s on (Claudio Topolcic and, I think, Steve Casner were critical here). Van Jacobson, who was a user of the Wideband Network, and interested in creating more flexible services over the regular Internet (Wideband had a special MAC layer) and several others created the MBone with VIC and VAT in the 1990s. VOIP built on a huge reservoir of prior experience. Craig On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:28 PM Grant Taylor via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > On 6/23/22 1:15 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: > > These are the impressions that I retain: that Danny was _a_ > > significant force in making this happen, because of his voice work > > - for which timeliness was important, not correctness. (In IEN-67, > > "Arrangements - Cohen" Danny "complain[ed] about TCP-3 becoming all > > things to all people".) Is that correct? (If so, it's probably his > > most significant technical legacy.) For others, I think Dave Reed > > may have been in favour too (perhaps he'd already started to think > > of RPC-like things). And perhaps some of the other voice people - > > e.g. Forgie? And I'm sure the PARC guys were trying to throw a few > > clues our way. Am I missing anyone? Did anyone stand out as being a > > bigger influence than the rest? > > Can anyone give, or point to a quick (1~3 paragraph) summary of said > voice work? > > I remember VoIP landing on the scene I was in during the early 2000s, > but I don't remember hearing about it before that. > > > > -- > Grant. . . . > unix || die > -- > 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 awalding at gmail.com Fri Jun 24 06:55:35 2022 From: awalding at gmail.com (Andrew Walding) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 08:55:35 -0500 Subject: [ih] Internet History Wiki for Learners Message-ID: A side project for students of networking, I began a History of the Internet Wiki about the time that the Hobbes timeline stopped. I have piddled and enhanced over the years, and even taken things from the esteemed folks postings here. If you would like to check it out, I welcome anyone that is part of this mail list. It is free and there are no ads or anything like that. This is all about history. Here is my invite pasted from Twitter @awalding The #Internet revolutionized how we work, how we are entertained, how we research, how we communicate and how we live. Check out my #history #wiki project here https://t.co/O48wsUi9v7 - sorry you have to create a free user account but oh what fun to go back in time https://t.co/qa28CQqcCa Thanks for your consideration and let me know if you want to add or change stuff. Cheers! From olejacobsen at me.com Fri Jun 24 06:56:50 2022 From: olejacobsen at me.com (Ole Jacobsen) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 06:56:50 -0700 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <6c8c6254-0e8f-c978-baf7-97380eb3fe05@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <4A0B0428-B836-472C-8302-A0E04ED24C43@me.com> I personally participated in packet voice experiments between the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (NDRE), MIT Lincoln Labs, University College London (UCL), and University of Southern California, Information Sciences Institute (USC-ISI) in the 1976-1977 timeframe. In fact I still have audio recordings on cassette tape from some of these tests which linked NDRE to the ARPANET via SATNET. Vint probably has more details, as would Steve Casner. Cheers, Ole > On Jun 24, 2022, at 06:47, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote: > > Voice over Ethernet existed from the 1970s. You can get a sense by looking > at the citations in a 1983 paper on the subject by Gonsalves in ACM SIGCOMM > '83. > > Multiple papers by Danny on his Voice over Internet work ("Packet > communication of online speech", AFIPS '81; "Issues in transnet packetized > voice communication" in ACM SIGCOMM '77). His Internet Hall of Fame > citation notes his work in this area started in 1973. I once saw a video, > showing Danny running around Marina del Rey, using packet voice. > > Rettberg and team also created the Voice Funnel, attached to ARPANET in > 1979 (BBN report 4098). > > Work persisted through the 1980s and 1990s. The Wideband network (Edmond > et al in ACM SIGCOMM '90) was used for experiments in multimedia > conferencing from the late 1980s on (Claudio Topolcic and, I think, Steve > Casner were critical here). > > Van Jacobson, who was a user of the Wideband Network, and interested in > creating more flexible services over the regular Internet (Wideband had a > special MAC layer) and several others created the MBone with VIC and VAT in > the 1990s. > > VOIP built on a huge reservoir of prior experience. > > Craig > > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:28 PM Grant Taylor via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> On 6/23/22 1:15 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: >>> These are the impressions that I retain: that Danny was _a_ >>> significant force in making this happen, because of his voice work >>> - for which timeliness was important, not correctness. (In IEN-67, >>> "Arrangements - Cohen" Danny "complain[ed] about TCP-3 becoming all >>> things to all people".) Is that correct? (If so, it's probably his >>> most significant technical legacy.) For others, I think Dave Reed >>> may have been in favour too (perhaps he'd already started to think >>> of RPC-like things). And perhaps some of the other voice people - >>> e.g. Forgie? And I'm sure the PARC guys were trying to throw a few >>> clues our way. Am I missing anyone? Did anyone stand out as being a >>> bigger influence than the rest? >> >> Can anyone give, or point to a quick (1~3 paragraph) summary of said >> voice work? >> >> I remember VoIP landing on the scene I was in during the early 2000s, >> but I don't remember hearing about it before that. >> >> >> >> -- >> Grant. . . . >> unix || die >> -- >> 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 sob at sobco.com Fri Jun 24 08:03:28 2022 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott Bradner) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 11:03:28 -0400 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <6c8c6254-0e8f-c978-baf7-97380eb3fe05@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <54CFC29C-D4DC-4335-98A5-8381F1B88091@sobco.com> this may be the 1978 video that Craig saw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGat1jRQ_SM > On Jun 24, 2022, at 9:47 AM, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote: > > Voice over Ethernet existed from the 1970s. You can get a sense by looking > at the citations in a 1983 paper on the subject by Gonsalves in ACM SIGCOMM > '83. > > Multiple papers by Danny on his Voice over Internet work ("Packet > communication of online speech", AFIPS '81; "Issues in transnet packetized > voice communication" in ACM SIGCOMM '77). His Internet Hall of Fame > citation notes his work in this area started in 1973. I once saw a video, > showing Danny running around Marina del Rey, using packet voice. > > Rettberg and team also created the Voice Funnel, attached to ARPANET in > 1979 (BBN report 4098). > > Work persisted through the 1980s and 1990s. The Wideband network (Edmond > et al in ACM SIGCOMM '90) was used for experiments in multimedia > conferencing from the late 1980s on (Claudio Topolcic and, I think, Steve > Casner were critical here). > > Van Jacobson, who was a user of the Wideband Network, and interested in > creating more flexible services over the regular Internet (Wideband had a > special MAC layer) and several others created the MBone with VIC and VAT in > the 1990s. > > VOIP built on a huge reservoir of prior experience. > > Craig > > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:28 PM Grant Taylor via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> On 6/23/22 1:15 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: >>> These are the impressions that I retain: that Danny was _a_ >>> significant force in making this happen, because of his voice work >>> - for which timeliness was important, not correctness. (In IEN-67, >>> "Arrangements - Cohen" Danny "complain[ed] about TCP-3 becoming all >>> things to all people".) Is that correct? (If so, it's probably his >>> most significant technical legacy.) For others, I think Dave Reed >>> may have been in favour too (perhaps he'd already started to think >>> of RPC-like things). And perhaps some of the other voice people - >>> e.g. Forgie? And I'm sure the PARC guys were trying to throw a few >>> clues our way. Am I missing anyone? Did anyone stand out as being a >>> bigger influence than the rest? >> >> Can anyone give, or point to a quick (1~3 paragraph) summary of said >> voice work? >> >> I remember VoIP landing on the scene I was in during the early 2000s, >> but I don't remember hearing about it before that. >> >> >> >> -- >> Grant. . . . >> unix || die >> -- >> 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 From sob at sobco.com Fri Jun 24 08:05:48 2022 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott Bradner) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 11:05:48 -0400 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: <54CFC29C-D4DC-4335-98A5-8381F1B88091@sobco.com> References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <6c8c6254-0e8f-c978-baf7-97380eb3fe05@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <54CFC29C-D4DC-4335-98A5-8381F1B88091@sobco.com> Message-ID: ps - Danny's voice is dubbed > On Jun 24, 2022, at 11:03 AM, Scott Bradner via Internet-history wrote: > > this may be the 1978 video that Craig saw > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGat1jRQ_SM > > >> On Jun 24, 2022, at 9:47 AM, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote: >> >> Voice over Ethernet existed from the 1970s. You can get a sense by looking >> at the citations in a 1983 paper on the subject by Gonsalves in ACM SIGCOMM >> '83. >> >> Multiple papers by Danny on his Voice over Internet work ("Packet >> communication of online speech", AFIPS '81; "Issues in transnet packetized >> voice communication" in ACM SIGCOMM '77). His Internet Hall of Fame >> citation notes his work in this area started in 1973. I once saw a video, >> showing Danny running around Marina del Rey, using packet voice. >> >> Rettberg and team also created the Voice Funnel, attached to ARPANET in >> 1979 (BBN report 4098). >> >> Work persisted through the 1980s and 1990s. The Wideband network (Edmond >> et al in ACM SIGCOMM '90) was used for experiments in multimedia >> conferencing from the late 1980s on (Claudio Topolcic and, I think, Steve >> Casner were critical here). >> >> Van Jacobson, who was a user of the Wideband Network, and interested in >> creating more flexible services over the regular Internet (Wideband had a >> special MAC layer) and several others created the MBone with VIC and VAT in >> the 1990s. >> >> VOIP built on a huge reservoir of prior experience. >> >> Craig >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:28 PM Grant Taylor via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >>> On 6/23/22 1:15 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: >>>> These are the impressions that I retain: that Danny was _a_ >>>> significant force in making this happen, because of his voice work >>>> - for which timeliness was important, not correctness. (In IEN-67, >>>> "Arrangements - Cohen" Danny "complain[ed] about TCP-3 becoming all >>>> things to all people".) Is that correct? (If so, it's probably his >>>> most significant technical legacy.) For others, I think Dave Reed >>>> may have been in favour too (perhaps he'd already started to think >>>> of RPC-like things). And perhaps some of the other voice people - >>>> e.g. Forgie? And I'm sure the PARC guys were trying to throw a few >>>> clues our way. Am I missing anyone? Did anyone stand out as being a >>>> bigger influence than the rest? >>> >>> Can anyone give, or point to a quick (1~3 paragraph) summary of said >>> voice work? >>> >>> I remember VoIP landing on the scene I was in during the early 2000s, >>> but I don't remember hearing about it before that. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Grant. . . . >>> unix || die >>> -- >>> 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 > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jack at 3kitty.org Fri Jun 24 11:06:06 2022 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 11:06:06 -0700 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: Another thought about the how and why of the split of TCP into (TCP|UDP)/IP... IIRC, there was interest well before the TCP era (i.e., pre-1974) in having a network that provided a "datagram" service.? I wasn't involved then except as a network user, but my impression is that the motivation was a desire to have a "low latency" capability that wasn't necessarily as reliable as a "connection-oriented" service. An obvious user of such a service would be *interactive* voice, but there were other uses - e.g., "process control" kinds of applications where timeliness was more important than getting every piece of data.?? Delays due to buffering and flow control mechanisms would be avoided, but some datagrams might never be delivered. That was OK for some uses. Within the ARPANET, there was such a mechanism that could be used with a "datagram" kind of behavior.?? Such "uncontrolled messages" could be sent, and it would bypass the normal ARPANET mechanisms for flow control et al. I was at BBN from 1977 through 1990, and I remember that, especially in the "ARPANET group", there was a strong fear that use of uncontrolled packets would be disastrous, likely to crash the entire ARPANET.? So "loss of datagrams" wasn't the primary concern; the perceived risk was that uncontrolled traffic would disrupt the entire network. As a result, it was very difficult to get permission to use this "datagram" service.?? IIRC it was rarely granted, and even then only for limited times and only between certain pairs of hosts. Back in the early 80s, I was responsible for several "Internet projects", including running the "core gateways".? Since gateways (aka routers) handled only IP datagrams, they were an obvious match to the ARPANET "uncontrolled" service.? So we asked for permission to use the "uncontrolled" option for traffic passing between gateways. We never got that permission.?? Too risky. So it was very difficult to get permission to use that datagram service.?? Even the "gateway group", in the same part of BBN that ran the ARPANET, with offices just down the hall from the ARPANET NOC, was too risky.? For others seeking to experiment with datagrams I suspect it was all but impossible. I have a theory.?? More a speculation really, about how and why TCP/IP evolved (Noel's question). At the time, there was a longstanding desire in the research community to try out ideas using some kind of "datagram" service. But the ARPANET was the only available long-haul network, and it would only provide a reliable byte-stream service.?? You could send individual IP datagrams over the ARPANET, but they would always come out the other end intact and in order, delayed by whatever buffering and retransmissions was needed to accomplish that.?? Although it was possible to change the IMP code, and a "datagram" service had actually been implemented, no one could use it.?? And only BBN could change the code. I can't remember where I saw it, but there was work done inside the ARPANET to enable the interconnection of multiple networks.? I.e., in some document, or perhaps code, I saw packet formats that included a "NETWORK" field, to allow packets to be addressed to different networks.?? I'm not sure if that ever got implemented or used.?? That "NETWORK" field may have been in one of the internal BBN documents (or the code) that defined packet formats used between IMPs.?? If so, probably few people outside BBN ever saw it. TCP was also motivated by the need to integrate multiple networks into a single communications system.? One way to accomplish that would have been to define mechanisms and implement them in every type of network that needed to be interconnected.?? That would likely have been difficult, especially with the experience with the ARPANET's uncontrolled datagram mechanism. The other approach was to put all the mechanism into the host computers that were attached to the various networks.? Host computer software was significantly easier to change, especially since one or a few "experimental" machines could be readily modified without fear of somehow crashing all the other similar machines being used, by simply not installing the experimental software (TCP) in "production" machines.? Such a technique was pragmatically difficult in a network. So TCP (V1,2) put all of the mechanisms for flow control, reliability, et al into the host computers, replicating the mechanisms that already existed in the ARPANET IMPs. Experimentation could proceed inside that computer software, constrained by the fact that the ARPANET was providing superfluous mechanisms to create "virtual circuit" behavior. Then we noticed that the Internet architecture was even more flexible than it seemed.?? A "wire" connecting two gateways could be simply considered as a very simple type of "network", with only two addresses - "this end" and "the other end".? So gateways could be directly connected with just a wire (or a long-haul telephone circuit), and the Internet would still work.?? The ARPANET was no longer needed.?? And with gateways interconnecting via "wire networks", the core service of the Internet evolved toward a pure datagram service, where IP datagrams could be lost, reordered, mangled, duplicated, and in general treated badly -- in other words, what TCP was designed to handle. With TCP in the host computers, which could be easily modified, it was now possible to design and actually implement a true "datagram" core service, and experiment with applications that used it (like packet voice), as well as the backlog of ideas about mechanisms for flow control, congestion control, routing, etc., etc. So it was a natural step to "split out" that datagram service and make it separately accessible to "application" developers.? IIRC, UDP happened pretty much in conjunction with the TCP/IP split, essentially as a mechanism for making that raw "datagram service" accessible to application programs (by introducing the next level of addressing with ports). I don't remember all of the "timing" of all these changes, except that they all happened in probably less than a year.? And I'm not sure if this patteren of events was actually orchestrated by anyone, or if it just happened naturally.? For example, did the TCP/IP split happen because of the pent-up demand to try out ideas, and the new freedom to implement that came from putting the software in the "hosts" rather than in the "switches". So, it's possible that the TCP/IP split happened simply because, with the software now accessible in the host computers, it could, to satisfy that longstanding desire to experiment with datagrams.?? Not just for uses like packet voice, but also for all the people with ideas about schemes for routing, window management, packetization, congestion control, etc. etc., etc. Jack Haverty On 6/23/22 00:15, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: > I'm interested in finding out more about the process by which TCP and IP were > separated: to begin with, how it came to be recognized that this separation > was a good thing. (This split was what enabled the later creation of UDP, of > course.) In particular, that the basic service model (of what later became > the internet layer) should be directly usable by applications, and that the > complete data network be accessible not _just_ only via TCP. I am also > interested in who drove this change (if any players in particular stand out). > > I have poked around a bit in the early IEN's, but I didn't find much on this > specific area - either why, or who. From comments in IEN-22 "Internet Meeting > Notes - 1 February 1978" (in "Introduction and Objectives) it sounds like the > formal decision to do the split was made at the TCP meeting the day before. > The minutes from that meeting, IEN-67 "TCP Meeting Notes - 30 & 31 January > 1978", don't provide much, though. IEN-66 "TCP Meeting Notes - 13 & 14 > October 1977" shows that there had been a drift in this direction for a > while; it didn't seem to be present as of IEN-3, "Internet Meeting Notes - 15 > August 1977", though. > > I arrived on the scene shortly after this happened (my first meeting was the > August 1978 one), but I retain some impressions (gained no doubt from > discussions with people like Clark and Reed). These are the impressions that > I retain: that Danny was _a_ significant force in making this happen, because > of his voice work - for which timeliness was important, not correctness. (In > IEN-67, "Arrangements - Cohen" Danny "complain[ed] about TCP-3 becoming all > things to all people".) Is that correct? (If so, it's probably his most > significant technical legacy.) For others, I think Dave Reed may have been in > favour too (perhaps he'd already started to think of RPC-like things). And > perhaps some of the other voice people - e.g. Forgie? And I'm sure the PARC > guys were trying to throw a few clues our way. Am I missing anyone? Did > anyone stand out as being a bigger influence than the rest? > > Maybe there's some significan paper that discusses the architectural benefit > of making the basic unreliable data carriage substrate accessible to _some_ > applications, but the concept didn't seem to get much coverage in the IENs. > Maybe it was so obviously the Right Thing that not much discussion was > needed, and the only question was when/how to do it? > > Noel From b_a_denny at yahoo.com Fri Jun 24 11:27:09 2022 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 18:27:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] QUIC story References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> Hi, I have been wondering for quite sometime how new people to the field learn about how to incorporate their ideas.? Is there some active outreach to encourage corporations to engage in the IETF? How do their employees, or even students, learn about such things? Etc.... I predate the IETF so my experience is very different than people today. This is tied into a story about QUIC.? For many years I attended talks hosted by the Bay Area ACM.? The topics were always a mix of things but almost never anything to do with networking.? I was pleasantly surprised when someone started to present information on a transport protocol called QUIC.? ?Someone from Google gave the presentation. Unfortunately I don't remember the person's name.? At the end of the presentation,? I asked had they approached the IETF regarding what they were doing (I think they had started, or about to start, some real world testing).? Their response made me feel like they hadn't done anything in this regard and left me wondering whether they were even familiar with the IETF.? I suggested they consider starting a dialogue with the transport area. barbara From agmalis at gmail.com Fri Jun 24 12:59:19 2022 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 15:59:19 -0400 Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Barbara, Google has been at the IETF for quite some time (since at least July 2010), so it's possible that the person you spoke to just wasn't personally aware. Do you remember when you were at that presentation? In the IETF, the QUIC work started as a BOF in July 2016 and first met as a WG that November. They published RFC 9000, the QUIC transport protocol spec, about a year ago, and very recently published RFC 9114, the HTTP/3 spec. They have a lot else going on as well, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/documents/ . BTW, Google may have been coming even earlier to the IETF, but for some reason the IETF's attendee records prior to July 2010 are offline. I'm going to bring that to their attention. More widely to your question about how new people come aboard, the IETF is VERY well known in the networking/telecom industry, since any equipment vendors that want to implement anything in the space have to conform to the RFCs. So vendors certainly are proactive about sending people if they have anything they want to get standardized, or just to understand what's going on. Network operators not so much; some come, but many tend to proxy through their vendors to save money. But they're certainly aware of the work, since they have to write RFPs that include the RFCs they want their equipment to implement. Cheers, Andy On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 2:28 PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Hi, > I have been wondering for quite sometime how new people to the field learn > about how to incorporate their ideas. Is there some active outreach to > encourage corporations to engage in the IETF? How do their employees, or > even students, learn about such things? Etc.... I predate the IETF so my > experience is very different than people today. > This is tied into a story about QUIC. For many years I attended talks > hosted by the Bay Area ACM. The topics were always a mix of things but > almost never anything to do with networking. I was pleasantly surprised > when someone started to present information on a transport protocol called > QUIC. Someone from Google gave the presentation. Unfortunately I don't > remember the person's name. At the end of the presentation, I asked had > they approached the IETF regarding what they were doing (I think they had > started, or about to start, some real world testing). Their response made > me feel like they hadn't done anything in this regard and left me wondering > whether they were even familiar with the IETF. I suggested they consider > starting a dialogue with the transport area. > barbara > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From bortzmeyer at nic.fr Fri Jun 24 13:02:47 2022 From: bortzmeyer at nic.fr (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 22:02:47 +0200 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: <0aee4e92-0be0-dd61-ad15-57f167f0be00@dcrocker.net> References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <7206faa4-554f-73e9-fe13-366827893f4b@3kitty.org> <0aee4e92-0be0-dd61-ad15-57f167f0be00@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 06:52:48PM -0700, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote a message of 23 lines which said: > A session layer can fix that, hiding changes from one transport > 'connection' to another. Move from Wi-Fi access to cell-based access > and the applications see only some performance hiccups, but no loss > of the... session. QUIC also provides this but it has some bad consequences, for instance for privacy (the peer can track you when you move, every "session" system has of course the same problem, for instance TLS with session resumption). From b_a_denny at yahoo.com Fri Jun 24 13:32:26 2022 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 20:32:26 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2010651858.8511529.1656102746871@mail.yahoo.com> I am not sure I agree with everything you have said regarding the vendors.? This may have been true when the Internet was young but I have seen otherwise.? Sure they have to be aware of the specs but devoting resources to and understand/participate in? the workings of IETF is another matter.? At one point, I personally had to push pretty hard for someone to complete some work for a working group that I thought I had a firm commitment from a different division to do.? This was at a commercial entity.? This Bay Area ACM talk was well before 2016.? I am pretty sure it was after 2011.? barbara On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 12:59:37 PM PDT, Andrew G. Malis wrote: Barbara, Google has been at the IETF for quite some time (since at least July 2010), so it's possible that the person you spoke to just wasn't personally aware. Do you remember when you were at that presentation? In the IETF, the QUIC work started as a BOF in July 2016 and first met as a WG that November. They published RFC 9000, the QUIC transport?protocol spec, about a year ago, and very recently?published RFC 9114, the HTTP/3 spec. They have a lot else going on as well, see?https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/documents/ . BTW, Google may have been coming even earlier to the IETF, but for some reason the IETF's attendee records prior to July 2010 are offline. I'm going to bring that to their attention. More widely to your question?about how new people come aboard, the IETF is VERY well known in the networking/telecom industry, since any equipment?vendors that want to implement anything?in the space have to conform to the RFCs. So vendors certainly?are proactive about sending people if they have anything they want to get standardized, or just to understand what's going on. Network operators not so much; some come, but many tend to proxy through?their vendors to save money. But they're certainly?aware of the work, since they have to write RFPs that include the RFCs they want their equipment to implement. Cheers,Andy On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 2:28 PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote: Hi, I have been wondering for quite sometime how new people to the field learn about how to incorporate their ideas.? Is there some active outreach to encourage corporations to engage in the IETF? How do their employees, or even students, learn about such things? Etc.... I predate the IETF so my experience is very different than people today. This is tied into a story about QUIC.? For many years I attended talks hosted by the Bay Area ACM.? The topics were always a mix of things but almost never anything to do with networking.? I was pleasantly surprised when someone started to present information on a transport protocol called QUIC.? ?Someone from Google gave the presentation. Unfortunately I don't remember the person's name.? At the end of the presentation,? I asked had they approached the IETF regarding what they were doing (I think they had started, or about to start, some real world testing).? Their response made me feel like they hadn't done anything in this regard and left me wondering whether they were even familiar with the IETF.? I suggested they consider starting a dialogue with the transport area. barbara -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Fri Jun 24 14:45:32 2022 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 09:45:32 +1200 Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0d941f73-c49c-c3a3-284b-a1abfe1b5352@gmail.com> Andy, The older IETF attendee records are in the proceedings, linked from https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/past/ The first registered Google attendee, I believe, was Alia Atlas at IETF 63 in July 2005. After that, their attendance steadily increased. Regards Brian Carpenter On 25-Jun-22 07:59, Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history wrote: > Barbara, > > Google has been at the IETF for quite some time (since at least July 2010), > so it's possible that the person you spoke to just wasn't personally aware. > Do you remember when you were at that presentation? In the IETF, the QUIC > work started as a BOF in July 2016 and first met as a WG that November. > They published RFC 9000, the QUIC transport protocol spec, about a year > ago, and very recently published RFC 9114, the HTTP/3 spec. They have a lot > else going on as well, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/documents/ . > > BTW, Google may have been coming even earlier to the IETF, but for some > reason the IETF's attendee records prior to July 2010 are offline. I'm > going to bring that to their attention. > > More widely to your question about how new people come aboard, the IETF is > VERY well known in the networking/telecom industry, since any > equipment vendors that want to implement anything in the space have to > conform to the RFCs. So vendors certainly are proactive about sending > people if they have anything they want to get standardized, or just to > understand what's going on. Network operators not so much; some come, but > many tend to proxy through their vendors to save money. But they're > certainly aware of the work, since they have to write RFPs that include the > RFCs they want their equipment to implement. > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 2:28 PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> I have been wondering for quite sometime how new people to the field learn >> about how to incorporate their ideas. Is there some active outreach to >> encourage corporations to engage in the IETF? How do their employees, or >> even students, learn about such things? Etc.... I predate the IETF so my >> experience is very different than people today. >> This is tied into a story about QUIC. For many years I attended talks >> hosted by the Bay Area ACM. The topics were always a mix of things but >> almost never anything to do with networking. I was pleasantly surprised >> when someone started to present information on a transport protocol called >> QUIC. Someone from Google gave the presentation. Unfortunately I don't >> remember the person's name. At the end of the presentation, I asked had >> they approached the IETF regarding what they were doing (I think they had >> started, or about to start, some real world testing). Their response made >> me feel like they hadn't done anything in this regard and left me wondering >> whether they were even familiar with the IETF. I suggested they consider >> starting a dialogue with the transport area. >> barbara >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> From agmalis at gmail.com Fri Jun 24 15:10:18 2022 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 18:10:18 -0400 Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: <0d941f73-c49c-c3a3-284b-a1abfe1b5352@gmail.com> References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> <0d941f73-c49c-c3a3-284b-a1abfe1b5352@gmail.com> Message-ID: Brian, Thanks for the info on Alia being the first Google attendee. I worked more closely with her during her days at Avici and Juniper (and now Google again). Regarding the proceedings, check out, for example, https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/ and try to get the attendee list. I end up at https://www.ietf.org/registration/ietf78/onsiteattendance.py , which has a 404 code. I've alerted the Secretariat. Cheers, Andy On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 5:45 PM Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote: > Andy, > > The older IETF attendee records are in the proceedings, linked from > https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/past/ > > The first registered Google attendee, I believe, was Alia Atlas > at IETF 63 in July 2005. After that, their attendance steadily > increased. > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 25-Jun-22 07:59, Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history wrote: > > Barbara, > > > > Google has been at the IETF for quite some time (since at least July > 2010), > > so it's possible that the person you spoke to just wasn't personally > aware. > > Do you remember when you were at that presentation? In the IETF, the QUIC > > work started as a BOF in July 2016 and first met as a WG that November. > > They published RFC 9000, the QUIC transport protocol spec, about a year > > ago, and very recently published RFC 9114, the HTTP/3 spec. They have a > lot > > else going on as well, see > https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/documents/ . > > > > BTW, Google may have been coming even earlier to the IETF, but for some > > reason the IETF's attendee records prior to July 2010 are offline. I'm > > going to bring that to their attention. > > > > More widely to your question about how new people come aboard, the IETF > is > > VERY well known in the networking/telecom industry, since any > > equipment vendors that want to implement anything in the space have to > > conform to the RFCs. So vendors certainly are proactive about sending > > people if they have anything they want to get standardized, or just to > > understand what's going on. Network operators not so much; some come, but > > many tend to proxy through their vendors to save money. But they're > > certainly aware of the work, since they have to write RFPs that include > the > > RFCs they want their equipment to implement. > > > > Cheers, > > Andy > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 2:28 PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history < > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> I have been wondering for quite sometime how new people to the field > learn > >> about how to incorporate their ideas. Is there some active outreach to > >> encourage corporations to engage in the IETF? How do their employees, or > >> even students, learn about such things? Etc.... I predate the IETF so my > >> experience is very different than people today. > >> This is tied into a story about QUIC. For many years I attended talks > >> hosted by the Bay Area ACM. The topics were always a mix of things but > >> almost never anything to do with networking. I was pleasantly surprised > >> when someone started to present information on a transport protocol > called > >> QUIC. Someone from Google gave the presentation. Unfortunately I don't > >> remember the person's name. At the end of the presentation, I asked > had > >> they approached the IETF regarding what they were doing (I think they > had > >> started, or about to start, some real world testing). Their response > made > >> me feel like they hadn't done anything in this regard and left me > wondering > >> whether they were even familiar with the IETF. I suggested they > consider > >> starting a dialogue with the transport area. > >> barbara > >> -- > >> 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 Jun 24 16:02:32 2022 From: tte at cs.fau.de (Toerless Eckert) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 01:02:32 +0200 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: <945c78f6-d484-dd9f-4742-fad4f770279a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <7206faa4-554f-73e9-fe13-366827893f4b@3kitty.org> <0aee4e92-0be0-dd61-ad15-57f167f0be00@dcrocker.net> <6f66536b-2cc1-ea98-2c2f-b9370a741c64@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <5e0ca437-a938-3845-d91b-dfee5a079493@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <945c78f6-d484-dd9f-4742-fad4f770279a@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 11:02:21PM -0600, Grant Taylor via Internet-history wrote: > I think that I've read public accounts of CloudFlare and / or Netflix doing > user space TCP/IP stacks. > > Sorry, I'm not at liberty to discuss what my $EMPLOYER does. Ah, then it's not interesting anyhow ;-)) Luckily there is also great public work at least from Netflix, such as Randy's: https://openconnect.netflix.com/publications/asiabsd_tls_improved.pdf (which is in the kernel though.) My point was that to make user space easy you would have wanted to mux/demux in the kernel and do the rest (after demux on receipt, before mux on sending) in per-app userland processes. We have this for UDP, we do not have this for TCP. This may be something that's happening in DPDK or other more modern approaches (i am not on top of all those APIs), but we just didn't have it historically for TCP. > > We have multiple decades of managing network traffic based on 5-tuple > > with well-known port numbres. This has eroded in the past decade for > > Internet traffic due to end-to-end encryption and will erode even more > > due to QUIC. > > I've long been a fan of discrete ports for things and not shoving everything > over -- what I'll call -- bearer protocols; e.g. HTTP(S) / QUIC. > > Maybe it's my preference for the esoteric, but I'm actually quite happy with > IPsec transport mode mesh between my servers. Then you probably where not under pressure to make more money by being able to render an advertisement on a screen after one RTT of packets without the network knowing about it - because 10 msec later viewer ADD would have kicked in and the product would not have sold ;-) But of course, the work done for QUIC has started to see a lot more (IMHO) beneficial use-cases. > > There where a few drafts pointing out the issues that are yet to come > > with QUIC proliferation. If we would not have had this history, but one > > where like we will get it with QUIC now there are only meaningless UDP > > port numbers and no other visibility, then i wouldn't even dare to > > predict how a lot of the stuff we did with those 5 tuples would have > > evolved over the decades. > > I think we're about to enter a time when the only way to viably do anything > is to actively monkey in the middle traffic so that we have application > layer visibility into the data streams. ;-) That is a whole other thread Cheers Toerless > > Granted, we could probably had it half way, so i was justing about the > > extreme case. > > ACK > > > > -- > Grant. . . . > unix || die > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From karl at cavebear.com Fri Jun 24 19:47:15 2022 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 19:47:15 -0700 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <46eefbe4-86ea-ad76-c528-0bdba393c919@cavebear.com> On 6/23/22 12:15 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: > I'm interested in finding out more about the process by which TCP and IP were > separated:] Sorry for jumping in so late (I have been in the Rockies for a couple of weeks.) Back in 1974 our group at SDC was working for an unnamed three letter agency trying to coax end-to-end, per-session encryption into a very early TCP based network. TCP had not gelled at that time, but it was clearly the path to the future. We had already been doing a lot of datagram/packet encryption. We usually added a wrapper header to contain the needed information to maintain crypto key selection and synchronization despite packet loss, duplication, or resequencing.? We were not permitted to talk much about this stuff - the boundaries were not clear but parts were definitely protected by US military security classifications.? A lot of our effort involved things like how to build systems with "safe" control paths between "red" and "black" zones.? We did a lot with formal verification and, my specialty, capability based hardware and operating systems. As part of our work we came to the conclusion that given the capabilities of hardware of that era that we didn't really want to bulk encrypt an entire TCP data flow as one object. That could have required a lot of storage and it created problems for interactive sessions where the content wasn't fixed before the connection was set up. So we decided that it would be easier to carve TCP into two parts - an upper part concerned with sequencing, flow control, and data integrity, and a lower part that pretty much just did datagrams. In between we would insert a security layer - somewhat resembling IPSEC (but that had to be independently invented later by others because we couldn't publish.) I do have a photograph of a blackboard that was done at SDC by myself and Vint on the evening of Dec 31, 1974 - New Year's Eve: we had such dedication! ;-) It's hard to read, especially the part in blue chalk, but we were envisioning that intermediate layer and using a kind of packet-to-packet crypto synchronization and integrity protection that could have been called "block chaining".? I wonder where I have heard that phrase recently?? (The phrase "IH" in the photo means "Initialization Header".) Here's a link to that photo: https://www.cavebear.com/images/karl/tcp-1974-5782x3946.jpg (This was before public-key crypto, so we tended to use things like DES, although in the real implementations all of that was inside a very opaque box that we were not allowed to physically touch.) We actually implemented this stuff and it was actually deployed and used for a couple of decades. I suspect that our work, being done behind security walls and not publicly published,? had little influence on the later formal split of IP from TCP.? But it does add to notion that ideas often have many parents. ??? ??? --karl-- From vgcerf at gmail.com Sat Jun 25 00:45:35 2022 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 03:45:35 -0400 Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I am reasonably sure that Google has been involved in IETF since my arrival in 2005 and probably before that. Googlers have served in senior roles (e.g. Warren Kumari as co-director of the operations and Management area and IESG Liaison to IAB; former Googler Erik Kline as co-director in the Internet Area; former Googler Ted Hardie was chair of the IAB for some time and now is chair of ISOC). There are many more. v On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 3:59 PM Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Barbara, > > Google has been at the IETF for quite some time (since at least July 2010), > so it's possible that the person you spoke to just wasn't personally aware. > Do you remember when you were at that presentation? In the IETF, the QUIC > work started as a BOF in July 2016 and first met as a WG that November. > They published RFC 9000, the QUIC transport protocol spec, about a year > ago, and very recently published RFC 9114, the HTTP/3 spec. They have a lot > else going on as well, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/documents/ > . > > BTW, Google may have been coming even earlier to the IETF, but for some > reason the IETF's attendee records prior to July 2010 are offline. I'm > going to bring that to their attention. > > More widely to your question about how new people come aboard, the IETF is > VERY well known in the networking/telecom industry, since any > equipment vendors that want to implement anything in the space have to > conform to the RFCs. So vendors certainly are proactive about sending > people if they have anything they want to get standardized, or just to > understand what's going on. Network operators not so much; some come, but > many tend to proxy through their vendors to save money. But they're > certainly aware of the work, since they have to write RFPs that include the > RFCs they want their equipment to implement. > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 2:28 PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > Hi, > > I have been wondering for quite sometime how new people to the field > learn > > about how to incorporate their ideas. Is there some active outreach to > > encourage corporations to engage in the IETF? How do their employees, or > > even students, learn about such things? Etc.... I predate the IETF so my > > experience is very different than people today. > > This is tied into a story about QUIC. For many years I attended talks > > hosted by the Bay Area ACM. The topics were always a mix of things but > > almost never anything to do with networking. I was pleasantly surprised > > when someone started to present information on a transport protocol > called > > QUIC. Someone from Google gave the presentation. Unfortunately I don't > > remember the person's name. At the end of the presentation, I asked had > > they approached the IETF regarding what they were doing (I think they had > > started, or about to start, some real world testing). Their response > made > > me feel like they hadn't done anything in this regard and left me > wondering > > whether they were even familiar with the IETF. I suggested they consider > > starting a dialogue with the transport area. > > barbara > > -- > > 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 jmamodio at gmail.com Sat Jun 25 05:11:49 2022 From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 07:11:49 -0500 Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: <2010651858.8511529.1656102746871@mail.yahoo.com> References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> <2010651858.8511529.1656102746871@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I'm not sure where you get your information from, but vendors have been deeply involved since the early days of the Internet, even ARPANet, BBN, Cisco, DEC, etc, were private companies and "vendors" since their inception and there has been a constant participation from companies and services providers for very long time. As others noted there is a specific QUIC working group at IETF, several RFC has been published as standards and there are many more documents on the working group. People interested in the evolution of networking technology can quickly find information about the existence of the IETF and how to participate. You can even request a fee waiver for remote participation. Many vendors already know that if they want to promote and push some Internet related technology, participation in forums such as the IETF is a must, and many of them have been active financial supporters. Looking at the attendee list for each of the meetings you can find what companies from time to time have people from the ranks participating in the meetings. As far as I remember Google has been a constant presence for more than 15+ years. There are already at least19 people from Google registered as participants for IETF 114 in Philly. But IETF is not the only discussion forum, there are many other industry driven groups, service operators groups such as NANOG, etc., where you can find ways to engage. My .02 Warm Regards Jorge On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 3:35 PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > I am not sure I agree with everything you have said regarding the > vendors. This may have been true when the Internet was young but I have > seen otherwise. Sure they have to be aware of the specs but devoting > resources to and understand/participate in the workings of IETF is another > matter. At one point, I personally had to push pretty hard for someone to > complete some work for a working group that I thought I had a firm > commitment from a different division to do. This was at a commercial > entity. > > This Bay Area ACM talk was well before 2016. I am pretty sure it was > after 2011. > > barbara > > > On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 12:59:37 PM PDT, Andrew G. Malis < > agmalis at gmail.com> wrote: > > Barbara, > Google has been at the IETF for quite some time (since at least July > 2010), so it's possible that the person you spoke to just wasn't personally > aware. Do you remember when you were at that presentation? In the IETF, the > QUIC work started as a BOF in July 2016 and first met as a WG that > November. They published RFC 9000, the QUIC transport protocol spec, about > a year ago, and very recently published RFC 9114, the HTTP/3 spec. They > have a lot else going on as well, see > https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/documents/ . > BTW, Google may have been coming even earlier to the IETF, but for some > reason the IETF's attendee records prior to July 2010 are offline. I'm > going to bring that to their attention. > More widely to your question about how new people come aboard, the IETF is > VERY well known in the networking/telecom industry, since any > equipment vendors that want to implement anything in the space have to > conform to the RFCs. So vendors certainly are proactive about sending > people if they have anything they want to get standardized, or just to > understand what's going on. Network operators not so much; some come, but > many tend to proxy through their vendors to save money. But they're > certainly aware of the work, since they have to write RFPs that include the > RFCs they want their equipment to implement. > Cheers,Andy > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 2:28 PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > Hi, > I have been wondering for quite sometime how new people to the field learn > about how to incorporate their ideas. Is there some active outreach to > encourage corporations to engage in the IETF? How do their employees, or > even students, learn about such things? Etc.... I predate the IETF so my > experience is very different than people today. > This is tied into a story about QUIC. For many years I attended talks > hosted by the Bay Area ACM. The topics were always a mix of things but > almost never anything to do with networking. I was pleasantly surprised > when someone started to present information on a transport protocol called > QUIC. Someone from Google gave the presentation. Unfortunately I don't > remember the person's name. At the end of the presentation, I asked had > they approached the IETF regarding what they were doing (I think they had > started, or about to start, some real world testing). Their response made > me feel like they hadn't done anything in this regard and left me wondering > whether they were even familiar with the IETF. I suggested they consider > starting a dialogue with the transport area. > barbara > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From dhc at dcrocker.net Sat Jun 25 05:30:08 2022 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 05:30:08 -0700 Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> <2010651858.8511529.1656102746871@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <895104e0-063c-bbbf-32fe-dc3251ddf55a@dcrocker.net> On 6/25/2022 5:11 AM, Jorge Amodio via Internet-history wrote: > I'm not sure where you get your information from, but vendors have been > deeply involved since the early days of the Internet, even ARPANet, BBN, > Cisco, DEC, etc, were private companies and "vendors" since their inception > and there has been a constant participation from companies and services > providers for very long time. There was something of a milestone, in this regard, around 1987. Prior to that, vendor participation was from a strongly-linked relationship to am Arpanet/Internet research contractors, or even from aDirect government contract? Permission-by-association, if you will. After that, random commercial representatives were permitted to attend IETF meetings. Not the sort of thing to add to a resume, but I turned out to be the test case that produced this change. I was working for a company that produced after-market TCP/IP stacks.? We had no direct involvement in any Internet R&D. Just a company selling its wares.? Given how rapidly Internet tech was changing at that time, I wanted us attending IETF meetings. The IETF initially rejected the request, but I pressed.? Much discussion ensured, and I believe the decisive comment was Bob Braden's that was along the lines of "come on folks, it's Dave, and we know him." This was utterly irrelevant logic, but apparently swayed IETF folk enough for permission to be granted.? So I got to attend.? By the meeting after that, the floodgates were fully opened, with other vendors attending. In spite of compelling reasons to motivate one, I remain steadfastly unapologetic... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From jmamodio at gmail.com Sat Jun 25 08:38:44 2022 From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 10:38:44 -0500 Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: <895104e0-063c-bbbf-32fe-dc3251ddf55a@dcrocker.net> References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> <2010651858.8511529.1656102746871@mail.yahoo.com> <895104e0-063c-bbbf-32fe-dc3251ddf55a@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: Hi Dave, Agreed, that is my recollection as well when I got remotely involved in the mid 80's/early 90's. There was in fact some aversion to having vendors participate in meetings, I believe on our side some of that sentiment was partially driven by NSF's AUP and that the Internet was mostly an academic experiment. -J On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 7:30 AM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > On 6/25/2022 5:11 AM, Jorge Amodio via Internet-history wrote: > > I'm not sure where you get your information from, but vendors have been > > deeply involved since the early days of the Internet, even ARPANet, BBN, > > Cisco, DEC, etc, were private companies and "vendors" since their > inception > > and there has been a constant participation from companies and services > > providers for very long time. > > > There was something of a milestone, in this regard, around 1987. Prior > to that, vendor participation was from a strongly-linked relationship to > am Arpanet/Internet research contractors, or even from aDirect > government contract Permission-by-association, if you will. > > After that, random commercial representatives were permitted to attend > IETF meetings. > > Not the sort of thing to add to a resume, but I turned out to be the > test case that produced this change. > > I was working for a company that produced after-market TCP/IP stacks. > We had no direct involvement in any Internet R&D. Just a company selling > its wares. Given how rapidly Internet tech was changing at that time, I > wanted us attending IETF meetings. > > The IETF initially rejected the request, but I pressed. Much discussion > ensured, and I believe the decisive comment was Bob Braden's that was > along the lines of "come on folks, it's Dave, and we know him." > > This was utterly irrelevant logic, but apparently swayed IETF folk > enough for permission to be granted. So I got to attend. By the > meeting after that, the floodgates were fully opened, with other vendors > attending. > > In spite of compelling reasons to motivate one, I remain steadfastly > unapologetic... > > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From tte at cs.fau.de Sat Jun 25 09:10:03 2022 From: tte at cs.fau.de (Toerless Eckert) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 18:10:03 +0200 Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The use-case that drove QUIC certainly reaches back longer than the QUIC WG (2016) in the IETF. I remember sitting at some IETF and getting the explanation (from some google/amazon/mozilla attendees if i remember correctly) that attention span of customers on a web page for advertisements is the currency and that therefore the ideal solution is one with 1 RTT to retrieve securely the add data from the server to display it. Maybe 2012..2014 ? Of course, the QUIC work has produced a lot of useful outcomes beyond improving on that one trigger use-case. That need for low-latency/RTT of course threw a big wrench into the well-meaning modularity and layering principles, where the long-perceived wisdom was that security, such as via TLS or IPsec is best decoupled from transport to be reuseable/modular. And that QUIC experience may serve as a reminder that other real-world requirements may throw wrenches into other well-meaning modularily and layering principles. Cheers Toerless On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 06:27:09PM +0000, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote: > Hi, > I have been wondering for quite sometime how new people to the field learn about how to incorporate their ideas.? Is there some active outreach to encourage corporations to engage in the IETF? How do their employees, or even students, learn about such things? Etc.... I predate the IETF so my experience is very different than people today. > This is tied into a story about QUIC.? For many years I attended talks hosted by the Bay Area ACM.? The topics were always a mix of things but almost never anything to do with networking.? I was pleasantly surprised when someone started to present information on a transport protocol called QUIC.? ?Someone from Google gave the presentation. Unfortunately I don't remember the person's name.? At the end of the presentation,? I asked had they approached the IETF regarding what they were doing (I think they had started, or about to start, some real world testing).? Their response made me feel like they hadn't done anything in this regard and left me wondering whether they were even familiar with the IETF.? I suggested they consider starting a dialogue with the transport area. > barbara > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- --- tte at cs.fau.de From b_a_denny at yahoo.com Sat Jun 25 10:16:36 2022 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 17:16:36 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> <2010651858.8511529.1656102746871@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2028553332.8759961.1656177396543@mail.yahoo.com> I understand the strong motivation in the early days and witnessed it.? I think I have also seen and experienced where? it is not as easy as your description implies to participate in the IETF in various capacities. The maturity of the core protocols and desire to obtain market share, besides the expense, business pressures and time involved, may also weigh on participation.? I was just wondering how new people and businesses and perhaps even funding organizations become knowledgeable and hopefully encouraged to continue to support relevant activities. ?I admit I was surprised at the time of the talk that even in Google it appeared that there were holes in plans to present information to what I believed are relevant organizations. Of course it is a very large company and the people doing the original QUIC work may not have really have come up through the networking ranks.? barbara? On Saturday, June 25, 2022, 05:12:20 AM PDT, Jorge Amodio wrote: I'm not sure where you get your information from, but vendors have been deeply involved since the early days of the Internet, even ARPANet, BBN, Cisco, DEC, etc, were private companies and "vendors" since their inception and there has been a constant participation from companies and services providers for very long time. As others noted there is a specific QUIC working group at IETF, several RFC has been published as standards and there are many more documents on the working group. People interested in the evolution of networking technology can quickly find information about the existence?of the IETF and how to participate. You can even request a fee waiver for remote participation. Many vendors already know that if they want to promote and push some Internet related technology, participation in forums such as the IETF is a must, and many of them have been active financial supporters. Looking at the attendee list for each of the meetings you can find what companies from time to time have people from the ranks participating in the meetings. As far as I remember Google has been a constant presence for more than 15+ years. There are already at least19 people from Google registered as participants for IETF 114 in Philly. But IETF is not the only discussion forum, there are many other?industry driven groups, service operators groups such as NANOG, etc., where you can find ways to engage. My .02Warm Regards Jorge On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 3:35 PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote: I am not sure I agree with everything you have said regarding the vendors.? This may have been true when the Internet was young but I have seen otherwise.? Sure they have to be aware of the specs but devoting resources to and understand/participate in? the workings of IETF is another matter.? At one point, I personally had to push pretty hard for someone to complete some work for a working group that I thought I had a firm commitment from a different division to do.? This was at a commercial entity.? This Bay Area ACM talk was well before 2016.? I am pretty sure it was after 2011.? barbara ? ?On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 12:59:37 PM PDT, Andrew G. Malis wrote:? ?Barbara, Google has been at the IETF for quite some time (since at least July 2010), so it's possible that the person you spoke to just wasn't personally aware. Do you remember when you were at that presentation? In the IETF, the QUIC work started as a BOF in July 2016 and first met as a WG that November. They published RFC 9000, the QUIC transport?protocol spec, about a year ago, and very recently?published RFC 9114, the HTTP/3 spec. They have a lot else going on as well, see?https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/documents/ . BTW, Google may have been coming even earlier to the IETF, but for some reason the IETF's attendee records prior to July 2010 are offline. I'm going to bring that to their attention. More widely to your question?about how new people come aboard, the IETF is VERY well known in the networking/telecom industry, since any equipment?vendors that want to implement anything?in the space have to conform to the RFCs. So vendors certainly?are proactive about sending people if they have anything they want to get standardized, or just to understand what's going on. Network operators not so much; some come, but many tend to proxy through?their vendors to save money. But they're certainly?aware of the work, since they have to write RFPs that include the RFCs they want their equipment to implement. Cheers,Andy On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 2:28 PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote: Hi, I have been wondering for quite sometime how new people to the field learn about how to incorporate their ideas.? Is there some active outreach to encourage corporations to engage in the IETF? How do their employees, or even students, learn about such things? Etc.... I predate the IETF so my experience is very different than people today. This is tied into a story about QUIC.? For many years I attended talks hosted by the Bay Area ACM.? The topics were always a mix of things but almost never anything to do with networking.? I was pleasantly surprised when someone started to present information on a transport protocol called QUIC.? ?Someone from Google gave the presentation. Unfortunately I don't remember the person's name.? At the end of the presentation,? I asked had they approached the IETF regarding what they were doing (I think they had started, or about to start, some real world testing).? Their response made me feel like they hadn't done anything in this regard and left me wondering whether they were even familiar with the IETF.? I suggested they consider starting a dialogue with the transport area. barbara -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From b_a_denny at yahoo.com Sat Jun 25 13:10:38 2022 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 20:10:38 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: <895104e0-063c-bbbf-32fe-dc3251ddf55a@dcrocker.net> References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> <2010651858.8511529.1656102746871@mail.yahoo.com> <895104e0-063c-bbbf-32fe-dc3251ddf55a@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <1233572523.8779492.1656187838330@mail.yahoo.com> I guess I will mention in the late 80s, maybe early 90s,? even the Army had some interest in understanding and perhaps participating in the IETF.? Besides discussing the IETF, I brought at least one person, probably two, to an IETF meeting so they could see for themselves what went on.? As far as I know they didn't become participants for any length of time. I certainly didn't get any additional contact funds to do more in this regard. barbara? On Saturday, June 25, 2022, 12:30:27 PM PDT, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: On 6/25/2022 5:11 AM, Jorge Amodio via Internet-history wrote: > I'm not sure where you get your information from, but vendors have been > deeply involved since the early days of the Internet, even ARPANet, BBN, > Cisco, DEC, etc, were private companies and "vendors" since their inception > and there has been a constant participation from companies and services > providers for very long time. There was something of a milestone, in this regard, around 1987. Prior to that, vendor participation was from a strongly-linked relationship to am Arpanet/Internet research contractors, or even from aDirect government contract? Permission-by-association, if you will. After that, random commercial representatives were permitted to attend IETF meetings. Not the sort of thing to add to a resume, but I turned out to be the test case that produced this change. I was working for a company that produced after-market TCP/IP stacks.? We had no direct involvement in any Internet R&D. Just a company selling its wares.? Given how rapidly Internet tech was changing at that time, I wanted us attending IETF meetings. The IETF initially rejected the request, but I pressed.? Much discussion ensured, and I believe the decisive comment was Bob Braden's that was along the lines of "come on folks, it's Dave, and we know him." This was utterly irrelevant logic, but apparently swayed IETF folk enough for permission to be granted.? So I got to attend.? By the meeting after that, the floodgates were fully opened, with other vendors attending. In spite of compelling reasons to motivate one, I remain steadfastly unapologetic... 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 vint at google.com Sat Jun 25 13:17:43 2022 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 16:17:43 -0400 Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: <1233572523.8779492.1656187838330@mail.yahoo.com> References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> <2010651858.8511529.1656102746871@mail.yahoo.com> <895104e0-063c-bbbf-32fe-dc3251ddf55a@dcrocker.net> <1233572523.8779492.1656187838330@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: counterexamples: https://ftp.arl.army.mil/~mike/bio-long.html also see Mike St. Johns https://www.ietfjournal.org/interview-with-mike-st-johnes-director-network-implementation-strategies-nominet/ v On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 4:10 PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > I guess I will mention in the late 80s, maybe early 90s, even the Army > had some interest in understanding and perhaps participating in the IETF. > Besides discussing the IETF, I brought at least one person, probably two, > to an IETF meeting so they could see for themselves what went on. As far > as I know they didn't become participants for any length of time. I > certainly didn't get any additional contact funds to do more in this regard. > barbara > On Saturday, June 25, 2022, 12:30:27 PM PDT, Dave Crocker via > Internet-history wrote: > > On 6/25/2022 5:11 AM, Jorge Amodio via Internet-history wrote: > > I'm not sure where you get your information from, but vendors have been > > deeply involved since the early days of the Internet, even ARPANet, BBN, > > Cisco, DEC, etc, were private companies and "vendors" since their > inception > > and there has been a constant participation from companies and services > > providers for very long time. > > > There was something of a milestone, in this regard, around 1987. Prior > to that, vendor participation was from a strongly-linked relationship to > am Arpanet/Internet research contractors, or even from aDirect > government contract Permission-by-association, if you will. > > After that, random commercial representatives were permitted to attend > IETF meetings. > > Not the sort of thing to add to a resume, but I turned out to be the > test case that produced this change. > > I was working for a company that produced after-market TCP/IP stacks. > We had no direct involvement in any Internet R&D. Just a company selling > its wares. Given how rapidly Internet tech was changing at that time, I > wanted us attending IETF meetings. > > The IETF initially rejected the request, but I pressed. Much discussion > ensured, and I believe the decisive comment was Bob Braden's that was > along the lines of "come on folks, it's Dave, and we know him." > > This was utterly irrelevant logic, but apparently swayed IETF folk > enough for permission to be granted. So I got to attend. By the > meeting after that, the floodgates were fully opened, with other vendors > attending. > > In spite of compelling reasons to motivate one, I remain steadfastly > unapologetic... > > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: Vint Cerf 1435 Woodhurst Blvd McLean, VA 22102 703-448-0965 until further notice From b_a_denny at yahoo.com Sat Jun 25 13:24:33 2022 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 20:24:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> <2010651858.8511529.1656102746871@mail.yahoo.com> <895104e0-063c-bbbf-32fe-dc3251ddf55a@dcrocker.net> <1233572523.8779492.1656187838330@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1804079860.699071.1656188673932@mail.yahoo.com> I should have thought of Mike immediately!? Big error on my part!! I should have been more specific as I was working with people from CECOM/Fort Monmouth. barbara? On Saturday, June 25, 2022, 01:17:58 PM PDT, Vint Cerf wrote: counterexamples:https://ftp.arl.army.mil/~mike/bio-long.html also see Mike St. Johns? https://www.ietfjournal.org/interview-with-mike-st-johnes-director-network-implementation-strategies-nominet/ v On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 4:10 PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote: ?I guess I will mention in the late 80s, maybe early 90s,? even the Army had some interest in understanding and perhaps participating in the IETF.? Besides discussing the IETF, I brought at least one person, probably two, to an IETF meeting so they could see for themselves what went on.? As far as I know they didn't become participants for any length of time. I certainly didn't get any additional contact funds to do more in this regard. barbara? ? ? On Saturday, June 25, 2022, 12:30:27 PM PDT, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:? ?On 6/25/2022 5:11 AM, Jorge Amodio via Internet-history wrote: > I'm not sure where you get your information from, but vendors have been > deeply involved since the early days of the Internet, even ARPANet, BBN, > Cisco, DEC, etc, were private companies and "vendors" since their inception > and there has been a constant participation from companies and services > providers for very long time. There was something of a milestone, in this regard, around 1987. Prior to that, vendor participation was from a strongly-linked relationship to am Arpanet/Internet research contractors, or even from aDirect government contract? Permission-by-association, if you will. After that, random commercial representatives were permitted to attend IETF meetings. Not the sort of thing to add to a resume, but I turned out to be the test case that produced this change. I was working for a company that produced after-market TCP/IP stacks.? We had no direct involvement in any Internet R&D. Just a company selling its wares.? Given how rapidly Internet tech was changing at that time, I wanted us attending IETF meetings. The IETF initially rejected the request, but I pressed.? Much discussion ensured, and I believe the decisive comment was Bob Braden's that was along the lines of "come on folks, it's Dave, and we know him." This was utterly irrelevant logic, but apparently swayed IETF folk enough for permission to be granted.? So I got to attend.? By the meeting after that, the floodgates were fully opened, with other vendors attending. In spite of compelling reasons to motivate one, I remain steadfastly unapologetic... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:Vint Cerf1435 Woodhurst Blvd?McLean, VA 22102703-448-0965 until further notice From b_a_denny at yahoo.com Sat Jun 25 13:27:15 2022 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 20:27:15 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: <1804079860.699071.1656188673932@mail.yahoo.com> References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> <2010651858.8511529.1656102746871@mail.yahoo.com> <895104e0-063c-bbbf-32fe-dc3251ddf55a@dcrocker.net> <1233572523.8779492.1656187838330@mail.yahoo.com> <1804079860.699071.1656188673932@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2001104625.8809225.1656188835505@mail.yahoo.com> Both Mikes that is. barbara? On Saturday, June 25, 2022, 01:24:33 PM PDT, Barbara Denny wrote: I should have thought of Mike immediately!? Big error on my part!! I should have been more specific as I was working with people from CECOM/Fort Monmouth. barbara? On Saturday, June 25, 2022, 01:17:58 PM PDT, Vint Cerf wrote: counterexamples:https://ftp.arl.army.mil/~mike/bio-long.html also see Mike St. Johns? https://www.ietfjournal.org/interview-with-mike-st-johnes-director-network-implementation-strategies-nominet/ v On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 4:10 PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote: ?I guess I will mention in the late 80s, maybe early 90s,? even the Army had some interest in understanding and perhaps participating in the IETF.? Besides discussing the IETF, I brought at least one person, probably two, to an IETF meeting so they could see for themselves what went on.? As far as I know they didn't become participants for any length of time. I certainly didn't get any additional contact funds to do more in this regard. barbara? ? ? On Saturday, June 25, 2022, 12:30:27 PM PDT, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:? ?On 6/25/2022 5:11 AM, Jorge Amodio via Internet-history wrote: > I'm not sure where you get your information from, but vendors have been > deeply involved since the early days of the Internet, even ARPANet, BBN, > Cisco, DEC, etc, were private companies and "vendors" since their inception > and there has been a constant participation from companies and services > providers for very long time. There was something of a milestone, in this regard, around 1987. Prior to that, vendor participation was from a strongly-linked relationship to am Arpanet/Internet research contractors, or even from aDirect government contract? Permission-by-association, if you will. After that, random commercial representatives were permitted to attend IETF meetings. Not the sort of thing to add to a resume, but I turned out to be the test case that produced this change. I was working for a company that produced after-market TCP/IP stacks.? We had no direct involvement in any Internet R&D. Just a company selling its wares.? Given how rapidly Internet tech was changing at that time, I wanted us attending IETF meetings. The IETF initially rejected the request, but I pressed.? Much discussion ensured, and I believe the decisive comment was Bob Braden's that was along the lines of "come on folks, it's Dave, and we know him." This was utterly irrelevant logic, but apparently swayed IETF folk enough for permission to be granted.? So I got to attend.? By the meeting after that, the floodgates were fully opened, with other vendors attending. In spite of compelling reasons to motivate one, I remain steadfastly unapologetic... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:Vint Cerf1435 Woodhurst Blvd?McLean, VA 22102703-448-0965 until further notice From jack at 3kitty.org Sat Jun 25 13:54:50 2022 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 13:54:50 -0700 Subject: [ih] What *is* "The Internet" today? In-Reply-To: <2028553332.8759961.1656177396543@mail.yahoo.com> References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> <2010651858.8511529.1656102746871@mail.yahoo.com> <2028553332.8759961.1656177396543@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5ae37fac-d0ef-a7d5-478f-61c71e1f8449@3kitty.org> Interesting recent discussion about how new ideas come in to "the Internet".??? About two years ago, I joined an ISOC working group, which only recently terminated after lots of sporadic discussions but few if any conclusions.?? If anyone's curious for historical research, the archives of all the discussions are at https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/governance-reform/ and the charter is at https://www.internetsociety.org/board-of-trustees/governance-reform-working-group-charter/ During those two years of discussions, I learned several things, which I found enlightening and a bit disturbing.?? But they seem relevant to the recent discussions here so I offer them as food for thought.?? I think I now understand a bit more about how new ideas come in to our network environment, and how that's changed over the 5 or so decades of the Internet. Some of you on this list might have also been on that working group.? There were several hundred members, although most were "lurkers" and never said much.? I'd be curious if what I learned matches your experience. As background, the ISOC has a Mission which is (paraphrasing here) to advance the Internet along 4 dimensions: global reach, openness, security, and trustworthiness.? Personally I've had the impression for quite a while now that the Internet, as I view it, has been getting worse in some or all of those dimensions, so I thought I'd try to help and joined the working group. That led to what I learned: 1) Exactly what people mean by "the Internet" is inconsistent and the term itself is purposely undefined.? The ISOC views the communications system we all use today as being in two pieces: "the Internet", and "the apps" which people use.?? Those apps can use the Internet to communicate. The boundary which separates "the Internet" from "apps" is very fuzzy, and also purposely not defined.? So there was no consensus even in that working group about what the Internet is. It seems that topics which fall into the realm of the most basic services, i.e., transporting IP datagrams around the planet, are the core elements of "the Internet".?? Things that humans use, such as video conferencing, social media, games, telemedicine, electronic commerce, et al, are "apps". The fuzzy boundary between those two is very fuzzy.? TCP seems to be part of "the Internet", as well as UDP, and define the core services of the Internet.? QUIC could be considered as another part of "the Internet".??? Or it could be considered as an "app" simply using the Internet's UDP/IP functionality.?? Web technology is an "app". Email seems like it should be an app, but the ISOC and IETF seem to have done a lot of work in that area.? So maybe Email is part of the Internet?? Web technology is an app, and has it's own "society" in the W3C. 2) ISOC's Mission, and by extension the IETF's Engineering efforts, are focussed on making the Internet more global etc.? (I've been calling those the POST attributes, for Pervasive, Open, Secure, and Trustworthy).?? Making apps POST is someone else's Mission. 3) Technical issues can "migrate" across that fuzzy boundary, and cease being part of the Internet.? A good example is the work done on packetized voice and video, which seemed (to me at least) certainly part of the Internet back in the early 80s. ? There are many others - NNTP, Gopher, IRC, MBONE, etc. ? Now such things are in the realm of various corporations who create their own proprietary technology and fight to have their own "silo" become the dominant one.?? Such migration can be triggered when the activities of "the Internet" fail to produce working solutions (aka rough consensus and running code) in a timely fashion.?? Or even if they do, and a corporation decides to "embrace and extend" to create a new solution. 4) The IETF's mission (paraphrasing again) is to create high quality technology for "the Internet", and place it "on the shelf" for anyone who wishes to take and use as they see fit.?? In particular, it is not the IETF's mission to get such technology actually deployed into the mechanisms we all use.?? Or figure out how to perform such "heart transplants" on the Internet and keep it alive as such changes are done.? Dealing with deployment is apparently someone else's mission. I note that this is quite unlike the early days of the Internet, when the job wasn't done until you could use the new technology in the live network.? It was quite a bit of work to make such changes happen - e.g., the 1983 transition which replaced NCP with the new-fangled TCP across the entire ARPANET.?? Or replacing TCP2 with TCP4,which took months.? Without a mission to deploy, perhaps this explains why TCPV6 still hasn't replaced TCPV4? 5) The IETF serves a role as a "standards body", with mechanisms to provide official approval for technologies that someone wants to "put on the shelf".?? Companies can use that mechanism to get credibility for their in-house technology and promote their own "silo".?? So you might find technologies "on the shelf" that were created outside the ISOC/IETF and brought in through the standardization process. However, there appear to be no mechanisms for testing or certification of implementations of standardized technologies. That again contrasts with the early Internet, e.g., where there was a formal testing and certification procedure for TCP implementations, created and administered by the US National Bureau of Standards (now NIST).?? Or even earlier the TCP testing efforts such as Jon Postel's "TCP Bakeoff" which achieved interoperability between different implementations of TCP. 6) Governments perceive a need to do something and regulate somehow.? But there's a huge gap between governments and "the Internet", with all of those "apps" in the way.?? There is no longer a strong government technical influence, such as was provided in the early days (80s) by DARPA, NSF, RSRE, NDRE, DFVLR, and other government "research" agencies. ----------------------- From a historical perspective, much of the ways that new ideas come into the Internet seems to have changed over the 5 decades of the Internet.? How that happened, when, and why, could make a fertile ground for historical analysis. But one of the most fundamental changes has been in what "the Internet" means.?? My personal view was derived from my experience starting with my indoctrination by Lick(lider) at MIT in his "galactic network" vision of computers communicating over some kind of "network" to help people in all aspects of human activity. So, my view of "the Internet" has always been that The Internet includes the "apps" that people use to do whatever they do, and that the entire system should be POST.?? But that's not apparently what "the Internet" is any more.? It's now just the stuff inside that fuzzy boundary.? And the boundary seems to be contracting as pieces migrate to become apps. Hence my question to you -- What do *you* think "the Internet" includes???? How did it change over the years, and why? Jack Haverty MIT 1966-1977; BBN 1977-1990; Oracle 1990-1998 From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Sat Jun 25 13:55:19 2022 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2022 08:55:19 +1200 Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> <2010651858.8511529.1656102746871@mail.yahoo.com> <895104e0-063c-bbbf-32fe-dc3251ddf55a@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <141875f0-a3f8-9999-aa83-43f051f1b084@gmail.com> Three points: 1) It was way beyond an "academic experiment" by 1988/89, IMHO. When IBM funded the first transatlantic T1 in 1990, it was already a production network for the academic and research community. In fact, that's exactly why the NSFnet AUP existed, and why IBM threw in substantial funding for the T1. 2) When was the fuss about registering 3com.com? It wasn't so much the issue of a domain starting with a digit, but the issue of a domain being equal to a trademark that was controversial, I think. Anyway, it was a sign of the times. 3) In the anecdote department, I recall taking a day off from my first IETF meeting in 1992 (#25, in D.C.) to go across town to attend a one-day McQuillan conference (on ATM??). The funny thing was that almost all the speakers wearing suits were people I'd seen the day before at the IETF in jeans and T-shirts. Regards Brian Carpenter On 26-Jun-22 03:38, Jorge Amodio via Internet-history wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Agreed, that is my recollection as well when I got remotely involved in the > mid 80's/early 90's. There was in fact some aversion to having vendors > participate in meetings, I believe on our side some of that sentiment was > partially driven by NSF's AUP and that the Internet was mostly an academic > experiment. > > -J > > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 7:30 AM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> On 6/25/2022 5:11 AM, Jorge Amodio via Internet-history wrote: >>> I'm not sure where you get your information from, but vendors have been >>> deeply involved since the early days of the Internet, even ARPANet, BBN, >>> Cisco, DEC, etc, were private companies and "vendors" since their >> inception >>> and there has been a constant participation from companies and services >>> providers for very long time. >> >> >> There was something of a milestone, in this regard, around 1987. Prior >> to that, vendor participation was from a strongly-linked relationship to >> am Arpanet/Internet research contractors, or even from aDirect >> government contract Permission-by-association, if you will. >> >> After that, random commercial representatives were permitted to attend >> IETF meetings. >> >> Not the sort of thing to add to a resume, but I turned out to be the >> test case that produced this change. >> >> I was working for a company that produced after-market TCP/IP stacks. >> We had no direct involvement in any Internet R&D. Just a company selling >> its wares. Given how rapidly Internet tech was changing at that time, I >> wanted us attending IETF meetings. >> >> The IETF initially rejected the request, but I pressed. Much discussion >> ensured, and I believe the decisive comment was Bob Braden's that was >> along the lines of "come on folks, it's Dave, and we know him." >> >> This was utterly irrelevant logic, but apparently swayed IETF folk >> enough for permission to be granted. So I got to attend. By the >> meeting after that, the floodgates were fully opened, with other vendors >> attending. >> >> In spite of compelling reasons to motivate one, I remain steadfastly >> unapologetic... >> >> >> 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 agmalis at gmail.com Sat Jun 25 14:27:09 2022 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 17:27:09 -0400 Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: <141875f0-a3f8-9999-aa83-43f051f1b084@gmail.com> References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> <2010651858.8511529.1656102746871@mail.yahoo.com> <895104e0-063c-bbbf-32fe-dc3251ddf55a@dcrocker.net> <141875f0-a3f8-9999-aa83-43f051f1b084@gmail.com> Message-ID: Brian, Yeah, back then the joke was that McQuillan was the only one making money from ATM. :-) That did change in a big way (for a while) in the last 90s and early 2000s, before router silicon caught up. Cheers, Andy On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 4:55 PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Three points: > > 1) It was way beyond an "academic experiment" by 1988/89, IMHO. When IBM > funded the first transatlantic T1 in 1990, it was already a production > network for the academic and research community. In fact, that's exactly > why the NSFnet AUP existed, and why IBM threw in substantial funding > for the T1. > > 2) When was the fuss about registering 3com.com? It wasn't so much the > issue of a domain starting with a digit, but the issue of a domain > being equal to a trademark that was controversial, I think. Anyway, > it was a sign of the times. > > 3) In the anecdote department, I recall taking a day off from my first > IETF meeting in 1992 (#25, in D.C.) to go across town to attend a one-day > McQuillan conference (on ATM??). The funny thing was that almost all the > speakers wearing suits were people I'd seen the day before at the IETF in > jeans and T-shirts. > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 26-Jun-22 03:38, Jorge Amodio via Internet-history wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > > > Agreed, that is my recollection as well when I got remotely involved in > the > > mid 80's/early 90's. There was in fact some aversion to having vendors > > participate in meetings, I believe on our side some of that sentiment was > > partially driven by NSF's AUP and that the Internet was mostly an > academic > > experiment. > > > > -J > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 7:30 AM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > >> On 6/25/2022 5:11 AM, Jorge Amodio via Internet-history wrote: > >>> I'm not sure where you get your information from, but vendors have been > >>> deeply involved since the early days of the Internet, even ARPANet, > BBN, > >>> Cisco, DEC, etc, were private companies and "vendors" since their > >> inception > >>> and there has been a constant participation from companies and services > >>> providers for very long time. > >> > >> > >> There was something of a milestone, in this regard, around 1987. Prior > >> to that, vendor participation was from a strongly-linked relationship to > >> am Arpanet/Internet research contractors, or even from aDirect > >> government contract Permission-by-association, if you will. > >> > >> After that, random commercial representatives were permitted to attend > >> IETF meetings. > >> > >> Not the sort of thing to add to a resume, but I turned out to be the > >> test case that produced this change. > >> > >> I was working for a company that produced after-market TCP/IP stacks. > >> We had no direct involvement in any Internet R&D. Just a company selling > >> its wares. Given how rapidly Internet tech was changing at that time, I > >> wanted us attending IETF meetings. > >> > >> The IETF initially rejected the request, but I pressed. Much discussion > >> ensured, and I believe the decisive comment was Bob Braden's that was > >> along the lines of "come on folks, it's Dave, and we know him." > >> > >> This was utterly irrelevant logic, but apparently swayed IETF folk > >> enough for permission to be granted. So I got to attend. By the > >> meeting after that, the floodgates were fully opened, with other vendors > >> attending. > >> > >> In spite of compelling reasons to motivate one, I remain steadfastly > >> unapologetic... > >> > >> > >> d/ > >> > >> -- > >> Dave Crocker > >> Brandenburg InternetWorking > >> bbiw.net > >> > >> -- > >> Internet-history mailing list > >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >> > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From craig at tereschau.net Sat Jun 25 15:26:24 2022 From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 16:26:24 -0600 Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> <2010651858.8511529.1656102746871@mail.yahoo.com> <895104e0-063c-bbbf-32fe-dc3251ddf55a@dcrocker.net> <141875f0-a3f8-9999-aa83-43f051f1b084@gmail.com> Message-ID: Wasn't just router silicon -- it was router design. What made ATM appealing is that it made the inside of the router or switch parallel, which was necessary to push into multigabit rates. Folks had to figure out how to rework an Internet router to be parallel and it took at least two major innovations: fully-standalone forwarding tables with associating forwarding engines and breaking packets apart (essentially into cells), squirting those parts through the parallel backplane, and then reassembling the packet at the outbound interface for transmission. Arguably there were third and fourth innovations: third innovation was data structures that gave good lookup times in the forwarding tables (e.g. the WashU and Lulea algorithms), and fourth innovation was to figure out how to collect the SNMP data efficiently (in hardware and software) across fully-distributed forwarding engines (routing SNMP data, at speed, through the cards and collecting it over the packet bus was painful -- Phil Carvey figured this one out and just put a high speed Ethernet in the box exclusively for SNMP). Two teams, one at BBN and one at Juniper, solved the first and second problems - independently coming to similar solutions. Third innovation was largely in academia motivated by some talks I gave at the time (I was leading the BBN team - Tony Li led the Juniper team). Last one was Phil Carvey (lead hardware guy on the BBN team and then principle at Avici). Craig On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 3:27 PM Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Brian, > > Yeah, back then the joke was that McQuillan was the only one making money > from ATM. :-) That did change in a big way (for a while) in the last 90s > and early 2000s, before router silicon caught up. > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 4:55 PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > Three points: > > > > 1) It was way beyond an "academic experiment" by 1988/89, IMHO. When IBM > > funded the first transatlantic T1 in 1990, it was already a production > > network for the academic and research community. In fact, that's exactly > > why the NSFnet AUP existed, and why IBM threw in substantial funding > > for the T1. > > > > 2) When was the fuss about registering 3com.com? It wasn't so much the > > issue of a domain starting with a digit, but the issue of a domain > > being equal to a trademark that was controversial, I think. Anyway, > > it was a sign of the times. > > > > 3) In the anecdote department, I recall taking a day off from my first > > IETF meeting in 1992 (#25, in D.C.) to go across town to attend a one-day > > McQuillan conference (on ATM??). The funny thing was that almost all the > > speakers wearing suits were people I'd seen the day before at the IETF in > > jeans and T-shirts. > > > > Regards > > Brian Carpenter > > > > On 26-Jun-22 03:38, Jorge Amodio via Internet-history wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > > > > > Agreed, that is my recollection as well when I got remotely involved in > > the > > > mid 80's/early 90's. There was in fact some aversion to having vendors > > > participate in meetings, I believe on our side some of that sentiment > was > > > partially driven by NSF's AUP and that the Internet was mostly an > > academic > > > experiment. > > > > > > -J > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 7:30 AM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < > > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > > >> On 6/25/2022 5:11 AM, Jorge Amodio via Internet-history wrote: > > >>> I'm not sure where you get your information from, but vendors have > been > > >>> deeply involved since the early days of the Internet, even ARPANet, > > BBN, > > >>> Cisco, DEC, etc, were private companies and "vendors" since their > > >> inception > > >>> and there has been a constant participation from companies and > services > > >>> providers for very long time. > > >> > > >> > > >> There was something of a milestone, in this regard, around 1987. Prior > > >> to that, vendor participation was from a strongly-linked relationship > to > > >> am Arpanet/Internet research contractors, or even from aDirect > > >> government contract Permission-by-association, if you will. > > >> > > >> After that, random commercial representatives were permitted to attend > > >> IETF meetings. > > >> > > >> Not the sort of thing to add to a resume, but I turned out to be the > > >> test case that produced this change. > > >> > > >> I was working for a company that produced after-market TCP/IP stacks. > > >> We had no direct involvement in any Internet R&D. Just a company > selling > > >> its wares. Given how rapidly Internet tech was changing at that > time, I > > >> wanted us attending IETF meetings. > > >> > > >> The IETF initially rejected the request, but I pressed. Much > discussion > > >> ensured, and I believe the decisive comment was Bob Braden's that was > > >> along the lines of "come on folks, it's Dave, and we know him." > > >> > > >> This was utterly irrelevant logic, but apparently swayed IETF folk > > >> enough for permission to be granted. So I got to attend. By the > > >> meeting after that, the floodgates were fully opened, with other > vendors > > >> attending. > > >> > > >> In spite of compelling reasons to motivate one, I remain steadfastly > > >> unapologetic... > > >> > > >> > > >> d/ > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Dave Crocker > > >> Brandenburg InternetWorking > > >> bbiw.net > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Internet-history mailing list > > >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > >> > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > -- > 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 jmamodio at gmail.com Sat Jun 25 15:55:17 2022 From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 17:55:17 -0500 Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> <2010651858.8511529.1656102746871@mail.yahoo.com> <895104e0-063c-bbbf-32fe-dc3251ddf55a@dcrocker.net> <1233572523.8779492.1656187838330@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Just out of curiosity, I never thought about it before. What branch of the military ran DDN & NIC-DDN ? -J On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 3:18 PM Vint Cerf via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > counterexamples: > https://ftp.arl.army.mil/~mike/bio-long.html > > also see Mike St. Johns > > > https://www.ietfjournal.org/interview-with-mike-st-johnes-director-network-implementation-strategies-nominet/ > > v > > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 4:10 PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > I guess I will mention in the late 80s, maybe early 90s, even the Army > > had some interest in understanding and perhaps participating in the IETF. > > Besides discussing the IETF, I brought at least one person, probably two, > > to an IETF meeting so they could see for themselves what went on. As far > > as I know they didn't become participants for any length of time. I > > certainly didn't get any additional contact funds to do more in this > regard. > > barbara > > On Saturday, June 25, 2022, 12:30:27 PM PDT, Dave Crocker via > > Internet-history wrote: > > > > On 6/25/2022 5:11 AM, Jorge Amodio via Internet-history wrote: > > > I'm not sure where you get your information from, but vendors have been > > > deeply involved since the early days of the Internet, even ARPANet, > BBN, > > > Cisco, DEC, etc, were private companies and "vendors" since their > > inception > > > and there has been a constant participation from companies and services > > > providers for very long time. > > > > > > There was something of a milestone, in this regard, around 1987. Prior > > to that, vendor participation was from a strongly-linked relationship to > > am Arpanet/Internet research contractors, or even from aDirect > > government contract Permission-by-association, if you will. > > > > After that, random commercial representatives were permitted to attend > > IETF meetings. > > > > Not the sort of thing to add to a resume, but I turned out to be the > > test case that produced this change. > > > > I was working for a company that produced after-market TCP/IP stacks. > > We had no direct involvement in any Internet R&D. Just a company selling > > its wares. Given how rapidly Internet tech was changing at that time, I > > wanted us attending IETF meetings. > > > > The IETF initially rejected the request, but I pressed. Much discussion > > ensured, and I believe the decisive comment was Bob Braden's that was > > along the lines of "come on folks, it's Dave, and we know him." > > > > This was utterly irrelevant logic, but apparently swayed IETF folk > > enough for permission to be granted. So I got to attend. By the > > meeting after that, the floodgates were fully opened, with other vendors > > attending. > > > > In spite of compelling reasons to motivate one, I remain steadfastly > > unapologetic... > > > > > > d/ > > > > -- > > Dave Crocker > > Brandenburg InternetWorking > > bbiw.net > > > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > > -- > Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: > Vint Cerf > 1435 Woodhurst Blvd > McLean, VA 22102 > 703-448-0965 > > until further notice > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From steve at shinkuro.com Sat Jun 25 16:04:06 2022 From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 19:04:06 -0400 Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The US Defense Department has the well known Services ? Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and recently formed Space Force ? and quite a few Defense Agencies that report to the Secretary of Defense but not to any of the Services. The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) runs the Defense Data Network (DDN). DISA is the modern revision of the Defense Communication Agency (DCA). Steve Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 25, 2022, at 6:56 PM, Jorge Amodio via Internet-history wrote: > > ?Just out of curiosity, I never thought about it before. What branch of the > military ran DDN & NIC-DDN ? > > -J > >> On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 3:18 PM Vint Cerf via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >> counterexamples: >> https://ftp.arl.army.mil/~mike/bio-long.html >> >> also see Mike St. Johns >> >> >> https://www.ietfjournal.org/interview-with-mike-st-johnes-director-network-implementation-strategies-nominet/ >> >> v >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 4:10 PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >>> I guess I will mention in the late 80s, maybe early 90s, even the Army >>> had some interest in understanding and perhaps participating in the IETF. >>> Besides discussing the IETF, I brought at least one person, probably two, >>> to an IETF meeting so they could see for themselves what went on. As far >>> as I know they didn't become participants for any length of time. I >>> certainly didn't get any additional contact funds to do more in this >> regard. >>> barbara >>> On Saturday, June 25, 2022, 12:30:27 PM PDT, Dave Crocker via >>> Internet-history wrote: >>> >>> On 6/25/2022 5:11 AM, Jorge Amodio via Internet-history wrote: >>>> I'm not sure where you get your information from, but vendors have been >>>> deeply involved since the early days of the Internet, even ARPANet, >> BBN, >>>> Cisco, DEC, etc, were private companies and "vendors" since their >>> inception >>>> and there has been a constant participation from companies and services >>>> providers for very long time. >>> >>> >>> There was something of a milestone, in this regard, around 1987. Prior >>> to that, vendor participation was from a strongly-linked relationship to >>> am Arpanet/Internet research contractors, or even from aDirect >>> government contract Permission-by-association, if you will. >>> >>> After that, random commercial representatives were permitted to attend >>> IETF meetings. >>> >>> Not the sort of thing to add to a resume, but I turned out to be the >>> test case that produced this change. >>> >>> I was working for a company that produced after-market TCP/IP stacks. >>> We had no direct involvement in any Internet R&D. Just a company selling >>> its wares. Given how rapidly Internet tech was changing at that time, I >>> wanted us attending IETF meetings. >>> >>> The IETF initially rejected the request, but I pressed. Much discussion >>> ensured, and I believe the decisive comment was Bob Braden's that was >>> along the lines of "come on folks, it's Dave, and we know him." >>> >>> This was utterly irrelevant logic, but apparently swayed IETF folk >>> enough for permission to be granted. So I got to attend. By the >>> meeting after that, the floodgates were fully opened, with other vendors >>> attending. >>> >>> In spite of compelling reasons to motivate one, I remain steadfastly >>> unapologetic... >>> >>> >>> d/ >>> >>> -- >>> Dave Crocker >>> Brandenburg InternetWorking >>> bbiw.net >>> >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> >> >> -- >> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: >> Vint Cerf >> 1435 Woodhurst Blvd >> McLean, VA 22102 >> 703-448-0965 >> >> until further notice >> -- >> 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 tony.li at tony.li Sat Jun 25 16:55:05 2022 From: tony.li at tony.li (Tony Li) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 16:55:05 -0700 Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> <2010651858.8511529.1656102746871@mail.yahoo.com> <895104e0-063c-bbbf-32fe-dc3251ddf55a@dcrocker.net> <141875f0-a3f8-9999-aa83-43f051f1b084@gmail.com> Message-ID: Craig, Thank you, but I can take no credit for the M40 architecture. Tony > On Jun 25, 2022, at 3:26 PM, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote: > > Wasn't just router silicon -- it was router design. What made ATM > appealing is that it made the inside of the router or switch parallel, > which was necessary to push into multigabit rates. Folks had to figure out > how to rework an Internet router to be parallel and it took at least two > major innovations: fully-standalone forwarding tables with associating > forwarding engines and breaking packets apart (essentially into cells), > squirting those parts through the parallel backplane, and then reassembling > the packet at the outbound interface for transmission. Arguably there were > third and fourth innovations: third innovation was data structures that > gave good lookup times in the forwarding tables (e.g. the WashU and Lulea > algorithms), and fourth innovation was to figure out how to collect the > SNMP data efficiently (in hardware and software) across fully-distributed > forwarding engines (routing SNMP data, at speed, through the cards and > collecting it over the packet bus was painful -- Phil Carvey figured this > one out and just put a high speed Ethernet in the box exclusively for > SNMP). Two teams, one at BBN and one at Juniper, solved the first and > second problems - independently coming to similar solutions. Third > innovation was largely in academia motivated by some talks I gave at the > time (I was leading the BBN team - Tony Li led the Juniper team). Last one > was Phil Carvey (lead hardware guy on the BBN team and then principle at > Avici). > > Craig > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 3:27 PM Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> Brian, >> >> Yeah, back then the joke was that McQuillan was the only one making money >> from ATM. :-) That did change in a big way (for a while) in the last 90s >> and early 2000s, before router silicon caught up. >> >> Cheers, >> Andy >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 4:55 PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >>> Three points: >>> >>> 1) It was way beyond an "academic experiment" by 1988/89, IMHO. When IBM >>> funded the first transatlantic T1 in 1990, it was already a production >>> network for the academic and research community. In fact, that's exactly >>> why the NSFnet AUP existed, and why IBM threw in substantial funding >>> for the T1. >>> >>> 2) When was the fuss about registering 3com.com? It wasn't so much the >>> issue of a domain starting with a digit, but the issue of a domain >>> being equal to a trademark that was controversial, I think. Anyway, >>> it was a sign of the times. >>> >>> 3) In the anecdote department, I recall taking a day off from my first >>> IETF meeting in 1992 (#25, in D.C.) to go across town to attend a one-day >>> McQuillan conference (on ATM??). The funny thing was that almost all the >>> speakers wearing suits were people I'd seen the day before at the IETF in >>> jeans and T-shirts. >>> >>> Regards >>> Brian Carpenter >>> >>> On 26-Jun-22 03:38, Jorge Amodio via Internet-history wrote: >>>> Hi Dave, >>>> >>>> Agreed, that is my recollection as well when I got remotely involved in >>> the >>>> mid 80's/early 90's. There was in fact some aversion to having vendors >>>> participate in meetings, I believe on our side some of that sentiment >> was >>>> partially driven by NSF's AUP and that the Internet was mostly an >>> academic >>>> experiment. >>>> >>>> -J >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 7:30 AM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < >>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/25/2022 5:11 AM, Jorge Amodio via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> I'm not sure where you get your information from, but vendors have >> been >>>>>> deeply involved since the early days of the Internet, even ARPANet, >>> BBN, >>>>>> Cisco, DEC, etc, were private companies and "vendors" since their >>>>> inception >>>>>> and there has been a constant participation from companies and >> services >>>>>> providers for very long time. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There was something of a milestone, in this regard, around 1987. Prior >>>>> to that, vendor participation was from a strongly-linked relationship >> to >>>>> am Arpanet/Internet research contractors, or even from aDirect >>>>> government contract Permission-by-association, if you will. >>>>> >>>>> After that, random commercial representatives were permitted to attend >>>>> IETF meetings. >>>>> >>>>> Not the sort of thing to add to a resume, but I turned out to be the >>>>> test case that produced this change. >>>>> >>>>> I was working for a company that produced after-market TCP/IP stacks. >>>>> We had no direct involvement in any Internet R&D. Just a company >> selling >>>>> its wares. Given how rapidly Internet tech was changing at that >> time, I >>>>> wanted us attending IETF meetings. >>>>> >>>>> The IETF initially rejected the request, but I pressed. Much >> discussion >>>>> ensured, and I believe the decisive comment was Bob Braden's that was >>>>> along the lines of "come on folks, it's Dave, and we know him." >>>>> >>>>> This was utterly irrelevant logic, but apparently swayed IETF folk >>>>> enough for permission to be granted. So I got to attend. By the >>>>> meeting after that, the floodgates were fully opened, with other >> vendors >>>>> attending. >>>>> >>>>> In spite of compelling reasons to motivate one, I remain steadfastly >>>>> unapologetic... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> d/ >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dave Crocker >>>>> Brandenburg InternetWorking >>>>> bbiw.net >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> -- >> 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 From jmamodio at gmail.com Sat Jun 25 17:14:15 2022 From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 19:14:15 -0500 Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98B7A7B0-B587-489B-85E1-93AA8F15D4BB@gmail.com> Thank you Steve, Didn?t know at all that it was a separate agency. -Jorge > On Jun 25, 2022, at 6:04 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: > > ?The US Defense Department has the well known Services ? Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and recently formed Space Force ? and quite a few Defense Agencies that report to the Secretary of Defense but not to any of the Services. > > The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) runs the Defense Data Network (DDN). DISA is the modern revision of the Defense Communication Agency (DCA). > > Steve > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jun 25, 2022, at 6:56 PM, Jorge Amodio via Internet-history wrote: >> >> ?Just out of curiosity, I never thought about it before. What branch of the >> military ran DDN & NIC-DDN ? >> >> -J >> >>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 3:18 PM Vint Cerf via Internet-history < >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>> >>> counterexamples: >>> https://ftp.arl.army.mil/~mike/bio-long.html >>> >>> also see Mike St. Johns >>> >>> >>> https://www.ietfjournal.org/interview-with-mike-st-johnes-director-network-implementation-strategies-nominet/ >>> >>> v >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 4:10 PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history < >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I guess I will mention in the late 80s, maybe early 90s, even the Army >>>> had some interest in understanding and perhaps participating in the IETF. >>>> Besides discussing the IETF, I brought at least one person, probably two, >>>> to an IETF meeting so they could see for themselves what went on. As far >>>> as I know they didn't become participants for any length of time. I >>>> certainly didn't get any additional contact funds to do more in this >>> regard. >>>> barbara >>>> On Saturday, June 25, 2022, 12:30:27 PM PDT, Dave Crocker via >>>> Internet-history wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/25/2022 5:11 AM, Jorge Amodio via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> I'm not sure where you get your information from, but vendors have been >>>>>> deeply involved since the early days of the Internet, even ARPANet, >>> BBN, >>>>> Cisco, DEC, etc, were private companies and "vendors" since their >>>> inception >>>>> and there has been a constant participation from companies and services >>>>> providers for very long time. >>>> >>>> >>>> There was something of a milestone, in this regard, around 1987. Prior >>>> to that, vendor participation was from a strongly-linked relationship to >>>> am Arpanet/Internet research contractors, or even from aDirect >>>> government contract Permission-by-association, if you will. >>>> >>>> After that, random commercial representatives were permitted to attend >>>> IETF meetings. >>>> >>>> Not the sort of thing to add to a resume, but I turned out to be the >>>> test case that produced this change. >>>> >>>> I was working for a company that produced after-market TCP/IP stacks. >>>> We had no direct involvement in any Internet R&D. Just a company selling >>>> its wares. Given how rapidly Internet tech was changing at that time, I >>>> wanted us attending IETF meetings. >>>> >>>> The IETF initially rejected the request, but I pressed. Much discussion >>>> ensured, and I believe the decisive comment was Bob Braden's that was >>>> along the lines of "come on folks, it's Dave, and we know him." >>>> >>>> This was utterly irrelevant logic, but apparently swayed IETF folk >>>> enough for permission to be granted. So I got to attend. By the >>>> meeting after that, the floodgates were fully opened, with other vendors >>>> attending. >>>> >>>> In spite of compelling reasons to motivate one, I remain steadfastly >>>> unapologetic... >>>> >>>> >>>> d/ >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dave Crocker >>>> Brandenburg InternetWorking >>>> bbiw.net >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: >>> Vint Cerf >>> 1435 Woodhurst Blvd >>> McLean, VA 22102 >>> 703-448-0965 >>> >>> until further notice >>> -- >>> 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 jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Sat Jun 25 18:38:25 2022 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 21:38:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP Message-ID: <20220626013825.1990818C0A2@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Craig Partridge > I looked at this question twenty (?) years ago and swapped notes with Dave > Reed and I think Danny Cohen. Did that all get written up anywhere? When someone in the future wants to look at the history of the development of TCP in some detail (i.e. an enginerring historian), there wil be pretty good sources: various TCP draft versions; meeting minutes; etc. The TCP/IP split ... not so much. > Yes Danny was doing voice experiments and TCP wasn't cutting > it. There was a hallway discussion of Jon Postel, Danny and Dave (and I > think that's the list) in early '78 (so you've correctly dated it) and > the agreement was to split TCP in two and create UDP. I looked at some history books (one popular; one semi-technical) and they also mentioned this, but gave no details of the technical impetus that drove this. Hafner covers it on pg. 236; she also mentions the PARC people. (I noted one un-related minor error; she has NCP as 'Network Control Protocol'.) Abbate has the same discussion; pg.130. She drops a bad clanger there, though; she says it made routers (still called gateways then) simpler, which I am pretty sure is not correct; I'm pretty sure pre-separate-IP routers didn't know anything about TCP connections. Only the code could verify that, and I'm not sure it has survived. I do have some BBN BCPL router code; I'll have to look at it, and see if I can work out which version it is for. Salus doesn't seem to mention the split. > Key point is splitting TCP and creating UDP happened at the same time. The general concept of UDP was I expect worked out then, but the protocol spec (IEN-71) didn't appear until January, 1979; quite a long time after the V4 headers first appeared - in IEN-44, June 1978. Amusingly, Jon did a host name lookup quite a while after the V4 headers appeared - IEN-61, October 1978, "Internet Name Server" - but it runs directly on top of IP, no hint of UDP! (Although he does say "the internet header protocol field should carry the value indicating raw datagram. An additional field is needed somewhere to multiplex the various applications using raw datagrams." > From: Scott Bradner > a story is that Vint, Jon, Danny, David Reed and someone else got > together in a hallway at ISI and convinced Vint to add the unreliable > option (what became UDP) > Vint says he does not recall that meeting but David Reed told me that > it happened and the driver was Danny's want to do voice It's good to have that on record. What started this is that I was looking at Danny's Wikipedia page, to find out what name he was under, with a view to adding him to the list of notable Technion alumni. I was astonished to see that it gave (effectively) as his main claim to fame as the Prof. Finnegan writings! (Probably from some Gen Xer for whom something doesn't exist unless it's online.) They are amusing and pithy, but not - by a long way - his most important technical legacy. I have updated the page, and will add cites to Hafner, and this discussion. Noel From amckenzie3 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 26 07:47:09 2022 From: amckenzie3 at yahoo.com (Alex McKenzie) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2022 14:47:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: <20220626013825.1990818C0A2@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20220626013825.1990818C0A2@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <2126226580.4894583.1656254829716@mail.yahoo.com> Noel, "NCP" stood for BOTH Network Control Program and Network Control Protocol, though never in the same document.? I believe the same could be said for TCP, although I'm a bit less certain. Cheers,Alex On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 09:38:35 PM EDT, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: ? ? > From: Craig Partridge ? ? > I looked at this question twenty (?) years ago and swapped notes with Dave ? ? > Reed and I think Danny Cohen. Did that all get written up anywhere? When someone in the future wants to look at the history of the development of TCP in some detail (i.e. an enginerring historian), there wil be pretty good sources: various TCP draft versions; meeting minutes; etc. The TCP/IP split ... not so much. ? ? > Yes Danny was doing voice experiments and TCP wasn't cutting ? ? > it. There was a hallway discussion of Jon Postel, Danny and Dave (and I ? ? > think that's the list) in early '78 (so you've correctly dated it) and ? ? > the agreement was to split TCP in two and create UDP. I looked at some history books (one popular; one semi-technical) and they also mentioned this, but gave no details of the technical impetus that drove this. Hafner covers it on pg. 236; she also mentions the PARC people. (I noted one un-related minor error; she has NCP as 'Network Control Protocol'.) Abbate has the same discussion; pg.130. She drops a bad clanger there, though; she says it made routers (still called gateways then) simpler, which I am pretty sure is not correct; I'm pretty sure pre-separate-IP routers didn't know anything about TCP connections. Only the code could verify that, and I'm not sure it has survived. I do have some BBN BCPL router code; I'll have to look at it, and see if I can work out which version it is for. Salus doesn't seem to mention the split. ? > Key point is splitting TCP and creating UDP happened at the same time. The general concept of UDP was I expect worked out then, but the protocol spec (IEN-71) didn't appear until January, 1979; quite a long time after the V4 headers first appeared - in IEN-44, June 1978. Amusingly, Jon did a host name lookup quite a while after the V4 headers appeared - IEN-61, October 1978, "Internet Name Server" - but it runs directly on top of IP, no hint of UDP! (Although he does say "the internet header protocol field should carry the value indicating raw datagram. An additional field is needed somewhere to multiplex the various applications using raw datagrams." ? ? > From: Scott Bradner ? ? > a story is that Vint, Jon, Danny, David Reed and someone else got ? ? > together in a hallway at ISI and convinced Vint to add the unreliable ? ? > option (what became UDP) ? ? > Vint says he does not recall that meeting but David Reed told me that ? ? > it happened and the driver was Danny's want to do voice It's good to have that on record. What started this is that I was looking at Danny's Wikipedia page, to find out what name he was under, with a view to adding him to the list of notable Technion alumni. I was astonished to see that it gave (effectively) as his main claim to fame as the Prof. Finnegan writings! (Probably from some Gen Xer for whom something doesn't exist unless it's online.) They are amusing and pithy, but not - by a long way - his most important technical legacy. I have updated the page, and will add cites to Hafner, and this discussion. ??? Noel -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From bortzmeyer at nic.fr Sun Jun 26 09:04:48 2022 From: bortzmeyer at nic.fr (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2022 18:04:48 +0200 Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 06:10:03PM +0200, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote a message of 58 lines which said: > the long-perceived wisdom was that security, such as via TLS or > IPsec is best decoupled from transport to be reuseable/modular. And > that QUIC experience may serve as a reminder that other real-world > requirements may throw wrenches into other well-meaning modularily > and layering principles. Another way, more positive, to view this change is to say that encryption, today, is no longer an option, it is as necessary as flow control and congestion avoidance and, therefore, it makes sense to have it inside the transport layer. The principle of layering is very important. But the actual placement of layers can vary. From casner at acm.org Sun Jun 26 17:30:57 2022 From: casner at acm.org (Stephen Casner) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2022 17:30:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <87230B5F-79BF-4821-8356-D20D89F37BAA@sobco.com> <892DF42D-7D86-4A55-8565-42060F07CCAE@sobco.com> Message-ID: I've just had a chance to read through the TCP-IP split discussion. Here are a few snippets responding to points relevant to me. 1. Vint said his search for The Oceanview Tales as an ISI/RR report was unsuccessful and asked if anyone had a copy. The (or one) reason the search failed is that it was not published as an ISI/RR. I have a pristine copy that includes yellow cover and end pages like an ISI/RR, but it is spiral-bound. "Printed by ISI as a courtesy to one of its research efforts." Copyright 1979. Noel also has a copy and listed the chapters therein. Some are in Prof. Finnegan's book, but not all. Noel offered to scan but said his scanner is broken; mine is working, so I could prepare a scan if someone wants it. 2. Toerless said: "Starting maybe with Steve Casners unwillingness?/inability? (don't remember which one it was ;-) to hack SunOS kernel sources when implementing RTP and renewed ever since, not QUIC to the latest." I honestly don't remember this debate. But that was around the time when we were still developing RTP itself, and I imagine working in userland was much easier. 3. Craig Partridge mentioned seeing a video showing Danny running around Marina del Rey, using packet voice. If that video was the Digital Voice Conferencing movie we made at ISI in 1978, it did show Danny running in Marina del Rey, but he was running to a phone booth so he could join the conference from the payphone through the switched telephone network interface we had built and considered a big deal because it greatly expanded the access to the packet voice system. There was nothing mobile in those days (packet radio was still in progress?). Craig also mentioned the multimedia conferencing over the Wideband Network that Claudio Topolcic and I managed. It use the ST-2 protocol that was widely denigrated by most of you because it was connection- oriented, but that was needed for 1-hop transit on the WB net. 4. Jack Haverty wrote about access to uncontrolled packets on the ARPANET (type 0, subtype 3) being very restricted. We wanted that service for packet voice experiments. Initially the access was very carefully controlled and monitored, but later in the program BBN was willing to enable it for our communication sessions without much concern. We had demonstrated that it did not kill the network. -- Steve From b_a_denny at yahoo.com Sun Jun 26 18:28:33 2022 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 01:28:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <87230B5F-79BF-4821-8356-D20D89F37BAA@sobco.com> <892DF42D-7D86-4A55-8565-42060F07CCAE@sobco.com> Message-ID: <1787750245.9107785.1656293313494@mail.yahoo.com> Packet Radio did exist in 1978.? There may have been voice experiments over Packet Radio in that time frame. I don't whether they were mobile experiments.? Earl Craighill probably would be able to supply more info since I associate him with the bread van and the mickey mouse phone.? ?I think Earl's health isn't the best so not sure how he is doing. Last I heard he had moved in with one of his daughters. Jan Edl is another possible source of information but I haven't heard anything about her since the early 80s. Of course Don Nielson probably would remember more too. I am sure there are others but I don't recall their names. barbara? On Sunday, June 26, 2022, 05:31:05 PM PDT, Stephen Casner via Internet-history wrote: I've just had a chance to read through the TCP-IP split discussion. Here are a few snippets responding to points relevant to me. 1. Vint said his search for The Oceanview Tales as an ISI/RR report was unsuccessful and asked if anyone had a copy.? The (or one) reason the search failed is that it was not published as an ISI/RR.? I have a pristine copy that includes yellow cover and end pages like an ISI/RR, but it is spiral-bound.? "Printed by ISI as a courtesy to one of its research efforts."? Copyright 1979. Noel also has a copy and listed the chapters therein.? Some are in Prof. Finnegan's book, but not all.? Noel offered to scan but said his scanner is broken; mine is working, so I could prepare a scan if someone wants it. 2. Toerless said: "Starting maybe with Steve Casners unwillingness?/inability?? (don't remember which one it was ;-) to hack SunOS kernel sources when implementing RTP and renewed ever since, not QUIC to the latest." I honestly don't remember this debate.? But that was around the time when we were still developing RTP itself, and I imagine working in userland was much easier. 3. Craig Partridge mentioned seeing a video showing Danny running around Marina del Rey, using packet voice.? If that video was the Digital Voice Conferencing movie we made at ISI in 1978, it did show Danny running in Marina del Rey, but he was running to a phone booth so he could join the conference from the payphone through the switched telephone network interface we had built and considered a big deal because it greatly expanded the access to the packet voice system. There was nothing mobile in those days (packet radio was still in progress?). Craig also mentioned the multimedia conferencing over the Wideband Network that Claudio Topolcic and I managed.? It use the ST-2 protocol that was widely denigrated by most of you because it was connection- oriented, but that was needed for 1-hop transit on the WB net. 4. Jack Haverty wrote about access to uncontrolled packets on the ARPANET (type 0, subtype 3) being very restricted.? We wanted that service for packet voice experiments.? Initially the access was very carefully controlled and monitored, but later in the program BBN was willing to enable it for our communication sessions without much concern.? We had demonstrated that it did not kill the network. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -- Steve -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From wes at mti-systems.com Sun Jun 26 18:32:21 2022 From: wes at mti-systems.com (Wesley Eddy) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2022 21:32:21 -0400 Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1cbed5fb-3501-8399-a102-e745a494ed68@mti-systems.com> On 6/24/2022 3:59 PM, Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history wrote: > In the IETF, the QUIC > work started as a BOF in July 2016 and first met as a WG that November. Prior to that, Jim Roskind had presented on QUIC to the TSVAREA at IETF 88 in 2013: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-tsvarea-10.pdf It wasn't being proposed for standardization yet at that point. From b_a_denny at yahoo.com Sun Jun 26 22:14:16 2022 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 05:14:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: <1787750245.9107785.1656293313494@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <87230B5F-79BF-4821-8356-D20D89F37BAA@sobco.com> <892DF42D-7D86-4A55-8565-42060F07CCAE@sobco.com> <1787750245.9107785.1656293313494@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2139244493.9120525.1656306856785@mail.yahoo.com> I didn't find much doing a quick search for information on voice and packet radio but this work might have more information about what happened.? An overview of the material for the book contains the table of contents. The title of the 1978 chapter includes PRnet. barbara? Robert M. Gray (2010), "A Survey of Linear Predictive Coding: Part I of Linear Predictive Coding and the Internet Protocol", Foundations and Trends? in Signal Processing: Vol. 3: No. 3, pp 153-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/2000000029 On Sunday, June 26, 2022, 07:08:19 PM PDT, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote: Packet Radio did exist in 1978.? There may have been voice experiments over Packet Radio in that time frame. I don't whether they were mobile experiments.? Earl Craighill probably would be able to supply more info since I associate him with the bread van and the mickey mouse phone.? ?I think Earl's health isn't the best so not sure how he is doing. Last I heard he had moved in with one of his daughters. Jan Edl is another possible source of information but I haven't heard anything about her since the early 80s. Of course Don Nielson probably would remember more too. I am sure there are others but I don't recall their names. barbara? ? ? On Sunday, June 26, 2022, 05:31:05 PM PDT, Stephen Casner via Internet-history wrote:? I've just had a chance to read through the TCP-IP split discussion. Here are a few snippets responding to points relevant to me. 1. Vint said his search for The Oceanview Tales as an ISI/RR report was unsuccessful and asked if anyone had a copy.? The (or one) reason the search failed is that it was not published as an ISI/RR.? I have a pristine copy that includes yellow cover and end pages like an ISI/RR, but it is spiral-bound.? "Printed by ISI as a courtesy to one of its research efforts."? Copyright 1979. Noel also has a copy and listed the chapters therein.? Some are in Prof. Finnegan's book, but not all.? Noel offered to scan but said his scanner is broken; mine is working, so I could prepare a scan if someone wants it. 2. Toerless said: "Starting maybe with Steve Casners unwillingness?/inability?? (don't remember which one it was ;-) to hack SunOS kernel sources when implementing RTP and renewed ever since, not QUIC to the latest." I honestly don't remember this debate.? But that was around the time when we were still developing RTP itself, and I imagine working in userland was much easier. 3. Craig Partridge mentioned seeing a video showing Danny running around Marina del Rey, using packet voice.? If that video was the Digital Voice Conferencing movie we made at ISI in 1978, it did show Danny running in Marina del Rey, but he was running to a phone booth so he could join the conference from the payphone through the switched telephone network interface we had built and considered a big deal because it greatly expanded the access to the packet voice system. There was nothing mobile in those days (packet radio was still in progress?). Craig also mentioned the multimedia conferencing over the Wideband Network that Claudio Topolcic and I managed.? It use the ST-2 protocol that was widely denigrated by most of you because it was connection- oriented, but that was needed for 1-hop transit on the WB net. 4. Jack Haverty wrote about access to uncontrolled packets on the ARPANET (type 0, subtype 3) being very restricted.? We wanted that service for packet voice experiments.? Initially the access was very carefully controlled and monitored, but later in the program BBN was willing to enable it for our communication sessions without much concern.? We had demonstrated that it did not kill the network. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -- Steve -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history ? -- Internet-history mailing list Internet-history at elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From sob at sobco.com Mon Jun 27 10:12:14 2022 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott Bradner) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 13:12:14 -0400 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: <2139244493.9120525.1656306856785@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <87230B5F-79BF-4821-8356-D20D89F37BAA@sobco.com> <892DF42D-7D86-4A55-8565-42060F07CCAE@sobco.com> <1787750245.9107785.1656293313494@mail.yahoo.com> <2139244493.9120525.1656306856785@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: the split is also discussed in Barbara van Schewick's Internet Architecture and Innovation https://vdoc.pub/download/internet-architecture-and-innovation-49780hf35sr0 see box on page 99 quoting David Reed Scott From tte at cs.fau.de Mon Jun 27 11:51:41 2022 From: tte at cs.fau.de (Toerless Eckert) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 20:51:41 +0200 Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 06:04:48PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > the long-perceived wisdom was that security, such as via TLS or > > IPsec is best decoupled from transport to be reuseable/modular. And > > that QUIC experience may serve as a reminder that other real-world > > requirements may throw wrenches into other well-meaning modularily > > and layering principles. > > Another way, more positive, to view this change is to say that > encryption, today, is no longer an option, it is as necessary as flow > control and congestion avoidance and, therefore, it makes sense to > have it inside the transport layer. Even if encryption was optional, you wouldn't want the RTT overhead that decoupled transport and security layer would give, when you do use encryption, so ultimately it is the need for speed (low RTT) that drives breaking traditional layering assumptions. Encryption is just one example where this is true. And of course for encryption it doesn't only happen with transport. Low overhead for high performance at low cost are just two IMHO in our (protocol) world architecturally underappreciated ongoing challenges that in practice have been at the forefront of driving adoption and proliferation of our protocol technologies. I would not be surprised to see also an ongoing trend to see our existing IETF protocols be superceeded by the more lightweight variants we have been building especially over the last decade (as long as those alternatives have no significant use-case limitations). That bad part of this is that its extremely difficult then to future-proof protocols through expandability, because that runs quite contrary. Theres some good IAB insight written recently on that too. > The principle of layering is very important. But the actual placement > of layers can vary. -- --- tte at cs.fau.de From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Jun 27 12:13:55 2022 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 15:13:55 -0400 Subject: [ih] QUIC story In-Reply-To: References: <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <2040271710.8463575.1656095229293@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0711C57D-50E2-420A-AE32-5DCBEC5991A5@comcast.net> What decoupling? What security layer? Security is an inherent part of the structure of a layer, assuming that follows the rules. It is all in knowing how to implement it. In my experience, the stronger the layer boundary, the more secure, the more efficient and faster the implementation. Take care, John > On Jun 27, 2022, at 14:51, Toerless Eckert via Internet-history wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 06:04:48PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >>> the long-perceived wisdom was that security, such as via TLS or >>> IPsec is best decoupled from transport to be reuseable/modular. And >>> that QUIC experience may serve as a reminder that other real-world >>> requirements may throw wrenches into other well-meaning modularily >>> and layering principles. >> >> Another way, more positive, to view this change is to say that >> encryption, today, is no longer an option, it is as necessary as flow >> control and congestion avoidance and, therefore, it makes sense to >> have it inside the transport layer. > > Even if encryption was optional, you wouldn't want the RTT overhead > that decoupled transport and security layer would give, when you do > use encryption, so ultimately it is the need for speed (low RTT) that > drives breaking traditional layering assumptions. Encryption is just > one example where this is true. And of course for encryption it doesn't > only happen with transport. > > > Low overhead for high performance at low cost are just two IMHO in our (protocol) > world architecturally underappreciated ongoing challenges that in practice > have been at the forefront of driving adoption and proliferation of > our protocol technologies. I would not be surprised to see also an > ongoing trend to see our existing IETF protocols be superceeded by > the more lightweight variants we have been building especially over > the last decade (as long as those alternatives have no significant > use-case limitations). > > That bad part of this is that its extremely difficult then to > future-proof protocols through expandability, because that runs > quite contrary. Theres some good IAB insight written recently on that > too. > >> The principle of layering is very important. But the actual placement >> of layers can vary. > > -- > --- > tte at cs.fau.de > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Mon Jun 27 13:43:20 2022 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 16:43:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP Message-ID: <20220627204320.A4A5218C094@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Alex McKenzie > "NCP" stood for BOTH Network Control Program and Network Control > Protocol, though never in the same document. Really? I did a search for "Network Control Protocol" in early RFC's (I cheated, and used 'site:rfc-editor.org' in a Google search), and the earliest I found (admittedly, not with the most rigorous search technique) was RFC-772, "Mail Transfer Protocol", from September 1980 (i.e. well after TCP-4, in September 1978), by Sluizer and Postel. Noel From steve at shinkuro.com Mon Jun 27 15:33:14 2022 From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 18:33:14 -0400 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: <20220627204320.A4A5218C094@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20220627204320.A4A5218C094@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: Noel and Alex, I've had in mind for a few years to expand and untangle the Wikipedia entry/ies re NCP. At this moment, I am recovering from heart surgery and hence having only short spurts of available energy. Also, Wikipedia requires corroboration of claims from principals. So perhaps this is a good time to ask for your help. I coined the term Network Control Program, and hence the acronym NCP, to refer to the software that needed to be added to the operating system of an Arpanet host. I wanted to highlight that an incision into the OS was required. Existing device handlers, e.g., disks, tapes, terminals, etc. could not be adapted because the Host-Host protocol was between co-equal hosts, with neither one in charge. And, as you've just seen, I used the term Host-Host protocol to refer to the protocol. Over time, the term Host-Host protocol was too bland, and the need to explicitly refer to the implementing software waned. People repurposed NCP to refer to the protocol. In addition to whatever is in the early RFCs, our AFIPS Spring 1970 paper, HOST-HOST communication protocol in the ARPA network, documents the early terminology. I did not follow the evolution of use, nor do I have any heartburn about it, but I think it will help readers to understand the two different but related uses of "NCP" during that period. Thanks, Steve On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 4:43 PM Noel Chiappa via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > From: Alex McKenzie > > > "NCP" stood for BOTH Network Control Program and Network Control > > Protocol, though never in the same document. > > Really? I did a search for "Network Control Protocol" in early RFC's (I > cheated, and used 'site:rfc-editor.org' in a Google search), and the > earliest > I found (admittedly, not with the most rigorous search technique) was > RFC-772, "Mail Transfer Protocol", from September 1980 (i.e. well after > TCP-4, in September 1978), by Sluizer and Postel. > > Noel > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Tue Jun 28 07:16:25 2022 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 10:16:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] NCP (was: Separation of TCP and IP) Message-ID: <20220628141625.DCB2F18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Steve Crocker > I coined the term Network Control Program, and hence the acronym NCP, > to refer to the software that needed to be added to the operating > system of an Arpanet host. ... as you've just seen, I used the term > Host-Host protocol to refer to the protocol. > Over time, the term Host-Host protocol was too bland Or too long! :-) > the need to explicitly refer to the implementing software waned. People > repurposed NCP to refer to the protocol. ... I think it will help > readers to understand the two different but related uses of "NCP" > during that period. A very good point. I wasn't there, obviously, but I now have what I think is a very plausible theory about what happened. The ARPANET 'stack' is composed of four main layers: - 1822/VDH at the bottom, to transfer bits/'messages' between the host and the local IMP - Host-to-IMP Protocol, to transfer messages between the local host and a distant host - Initial Connection Protocol/Host-to-Host Protocol, to provide host to host connections - Applications (Telnet, FTP, etc) Each of these layers/units had a well-defined name. However, there was no official name for _the stack as a whole_. Which wasn't such a problem, initially; but once IP/TCP appeared (and note the date of that first RFC that I found which uses 'Network Control Protocol'), there was a need/use for _a_ term for the 'NCP' stack. Organically, 'NCP' seems to have been adopted to fill that role. Of course, the original formal expansion of 'NCP' (as 'Network Control Program') made no sense in this new use, so a new 'backronym' (as the term goes) of 'Network Control Protocol' _later_ appeared. (So I guess Ms. Hafner is innocent! :-) I will fix the NCP page on the Computer History wiki to explain the two meanings of the term 'NCP'. If I get energetic, I'll do Wikipedia too - but only if nobody else deals with it! :-) Noel From steve at shinkuro.com Tue Jun 28 07:17:57 2022 From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 10:17:57 -0400 Subject: [ih] NCP (was: Separation of TCP and IP) In-Reply-To: <20220628141625.DCB2F18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20220628141625.DCB2F18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: Thanks! Steve On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 10:16 AM Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Steve Crocker > > > I coined the term Network Control Program, and hence the acronym NCP, > > to refer to the software that needed to be added to the operating > > system of an Arpanet host. ... as you've just seen, I used the term > > Host-Host protocol to refer to the protocol. > > Over time, the term Host-Host protocol was too bland > > Or too long! :-) > > > the need to explicitly refer to the implementing software waned. > People > > repurposed NCP to refer to the protocol. ... I think it will help > > readers to understand the two different but related uses of "NCP" > > during that period. > > A very good point. > > > I wasn't there, obviously, but I now have what I think is a very plausible > theory about what happened. The ARPANET 'stack' is composed of four main > layers: > > - 1822/VDH at the bottom, to transfer bits/'messages' between the host and > the local IMP > - Host-to-IMP Protocol, to transfer messages between the local host and a > distant host > - Initial Connection Protocol/Host-to-Host Protocol, to provide host to > host > connections > - Applications (Telnet, FTP, etc) > > Each of these layers/units had a well-defined name. However, there was no > official name for _the stack as a whole_. Which wasn't such a problem, > initially; but once IP/TCP appeared (and note the date of that first RFC > that > I found which uses 'Network Control Protocol'), there was a need/use for > _a_ > term for the 'NCP' stack. Organically, 'NCP' seems to have been adopted to > fill that role. > > Of course, the original formal expansion of 'NCP' (as 'Network Control > Program') made no sense in this new use, so a new 'backronym' (as the term > goes) of 'Network Control Protocol' _later_ appeared. (So I guess Ms. > Hafner > is innocent! :-) > > > I will fix the NCP page on the Computer History wiki to explain the two > meanings of the term 'NCP'. If I get energetic, I'll do Wikipedia too - > but only if nobody else deals with it! :-) > > Noel > From dhc at dcrocker.net Tue Jun 28 07:26:36 2022 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 07:26:36 -0700 Subject: [ih] NCP (was: Separation of TCP and IP) In-Reply-To: <20220628141625.DCB2F18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20220628141625.DCB2F18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <33d2c151-5886-1cfc-7886-1843d22df447@dcrocker.net> On 6/28/2022 7:16 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: > Each of these layers/units had a well-defined name. However, there was no > official name for_the stack as a whole_. Which wasn't such a problem, > initially; but once IP/TCP appeared (and note the date of that first RFC that > I found which uses 'Network Control Protocol'), there was a need/use for_a_ > term for the 'NCP' stack. Organically, 'NCP' seems to have been adopted to > fill that role. Interesting point.? Note that Internet Mail is typically referred to as SMTP.? (Hmmm.? Is the T 'transfer' or 'transport'?? Either would be reasonable.? And the failure to provide an acronym for the email object specification led to its being left out of the DDN Protocols Handbook.? So, yeah, these labels matter. It's worth noting that these sorts of name modifications often happen over time, partly from a speaker's lack of detailed knowledge and partly from a speaker's exposure to related terminology. For example, it became quite common to see TCP explained as "Transport Control Protocol". d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From touch at strayalpha.com Tue Jun 28 09:27:01 2022 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 12:27:01 -0400 Subject: [ih] NCP (was: Separation of TCP and IP) In-Reply-To: <33d2c151-5886-1cfc-7886-1843d22df447@dcrocker.net> References: <33d2c151-5886-1cfc-7886-1843d22df447@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: > On Jun 28, 2022, at 10:26 AM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > > Note that Internet Mail is typically referred to as SMTP. Just the push part. The pull is POP or IMAP. Push can exist without pull, but not much these days. Joe From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Tue Jun 28 13:50:08 2022 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 08:50:08 +1200 Subject: [ih] NCP (was: Separation of TCP and IP) In-Reply-To: References: <33d2c151-5886-1cfc-7886-1843d22df447@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: On 29-Jun-22 04:27, Joe Touch via Internet-history wrote: > > >> On Jun 28, 2022, at 10:26 AM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >> >> Note that Internet Mail is typically referred to as SMTP. > > Just the push part. The pull is POP or IMAP. Push can exist without pull, but not much these days. But the *format* doesn't really have an acronymic name, although I've seen it called RFC822 often enough (and RFC2822, RFC5322 much less). Brian From dhc at dcrocker.net Tue Jun 28 14:08:54 2022 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 14:08:54 -0700 Subject: [ih] NCP (was: Separation of TCP and IP) In-Reply-To: References: <33d2c151-5886-1cfc-7886-1843d22df447@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <0462f1dc-f7a8-8fd4-b1a5-b0ca23cf8f35@dcrocker.net> On 6/28/2022 1:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > But the *format* doesn't really have an acronymic name, although I've > seen it called RFC822 often enough (and RFC2822, RFC5322 much less). This appears to have been why RFC733 was left out of the DDN protocol handbook.? And yes, I'm serious. Learning from that experience, when the work on defining a means of doing email attachment got underway, my primary contribution to the effort was forcefully Telling Nathaniel Borenstein that he needed to create a name for the capability.? Possibly an acronym but best it iis pronounceable.? Hence... MIME. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From touch at strayalpha.com Wed Jun 29 07:12:47 2022 From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2022 07:12:47 -0700 Subject: [ih] NCP (was: Separation of TCP and IP) In-Reply-To: References: <33d2c151-5886-1cfc-7886-1843d22df447@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <7ED5D3C9-7F26-4CFA-983B-0F91D560450B@strayalpha.com> On Jun 28, 2022, at 1:50 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > On 29-Jun-22 04:27, Joe Touch via Internet-history wrote: >>> On Jun 28, 2022, at 10:26 AM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >>> >>> Note that Internet Mail is typically referred to as SMTP. >> Just the push part. The pull is POP or IMAP. Push can exist without pull, but not much these days. > > But the *format* doesn't really have an acronymic name, although I've seen it called RFC822 often enough (and RFC2822, RFC5322 much less). Agreed, but: - SMTP push - POP/IMAP pull - both rely on the format you?re referring to The format provides info needed for both SMTP and POP/IMAP. IMO, it?s inherently part of both protocols. Joe From cabo at tzi.org Thu Jun 30 06:08:16 2022 From: cabo at tzi.org (Carsten Bormann) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 15:08:16 +0200 Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: References: <20220627204320.A4A5218C094@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <677C1001-F9A4-4D4B-9864-685F88E72121@tzi.org> On 2022-06-28, at 00:33, Steve Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > > People repurposed NCP > to refer to the protocol. I love the term Jon Postel and you used in RFC 45 (1970): "the Network protocol? https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc45.html (OK, RFC 33 called it ?HOST-HOST Protocol? and ?HOST-HOST Communication Protocol?.) Gr??e, Carsten From b_a_denny at yahoo.com Thu Jun 30 22:35:48 2022 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2022 05:35:48 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] Separation of TCP and IP In-Reply-To: <2139244493.9120525.1656306856785@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20220623071557.C26FB18C096@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <87230B5F-79BF-4821-8356-D20D89F37BAA@sobco.com> <892DF42D-7D86-4A55-8565-42060F07CCAE@sobco.com> <1787750245.9107785.1656293313494@mail.yahoo.com> <2139244493.9120525.1656306856785@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1263787342.754900.1656653748526@mail.yahoo.com> I decided to see what I could quickly locate on packet radio and speech/voice experiments around 1978 using Google. There are several articles on the packet radio technology/protocols but I couldn't locate very much information on experiments and demos, especially dates, in papers submitted to conferences and journals.? I am sure there is probably much more information in monthly reports, quarterly reports, final reports, technical reports, and probably the Packet Radio Technical Notes (PRTNs) but I didn't have much luck in finding them online. The rest of this email summarizes what I thought was most relevant. I apologize in advance for any errors as I was just mostly poking around trying to put things together and I have only skimmed the articles. A paper written by Cliff Weinstein and Jim Forgie in JSAC 1983 was very helpful in tracking down some of the information I wanted to find and there are some references to packet radio in this paper. It has an extensive reference list.? The November 1978 IEEE Special Issue on Packet Communication is a great start for technology discussions.? Bob Kahn is a co-author on a paper on Packet Radio and support for speech, besides data, is mentioned but there is no elaboration.? Other papers in this issue provide some additional information on speech and packet switching.? The vision to support speech as well as data seems to always have been part of the plan. The Computer History Museum's brief description of the bread van donation does mention speech .? The write-up states 1977/1978 as the probable time frame for the voice work with no reference to backup documentation that I saw. The work by Gray (see below) does confirm that mobile voice experiments over PRnet did occur in 1978. Unfortunately, not all references I wanted to check are available on the net.? In particular, I was hoping a paper by Earl Craighill and Paal Spilling would clarify some dates regarding voice experiments since it was published in 1980 for the International Communications Conference.? I can only find the abstract which seems to indicate the data used for the paper relied on emulated traffic. In a separate conference submission Paal Spilling does mention being at SRI during the 1979/80 time frame and working on packet radio. There is an additional paper by Nachum Shacham, Earl Craighill and Andy Poggio published in 1983.? This paper has a section which talks about packet radio voice experiments and the technical details of what was changed in the packet radio protocols to support speech.? A specific CAP release (CAP5.6.9.2 aka voice protocol?) was made and used during the experimentation.? It does clarify that at least some of? the experiments were done with one host being mobile in the bread van. No dates are included but the paper contains much more information on what was done on PRnet than I have found anywhere else. I would like to mention the follow-on program to Packet Radio was SURAN.? A paper describing the protocols in the new radio, i.e. the LPR, is included in a special IEEE issue on Packet Radio in 1987.? In this paper, there is specific mention of an ETE (end to end)? header which contained a type of service flag for speech.? The processing of this speech service resembles information presented in the 1983 paper so I think the prior experience was carried forward. ? BTW, I think the new radios were just starting to be delivered around the time of this IEEE issue so no experimental data was probably available yet.? I wasn't working on SURAN at this time but David Beyer can probably provide additional information. The good news is I did just find a link to the Gray work I mentioned below on the net. It is available at ee.stanford.edu.? This work contains a wealth of information and I have only had time to skim it.? The article also mentions an important demo with speech on the PRnet in June 1982, and the work goes into the separation of TCP and IP as well.? If you can't reach Jim Mathis, I think this article covers what I remember Jim told me in passing on this topic.? I also learned that Andy Poggio was involved in some of the work done at SRI.? He has changed technical fields but last I heard he was back(?) at SRI if someone would like to contact him.? Nachum has also changed fields but he is no longer at SRI.? barbara Jubin, John and Tornow, Janet D., "The DARPA Packet Radio Network Protocols", Proceedings of the IEEE,? Vol 75, No. 1, January 1987. Gray, Robert M. , "A Survey of Linear Predictive Coding: Part I of Linear Predictive Coding and the Internet Protocol", Foundations and Trends? in Signal Processing: Vol. 3: No. 3, pp 153-202, 2010. Kahn, Robert E., Gronemeyer, Steven A., Burchfiel, Jerry, and Kunzelman, Ronald C. , "Advances in Packet Radio Technology", Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 66, No. 11, November 1978. Shacham, Nachum,? Craighill, E.J.,? and Poggio, Andrew A., "Speech transport in packet radio networks", IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Vol? SAC-1, No. 6, December 1983. Spilling, P., "The Internet Development Process: Observations and Reflections", 3rd History of Nordic Computer (HiNC), ?pp.297-304, October 2010. Spilling, P. and Craighill, E. "Digital voice communication in the packet radio network", Int. Conf. Commun., June 1980. Weinstein, Clifford J. , and Forgie, James W., "Experience with Speech Communication in Packet Networks", IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Vol? SAC-1, No. 6, December 1983. On Sunday, June 26, 2022 at 10:14:16 PM PDT, Barbara Denny wrote: I didn't find much doing a quick search for information on voice and packet radio but this work might have more information about what happened.? An overview of the material for the book contains the table of contents. The title of the 1978 chapter includes PRnet. barbara? Robert M. Gray (2010), "A Survey of Linear Predictive Coding: Part I of Linear Predictive Coding and the Internet Protocol", Foundations and Trends? in Signal Processing: Vol. 3: No. 3, pp 153-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/2000000029 On Sunday, June 26, 2022, 07:08:19 PM PDT, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote: Packet Radio did exist in 1978.? There may have been voice experiments over Packet Radio in that time frame. I don't whether they were mobile experiments.? Earl Craighill probably would be able to supply more info since I associate him with the bread van and the mickey mouse phone.? ?I think Earl's health isn't the best so not sure how he is doing. Last I heard he had moved in with one of his daughters. Jan Edl is another possible source of information but I haven't heard anything about her since the early 80s. Of course Don Nielson probably would remember more too. I am sure there are others but I don't recall their names. barbara? ? ? On Sunday, June 26, 2022, 05:31:05 PM PDT, Stephen Casner via Internet-history wrote:? I've just had a chance to read through the TCP-IP split discussion. Here are a few snippets responding to points relevant to me. 1. Vint said his search for The Oceanview Tales as an ISI/RR report was unsuccessful and asked if anyone had a copy.? The (or one) reason the search failed is that it was not published as an ISI/RR.? I have a pristine copy that includes yellow cover and end pages like an ISI/RR, but it is spiral-bound.? "Printed by ISI as a courtesy to one of its research efforts."? Copyright 1979. Noel also has a copy and listed the chapters therein.? Some are in Prof. Finnegan's book, but not all.? Noel offered to scan but said his scanner is broken; mine is working, so I could prepare a scan if someone wants it. 2. Toerless said: "Starting maybe with Steve Casners unwillingness?/inability?? (don't remember which one it was ;-) to hack SunOS kernel sources when implementing RTP and renewed ever since, not QUIC to the latest." I honestly don't remember this debate.? But that was around the time when we were still developing RTP itself, and I imagine working in userland was much easier. 3. Craig Partridge mentioned seeing a video showing Danny running around Marina del Rey, using packet voice.? If that video was the Digital Voice Conferencing movie we made at ISI in 1978, it did show Danny running in Marina del Rey, but he was running to a phone booth so he could join the conference from the payphone through the switched telephone network interface we had built and considered a big deal because it greatly expanded the access to the packet voice system. There was nothing mobile in those days (packet radio was still in progress?). Craig also mentioned the multimedia conferencing over the Wideband Network that Claudio Topolcic and I managed.? It use the ST-2 protocol that was widely denigrated by most of you because it was connection- oriented, but that was needed for 1-hop transit on the WB net. 4. Jack Haverty wrote about access to uncontrolled packets on the ARPANET (type 0, subtype 3) being very restricted.? We wanted that service for packet voice experiments.? Initially the access was very carefully controlled and monitored, but later in the program BBN was willing to enable it for our communication sessions without much concern.? We had demonstrated that it did not kill the network. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -- Steve -- 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