[ih] Separation of TCP and IP

[vinton cerf]

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
>