[ih] Separation of TCP and IP

[Scott Bradner]

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 <vgcerf at gmail.com> 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