[ih] Separation of TCP and IP

[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.

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 <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
> >
> > --
> > 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