From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Sun Aug 6 04:34:24 2023 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2023 07:34:24 -0400 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? Message-ID: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> Hi Folks, Does anybody have some memories of the TCP/IP Flag Day they can share? I'm doing some writing about "how network ecosystems develop" looking at how the Internet evolved from the days the net was a gleam in a few people's eyes, Licklider distributed his famous memo, the NWG & IETF evolved, Flag Day, etc.? Also looking at the Environmental Movement (Earth Day, Whole Earth Catalog, ...), FOSS, Crisis Mapping, Entrepreneurship Support, Makers - all of which I've been up close and personal with, and now trying to document some common threads & techniques. A particular focus is on organizing for significant changes/transformations - like the transition to IP that pretty much marks the birth of the Internet as we know it.? Hence a particular interest in what led up to the Flag Day, and how folks responded. In particular, I'm wondering how folks organized at various network sites (universities, military bases, etc.) to respond to the mandate.? Working groups, plans & programs, that sort of thing. How did folks get their act together? Anybody have any stories they can share? Thanks Very Much, 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 agmalis at gmail.com Sun Aug 6 09:17:13 2023 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2023 12:17:13 -0400 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: Miles, I wrote the IMP code to enforce the flag day and ran the transition from the NOC. To prepare for the flag day, we added a new bit to each port's configuration in the IMPs. The bit said whether or not a port was allowed to use the NCP host-host protocol (port 0). If the bit was off, then NCP host-host packets were discarded by the IMPs. There was a defined procedure in place well prior to the cutover for approving exceptions to the no-NCP policy. On January 1, I pulled the switch to flip the bits from "on" to "off" except for the pre-approved list of exceptions. A good number of hosts made the deadline, but additional exceptions were approved as the phone calls started coming in. The exception list continued to grow in the first few days of 1983, but as hosts gradually got their TCP/IP stacks working, their NCP permission was turned off. As I recall, the exception list quickly shrank, and by the end of the year there were very few NCP-only hosts left. There was certainly some amount of pain involved, but NCP would have hung around for much longer if the switchover hadn't been enforced. Cheers, Andy On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 7:35?AM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Does anybody have some memories of the TCP/IP Flag Day they can share? > > I'm doing some writing about "how network ecosystems develop" looking at > how the Internet evolved from the days the net was a gleam in a few > people's eyes, Licklider distributed his famous memo, the NWG & IETF > evolved, Flag Day, etc. Also looking at the Environmental Movement > (Earth Day, Whole Earth Catalog, ...), FOSS, Crisis Mapping, > Entrepreneurship Support, Makers - all of which I've been up close and > personal with, and now trying to document some common threads & techniques. > > A particular focus is on organizing for significant > changes/transformations - like the transition to IP that pretty much > marks the birth of the Internet as we know it. Hence a particular > interest in what led up to the Flag Day, and how folks responded. > > In particular, I'm wondering how folks organized at various network > sites (universities, military bases, etc.) to respond to the mandate. > Working groups, plans & programs, that sort of thing. How did folks get > their act together? > > Anybody have any stories they can share? > > Thanks Very Much, > > 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 > > -- > 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 Sun Aug 6 13:56:37 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 08:56:37 +1200 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <93929a75-5f11-e6b0-3858-fe776a57f933@gmail.com> Andy, So, it was your fault that we decided that "no flag day" was a vital requirement for IPng :-). Seriously, I think that enough people remembered the 1983 flag day and definitely said "never again!" Regards Brian Carpenter On 07-Aug-23 04:17, Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history wrote: > Miles, > > I wrote the IMP code to enforce the flag day and ran the transition from > the NOC. > > To prepare for the flag day, we added a new bit to each port's > configuration in the IMPs. The bit said whether or not a port was allowed > to use the NCP host-host protocol (port 0). If the bit was off, then NCP > host-host packets were discarded by the IMPs. > > There was a defined procedure in place well prior to the cutover for > approving exceptions to the no-NCP policy. > > On January 1, I pulled the switch to flip the bits from "on" to "off" > except for the pre-approved list of exceptions. > > A good number of hosts made the deadline, but additional exceptions were > approved as the phone calls started coming in. The exception list continued > to grow in the first few days of 1983, but as hosts gradually got their > TCP/IP stacks working, their NCP permission was turned off. > > As I recall, the exception list quickly shrank, and by the end of the year > there were very few NCP-only hosts left. There was certainly some amount > of pain involved, but NCP would have hung around for much longer if the > switchover hadn't been enforced. > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 7:35?AM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> Hi Folks, >> >> Does anybody have some memories of the TCP/IP Flag Day they can share? >> >> I'm doing some writing about "how network ecosystems develop" looking at >> how the Internet evolved from the days the net was a gleam in a few >> people's eyes, Licklider distributed his famous memo, the NWG & IETF >> evolved, Flag Day, etc. Also looking at the Environmental Movement >> (Earth Day, Whole Earth Catalog, ...), FOSS, Crisis Mapping, >> Entrepreneurship Support, Makers - all of which I've been up close and >> personal with, and now trying to document some common threads & techniques. >> >> A particular focus is on organizing for significant >> changes/transformations - like the transition to IP that pretty much >> marks the birth of the Internet as we know it. Hence a particular >> interest in what led up to the Flag Day, and how folks responded. >> >> In particular, I'm wondering how folks organized at various network >> sites (universities, military bases, etc.) to respond to the mandate. >> Working groups, plans & programs, that sort of thing. How did folks get >> their act together? >> >> Anybody have any stories they can share? >> >> Thanks Very Much, >> >> 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 >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> From agmalis at gmail.com Sun Aug 6 14:31:29 2023 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2023 17:31:29 -0400 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <93929a75-5f11-e6b0-3858-fe776a57f933@gmail.com> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <93929a75-5f11-e6b0-3858-fe776a57f933@gmail.com> Message-ID: Brian, There was a "slight" difference in scale between the two events - several hundred ARPANET hosts vs. millions of IPv4 hosts. But without the stick, at least some subset of ARPANET hosts would have decided why bother, as long as we can continue to talk to each other? And the ARPANET would definitely have continued as a dual-stack network, as hosts that implemented TCP would also have an incentive to keep NCP going (other NCP-only hosts). Remember, at that point there wasn't much other incentive to implement TCP, as the rest of the Internet hadn't yet started to appear. Cheers, Andy On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 4:56?PM Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote: > Andy, > > So, it was your fault that we decided that "no flag day" was a vital > requirement for IPng :-). Seriously, I think that enough people > remembered the 1983 flag day and definitely said "never again!" > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 07-Aug-23 04:17, Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history wrote: > > Miles, > > > > I wrote the IMP code to enforce the flag day and ran the transition from > > the NOC. > > > > To prepare for the flag day, we added a new bit to each port's > > configuration in the IMPs. The bit said whether or not a port was allowed > > to use the NCP host-host protocol (port 0). If the bit was off, then NCP > > host-host packets were discarded by the IMPs. > > > > There was a defined procedure in place well prior to the cutover for > > approving exceptions to the no-NCP policy. > > > > On January 1, I pulled the switch to flip the bits from "on" to "off" > > except for the pre-approved list of exceptions. > > > > A good number of hosts made the deadline, but additional exceptions were > > approved as the phone calls started coming in. The exception list > continued > > to grow in the first few days of 1983, but as hosts gradually got their > > TCP/IP stacks working, their NCP permission was turned off. > > > > As I recall, the exception list quickly shrank, and by the end of the > year > > there were very few NCP-only hosts left. There was certainly some amount > > of pain involved, but NCP would have hung around for much longer if the > > switchover hadn't been enforced. > > > > Cheers, > > Andy > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 7:35?AM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history < > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > >> Hi Folks, > >> > >> Does anybody have some memories of the TCP/IP Flag Day they can share? > >> > >> I'm doing some writing about "how network ecosystems develop" looking at > >> how the Internet evolved from the days the net was a gleam in a few > >> people's eyes, Licklider distributed his famous memo, the NWG & IETF > >> evolved, Flag Day, etc. Also looking at the Environmental Movement > >> (Earth Day, Whole Earth Catalog, ...), FOSS, Crisis Mapping, > >> Entrepreneurship Support, Makers - all of which I've been up close and > >> personal with, and now trying to document some common threads & > techniques. > >> > >> A particular focus is on organizing for significant > >> changes/transformations - like the transition to IP that pretty much > >> marks the birth of the Internet as we know it. Hence a particular > >> interest in what led up to the Flag Day, and how folks responded. > >> > >> In particular, I'm wondering how folks organized at various network > >> sites (universities, military bases, etc.) to respond to the mandate. > >> Working groups, plans & programs, that sort of thing. How did folks get > >> their act together? > >> > >> Anybody have any stories they can share? > >> > >> Thanks Very Much, > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> -- > >> Internet-history mailing list > >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >> > From vint at google.com Sun Aug 6 14:41:24 2023 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2023 14:41:24 -0700 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <93929a75-5f11-e6b0-3858-fe776a57f933@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think Andrew is correct in this analysis. v On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 2:32?PM Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Brian, > > There was a "slight" difference in scale between the two events - several > hundred ARPANET hosts vs. millions of IPv4 hosts. > > But without the stick, at least some subset of ARPANET hosts would have > decided why bother, as long as we can continue to talk to each other? And > the ARPANET would definitely have continued as a dual-stack network, as > hosts that implemented TCP would also have an incentive to keep NCP going > (other NCP-only hosts). Remember, at that point there wasn't much other > incentive to implement TCP, as the rest of the Internet hadn't yet started > to appear. > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 4:56?PM Brian E Carpenter < > brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Andy, > > > > So, it was your fault that we decided that "no flag day" was a vital > > requirement for IPng :-). Seriously, I think that enough people > > remembered the 1983 flag day and definitely said "never again!" > > > > Regards > > Brian Carpenter > > > > On 07-Aug-23 04:17, Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history wrote: > > > Miles, > > > > > > I wrote the IMP code to enforce the flag day and ran the transition > from > > > the NOC. > > > > > > To prepare for the flag day, we added a new bit to each port's > > > configuration in the IMPs. The bit said whether or not a port was > allowed > > > to use the NCP host-host protocol (port 0). If the bit was off, then > NCP > > > host-host packets were discarded by the IMPs. > > > > > > There was a defined procedure in place well prior to the cutover for > > > approving exceptions to the no-NCP policy. > > > > > > On January 1, I pulled the switch to flip the bits from "on" to "off" > > > except for the pre-approved list of exceptions. > > > > > > A good number of hosts made the deadline, but additional exceptions > were > > > approved as the phone calls started coming in. The exception list > > continued > > > to grow in the first few days of 1983, but as hosts gradually got their > > > TCP/IP stacks working, their NCP permission was turned off. > > > > > > As I recall, the exception list quickly shrank, and by the end of the > > year > > > there were very few NCP-only hosts left. There was certainly some > amount > > > of pain involved, but NCP would have hung around for much longer if the > > > switchover hadn't been enforced. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 7:35?AM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history < > > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Folks, > > >> > > >> Does anybody have some memories of the TCP/IP Flag Day they can share? > > >> > > >> I'm doing some writing about "how network ecosystems develop" looking > at > > >> how the Internet evolved from the days the net was a gleam in a few > > >> people's eyes, Licklider distributed his famous memo, the NWG & IETF > > >> evolved, Flag Day, etc. Also looking at the Environmental Movement > > >> (Earth Day, Whole Earth Catalog, ...), FOSS, Crisis Mapping, > > >> Entrepreneurship Support, Makers - all of which I've been up close and > > >> personal with, and now trying to document some common threads & > > techniques. > > >> > > >> A particular focus is on organizing for significant > > >> changes/transformations - like the transition to IP that pretty much > > >> marks the birth of the Internet as we know it. Hence a particular > > >> interest in what led up to the Flag Day, and how folks responded. > > >> > > >> In particular, I'm wondering how folks organized at various network > > >> sites (universities, military bases, etc.) to respond to the mandate. > > >> Working groups, plans & programs, that sort of thing. How did folks > get > > >> their act together? > > >> > > >> Anybody have any stories they can share? > > >> > > >> Thanks Very Much, > > >> > > >> 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 > > >> > > >> -- > > >> 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 Google, LLC 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor Reston, VA 20190 +1 (571) 213 1346 until further notice From ajs at crankycanuck.ca Sun Aug 6 17:46:37 2023 From: ajs at crankycanuck.ca (Andrew Sullivan) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2023 20:46:37 -0400 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7A5972A3-0FA8-410A-BEBA-A8129749B087@crankycanuck.ca> Dear colleagues, It seems to me that, quite apart from the historical experience, trying to require a flag day among the number of addresses that were the v4 Internet when everyone realized there was a problem was just a logistical impossibility? Certainly, when I discuss the TCP cutover period with people (I am careful to note I was not involved), I like to point out that the rules at the time meant that you could still get a printed directory of all the _people_ connected to the ARPANET. (I am aware that this directory was by then probably incomplete, but that it still made conceptual sense is nevertheless meaningful.) Reminding people of that difference is quite important, because there are people today who are attempting to regulate the Internet as though they still have their arms around it as the DoD had just before the Internet emerged. I think it would be hugely valuable to remind people what the network population was in those days. I love this list. Thanks for all the contributions. A ? Andrew Sullivan Please excuse my clumbsy thums > On Aug 6, 2023, at 17:41, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: > > ?I think Andrew is correct in this analysis. > v > > >> On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 2:32?PM Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >> Brian, >> >> There was a "slight" difference in scale between the two events - several >> hundred ARPANET hosts vs. millions of IPv4 hosts. >> >> But without the stick, at least some subset of ARPANET hosts would have >> decided why bother, as long as we can continue to talk to each other? And >> the ARPANET would definitely have continued as a dual-stack network, as >> hosts that implemented TCP would also have an incentive to keep NCP going >> (other NCP-only hosts). Remember, at that point there wasn't much other >> incentive to implement TCP, as the rest of the Internet hadn't yet started >> to appear. >> >> Cheers, >> Andy >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 4:56?PM Brian E Carpenter < >> brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Andy, >>> >>> So, it was your fault that we decided that "no flag day" was a vital >>> requirement for IPng :-). Seriously, I think that enough people >>> remembered the 1983 flag day and definitely said "never again!" >>> >>> Regards >>> Brian Carpenter >>> >>> On 07-Aug-23 04:17, Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history wrote: >>>> Miles, >>>> >>>> I wrote the IMP code to enforce the flag day and ran the transition >> from >>>> the NOC. >>>> >>>> To prepare for the flag day, we added a new bit to each port's >>>> configuration in the IMPs. The bit said whether or not a port was >> allowed >>>> to use the NCP host-host protocol (port 0). If the bit was off, then >> NCP >>>> host-host packets were discarded by the IMPs. >>>> >>>> There was a defined procedure in place well prior to the cutover for >>>> approving exceptions to the no-NCP policy. >>>> >>>> On January 1, I pulled the switch to flip the bits from "on" to "off" >>>> except for the pre-approved list of exceptions. >>>> >>>> A good number of hosts made the deadline, but additional exceptions >> were >>>> approved as the phone calls started coming in. The exception list >>> continued >>>> to grow in the first few days of 1983, but as hosts gradually got their >>>> TCP/IP stacks working, their NCP permission was turned off. >>>> >>>> As I recall, the exception list quickly shrank, and by the end of the >>> year >>>> there were very few NCP-only hosts left. There was certainly some >> amount >>>> of pain involved, but NCP would have hung around for much longer if the >>>> switchover hadn't been enforced. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 7:35?AM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history < >>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Folks, >>>>> >>>>> Does anybody have some memories of the TCP/IP Flag Day they can share? >>>>> >>>>> I'm doing some writing about "how network ecosystems develop" looking >> at >>>>> how the Internet evolved from the days the net was a gleam in a few >>>>> people's eyes, Licklider distributed his famous memo, the NWG & IETF >>>>> evolved, Flag Day, etc. Also looking at the Environmental Movement >>>>> (Earth Day, Whole Earth Catalog, ...), FOSS, Crisis Mapping, >>>>> Entrepreneurship Support, Makers - all of which I've been up close and >>>>> personal with, and now trying to document some common threads & >>> techniques. >>>>> >>>>> A particular focus is on organizing for significant >>>>> changes/transformations - like the transition to IP that pretty much >>>>> marks the birth of the Internet as we know it. Hence a particular >>>>> interest in what led up to the Flag Day, and how folks responded. >>>>> >>>>> In particular, I'm wondering how folks organized at various network >>>>> sites (universities, military bases, etc.) to respond to the mandate. >>>>> Working groups, plans & programs, that sort of thing. How did folks >> get >>>>> their act together? >>>>> >>>>> Anybody have any stories they can share? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Very Much, >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 > Google, LLC > 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > +1 (571) 213 1346 > > > until further notice > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From pugs78 at gmail.com Sun Aug 6 17:54:15 2023 From: pugs78 at gmail.com (Tom Lyon) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2023 17:54:15 -0700 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <93929a75-5f11-e6b0-3858-fe776a57f933@gmail.com> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <93929a75-5f11-e6b0-3858-fe776a57f933@gmail.com> Message-ID: When IP was first coming to Nokia phones - circa 1999 - Bob Hinden and I tried to get Nokia to do IPv6 only. It should've been easy, because at that stage there was no chance of http or most other extant apps running on the phone, and operators were always gonna use NAT anyways to get to the Internet. Would've been a major boost for V6, but no.... On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 1:56?PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Andy, > > So, it was your fault that we decided that "no flag day" was a vital > requirement for IPng :-). Seriously, I think that enough people > remembered the 1983 flag day and definitely said "never again!" > > Regards > Brian Carpenter > > On 07-Aug-23 04:17, Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history wrote: > > Miles, > > > > I wrote the IMP code to enforce the flag day and ran the transition from > > the NOC. > > > > To prepare for the flag day, we added a new bit to each port's > > configuration in the IMPs. The bit said whether or not a port was allowed > > to use the NCP host-host protocol (port 0). If the bit was off, then NCP > > host-host packets were discarded by the IMPs. > > > > There was a defined procedure in place well prior to the cutover for > > approving exceptions to the no-NCP policy. > > > > On January 1, I pulled the switch to flip the bits from "on" to "off" > > except for the pre-approved list of exceptions. > > > > A good number of hosts made the deadline, but additional exceptions were > > approved as the phone calls started coming in. The exception list > continued > > to grow in the first few days of 1983, but as hosts gradually got their > > TCP/IP stacks working, their NCP permission was turned off. > > > > As I recall, the exception list quickly shrank, and by the end of the > year > > there were very few NCP-only hosts left. There was certainly some amount > > of pain involved, but NCP would have hung around for much longer if the > > switchover hadn't been enforced. > > > > Cheers, > > Andy > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 7:35?AM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history < > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > >> Hi Folks, > >> > >> Does anybody have some memories of the TCP/IP Flag Day they can share? > >> > >> I'm doing some writing about "how network ecosystems develop" looking at > >> how the Internet evolved from the days the net was a gleam in a few > >> people's eyes, Licklider distributed his famous memo, the NWG & IETF > >> evolved, Flag Day, etc. Also looking at the Environmental Movement > >> (Earth Day, Whole Earth Catalog, ...), FOSS, Crisis Mapping, > >> Entrepreneurship Support, Makers - all of which I've been up close and > >> personal with, and now trying to document some common threads & > techniques. > >> > >> A particular focus is on organizing for significant > >> changes/transformations - like the transition to IP that pretty much > >> marks the birth of the Internet as we know it. Hence a particular > >> interest in what led up to the Flag Day, and how folks responded. > >> > >> In particular, I'm wondering how folks organized at various network > >> sites (universities, military bases, etc.) to respond to the mandate. > >> Working groups, plans & programs, that sort of thing. How did folks get > >> their act together? > >> > >> Anybody have any stories they can share? > >> > >> Thanks Very Much, > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> -- > >> 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 mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Mon Aug 7 11:33:08 2023 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 14:33:08 -0400 Subject: [ih] Hauben, R. (1998). A study of the ARPANET TCP/IP Digest and of the role of online communication in the transition from the ARPANET to the Internet. In-Reply-To: <556CDFAE-6604-4FCD-9D83-8C3373DA0E7D@gmail.com> References: <556CDFAE-6604-4FCD-9D83-8C3373DA0E7D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7e67380d-d13f-6bdd-d6c5-701fb1719b3a@meetinghouse.net> Ronda Hauben wrote: > http://www. columbia.edu/~rh120/other/tcpdigest_paper.txt Indeed - most helpful!? Thanks! Miles -- 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 mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Mon Aug 7 11:35:50 2023 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 14:35:50 -0400 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <93929a75-5f11-e6b0-3858-fe776a57f933@gmail.com> Message-ID: <07807293-a3e7-2fb6-b9d1-3c72fd4b4f60@meetinghouse.net> And even with the stick, Wang just dragged their feet on implementing a TCP/IP stack - as a result, going from the Army's main computer vendor, to non-existent. Miles Andrew G. Malis wrote: > Brian, > > There was a "slight" difference in scale between the two events - > several hundred?ARPANET hosts vs. millions of IPv4 hosts. > > But without the stick, at least some subset of ARPANET hosts would > have decided why bother, as long as we can continue to talk to > each?other? And the ARPANET would definitely?have continued as a > dual-stack network, as hosts that implemented TCP would also have an > incentive to keep NCP going (other NCP-only hosts). Remember, at that > point there wasn't much other incentive to implement?TCP, as the rest > of the Internet hadn't yet started to appear. > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 4:56?PM Brian E Carpenter > > wrote: > > Andy, > > So, it was your fault that we decided that "no flag day" was a vital > requirement for IPng :-). Seriously, I think that enough people > remembered the 1983 flag day and definitely said "never again!" > > Regards > ? ? Brian Carpenter > > On 07-Aug-23 04:17, Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history wrote: > > Miles, > > > > I wrote the IMP code to enforce the flag day and ran the > transition from > > the NOC. > > > > To prepare for the flag day, we added a new bit to each port's > > configuration in the IMPs. The bit said whether or not a port > was allowed > > to use the NCP host-host protocol (port 0). If the bit was off, > then NCP > > host-host packets were discarded by the IMPs. > > > > There was a defined procedure in place well prior to the cutover for > > approving exceptions to the no-NCP policy. > > > > On January 1, I pulled the switch to flip the bits from "on" to > "off" > > except for the pre-approved list of exceptions. > > > > A good number of hosts made the deadline, but additional > exceptions were > > approved as the phone calls started coming in. The exception > list continued > > to grow in the first few days of 1983, but as hosts gradually > got their > > TCP/IP stacks working, their NCP permission was turned off. > > > > As I recall, the exception list quickly shrank, and by the end > of the year > > there were very few NCP-only hosts left. There was certainly > some amount > > of pain involved, but NCP would have hung around for much longer > if the > > switchover hadn't been enforced. > > > > Cheers, > > Andy > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 7:35?AM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history < > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Folks, > >> > >> Does anybody have some memories of the TCP/IP Flag Day they can > share? > >> > >> I'm doing some writing about "how network ecosystems develop" > looking at > >> how the Internet evolved from the days the net was a gleam in a few > >> people's eyes, Licklider distributed his famous memo, the NWG & > IETF > >> evolved, Flag Day, etc.? Also looking at the Environmental Movement > >> (Earth Day, Whole Earth Catalog, ...), FOSS, Crisis Mapping, > >> Entrepreneurship Support, Makers - all of which I've been up > close and > >> personal with, and now trying to document some common threads & > techniques. > >> > >> A particular focus is on organizing for significant > >> changes/transformations - like the transition to IP that pretty > much > >> marks the birth of the Internet as we know it.? Hence a particular > >> interest in what led up to the Flag Day, and how folks responded. > >> > >> In particular, I'm wondering how folks organized at various network > >> sites (universities, military bases, etc.) to respond to the > mandate. > >> Working groups, plans & programs, that sort of thing. How did > folks get > >> their act together? > >> > >> Anybody have any stories they can share? > >> > >> Thanks Very Much, > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> -- > >> Internet-history mailing list > >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >> > -- 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 mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Mon Aug 7 11:39:28 2023 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 14:39:28 -0400 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <93929a75-5f11-e6b0-3858-fe776a57f933@gmail.com> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <93929a75-5f11-e6b0-3858-fe776a57f933@gmail.com> Message-ID: <46ef2037-41cb-1735-fdc9-9bca3a3eb930@meetinghouse.net> So now big folks, like Google, just implement things like DMARC, unilaterally; or stop supporting calendaring standards - and break the Internet big time.? And then, there's the Great Firewall of China. Remember when interoperability was a thing, and a design goal approaching a mandate.? Now we're going back to walled gardens. Sigh... Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Andy, > > So, it was your fault that we decided that "no flag day" was a vital > requirement for IPng :-). Seriously, I think that enough people > remembered the 1983 flag day and definitely said "never again!" > > Regards > ?? Brian Carpenter > > On 07-Aug-23 04:17, Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history wrote: >> Miles, >> >> I wrote the IMP code to enforce the flag day and ran the transition from >> the NOC. >> >> To prepare for the flag day, we added a new bit to each port's >> configuration in the IMPs. The bit said whether or not a port was >> allowed >> to use the NCP host-host protocol (port 0). If the bit was off, then NCP >> host-host packets were discarded by the IMPs. >> >> There was a defined procedure in place well prior to the cutover for >> approving exceptions to the no-NCP policy. >> >> On January 1, I pulled the switch to flip the bits from "on" to "off" >> except for the pre-approved list of exceptions. >> >> A good number of hosts made the deadline, but additional exceptions were >> approved as the phone calls started coming in. The exception list >> continued >> to grow in the first few days of 1983, but as hosts gradually got their >> TCP/IP stacks working, their NCP permission was turned off. >> >> As I recall, the exception list quickly shrank, and by the end of the >> year >> there were very few NCP-only hosts left. There was certainly some amount >> of pain involved, but NCP would have hung around for much longer if the >> switchover hadn't been enforced. >> >> Cheers, >> Andy >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 7:35?AM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Folks, >>> >>> Does anybody have some memories of the TCP/IP Flag Day they can share? >>> >>> I'm doing some writing about "how network ecosystems develop" >>> looking at >>> how the Internet evolved from the days the net was a gleam in a few >>> people's eyes, Licklider distributed his famous memo, the NWG & IETF >>> evolved, Flag Day, etc.? Also looking at the Environmental Movement >>> (Earth Day, Whole Earth Catalog, ...), FOSS, Crisis Mapping, >>> Entrepreneurship Support, Makers - all of which I've been up close and >>> personal with, and now trying to document some common threads & >>> techniques. >>> >>> A particular focus is on organizing for significant >>> changes/transformations - like the transition to IP that pretty much >>> marks the birth of the Internet as we know it.? Hence a particular >>> interest in what led up to the Flag Day, and how folks responded. >>> >>> In particular, I'm wondering how folks organized at various network >>> sites (universities, military bases, etc.) to respond to the mandate. >>> Working groups, plans & programs, that sort of thing. How did folks get >>> their act together? >>> >>> Anybody have any stories they can share? >>> >>> Thanks Very Much, >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> -- 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 enervatron at gmail.com Mon Aug 7 12:03:50 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 12:03:50 -0700 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <46ef2037-41cb-1735-fdc9-9bca3a3eb930@meetinghouse.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <93929a75-5f11-e6b0-3858-fe776a57f933@gmail.com> <46ef2037-41cb-1735-fdc9-9bca3a3eb930@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: On 8/7/23 11:39 AM, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: > So now big folks, like Google, just implement things like DMARC, > unilaterally; or stop supporting calendaring standards - and break the > Internet big time.? And then, there's the Great Firewall of China. Er,? DMARC is just warmed over ADSP which was just warmed over SSP which was the original. There is fundamentally no difference in the protocol with any of them, just the stupid politics that dogged them. The larger story is IETF dysfunction writ large, not walled gardens. Mike From steffen at sdaoden.eu Mon Aug 7 13:26:44 2023 From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2023 22:26:44 +0200 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <46ef2037-41cb-1735-fdc9-9bca3a3eb930@meetinghouse.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <93929a75-5f11-e6b0-3858-fe776a57f933@gmail.com> <46ef2037-41cb-1735-fdc9-9bca3a3eb930@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <20230807202644.2iP1L%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote in <46ef2037-41cb-1735-fdc9-9bca3a3eb930 at meetinghouse.net>: |So now big folks, like Google, just implement things like DMARC, |unilaterally; or stop supporting calendaring standards - and break the |Internet big time.? And then, there's the Great Firewall of China. India recently cut-off some not so small parts of their country from the internet due to deadly ethnic riots (there). This happens all the time. And let me say: necessarily, and it is right. I would consider keeping my child away from at least english wikipedia main page, for example, due to all the totally biased, and yes, let me say it, brainwashing with "correct" statements, until you look in detaul: a child should be lead to the century old historic context, to learn about the respect that is due, instead of having to read the garbage that is vomitted onto main pages due to today's (more than questionable) political desires -- of the U.S., in this example. |Remember when interoperability was a thing, and a design goal |approaching a mandate.? Now we're going back to walled gardens. Sigh... | Child locks are not hundred percent secure. Oh, and how i would have become outraged to find myself in such a lock as a child. (Despite the normal "nationally-agreed-in" census that is everywhere, or, like the German superstar Herbert Gr?nemeyer sang hm about 40 years ago, "wir werden dosiert zensiert [, Menschen achtlos diffamiert]", "we are dosedly censored [, humans carelessly defamed]". That was ~15 years before his wife died, resulting in his mostly human album "Mensch", "Human"; 'and still remembering Sir Paul McCartney's famous Cavern Club performance, .. December 1999? Around the same time.) The Chinese now want to incur maximum internet usage time for children. I think two hours for 16/17 year old, and about 40 Minutes for younger-than-ten, iirc. Parents can do something about this. Many parents would still claim this is too much! I would rather reread Simone de Beauvoir's memoirs, they shall live in and eat dense worlds that evaluated over real lifetime (books). And "hear that crack" Simone is talking about. Sometimes throats gets slipped! I am more concerned about invisible firewalls that are silently agreed with in very large extent, and "bullshitted further upon" even, building upon that I believe the perception caused by civilian casualties is one of the most dangerous enemies we face. of US-General Stanley A. McCrystal. I recently read again the "four dragons by the mekong", a really good book that truly strives for (some) context and tries to shed light on all sides, of the wonderful german journalist Winfried Scharlau, i wish someone like him would still be present. I think the time has come to swing the pendulum back, it has swung so long and so far in one direction, after the "open journalism" of the Vietnam war, which of course was also short-sighted, uninformed, hyping false understandings etc. So if there is only a mob of zombies that hysterically screams "meat!" and runs for it, no matter what, then i think something has to be done. Yes. As long as truth shines through. This is even Christian. 1. Mose 5:3, Adam seems to have grown to 930 years. Things are worse in my German translation of the Quran, you only can look high to get through the translators comments :), so i am following Rainer-Maria Rilke's conclusion that the islam is a "religion of the undisguised space", of pure creature feeling: earth can be perceived as a "pure star": "creatureliness of the earth can appear pure and undisguised". The religions, as far as i can tell, and as many as i know, do not think it is easy, and that it can be gained fast. I think they are right. So whereas techically i am all in favour of what you say on interoperability, (i personally even think there are too many standards, and that it all shall be minimized: nothing against young man or some sophisticated man/woman striving to reach a target, and gaining some "fame", but then it shall be good; there are things more important than working 60-90 hours a week, one day it comes out as just an addiction of a "horse running away" (Germany lost Martin Walser last week iirc)), i do not think you can compare commercial walled gardens with walls incurred by some "higher" principle. You may now be of an opinion on the "quality" of that "higher principle", and want "freedom". You (especially as the hard-core US american i see you as) may be right, but i personally have great doubts, also, and especially, when looking at the state of our planet, and the responsibility that "freedom" accounts on that. One thing is plain: the sheer number of lies and shortcutted contexts, and "blankings", regarding several of todays conflicts, seems to support my point of view. --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) From dhc at dcrocker.net Mon Aug 7 14:30:01 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 14:30:01 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste Message-ID: There has been a spate of FB postings, reminding folk that Larry Tesler created cut and paste. My confusion is that I'd swear Tenex (and maybe Top-10 and maybe one or another system at MIT) had ctl-C and ctl-V and probably ctl-X in the earliest 1970s, if not earlier.? References to Tesler's innovation say it was at Parc. Anyone care with resolve the confusion? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From steve at shinkuro.com Mon Aug 7 14:35:18 2023 From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 17:35:18 -0400 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: EMACS had -- and still has -- control-X for cutting, control-C for copying, and, IIRC, control-V for pasting. I used EMACS regularly at MIT in the late 60s. Others can supply more details. HOWEVER, I don't believe a mouse was involved. It was straight ASCII text, without fonts, boldface, etc. I assume the references to Larry Tesler pertained to cut-and-paste in the context of a graphical user interface. Steve a On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 5:30?PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > There has been a spate of FB postings, reminding folk that Larry Tesler > created cut and paste. > > My confusion is that I'd swear Tenex (and maybe Top-10 and maybe one or > another system at MIT) had ctl-C and ctl-V and probably ctl-X in the > earliest 1970s, if not earlier. References to Tesler's innovation say > it was at Parc. > > Anyone care with resolve the confusion? > > d/ > > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From bpurvy at gmail.com Mon Aug 7 14:41:42 2023 From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 14:41:42 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: what's weird is, they don't seem to realize that he died months ago. On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 2:30?PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > There has been a spate of FB postings, reminding folk that Larry Tesler > created cut and paste. > > My confusion is that I'd swear Tenex (and maybe Top-10 and maybe one or > another system at MIT) had ctl-C and ctl-V and probably ctl-X in the > earliest 1970s, if not earlier. References to Tesler's innovation say > it was at Parc. > > Anyone care with resolve the confusion? > > d/ > > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From enervatron at gmail.com Mon Aug 7 14:45:46 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 14:45:46 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2aa504e2-a05b-405e-d93d-1fa72eeb271f@gmail.com> On 8/7/23 2:35 PM, Steve Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > EMACS had -- and still has -- control-X for cutting, control-C for copying, > and, IIRC, control-V for pasting. I used EMACS regularly at MIT in the > late 60s. Others can supply more details. HOWEVER, I don't believe a > mouse was involved. It was straight ASCII text, without fonts, boldface, > etc. It's C-Y for paste for Emacs. Mike From enervatron at gmail.com Mon Aug 7 14:52:41 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 14:52:41 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 8/7/23 2:35 PM, Steve Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > EMACS had -- and still has -- control-X for cutting, control-C for copying, > and, IIRC, control-V for pasting. I used EMACS regularly at MIT in the > late 60s. Others can supply more details. HOWEVER, I don't believe a > mouse was involved. It was straight ASCII text, without fonts, boldface, > etc. It's funny that I had to actually think about this because I've used emacs so long that my fingers do the thinking, but C-C is not copy with either Gosmacs or Stallmacs (I forget what it was with Gosmacs, but in Stallmacs it's a prefix like Alt). Normally the way you copied was to set a mark, cut it (C-X) into the paste buffer and the yank (C-Y) it to put it back. Not sure when it was TECO based but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same. Mike From steve at shinkuro.com Mon Aug 7 14:53:53 2023 From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 17:53:53 -0400 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I stand corrected. Thanks. On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 5:52 PM Michael Thomas via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > On 8/7/23 2:35 PM, Steve Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > > EMACS had -- and still has -- control-X for cutting, control-C for > copying, > > and, IIRC, control-V for pasting. I used EMACS regularly at MIT in the > > late 60s. Others can supply more details. HOWEVER, I don't believe a > > mouse was involved. It was straight ASCII text, without fonts, boldface, > > etc. > > It's funny that I had to actually think about this because I've used > emacs so long that my fingers do the thinking, but C-C is not copy with > either Gosmacs or Stallmacs (I forget what it was with Gosmacs, but in > Stallmacs it's a prefix like Alt). Normally the way you copied was to > set a mark, cut it (C-X) into the paste buffer and the yank (C-Y) it to > put it back. Not sure when it was TECO based but I wouldn't be surprised > if it was the same. > > Mike > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From enervatron at gmail.com Mon Aug 7 14:54:09 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 14:54:09 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <099989f0-e7fa-c2a1-cb31-a9c597e7a945@gmail.com> Crap, I swear this is the last correction: it was C-W (wipe), not C-X which was another prefix control key. Mike On 8/7/23 2:35 PM, Steve Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > EMACS had -- and still has -- control-X for cutting, control-C for copying, > and, IIRC, control-V for pasting. I used EMACS regularly at MIT in the > late 60s. Others can supply more details. HOWEVER, I don't believe a > mouse was involved. It was straight ASCII text, without fonts, boldface, > etc. > > I assume the references to Larry Tesler pertained to cut-and-paste in the > context of a graphical user interface. > > Steve > a > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 5:30?PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> There has been a spate of FB postings, reminding folk that Larry Tesler >> created cut and paste. >> >> My confusion is that I'd swear Tenex (and maybe Top-10 and maybe one or >> another system at MIT) had ctl-C and ctl-V and probably ctl-X in the >> earliest 1970s, if not earlier. References to Tesler's innovation say >> it was at Parc. >> >> Anyone care with resolve the confusion? >> >> d/ >> >> >> -- >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net >> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> From enervatron at gmail.com Mon Aug 7 14:54:48 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 14:54:48 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <946e11b1-6fa6-bc9b-2a44-106c2f9f52cc@gmail.com> On 8/7/23 2:53 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: > I stand corrected.? Thanks. It only took me three times to get it right :) Mike > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 5:52 PM Michael Thomas via Internet-history > wrote: > > > On 8/7/23 2:35 PM, Steve Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > > EMACS had -- and still has -- control-X for cutting, control-C > for copying, > > and, IIRC, control-V for pasting.? I used EMACS regularly at MIT > in the > > late 60s.? Others can supply more details.? HOWEVER, I don't > believe a > > mouse was involved.? It was straight ASCII text, without fonts, > boldface, > > etc. > > It's funny that I had to actually think about this because I've used > emacs so long that my fingers do the thinking, but C-C is not copy > with > either Gosmacs or Stallmacs (I forget what it was with Gosmacs, > but in > Stallmacs it's a prefix like Alt). Normally the way you copied was to > set a mark, cut it (C-X) into the paste buffer and the yank (C-Y) > it to > put it back. Not sure when it was TECO based but I wouldn't be > surprised > if it was the same. > > Mike > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From enervatron at gmail.com Mon Aug 7 15:15:41 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 15:15:41 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7db63cf2-ac65-5d58-9b76-5d22afb7d834@gmail.com> On 8/7/23 2:30 PM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > There has been a spate of FB postings, reminding folk that Larry > Tesler created cut and paste. > > My confusion is that I'd swear Tenex (and maybe Top-10 and maybe one > or another system at MIT) had ctl-C and ctl-V and probably ctl-X in > the earliest 1970s, if not earlier.? References to Tesler's innovation > say it was at Parc. > I have always assumed it was from Parc since the Mac used it as a basis. Maybe they mean the graphical way by holding the mouse key down and creating a range. Holding the mouse key down was sort of the equivalent of C-Space for setting a mark in emacs. But emacs certainly wasn't the only text editor, so maybe some other editor back in the day used the C-C, C-X and C-V convention. Mike From jack at 3kitty.org Mon Aug 7 15:36:56 2023 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 15:36:56 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: <7db63cf2-ac65-5d58-9b76-5d22afb7d834@gmail.com> References: <7db63cf2-ac65-5d58-9b76-5d22afb7d834@gmail.com> Message-ID: <02eb8c35-f0e9-86bb-b9f0-5480188142ac@3kitty.org> TECO, circa 1970, had a notion of "QRegisters", which were places you could put some text and later insert it into your document elsewhere.? TECO used single-letter commands, which you could string together to perform complex actions. See http://tenex.opost.com/anhc-31-4-anec.pdf E.G., "hxa" would put the entire contents of your file into QRegister "a"; the "h" is shorthand for "0,z" which specifies everything from character0 through the last character (z).?? The "x" is the actual command top copy text into the specified QRegister. The command "ga" would "get" the contents of QRegister "a" and insert it into your text at the current cursor location. So, "cut and paste" were in use in 1970 and probably earlier.?? I don't recall the terms "cut and paste" being used, and the TECO commands were not ^C et al, but it's the same function.?? Emacs came later, written as a set of TECO macros and commonly loaded into the "e" QRegister - hence "E Macros". Jack Haverty On 8/7/23 15:15, Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote: > > On 8/7/23 2:30 PM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >> There has been a spate of FB postings, reminding folk that Larry >> Tesler created cut and paste. >> >> My confusion is that I'd swear Tenex (and maybe Top-10 and maybe one >> or another system at MIT) had ctl-C and ctl-V and probably ctl-X in >> the earliest 1970s, if not earlier.? References to Tesler's >> innovation say it was at Parc. >> > I have always assumed it was from Parc since the Mac used it as a > basis. Maybe they mean the graphical way by holding the mouse key down > and creating a range. Holding the mouse key down was sort of the > equivalent of C-Space for setting a mark in emacs. But emacs certainly > wasn't the only text editor, so maybe some other editor back in the > day used the C-C, C-X and C-V convention. > > Mike > From enervatron at gmail.com Mon Aug 7 15:47:25 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 15:47:25 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: <02eb8c35-f0e9-86bb-b9f0-5480188142ac@3kitty.org> References: <7db63cf2-ac65-5d58-9b76-5d22afb7d834@gmail.com> <02eb8c35-f0e9-86bb-b9f0-5480188142ac@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <87696874-b518-ce1e-0ce0-7d938c072d68@gmail.com> On 8/7/23 3:36 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > TECO, circa 1970, had a notion of "QRegisters", which were places you > could put some text and later insert it into your document elsewhere.? > TECO used single-letter commands, which you could string together to > perform complex actions. See http://tenex.opost.com/anhc-31-4-anec.pdf > > E.G., "hxa" would put the entire contents of your file into QRegister > "a"; the "h" is shorthand for "0,z" which specifies everything from > character0 through the last character (z).?? The "x" is the actual > command top copy text into the specified QRegister. The command "ga" > would "get" the contents of QRegister "a" and insert it into your text > at the current cursor location. > > So, "cut and paste" were in use in 1970 and probably earlier.?? I > don't recall the terms "cut and paste" being used, and the TECO > commands were not ^C et al, but it's the same function.?? Emacs came > later, written as a set of TECO macros and commonly loaded into the > "e" QRegister - hence "E Macros". > I never used TECO but it was apparently a hacker's fun zone. My business partner wrote an ascii lunar lander in TECO. Do you know if vi had any roots in TECO? Mike From jack at 3kitty.org Mon Aug 7 16:01:21 2023 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 16:01:21 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: <87696874-b518-ce1e-0ce0-7d938c072d68@gmail.com> References: <7db63cf2-ac65-5d58-9b76-5d22afb7d834@gmail.com> <02eb8c35-f0e9-86bb-b9f0-5480188142ac@3kitty.org> <87696874-b518-ce1e-0ce0-7d938c072d68@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0d59fb37-ac9e-85e0-96a2-036d72a548ab@3kitty.org> AFAIK, vi was independent of TECO.? TECO started on the DEC PDP-1 in the early 60s.? Unix and vi came along more than a decade later IIRC.? But it's certainly likely that the implementors of vi had used TECO before or were at least aware of it.? At its beginnings, TECO was often used to edit programs on paper tape (!) with a printing terminal. TECO was ostensibly an editor, but in reality it was a programming language and runtime environment.?? I recall that somene actually wrote a timesharing system, in TECO macros, just as a hack. FYI, here's the commands, circa 1976: https://bitsavers.org/pdf/mit/ai/ai_600dpi/TECO_V508_Nov1976.pdf Jack On 8/7/23 15:47, Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote: > > On 8/7/23 3:36 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >> TECO, circa 1970, had a notion of "QRegisters", which were places you >> could put some text and later insert it into your document >> elsewhere.? TECO used single-letter commands, which you could string >> together to perform complex actions. See >> http://tenex.opost.com/anhc-31-4-anec.pdf >> >> E.G., "hxa" would put the entire contents of your file into QRegister >> "a"; the "h" is shorthand for "0,z" which specifies everything from >> character0 through the last character (z).?? The "x" is the actual >> command top copy text into the specified QRegister. The command "ga" >> would "get" the contents of QRegister "a" and insert it into your >> text at the current cursor location. >> >> So, "cut and paste" were in use in 1970 and probably earlier. I don't >> recall the terms "cut and paste" being used, and the TECO commands >> were not ^C et al, but it's the same function. Emacs came later, >> written as a set of TECO macros and commonly loaded into the "e" >> QRegister - hence "E Macros". >> > I never used TECO but it was apparently a hacker's fun zone. My > business partner wrote an ascii lunar lander in TECO. > > Do you know if vi had any roots in TECO? > > Mike > > From dhc at dcrocker.net Mon Aug 7 16:11:07 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 16:11:07 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: <0d59fb37-ac9e-85e0-96a2-036d72a548ab@3kitty.org> References: <7db63cf2-ac65-5d58-9b76-5d22afb7d834@gmail.com> <02eb8c35-f0e9-86bb-b9f0-5480188142ac@3kitty.org> <87696874-b518-ce1e-0ce0-7d938c072d68@gmail.com> <0d59fb37-ac9e-85e0-96a2-036d72a548ab@3kitty.org> Message-ID: On 8/7/2023 4:01 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > TECO was ostensibly an editor, but in reality it was a programming > language and runtime environment. Indeed, the first MUA was written in TECO macros. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From vint at google.com Mon Aug 7 16:10:50 2023 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 16:10:50 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: <0d59fb37-ac9e-85e0-96a2-036d72a548ab@3kitty.org> References: <7db63cf2-ac65-5d58-9b76-5d22afb7d834@gmail.com> <02eb8c35-f0e9-86bb-b9f0-5480188142ac@3kitty.org> <87696874-b518-ce1e-0ce0-7d938c072d68@gmail.com> <0d59fb37-ac9e-85e0-96a2-036d72a548ab@3kitty.org> Message-ID: didn't larry roberts write an email reader using TECO ? v On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 4:01?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > AFAIK, vi was independent of TECO. TECO started on the DEC PDP-1 in the > early 60s. Unix and vi came along more than a decade later IIRC. But > it's certainly likely that the implementors of vi had used TECO before > or were at least aware of it. At its beginnings, TECO was often used to > edit programs on paper tape (!) with a printing terminal. > > TECO was ostensibly an editor, but in reality it was a programming > language and runtime environment. I recall that somene actually wrote > a timesharing system, in TECO macros, just as a hack. > > FYI, here's the commands, circa 1976: > https://bitsavers.org/pdf/mit/ai/ai_600dpi/TECO_V508_Nov1976.pdf > > Jack > > > On 8/7/23 15:47, Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote: > > > > On 8/7/23 3:36 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > >> TECO, circa 1970, had a notion of "QRegisters", which were places you > >> could put some text and later insert it into your document > >> elsewhere. TECO used single-letter commands, which you could string > >> together to perform complex actions. See > >> http://tenex.opost.com/anhc-31-4-anec.pdf > >> > >> E.G., "hxa" would put the entire contents of your file into QRegister > >> "a"; the "h" is shorthand for "0,z" which specifies everything from > >> character0 through the last character (z). The "x" is the actual > >> command top copy text into the specified QRegister. The command "ga" > >> would "get" the contents of QRegister "a" and insert it into your > >> text at the current cursor location. > >> > >> So, "cut and paste" were in use in 1970 and probably earlier. I don't > >> recall the terms "cut and paste" being used, and the TECO commands > >> were not ^C et al, but it's the same function. Emacs came later, > >> written as a set of TECO macros and commonly loaded into the "e" > >> QRegister - hence "E Macros". > >> > > I never used TECO but it was apparently a hacker's fun zone. My > > business partner wrote an ascii lunar lander in TECO. > > > > Do you know if vi had any roots in TECO? > > > > Mike > > > > > > -- > 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 Google, LLC 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor Reston, VA 20190 +1 (571) 213 1346 until further notice From enervatron at gmail.com Mon Aug 7 16:13:43 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 16:13:43 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: <0d59fb37-ac9e-85e0-96a2-036d72a548ab@3kitty.org> References: <7db63cf2-ac65-5d58-9b76-5d22afb7d834@gmail.com> <02eb8c35-f0e9-86bb-b9f0-5480188142ac@3kitty.org> <87696874-b518-ce1e-0ce0-7d938c072d68@gmail.com> <0d59fb37-ac9e-85e0-96a2-036d72a548ab@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <7da90dc7-9fbd-15ba-39f7-c90e5fc38c19@gmail.com> On 8/7/23 4:01 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > AFAIK, vi was independent of TECO.? TECO started on the DEC PDP-1 in > the early 60s.? Unix and vi came along more than a decade later IIRC. > But it's certainly likely that the implementors of vi had used TECO > before or were at least aware of it.? At its beginnings, TECO was > often used to edit programs on paper tape (!) with a printing terminal. Yeah, I knew the acronym was Tape Error COrrector, iirc. But the Bell Labs folks had to be pretty influenced by it since they used DEC equipment. > > TECO was ostensibly an editor, but in reality it was a programming > language and runtime environment.?? I recall that somene actually > wrote a timesharing system, in TECO macros, just as a hack. Because, of course. Was TECO only available on Tops 10? When I was at UCI, we had a DEC-10 which ran another OS and the editor we used was called the F-editor. But it's possible it was there and I just didn't know about it. > > FYI, here's the commands, circa 1976: > https://bitsavers.org/pdf/mit/ai/ai_600dpi/TECO_V508_Nov1976.pdf Oh, so it did have the convention of using control characters for commands by then. ^G in particular was obvious taken directly from TECO by Emacs. Mike From johnl at iecc.com Mon Aug 7 16:33:42 2023 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 7 Aug 2023 19:33:42 -0400 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: <0d59fb37-ac9e-85e0-96a2-036d72a548ab@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <20230807233342.61948FF98564@ary.qy> It appears that Jack Haverty via Internet-history said: >AFAIK, vi was independent of TECO.? TECO started on the DEC PDP-1 in the >early 60s.? Unix and vi came along more than a decade later IIRC.? But >it's certainly likely that the implementors of vi had used TECO before >or were at least aware of it.?... I have heard that Bill Joy had already seen Emacs, but wrote vi anyway. Some of its odd command layout is to minimize finger movement so you can type really really fast. R's, John using Epsilon, an Emacs clone where the extension langugage is roughly C From enervatron at gmail.com Mon Aug 7 16:38:22 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 16:38:22 -0700 Subject: [ih] 40 years ago net.motss was newgroup'd Message-ID: <7b4c8994-67f1-08f8-4d1d-66e53543c10c@gmail.com> I wrote this piece earlier this year that chronicles the early days of the net and Usenet in particular. I know that Usenet started out with uucp (and possibly other transports), but it was soon more widely distributed with NNTP. For those who don't know, net.motss which turned into soc.motss was the internet's first gay newsgroup. It was created by Steve Dyer late of BBN. It was a purposefully cryptic name to fly under the radar. I have often wondered if the commercialization of the internet had happened just 5 years earlier whether it could have made any dent in those terrible days. Lack of information was the enemy back then, and the internet provided a cure even if it was for a tiny audience at first. But it was a magical group in many ways and the the lifelong friends motss created was something very special. https://enervatron.blogspot.com/2023/02/40-years-ago-socmotss-was-newgroupd.html enjoy, Mike From galmes at tamu.edu Mon Aug 7 16:43:03 2023 From: galmes at tamu.edu (Guy Almes) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 19:43:03 -0400 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: <0d59fb37-ac9e-85e0-96a2-036d72a548ab@3kitty.org> References: <7db63cf2-ac65-5d58-9b76-5d22afb7d834@gmail.com> <02eb8c35-f0e9-86bb-b9f0-5480188142ac@3kitty.org> <87696874-b518-ce1e-0ce0-7d938c072d68@gmail.com> <0d59fb37-ac9e-85e0-96a2-036d72a548ab@3kitty.org> Message-ID: Jack et al., This thread is extremely interesting. I was a 1970s era CS grad student at CMU. A number of my cohort (not me) were both (a) from the Boston area and (b) headed to Palo Alto. On our TOPS-10 system, we had a choice of text editors: either TECO or a Stanford editor called SOS. I quickly decided that TECO was too complicated for a text editor and didn't take its "programming language and runtime environment" as a (positive) feature. And SOS was fine. But, stepping back, I was amused that an early comment in this thread assumed that cut/paste originated with the Alto. I didn't have to wait too long for folks to point to EMACS and TECO. Given the historical shift in the 'center of gravity' of the computer industry from the northeast to Silicon Valley, and given the many good reasons to admire the innovations from Si Valley, we sometimes forget the richness of the DEC / EMACS / ARPAnet / etc. world that predates the equally wonderful Xerox PARC etc. world. Being neither 'from New England' nor ever having headed 'to Si Valley', I don't have a dog in this hunt. But there are so many things about about the techno-culture of the Boston area computer culture that modern folks don't fully appreciate. I wonder whether the Unix culture (referring to the vi editor) is sort of a third 'New Jersey' locus. One last comment: while at the Univ of Washington CS department, there was a wonderful colleague from the Classics department named Pierre MacKay. He wasn't a techie (by background), but was (like many classics folks) bright as hell. He was studying some ancient Greek texts where the earliest sources are actually Arabic translations (though originally in Greek, the earliest actual Greek sources for these texts are back-translations from Arabic). So, in his research, he wrote monographs on this literature and the monographs had to have type-set Arabic. Before the mid-1970s, this just involved mailing the manuscript Arabic to typesetting companies in Beirut, and they would come back with beautiful results. This all fell apart, sadly, during the Lebanese civil war. So MacKay set about learning how to program computers and wrote an Arabic type-setting system. Being smart and unafraid of complicated arcane languages, he chose to use (you guessed it) TECO as his programming language of choice. Having succeeded in its use in his research, he offered a "computer programming for the humanities" course in which TECO was the primary language. -- Guy On 8/7/23 7:01 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > AFAIK, vi was independent of TECO.? TECO started on the DEC PDP-1 in the > early 60s.? Unix and vi came along more than a decade later IIRC.? But > it's certainly likely that the implementors of vi had used TECO before > or were at least aware of it.? At its beginnings, TECO was often used to > edit programs on paper tape (!) with a printing terminal. > > TECO was ostensibly an editor, but in reality it was a programming > language and runtime environment.?? I recall that somene actually wrote > a timesharing system, in TECO macros, just as a hack. > > FYI, here's the commands, circa 1976: > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://bitsavers.org/pdf/mit/ai/ai_600dpi/TECO_V508_Nov1976.pdf__;!!KwNVnqRv!BIZP2_MK2KVXArPvq6oQH6NlwtxsXKKTyXQ9Qb7gOn7XUtw_t7x9Mlvkil43YKdh7qDNtZrnVNAERJFdkqdozBwdMUHX_A$ > > Jack > > > On 8/7/23 15:47, Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote: >> >> On 8/7/23 3:36 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >>> TECO, circa 1970, had a notion of "QRegisters", which were places you >>> could put some text and later insert it into your document >>> elsewhere.? TECO used single-letter commands, which you could string >>> together to perform complex actions. See >>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://tenex.opost.com/anhc-31-4-anec.pdf__;!!KwNVnqRv!BIZP2_MK2KVXArPvq6oQH6NlwtxsXKKTyXQ9Qb7gOn7XUtw_t7x9Mlvkil43YKdh7qDNtZrnVNAERJFdkqdozBwlC1Xn4A$ >>> >>> E.G., "hxa" would put the entire contents of your file into QRegister >>> "a"; the "h" is shorthand for "0,z" which specifies everything from >>> character0 through the last character (z).?? The "x" is the actual >>> command top copy text into the specified QRegister. The command "ga" >>> would "get" the contents of QRegister "a" and insert it into your >>> text at the current cursor location. >>> >>> So, "cut and paste" were in use in 1970 and probably earlier. I don't >>> recall the terms "cut and paste" being used, and the TECO commands >>> were not ^C et al, but it's the same function. Emacs came later, >>> written as a set of TECO macros and commonly loaded into the "e" >>> QRegister - hence "E Macros". >>> >> I never used TECO but it was apparently a hacker's fun zone. My >> business partner wrote an ascii lunar lander in TECO. >> >> Do you know if vi had any roots in TECO? >> >> Mike >> >> > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!BIZP2_MK2KVXArPvq6oQH6NlwtxsXKKTyXQ9Qb7gOn7XUtw_t7x9Mlvkil43YKdh7qDNtZrnVNAERJFdkqdozBxHs05xZg$ > From enervatron at gmail.com Mon Aug 7 16:44:50 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 16:44:50 -0700 Subject: [ih] 40 years ago net.motss was newgroup'd In-Reply-To: <7b4c8994-67f1-08f8-4d1d-66e53543c10c@gmail.com> References: <7b4c8994-67f1-08f8-4d1d-66e53543c10c@gmail.com> Message-ID: I should note that this is a little NSFW, not terribly but it's frank about the history. Mike On 8/7/23 4:38 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > > I wrote this piece earlier this year that chronicles the early days of > the net and Usenet in particular. I know that Usenet started out with > uucp (and possibly other transports), but it was soon more widely > distributed with NNTP. For those who don't know, net.motss which > turned into soc.motss was the internet's first gay newsgroup. It was > created by Steve Dyer late of BBN. It was a purposefully cryptic name > to fly under the radar. > > I have often wondered if the commercialization of the internet had > happened just 5 years earlier whether it could have made any dent in > those terrible days. Lack of information was the enemy back then, and > the internet provided a cure even if it was for a tiny audience at > first. But it was a magical group in many ways and the the lifelong > friends motss created was something very special. > > https://enervatron.blogspot.com/2023/02/40-years-ago-socmotss-was-newgroupd.html > > > enjoy, Mike > From jack at 3kitty.org Mon Aug 7 16:46:36 2023 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 16:46:36 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: References: <7db63cf2-ac65-5d58-9b76-5d22afb7d834@gmail.com> <02eb8c35-f0e9-86bb-b9f0-5480188142ac@3kitty.org> <87696874-b518-ce1e-0ce0-7d938c072d68@gmail.com> <0d59fb37-ac9e-85e0-96a2-036d72a548ab@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <9bd5987e-4012-ac6f-fb65-5916f1181fa9@3kitty.org> Yep.?? Good history here, by the guy who actually wrote the code. Larry Roberts is mentioned on the last page. tenex.opost.com/anhc-31-4-anec.pdf The story I heard, back in 1970, was that the Tech Model Railroad Club at MIT had gotten a PDP-1 to replace their old relay-based control system.?? But it came with no software, so they had to write some to be able to do anything with the machine.? TECO was one of the results. Jack On 8/7/23 16:10, Vint Cerf wrote: > didn't larry roberts write an email reader using TECO ? > > v > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 4:01?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history > wrote: > > AFAIK, vi was independent of TECO.? TECO started on the DEC PDP-1 > in the > early 60s.? Unix and vi came along more than a decade later IIRC.? > But > it's certainly likely that the implementors of vi had used TECO > before > or were at least aware of it.? At its beginnings, TECO was often > used to > edit programs on paper tape (!) with a printing terminal. > > TECO was ostensibly an editor, but in reality it was a programming > language and runtime environment.?? I recall that somene actually > wrote > a timesharing system, in TECO macros, just as a hack. > > FYI, here's the commands, circa 1976: > https://bitsavers.org/pdf/mit/ai/ai_600dpi/TECO_V508_Nov1976.pdf > > Jack > > > On 8/7/23 15:47, Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote: > > > > On 8/7/23 3:36 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > >> TECO, circa 1970, had a notion of "QRegisters", which were > places you > >> could put some text and later insert it into your document > >> elsewhere.? TECO used single-letter commands, which you could > string > >> together to perform complex actions. See > >> http://tenex.opost.com/anhc-31-4-anec.pdf > >> > >> E.G., "hxa" would put the entire contents of your file into > QRegister > >> "a"; the "h" is shorthand for "0,z" which specifies everything > from > >> character0 through the last character (z).?? The "x" is the actual > >> command top copy text into the specified QRegister. The command > "ga" > >> would "get" the contents of QRegister "a" and insert it into your > >> text at the current cursor location. > >> > >> So, "cut and paste" were in use in 1970 and probably earlier. I > don't > >> recall the terms "cut and paste" being used, and the TECO commands > >> were not ^C et al, but it's the same function. Emacs came later, > >> written as a set of TECO macros and commonly loaded into the "e" > >> QRegister - hence "E Macros". > >> > > I never used TECO but it was apparently a hacker's fun zone. My > > business partner wrote an ascii lunar lander in TECO. > > > > Do you know if vi had any roots in TECO? > > > > Mike > > > > > > -- > 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 > Google, LLC > 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > +1 (571) 213 1346 > > > until further notice > > > From jeanjour at comcast.net Mon Aug 7 16:59:57 2023 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 19:59:57 -0400 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I had always thought, given that it was Apple and they were wired into the group around Menlo Park, that cut-copy-paste was a reference to the keyset for NLS. That one (generally) used the mouse with the right hand, and keyed commands with the left. Many of Englebart?s people went on to PARC, so that would make sense. I have no evidence. But those shortcuts were in the Lisa and the early Macs. John > On Aug 7, 2023, at 17:30, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > > There has been a spate of FB postings, reminding folk that Larry Tesler created cut and paste. > > My confusion is that I'd swear Tenex (and maybe Top-10 and maybe one or another system at MIT) had ctl-C and ctl-V and probably ctl-X in the earliest 1970s, if not earlier. References to Tesler's innovation say it was at Parc. > > Anyone care with resolve the confusion? > > d/ > > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From dhc at dcrocker.net Mon Aug 7 17:08:46 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 17:08:46 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: References: <7db63cf2-ac65-5d58-9b76-5d22afb7d834@gmail.com> <02eb8c35-f0e9-86bb-b9f0-5480188142ac@3kitty.org> <87696874-b518-ce1e-0ce0-7d938c072d68@gmail.com> <0d59fb37-ac9e-85e0-96a2-036d72a548ab@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <629eb5d1-956e-04be-e57f-431e9b137c8f@dcrocker.net> On 8/7/2023 4:43 PM, Guy Almes via Internet-history wrote: > Being smart and unafraid of complicated arcane languages, he chose to > use (you guessed it) TECO as his programming language of choice. This should engender a double reaction in one, along the lines of being impressed while behind horrified. It certainly does in me. And this makes me think we need a range of specific terms to cover various dual-reaction-inducing events, comparable to schadenfreude. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From enervatron at gmail.com Mon Aug 7 17:24:40 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 17:24:40 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: References: <7db63cf2-ac65-5d58-9b76-5d22afb7d834@gmail.com> <02eb8c35-f0e9-86bb-b9f0-5480188142ac@3kitty.org> <87696874-b518-ce1e-0ce0-7d938c072d68@gmail.com> <0d59fb37-ac9e-85e0-96a2-036d72a548ab@3kitty.org> Message-ID: On 8/7/23 4:43 PM, Guy Almes via Internet-history wrote: > Jack et al., > ? This thread is extremely interesting. > ? I was a 1970s era CS grad student at CMU. > ? A number of my cohort (not me) were both (a) from the Boston area > and (b) headed to Palo Alto. > ? On our TOPS-10 system, we had a choice of text editors: either TECO > or a Stanford editor called SOS.? I quickly decided that TECO was too > complicated for a text editor and didn't take its "programming > language and runtime environment" as a (positive) feature.? And SOS > was fine. I'm trying to remember if I ever used SOS. I always heard that SOS stood for Son of Stopgap. It's never been clear to me who pappy was there. > > ? But, stepping back, I was amused that an early comment in this > thread assumed that cut/paste originated with the Alto.? I didn't have > to wait too long for folks to point to EMACS and TECO. > ? Given the historical shift in the 'center of gravity' of the > computer industry from the northeast to Silicon Valley, and given the > many good reasons to admire the innovations from Si Valley, we > sometimes forget the richness of the DEC / EMACS / ARPAnet / etc. > world that predates the equally wonderful Xerox PARC etc. world. > ? Being neither 'from New England' nor ever having headed 'to Si > Valley', I don't have a dog in this hunt. I never really though of it as competition. Boston, the bay area, Texas with TI and let's not forget UCLA which played a huge role with ARPAnet. Silly Valley and SoCal were deeply intertwined with DoD stuff, along with TI. The remarkable thing from my standpoint was how cooperative it seemed (ARPAnet being before my time). And of course the interaction of Bell Labs and ucbvax :) Great stuff. Mike From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Mon Aug 7 17:30:56 2023 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 20:30:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" Message-ID: <20230808003056.2BFD518C09E@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> "Internet" and 'internet' are different words, with _different meanings_. The arrogant morons at the AP were too stupid to understand that; I would hope people here are smarter that them. Noel From geoff at iconia.com Mon Aug 7 17:47:45 2023 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 17:47:45 -0700 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] Message-ID: "... In 1969 Roberts became director of the Information Processing Techniques Office at ARPA. In 1971 he wrote one of the first e-mail programs, RD, which for the first time allowed users to save, delete, and organize their messages.... so sez: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lawrence-Roberts while https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/1999-00/internet/email.html sez: ...The Rise of Email by way of Convenient Mail-Managers Stephen Lukasik, one of ARPA's directors from 1971-75 might be one of the most important advocates of email in its young age. He strongly encouraged his staff to use email. It was even considered the most effective way to reach Lukasik. Close friends and colleagues with Larry Roberts, Lukasik confided to Roberts in 1973 that he was beginning to face problems organizing the chaotic pile of messages received each day. (At this point, in a study conducted by ARPA under Lukasik's direction discovered that 75% of all ARPANET traffic was in the form of email.) Not to mention, reading and responding to the messages was, as of yet not a simple matter. In response, Roberts wrote the first "mail-manager software," RD. Its functions included displaying a menu of messages and allowing the user to file messages and delete messages. This inspired an outburst of variations on the mail manager. A legendary variation, MSG was created in 1975 by John Vittal. MSG quickly became the most widely used mail-management program due to its convenient features. It could handle an even greater amount of mail than RD, could sort messages into separate files, and most importantly, reply and forward with much greater ease. MSG also spawned a large amount of variations... [any others?] -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True From cabo at tzi.org Mon Aug 7 17:50:19 2023 From: cabo at tzi.org (Carsten Bormann) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 02:50:19 +0200 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: References: <7db63cf2-ac65-5d58-9b76-5d22afb7d834@gmail.com> <02eb8c35-f0e9-86bb-b9f0-5480188142ac@3kitty.org> <87696874-b518-ce1e-0ce0-7d938c072d68@gmail.com> <0d59fb37-ac9e-85e0-96a2-036d72a548ab@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <8AB5DB24-4934-4C46-82F5-D99DFA21D3BA@tzi.org> On 8. Aug 2023, at 01:43, Guy Almes via Internet-history wrote: > > I wonder whether the Unix culture (referring to the vi editor) is sort of a third 'New Jersey' locus. East coast UNIX had ?ed?, which was workable, but tedious, a bit like SOS (if my faint memory of a thing called that way serves me), but with tons of minimalist genius added. Berkeley UNIX (West Coast!) extended this, leading to Bill Joy's extended ed clone ?ex?. ?ex? later added a visual (screen editing) mode, no doubt inspired by the marvelous ^R mode (?real-time edit?) of TECO, but with pinky-saving modal commands instead of primarily using control characters. The ?ex? command to enter its visual mode was ?vi?. At some point typing ?ex? in the shell and then ?vi? in ?ex? became tedious, too, so a version of ?ex? was built that started in visual mode when called with ?vi? as argv[0]. So ?vi? was just a hard link to ?ex? that was called by the obvious name ?vi?, to save entering one command. (I?m still trying to get over the colleague who pronounced ?vi? like ?six?. No, roman numerals were not the reason for the name :-) I also remember that we regularly gave out the assignment to write a screen editor in a week in PDP-11 assembly code in a mandatory course in the CS curriculum ? you didn?t get a diploma if you couldn?t do this. A friend and I had written a screen editor in C in about two days a year or so earlier. Termcap would have been the hard part, which we didn?t use in that prototype.) Gr??e, Carsten From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Mon Aug 7 17:52:47 2023 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 20:52:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] cut and paste Message-ID: <20230808005247.0684018C09F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Steve Crocker > EMACS had - and still has - control-X for cutting, control-C for > copying, and, IIRC, control-V for pasting. Never depend on unreliable human memory when original documentation is a few clicks away! The "EMACS Manual for ITS Users": https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/6329 reveals that your memory has dropped a few bits; see "Chapter Nine: Killing and Moving Text - Section 9.2. Un-Killing" (pg. 45 of the PDF). The characters you cite - ^C/^X/^V - are the Windows characters for those commands. Noel From geoff at iconia.com Mon Aug 7 17:53:16 2023 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 17:53:16 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: steve, yours truly is a bit perplexed how you could have been using "EMACS regularly at MIT in the late 60s" when: "... The original EMACS was written in 1976 by David A. Moon and Guy L. Steele Jr. as a set of macros for the TECO editor.[12][1][2][3][13] It was inspired by the ideas of the TECO-macro editors TECMAC and TMACS.[14] so sez: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emacs On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 2:35?PM Steve Crocker via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > EMACS had -- and still has -- control-X for cutting, control-C for copying, > and, IIRC, control-V for pasting. I used EMACS regularly at MIT in the > late 60s. Others can supply more details. HOWEVER, I don't believe a > mouse was involved. It was straight ASCII text, without fonts, boldface, > etc. > > I assume the references to Larry Tesler pertained to cut-and-paste in the > context of a graphical user interface. > > Steve > a > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 5:30?PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > There has been a spate of FB postings, reminding folk that Larry Tesler > > created cut and paste. > > > > My confusion is that I'd swear Tenex (and maybe Top-10 and maybe one or > > another system at MIT) had ctl-C and ctl-V and probably ctl-X in the > > earliest 1970s, if not earlier. References to Tesler's innovation say > > it was at Parc. > > > > Anyone care with resolve the confusion? > > > > d/ > > > > > > -- > > Dave Crocker > > Brandenburg InternetWorking > > bbiw.net > > mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social > > > > -- > > 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 > > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True From johnl at iecc.com Mon Aug 7 17:55:32 2023 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 7 Aug 2023 20:55:32 -0400 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: <20230808003056.2BFD518C09E@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <20230808005534.35A4DFF99301@ary.qy> It appears that Noel Chiappa via Internet-history said: >"Internet" and 'internet' are different words, with _different meanings_. You know, sometimes it's time to let go. In principle there could be multiple disjoint internets but we succeeded beyond our wildest dreams and in practice it's all one internet or Internet. We surely have better things to grouse about. R's, John From dhc at dcrocker.net Mon Aug 7 17:59:37 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 17:59:37 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: <20230808005247.0684018C09F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20230808005247.0684018C09F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <14a20b6e-d358-a30a-0166-570a7be266f4@dcrocker.net> On 8/7/2023 5:52 PM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: > The characters you cite - ^C/^X/^V - are the Windows characters for those > commands. My fallible memory strong recalls using those characters on Tenex, in the early 70s. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From geoff at iconia.com Mon Aug 7 18:04:30 2023 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 18:04:30 -0700 Subject: [ih] ed, ex & vi (unix text editor) Message-ID: "... History and influence The ed text editor was one of the first three key elements of the Unix operating system?assembler, editor, and shell?developed by Ken Thompson in August 1969 on a PDP-7 at AT&T Bell Labs.[2] Many features of ed came from the qed text editor developed at Thompson's alma mater University of California, Berkeley.[4] Thompson was very familiar with qed, and had reimplemented it on the CTSS and Multics systems. Thompson's versions of qed were notable as the first to implement regular expressions. Regular expressions are also implemented in ed, though their implementation is considerably less general than that in qed. Dennis M. Ritchie produced what Doug McIlroy later described as the "definitive" ed,[5] and aspects of ed went on to influence ex, which in turn spawned vi. The non-interactive Unix command grep was inspired by a common special use of qed and later ed, where the command g/re/p performs a global regular expression search and prints the lines containing matches. The Unix stream editor, sed implemented many of the scripting features of qed that were not supported by ed on Unix.[6]... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_(text_editor) -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True From jack at 3kitty.org Mon Aug 7 18:14:45 2023 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 18:14:45 -0700 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: <20230808005534.35A4DFF99301@ary.qy> References: <20230808005534.35A4DFF99301@ary.qy> Message-ID: On 8/7/23 17:55, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: > In principle there could be > multiple disjoint internets but we succeeded beyond our wildest dreams > and in practice it's all one internet or Internet. In reality, there definitely were multiple disjoint internets.?? I was involved in running one of them about 30 years ago.? We were not alone.? It was straightforward for a corporation to build its internal internet (aka "intranet"), and keep it physically separate from the Internet.?? We managed our own address space and other administrative matters separately from the Internet administration.?? Various constrained interconnects, such as gateway machines for mail traffic or web servers, were used as needed.?? To "the Internet" we looked like a single machine. But I don't know what is "practice" today.?? Do corporations still have their own private internets??? Or have they actually all migrated to the Internet and somehow addressed all of the security concerns??? How did they get from there (private internets) to here (everyone on the Internet)?? In practice is everyone really on the Internet today? Hope I got the capitalization right..... Jack From geoff at iconia.com Mon Aug 7 18:18:56 2023 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 18:18:56 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: <14a20b6e-d358-a30a-0166-570a7be266f4@dcrocker.net> References: <20230808005247.0684018C09F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <14a20b6e-d358-a30a-0166-570a7be266f4@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: ^C on Tenex (and Tops-10) got you out of whatever program you were in and summarily returned you to the EXEC (@) or Monitor(.) on Tops-10 if you wanna trip down memory lane: ssh menu at tty.LivingComputers.org :D On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 5:59?PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > On 8/7/2023 5:52 PM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: > > The characters you cite - ^C/^X/^V - are the Windows characters for those > > commands. > > My fallible memory strong recalls using those characters on Tenex, in > the early 70s. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True From enervatron at gmail.com Mon Aug 7 18:24:28 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 18:24:28 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: References: <20230808005247.0684018C09F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <14a20b6e-d358-a30a-0166-570a7be266f4@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <358c2283-daf2-79f2-2ccb-24f83f238595@gmail.com> On 8/7/23 6:18 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history wrote: > ^C on Tenex (and Tops-10) got you out of whatever program you were in and > summarily returned you to the EXEC (@) or Monitor(.) on Tops-10 > > if you wanna trip down memory lane: > ssh menu at tty.LivingComputers.org > > :D That was true of both Unix and DEC OS's. With Unix, you had to go into raw vs baked mode which was possible with DEC OS's too, afaik (VMS had that ability too). So strictly speaking you could use ^C for editors too. Mike From cabo at tzi.org Mon Aug 7 18:26:25 2023 From: cabo at tzi.org (Carsten Bormann) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 03:26:25 +0200 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <28CFA364-8714-4521-AA53-B5CFC413DA6F@tzi.org> Sent from mobile, sorry for terse > On 8. Aug 2023, at 03:15, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > > In practice is everyone really on the Internet today? For a while, WebEx didn?t work at all when you actually were on the Internet. Only happens at IETF meetings these days ? From jack at 3kitty.org Mon Aug 7 18:39:21 2023 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 18:39:21 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: References: <20230808005247.0684018C09F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <14a20b6e-d358-a30a-0166-570a7be266f4@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <34b005ed-fce0-2d54-5fae-a754dc8f483a@3kitty.org> On 8/7/23 18:18, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history wrote: > sshmenu at tty.LivingComputers.org Tried to connect to the ITS machine (choice e)? -- it worked!?? But the machine says it's a TOPS20.... For another route down memory lane, you can bring up your own PDP-10 system today, using the original MIT ITS code, and use TECO et al. More of a DIY route (you have to build the computer and OS) but well documented.?? You can even bring up your PDP-10 on the Internet. https://github.com/PDP-10/its Jack From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Mon Aug 7 19:01:13 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 14:01:13 +1200 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: References: <20230808005534.35A4DFF99301@ary.qy> Message-ID: On 08-Aug-23 13:14, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > On 8/7/23 17:55, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: >> In principle there could be >> multiple disjoint internets but we succeeded beyond our wildest dreams >> and in practice it's all one internet or Internet. > > In reality, there definitely were multiple disjoint internets.?? I was > involved in running one of them about 30 years ago.? We were not alone. > It was straightforward for a corporation to build its internal internet > (aka "intranet"), and keep it physically separate from the Internet. > We managed our own address space and other administrative matters > separately from the Internet administration.?? Various constrained > interconnects, such as gateway machines for mail traffic or web servers, > were used as needed.?? To "the Internet" we looked like a single machine. > > But I don't know what is "practice" today.?? Do corporations still have > their own private internets??? Or have they actually all migrated to the > Internet and somehow addressed all of the security concerns??? How did > they get from there (private internets) to here (everyone on the > Internet)?? In practice is everyone really on the Internet today? I'd say No, but then I'm a co-author of RFC 8799, which not everybody likes. > Hope I got the capitalization right..... I gave up worrying too much when i first encountered stev knowles. brian > > Jack > From johnl at iecc.com Mon Aug 7 19:04:12 2023 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 7 Aug 2023 22:04:12 -0400 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20230808020412.64FBEFF9A516@ary.qy> It appears that Jack Haverty via Internet-history said: >But I don't know what is "practice" today.?? Do corporations still have >their own private internets??? Or have they actually all migrated to the >Internet and somehow addressed all of the security concerns? Give or take religious arguments about whether you're really on the internet if you're beind a NAT, I think everyone has connected their internal netorks with various sorts of firewalls trying to keep out the bad stuff. It's just too painful if people can't get access to the external resources they're used to using. If they really tried to block external access I expect people would just use their phones to get to the stuff they want. R's, John From dhc at dcrocker.net Mon Aug 7 19:07:03 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 19:07:03 -0700 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: References: <20230808005534.35A4DFF99301@ary.qy> Message-ID: <6314903b-0abe-9edc-6801-1f5ca41a4d9a@dcrocker.net> On 8/7/2023 7:01 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > but then I'm a co-author of RFC 8799, which not everybody likes. Brian, given your considerable experience with the IETF, I find this assertion quite surprising. It is predicated on the belief that this is an RFC that everybody likes. As if. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From dhc at dcrocker.net Mon Aug 7 19:09:50 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 19:09:50 -0700 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: References: <20230808005534.35A4DFF99301@ary.qy> Message-ID: <6fe86171-bd18-d079-43a2-1ef7dadbc12f@dcrocker.net> On 8/7/2023 6:14 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > But I don't know what is "practice" today.?? Do corporations still > have their own private internets??? Or have they actually all migrated > to the Internet and somehow addressed all of the security concerns? I suggest a simple basis for answering this: 1. Posit 'global' operational semantics.? Ports, DNS, etc. 2. If a network constrains or alters that semantic, it is an Internet, but is not (fully) part of /the/ Internet. Split DNS becomes an obvious example. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From touch at strayalpha.com Mon Aug 7 19:24:40 2023 From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 19:24:40 -0700 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: <6fe86171-bd18-d079-43a2-1ef7dadbc12f@dcrocker.net> References: <20230808005534.35A4DFF99301@ary.qy> <6fe86171-bd18-d079-43a2-1ef7dadbc12f@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <2A06D7C2-F9C2-42B4-8347-E9F568D4F55B@strayalpha.com> > On Aug 7, 2023, at 7:09 PM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > > On 8/7/2023 6:14 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >> But I don't know what is "practice" today. Do corporations still have their own private internets? Or have they actually all migrated to the Internet and somehow addressed all of the security concerns? > > I suggest a simple basis for answering this: > > 1. Posit 'global' operational semantics. Ports, DNS, etc. https://www.strayalpha.com/internet-rights/ > 2. If a network constrains or alters that semantic, it is an Internet, > but is not (fully) part of /the/ Internet. It *could be* an internet. The question is what?s ?an internet? at that point - just using IP won?t work as a definition. But yeah, IMO, basically. Joe From touch at strayalpha.com Mon Aug 7 21:18:32 2023 From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 21:18:32 -0700 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: <0412488c-d2aa-48d5-9be0-0e60d21a6f09@bbiw.net> References: <20230808005534.35A4DFF99301@ary.qy> <6fe86171-bd18-d079-43a2-1ef7dadbc12f@dcrocker.net> <2A06D7C2-F9C2-42B4-8347-E9F568D4F55B@strayalpha.com> <0412488c-d2aa-48d5-9be0-0e60d21a6f09@bbiw.net> Message-ID: <0CA32E2A-A335-47A9-B106-5E1E0A816FFB@strayalpha.com> ? Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist www.strayalpha.com > On Aug 7, 2023, at 9:09 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > From: touch at strayalpha.com > To: dcrocker at bbiw.net > CC: Jack Haverty ; Internet History list ; Dave Crocker > Date: Aug 7, 2023 7:25:04 PM > Subject: Re: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" > >> On Aug 7, 2023, at 7:09 PM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >> >> On 8/7/2023 6:14 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >>> But I don't know what is "practice" today. Do corporations still have their own private internets? Or have they actually all migrated to the Internet and somehow addressed all of the security concerns? >> >> I suggest a simple basis for answering this: >> >> 1. Posit 'global' operational semantics. Ports, DNS, etc. > > https://www.strayalpha.com/internet-rights/ > >> 2. If a network constrains or alters that semantic, it is an Internet, >> but is not (fully) part of /the/ Internet. > > It *could be* an internet. The question is what?s ?an internet? at that point - just using IP won?t work as a definition. > > But yeah, IMO, basically. > > Joe > > Why? Others pointed out - too many other ways to create partitions. I gave details and reasons in the list above. Joe From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Mon Aug 7 21:21:02 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 16:21:02 +1200 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: <6314903b-0abe-9edc-6801-1f5ca41a4d9a@dcrocker.net> References: <20230808005534.35A4DFF99301@ary.qy> <6314903b-0abe-9edc-6801-1f5ca41a4d9a@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <5b8d632b-6bf9-e045-3414-bcb52419831f@gmail.com> My syntax was ambiguous. I meant: not everybody likes the RFC. On 08-Aug-23 14:07, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 8/7/2023 7:01 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >> but then I'm a co-author of RFC 8799, which not everybody likes. > > > Brian, given your considerable experience with the IETF, I find this > assertion quite surprising. > > It is predicated on the belief that this is an RFC that everybody likes. > > As if. > > d/ > From lars at nocrew.org Mon Aug 7 22:44:47 2023 From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2023 05:44:47 +0000 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history's message of "Mon, 7 Aug 2023 17:53:16 -0700") References: Message-ID: <7w5y5qf5ps.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Geoff Goodfellow wrote: > Steve Crocker wrote: >> I used EMACS regularly at MIT in the late 60s. > steve, yours truly is a bit perplexed how you could have been using "EMACS > regularly at MIT in the late 60s" when: > "... The original EMACS was written in 1976 by David A. Moon and Guy L. > Steele Jr. [...]" Wikipedia is right in this case. However, ^R mode was quite close to EMACS several years before that. In the late 60s it would have been TECO, which has copy (X for copy to Q-reg) and paste (G for insert from Q-reg). From lars at nocrew.org Mon Aug 7 22:52:42 2023 From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2023 05:52:42 +0000 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: <7da90dc7-9fbd-15ba-39f7-c90e5fc38c19@gmail.com> (Michael Thomas via Internet-history's message of "Mon, 7 Aug 2023 16:13:43 -0700") References: <7db63cf2-ac65-5d58-9b76-5d22afb7d834@gmail.com> <02eb8c35-f0e9-86bb-b9f0-5480188142ac@3kitty.org> <87696874-b518-ce1e-0ce0-7d938c072d68@gmail.com> <0d59fb37-ac9e-85e0-96a2-036d72a548ab@3kitty.org> <7da90dc7-9fbd-15ba-39f7-c90e5fc38c19@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7w1qgef5cl.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Michael Thomas wrote: > Was TECO only available on Tops 10? It was available on most DEC computers and operating systems. The story goes, Bob Clements brought a copy of TECO when the SAIL PDP-6 was installed in 1966, and ported it over to the Monitor. This somewhat impoverished version became the base for the DEC editors. From lars at nocrew.org Mon Aug 7 23:05:03 2023 From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2023 06:05:03 +0000 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history's message of "Mon, 7 Aug 2023 18:18:56 -0700") References: <20230808005247.0684018C09F@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <14a20b6e-d358-a30a-0166-570a7be266f4@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <7wr0oedq7k.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Geoff Goodfellow wrote: > ^C on Tenex (and Tops-10) got you out of whatever program you were in and > summarily returned you to the EXEC (@) or Monitor(.) on Tops-10 I'm probably the only person who have used Tenex in this millennium, and I can confirm ^C works this way. Jack Haverty wrote: >> sshmenu at tty.LivingComputers.org > > Tried to connect to the ITS machine (choice e)? -- it worked!?? But > the machine says it's a TOPS20.... It used to run ITS, but the DEC-2020 developed some hardware problem and is now running TOPS-20 instead. > For another route down memory lane, you can bring up your own PDP-10 > system today, using the original MIT ITS code, and use TECO et > al. More of a DIY route (you have to build the computer and OS) but > well documented. You can even bring up your PDP-10 on the Internet. Here is a less DIY alternative, only plain telnet required: telnet its.pdp10.se 10003 Type ^Z to start a session. From jaap at NLnetLabs.nl Tue Aug 8 00:45:21 2023 From: jaap at NLnetLabs.nl (Jaap Akkerhuis) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2023 09:45:21 +0200 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: <7da90dc7-9fbd-15ba-39f7-c90e5fc38c19@gmail.com> References: <7db63cf2-ac65-5d58-9b76-5d22afb7d834@gmail.com> <02eb8c35-f0e9-86bb-b9f0-5480188142ac@3kitty.org> <87696874-b518-ce1e-0ce0-7d938c072d68@gmail.com> <0d59fb37-ac9e-85e0-96a2-036d72a548ab@3kitty.org> <7da90dc7-9fbd-15ba-39f7-c90e5fc38c19@gmail.com> Message-ID: <202308080745.3787jLBF067803@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> Michael Thomas via Internet-history writes: > > > Was TECO only available on Tops 10? In the 70's we (Mathematisch Centrum) had a text processor (called 'tekstschaaf' -- text planer/slicer) written in TECO running on a PDP8-I under OS/7. jaap From scott.brim at gmail.com Tue Aug 8 06:01:44 2023 From: scott.brim at gmail.com (Scott Brim) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 09:01:44 -0400 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: <20230808003056.2BFD518C09E@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20230808003056.2BFD518C09E@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: Too late, Noel. The goal of language is communication. "Be liberal in what you accept". On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 8:31?PM Noel Chiappa via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > "Internet" and 'internet' are different words, with _different meanings_. > The arrogant morons at the AP were too stupid to understand that; I would > hope people here are smarter that them. > > 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 Aug 8 07:32:34 2023 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 10:32:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" Message-ID: <20230808143234.80A0818C0A7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: "John Levine" > You know, sometimes it's time to let go. We created a _second_ word (back before almost anyone else knew what an 'internet' even was) for use in our technical discussions, because we _needed_ a second term. It is not clear to me that that need has passed. (I am under the strong impression that there are still quite a few internets which are not connected to the Internet; just do a Web search for 'air gap'. Note that one can't even _say_ that observation without two different words.) Whether people who can exchange information with people conected to the Internet, but are not able to send IP packets to them directly, are 'on' the Internet is basically a marketing discussion in which I am utterly un-interested. (Note that this discussion has been around since the dawn of time; early on, people who were not directly conected to the Internet could often exchange email with those who were - were the former group 'on' the Internet?) The fact that 'ordinary' people (such as the afore-mentioned idiots at the AP) are confused in their terminology is not relevant. Ordinary people often speak of 'germs' - but that does not mean that micro-biologists have stopped carefully using the two terms 'bacteria' and 'virus'. For a micro-biologist to start using 'germ' in a technical discussion would be pretty much equivalent to wearing a 'kick me' sign - even though plenty of ordinary people use it. Noel From dhc at dcrocker.net Tue Aug 8 07:36:23 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 07:36:23 -0700 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: <20230808143234.80A0818C0A7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20230808143234.80A0818C0A7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <110c44f2-6f62-167a-d062-81e1f5552dd9@dcrocker.net> On 8/8/2023 7:32 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: > Whether people who can exchange information with people conected to the > Internet, but are not able to send IP packets to them directly, are 'on' the > Internet is basically a marketing discussion in which I am utterly > un-interested. fwiw... To Be "On" the Internet ? https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1775 d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From jeanjour at comcast.net Tue Aug 8 07:39:54 2023 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 10:39:54 -0400 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: <20230808143234.80A0818C0A7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20230808143234.80A0818C0A7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <42729733-9A53-41D8-84FD-200FE66FAF1C@comcast.net> +1 > On Aug 8, 2023, at 10:32, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: > >> From: "John Levine" > >> You know, sometimes it's time to let go. > > We created a _second_ word (back before almost anyone else knew what an > 'internet' even was) for use in our technical discussions, because we _needed_ > a second term. It is not clear to me that that need has passed. (I am under > the strong impression that there are still quite a few internets which are not > connected to the Internet; just do a Web search for 'air gap'. Note that one > can't even _say_ that observation without two different words.) > > Whether people who can exchange information with people conected to the > Internet, but are not able to send IP packets to them directly, are 'on' the > Internet is basically a marketing discussion in which I am utterly > un-interested. (Note that this discussion has been around since the dawn of > time; early on, people who were not directly conected to the Internet could > often exchange email with those who were - were the former group 'on' the > Internet?) > > The fact that 'ordinary' people (such as the afore-mentioned idiots at the > AP) are confused in their terminology is not relevant. Ordinary people often > speak of 'germs' - but that does not mean that micro-biologists have stopped > carefully using the two terms 'bacteria' and 'virus'. For a micro-biologist > to start using 'germ' in a technical discussion would be pretty much > equivalent to wearing a 'kick me' sign - even though plenty of > ordinary people use it. > > Noel > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From johnl at iecc.com Tue Aug 8 08:16:12 2023 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 8 Aug 2023 11:16:12 -0400 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: <20230808143234.80A0818C0A7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <20230808151614.3A2B1FFA14B3@ary.qy> It appears that Noel Chiappa via Internet-history said: > > From: "John Levine" > > > You know, sometimes it's time to let go. > ... >The fact that 'ordinary' people (such as the afore-mentioned idiots at the >AP) are confused in their terminology is not relevant. ... I understand the difference, but in retrospect, it wasn't a great idea to come up with two terms with different meanings that differ only in capitalization. (How does one pronounce internet and Internet?) Rather than telling the entire world that they are stupid, which is not a great way to change minds, perhaps we can come up with a snappy memorable term for a disconnected group of networks that exchange IP packets that doesn't look and sound exactly like a word that means something else. As already noted, there are lots of them in the IoT world, at least I hope there are. R's, John PS: Of course, XKCD has something to say on this topic: https://xkcd.com/1984/ From dhc at dcrocker.net Tue Aug 8 08:20:03 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 08:20:03 -0700 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: <20230808151614.3A2B1FFA14B3@ary.qy> References: <20230808151614.3A2B1FFA14B3@ary.qy> Message-ID: <691759b2-a66c-07cc-ba24-9ea4fe6b9d36@dcrocker.net> On 8/8/2023 8:16 AM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: > I understand the difference, but in retrospect, it wasn't a great idea > to come up with two terms with different meanings that differ only in > capitalization. (How does one pronounce internet and Internet?) Indeed. One MUST make the distinction from what others decide they must do. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From lori.emerson at gmail.com Tue Aug 8 08:20:44 2023 From: lori.emerson at gmail.com (Lori Emerson) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 09:20:44 -0600 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: <20230808151614.3A2B1FFA14B3@ary.qy> References: <20230808143234.80A0818C0A7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <20230808151614.3A2B1FFA14B3@ary.qy> Message-ID: Hi all, just to chime in from Lurker Land, I've thought for awhile it's also (or more?) interesting to consider how and why the two terms have become conflated in the same way that internet (which incidentally certain formats like MLA have determined should now always be lower case) has become conflated with the web. I don't blame reporters or writers - I think it's more reflective of a general, depressing shift toward homogeneity since the 1970s. yours, Lori On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 9:16?AM John Levine via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > It appears that Noel Chiappa via Internet-history > said: > > > From: "John Levine" > > > > > You know, sometimes it's time to let go. > > ... > > >The fact that 'ordinary' people (such as the afore-mentioned idiots at the > >AP) are confused in their terminology is not relevant. ... > > I understand the difference, but in retrospect, it wasn't a great idea > to come up with two terms with different meanings that differ only in > capitalization. (How does one pronounce internet and Internet?) > > Rather than telling the entire world that they are stupid, which is > not a great way to change minds, perhaps we can come up with a snappy > memorable term for a disconnected group of networks that exchange IP > packets that doesn't look and sound exactly like a word that means > something else. As already noted, there are lots of them in the IoT > world, at least I hope there are. > > R's, > John > > PS: Of course, XKCD has something to say on this topic: > > https://xkcd.com/1984/ > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- Lori Emerson, KF?LCB | she/her/they/them Associate Professor | Media Studies Department Director | Intermedia Arts, Writing, and Performance Program Director | Media Archaeology Lab University of Colorado Boulder Traditional territories of the Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Ute Nations @loriemerson at postlurk.org | loriemerson.net | mediaarchaeologylab.com From touch at strayalpha.com Tue Aug 8 08:32:54 2023 From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 08:32:54 -0700 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: <20230808151614.3A2B1FFA14B3@ary.qy> References: <20230808151614.3A2B1FFA14B3@ary.qy> Message-ID: <8BA19E15-F332-4CEE-A06A-1F10EC68EAD1@strayalpha.com> On Aug 8, 2023, at 8:16 AM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: > > It appears that Noel Chiappa via Internet-history > said: >>> From: "John Levine" > >> >>> You know, sometimes it's time to let go. >> ... > >> The fact that 'ordinary' people (such as the afore-mentioned idiots at the >> AP) are confused in their terminology is not relevant. ... > > I understand the difference, but in retrospect, it wasn't a great idea > to come up with two terms with different meanings that differ only in > capitalization. (How does one pronounce internet and Internet?) May and may? March and march? Turkey and turkey? There?s even a term for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitonym#:~:text=A%20capitonym%20is%20a%20word,capital%20with%20the%20suffix%20%2Donym. And don?t get me started with IPsec. Joe (not joe, i.e., coffee) Touch (not touch, the verb) From johnl at iecc.com Tue Aug 8 09:15:47 2023 From: johnl at iecc.com (John R. Levine) Date: 8 Aug 2023 12:15:47 -0400 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" (fwd) Message-ID: <817d284b-cfbe-19a2-a357-ce9f3e85b2ce@iecc.com> On Tue, 8 Aug 2023, Clem Cole wrote: > John, in all respect to your observation and desire, you have a nice idea; > but I believe that history has shown it does not work that way. > > In fact, while Noel points out the media like the AP, is misusing the > terms; They're not misusing the term, they're reminding us that we don't get to tell the world what to do, nor what the definition of a word (or Word) is. > FWIW: this is hardly the first or only time when the media as well > as members of society have taken a term and implied something different > than what it actually means. See above. It would be nice if we were lingustic kings of the world, but we're not. As I said before, we're not going to impress anyone or make any friends by insisting that we are. So what's a snappy term for a private group of IP networks? Intranet is alrady taken. R's, John From geoff at iconia.com Tue Aug 8 09:52:10 2023 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 09:52:10 -0700 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: that was a really excellent "little bit" steve... if yours truly may add a little bit more to "I'm interrupted by a chat request from Lukasik" vis-a-vis the "chat request": that was known as the LINK command in the Tenex EXEC, where you could say LINK USERNAME or link TTY# and your terminal session and the other person's terminal session would be summarily LINKED to each other -- where each would see exactly what the other was seeing... IIRC up to 5 terminals could be LINKED together... ERGO, after Lukasik LINKED to you, he likely just typed out the memo file on his terminal which of course came out on yours. when terminals were linked to one another, we would proceed our text with an ";" -- which was the EXEC's "comment" character, i.e. @; hi there @; what's up? [...] with the occasional "flub" of where one would forget to proceed their comment with the ";" and the EXEC would then interpret it as commands... with sometimes "unusual" results... later, a program named TALK was written what just took what was typed into it and did nothing with it... although it did have a nice feature in that you could type stuff in without RETURNs and it would automatically insert line breaks (CR's) after 60 some odd characters or so... recalling that in those days we mostly had Teletype Model 33 ASR's (or KSR's) that were only upper case and had a line length of 72 characters (and printed out at 110 baud, or 10 characters per second CPS) one last thing about LINKing on Tenex: if you were a WHEEL (I.e. privileged user) it was possible to do one-way LINKS -- i.e. SPY on a terminal or user... this was most useful for monitoring the CTY and/or TTY0 which is where the monitor (or system daemon's/sysjob's) would spit out "issues". geoff On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 9:24?AM Steve Crocker wrote: > Adding a little bit to your summary: > > I was in (D)ARPA/IPTO from mid 1971 to mid 1974. When I arrived, the > Arpanet had been in operation for almost two years. IPTO consisted of the > director (Larry Roberts), three program managers (Bruce Dolan, John Perry, > me), a senior non-technical person who handled our budgets and > related matters (Al Blue), and two secretaries. Steve Lukasik was the > (D)ARPA director and hence Larry's boss. I write (D)ARPA here because the > agency was christened the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and > embedded within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) in 1958. On 1 > July 1972 it was moved out of OSD and became a separate Defense Agency. In > the process, it acquitted the initial D, i.e. Defense Advanced Research > Projects Agency, hence DARPA. The transition made essentially no > difference in our mission or operation. > > A short time later, we had a TIP installed in the office. This meant we > could connect a large number of terminals. Everyone in our office had a > terminal on the desk, and soon others through the agency had terminals > too. Lukasik was a strong proponent and soon required that each of his > direct reports, i.e. the directors of the other Offices, use email to > communicate with him. Each of us was also given an account on the Tenex > machine at the new USC Information Sciences Institute (USC-ISI). > > Lukasik used email to transform the way he conducted business. Even > though we were all housed in the same office building -- 1400 Wilson Blvd, > Arlington, VA, where a plaque now stands commemorating the creation of the > Arpanet -- and could meet face to face easily, he found email made it > possible for him to reorganize his time and attention. (More on this > below.) > > The earliest made reader we had was RD. I believe Roberts wrote. He was > a very competent TECO hacker, and he whipped it up quickly. In that > version, mail was stored in a continuous file. In some later mail systems, > each message was in a separate file, but at the beginning all of a user's > mail was in a continuous file. These files grew fairly quickly. Moving to > a particular message became a slow process. > > I too was a fairly competent TECO hacker. I took a look and realized why > it was taking too long to find a message. In the file, each message was > preceded by a line that had a string indicating it was the beginning of a > message and a count of the number of characters in the message. In > principle, that should have made it quick to move forward in the file from > one message to the next. However, that count didn't coincide with the > actual number of characters in the file. When the count was created, it > treated the end of each line as one character, the newline character (NL), > but when the message arrived, it became two characters, carriage return > (CR) followed by line feed (LF). Hence the TECO code had a loop that moved > forward one character at a time until it found the beginning of the next > message. Very slow. (I might be misremembering and reversing these > effects, but either way it was the discrepancy between the way ends of > lines were demarcated at the point of creation and the the way ends of > lines were demarcated on the receiving side.) > > I replaced that loop with code that skipped forward a line at a time and > then adjusted the number of characters it still had to go. The speedup was > dramatic. > > Above I alluded to changes in Lukasik's management style. My primary > focus while I was at (D)ARPA was the AI portfolio, i.e., MIT, CMU, > Stanford, SRI and BN and others. AI was unquestionably a long term bet. > (D)ARPA's usual profile was heavy funding of some area for five years or so > to trigger a large change. ("A factor of ten, not ten percent" was the > common catchphrase.). We knew AI was a *much* longer trek. Fifty years, > most likely. That meant it was a constant challenge to protect the funding > and explain the research to Congress. > > In the UK, Science Research Council, the UK counterpart to the US NSF, had > been funding Donald Michie's AI research at the University of Edinburgh. > According to a 29 June 1973 news article in Science, "In early 1972 Sir > James Lighthill of Cambridge University undertook to survey the field of > artificial intelligence (AI) for the Science Research Council of Britain." > His report was dismissive of AI and had a strongly negative influence on AI > funding in the UK. Toward the end of the Science news article, the > following was embedded: > > Even granting that AI is an intellectually important area for research, it > is fair to ask whether the field is using its resources wisely. The > Lighthill report suggests that, in the United States especially, little > attention has been given to this question, in part because there has been a > relatively assured source of funding. As is true for computer science in > general, research on AI is pre-dominantly supported by the Defense > Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), which provides about $4.5 million > a year. > > 29 July 1973 was a Friday. That evening I was sitting at my terminal at > home. Abruptly, I'm interrupted by a chat request from Lukasik. I had no > idea he even knew how to do that. After we were connected, he asked if he > printed something on his terminal, would I see it? I assured him I would. > Immediately a ten point memo starts printing on my terminal. He's > concerned that Congress might see this comment in Science and take aim at > our AI program. His memo dealt with possible press or Congressional > questions, coordination internally, etc. I understood completely he > perceived a possible threat and was making sure we were manning the > ramparts. Fortunately, the attack never came. Even so, we did have a > session in the office on a Sunday afternoon later in the summer watching a > taped copy of the debate between McCarthy and Lighthill. > > AI wars aside, the relevance to this thread is how quickly and effectively > Lukasik absorbed the new technology and put it to use. > > Steve > > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 8:48?PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via > Internet-history wrote: > >> "... In 1969 Roberts became director of the Information Processing >> Techniques Office at ARPA. In 1971 he wrote one of the first e-mail >> programs, RD, which for the first time allowed users to save, delete, and >> organize their messages.... >> so sez: >> https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lawrence-Roberts >> >> while >> >> https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/1999-00/internet/email.html >> sez: >> >> ...The Rise of Email by way of Convenient Mail-Managers >> >> Stephen Lukasik, one of ARPA's directors from 1971-75 might be one of the >> most important advocates of email in its young age. He strongly encouraged >> his staff to use email. It was even considered the most effective way to >> reach Lukasik. Close friends and colleagues with Larry Roberts, Lukasik >> confided to Roberts in 1973 that he was beginning to face problems >> organizing the chaotic pile of messages received each day. (At this point, >> in a study conducted by ARPA under Lukasik's direction discovered that 75% >> of all ARPANET traffic was in the form of email.) Not to mention, reading >> and responding to the messages was, as of yet not a simple matter. In >> response, Roberts wrote the first "mail-manager software," RD. Its >> functions included displaying a menu of messages and allowing the user to >> file messages and delete messages. This inspired an outburst of variations >> on the mail manager. A legendary variation, MSG was created in 1975 by >> John >> Vittal. MSG quickly became the most widely used mail-management program >> due >> to its convenient features. It could handle an even greater amount of mail >> than RD, could sort messages into separate files, and most importantly, >> reply and forward with much greater ease. MSG also spawned a large amount >> of variations... >> >> [any others?] >> >> -- >> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com >> living as The Truth is True >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True From mark at good-stuff.co.uk Tue Aug 8 10:10:25 2023 From: mark at good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 18:10:25 +0100 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: <20230808151614.3A2B1FFA14B3@ary.qy> References: <20230808151614.3A2B1FFA14B3@ary.qy> Message-ID: <7060a65f-7f5e-17ea-3899-f0ee62770c3e@good-stuff.co.uk> On 08/08/2023 16:16, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: > It appears that Noel Chiappa via Internet-history said: >> > From: "John Levine" >> >> > You know, sometimes it's time to let go. >> ... > >> The fact that 'ordinary' people (such as the afore-mentioned idiots at the >> AP) are confused in their terminology is not relevant. ... > > I understand the difference, but in retrospect, it wasn't a great idea > to come up with two terms with different meanings that differ only in > capitalization. (How does one pronounce internet and Internet?) Indeed. I don't know about other countries (and, in particular, I don't know about US law in this context), but, in English law, words in legal documents are explicitly case-insensitive. So "internet" and "Internet" (and, for that matter, "InterNet", "interNet" and "INTERNET", and any other variations thereof) are always treated in law as being exactly the same word. Moreover, "internet", like any other word, is always capitalised at the start of a sentence (unless you are e.e. cummings), and, in many publication house styles, capitalised when part of a headline or title (aka title case). Now, of course, there are words which typically have different meanings when capitalised in the run of text. My own name, Mark, is one of them - "mark" usually means something different. There's a common quiz question about the only word which changes its pronunciation when capitalised (the answer is polish/Polish, for those who haven't seen it before). But these are simple coincidences caused by homophones where one is a proper noun and the other is not. So in cases where the normally lower case version appears in title case or at the start of a sentence, you can usually still distinguish by context. That doesn't apply to internet/Internet. They're not merely unrelated homophones, because they both have the same etymology and, mostly, mean the same thing (an interconnected network). And that means you can't easily distinguish between them by context when they're in title case. So trying to maintain a distinction between them simply isn't going to fly, out there in the world of people who use English in its normal, non-technical sense and follow normal, non-technical rules of grammar. Which is, these days, the vast majority of people who actually use the Internet. Or the internet. I still capitalise Internet, even in a context where everybody else is merrily using it in lower case. But I've been around long enough to be the kind of contrary old git who also gets annoyed at people who ask a barista "can I get..." when what they mean is "please will you get me...". And don't get me started on the way that "hacker" now means what "cracker" once did. But. Language changes. And, sometimes, those who use language wisely can recognise when some of our own previous choices were suboptimal. Trying to enforce a distinction between Internet and internet is precisely one such error that's best left in the past. > Rather than telling the entire world that they are stupid, which is > not a great way to change minds, perhaps we can come up with a snappy > memorable term for a disconnected group of networks that exchange IP > packets that doesn't look and sound exactly like a word that means > something else. As already noted, there are lots of them in the IoT > world, at least I hope there are. Absolutely. Mark From jack at 3kitty.org Tue Aug 8 10:13:03 2023 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 10:13:03 -0700 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" (fwd) In-Reply-To: <817d284b-cfbe-19a2-a357-ce9f3e85b2ce@iecc.com> References: <817d284b-cfbe-19a2-a357-ce9f3e85b2ce@iecc.com> Message-ID: IMHO, the definition of words changes over time.?? A word created in one small community can eventually escape into the larger world. Hundreds of people know precisely what a word means when their community defined it.? Billions of people in the larger world dictate what that word actually means as it gets into common use. The word "Internet", however you capitalize it, was created in our own technocracy 50+ years ago.? It has since escaped into the wide world and, IMHO, is now defined by how billions of people use it. My neighbors, doctors, lawyers, et al, don't speak the language of our familiar acronyms - (TCP, UDP, DKIM, SMTP, HTML, etc.), but they all know what the Internet is.?? They use it every day. Personally, my definition of "Internet" is based on Licklider's vision of "Galactic Network" that he explained in memos back in the early 1960s.? Lick was my thesis advisor and later boss at MIT for much of the 1970s, and I was thoroughly indoctrinated into his vision. Paraphrasing, the "Galactic Network" is the collection of computers scattered over a wide area (a galaxy?) interacting by some mechanism, and supporting people in doing everything people do. That definition encompasses a lot of machinery - computers, networks, software, applications, servers, services, protocols, algorithms, and everything else involved in how collections of cooperating computers assist all kinds of human activity. The "Galactic Network" contains the Internet, all private internets and intranets, all computers, and all software running on those computers, as long as they can all somehow interact with each other in some way. Good history at https://historyofcomputercommunications.info/section/4.1/the-intergalactic-network-1962-1964/ and one of Lick's early memos is at https://www.thekurzweillibrary.com/memorandum-for-members-and-affiliates-of-the-intergalactic-computer-network To me, and apparently to my non-techie neighbors and the general public, Lick's "Galactic Network" is pretty close to what we all experience today.? They just call it "the Internet", or "the 'net". ----- Concepts also change over time.? Fifty years ago, being "on the net" meant you were actively using some remote computer.? Perhaps it was using Telnet or FTP, or sending email.?? Everything else you did with your computer was local - editting files, preparing documents, creating a spreadsheet, whatever.?? You went "onto the net" as a human, used it, and then disconnected. Today is quite different.? In my house, there are over 50 computers with IP addresses.? They're all active, many even when I'm away or asleep.?? They're communicating with other computers somewhere out there, hopefully doing things that are helping me do what I do. Just last week, a computer somewhere out there finally found a Raspberry Pi in stock at some retailer and sent me a text message to alert me to go buy it.? The alarm bell on my phone woke me up.?? I could have arranged for the purchase to happen automatically and a box would just appear on my doorstep without any action on my part; but I'm not comfortable with giving up that much control yet. Was I "on the net" while all those computers were making that happen? The Network Is The Computer.?? The Computer Is The Network.?? Pick your favorite phrase.? IMHO, the Internet is Lick's "Galactic Network", version 0.8 with a lot of refinement yet to be done. Jack Haverty From jeanjour at comcast.net Tue Aug 8 10:18:25 2023 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 13:18:25 -0400 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" (fwd) In-Reply-To: <817d284b-cfbe-19a2-a357-ce9f3e85b2ce@iecc.com> References: <817d284b-cfbe-19a2-a357-ce9f3e85b2ce@iecc.com> Message-ID: They aren?t kings of the language either. English doesn?t have an Academy. It is determined by usage. So we should use it as we see fit. We have as much right to tell the world how to use it as they do. To some degree, more. > On Aug 8, 2023, at 12:15, John R. Levine via Internet-history wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Aug 2023, Clem Cole wrote: >> John, in all respect to your observation and desire, you have a nice idea; >> but I believe that history has shown it does not work that way. >> In fact, while Noel points out the media like the AP, is misusing the >> terms; > > They're not misusing the term, they're reminding us that we don't get to tell the world what to do, nor what the definition of a word (or Word) is. > >> FWIW: this is hardly the first or only time when the media as well >> as members of society have taken a term and implied something different >> than what it actually means. > > See above. It would be nice if we were lingustic kings of the world, but we're not. As I said before, we're not going to impress anyone or make any friends by insisting that we are. > > So what's a snappy term for a private group of IP networks? Intranet is alrady taken. > > R's, > John > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From geoff at iconia.com Tue Aug 8 10:20:27 2023 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 10:20:27 -0700 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Steve's reply to yours truly apparently didn't go out to the IH list (or appear in the archives at ttps://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history ) ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Steve Crocker Date: Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 9:24?AM Subject: Re: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] To: the keyboard of geoff goodfellow Cc: Internet-history , Steve Crocker < steve at shinkuro.com> Adding a little bit to your summary: I was in (D)ARPA/IPTO from mid 1971 to mid 1974. When I arrived, the Arpanet had been in operation for almost two years. IPTO consisted of the director (Larry Roberts), three program managers (Bruce Dolan, John Perry, me), a senior non-technical person who handled our budgets and related matters (Al Blue), and two secretaries. Steve Lukasik was the (D)ARPA director and hence Larry's boss. I write (D)ARPA here because the agency was christened the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and embedded within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) in 1958. On 1 July 1972 it was moved out of OSD and became a separate Defense Agency. In the process, it acquitted the initial D, i.e. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, hence DARPA. The transition made essentially no difference in our mission or operation. A short time later, we had a TIP installed in the office. This meant we could connect a large number of terminals. Everyone in our office had a terminal on the desk, and soon others through the agency had terminals too. Lukasik was a strong proponent and soon required that each of his direct reports, i.e. the directors of the other Offices, use email to communicate with him. Each of us was also given an account on the Tenex machine at the new USC Information Sciences Institute (USC-ISI). Lukasik used email to transform the way he conducted business. Even though we were all housed in the same office building -- 1400 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA, where a plaque now stands commemorating the creation of the Arpanet -- and could meet face to face easily, he found email made it possible for him to reorganize his time and attention. (More on this below.) The earliest made reader we had was RD. I believe Roberts wrote. He was a very competent TECO hacker, and he whipped it up quickly. In that version, mail was stored in a continuous file. In some later mail systems, each message was in a separate file, but at the beginning all of a user's mail was in a continuous file. These files grew fairly quickly. Moving to a particular message became a slow process. I too was a fairly competent TECO hacker. I took a look and realized why it was taking too long to find a message. In the file, each message was preceded by a line that had a string indicating it was the beginning of a message and a count of the number of characters in the message. In principle, that should have made it quick to move forward in the file from one message to the next. However, that count didn't coincide with the actual number of characters in the file. When the count was created, it treated the end of each line as one character, the newline character (NL), but when the message arrived, it became two characters, carriage return (CR) followed by line feed (LF). Hence the TECO code had a loop that moved forward one character at a time until it found the beginning of the next message. Very slow. (I might be misremembering and reversing these effects, but either way it was the discrepancy between the way ends of lines were demarcated at the point of creation and the the way ends of lines were demarcated on the receiving side.) I replaced that loop with code that skipped forward a line at a time and then adjusted the number of characters it still had to go. The speedup was dramatic. Above I alluded to changes in Lukasik's management style. My primary focus while I was at (D)ARPA was the AI portfolio, i.e., MIT, CMU, Stanford, SRI and BN and others. AI was unquestionably a long term bet. (D)ARPA's usual profile was heavy funding of some area for five years or so to trigger a large change. ("A factor of ten, not ten percent" was the common catchphrase.). We knew AI was a *much* longer trek. Fifty years, most likely. That meant it was a constant challenge to protect the funding and explain the research to Congress. In the UK, Science Research Council, the UK counterpart to the US NSF, had been funding Donald Michie's AI research at the University of Edinburgh. According to a 29 June 1973 news article in Science, "In early 1972 Sir James Lighthill of Cambridge University undertook to survey the field of artificial intelligence (AI) for the Science Research Council of Britain." His report was dismissive of AI and had a strongly negative influence on AI funding in the UK. Toward the end of the Science news article, the following was embedded: Even granting that AI is an intellectually important area for research, it is fair to ask whether the field is using its resources wisely. The Lighthill report suggests that, in the United States especially, little attention has been given to this question, in part because there has been a relatively assured source of funding. As is true for computer science in general, research on AI is pre-dominantly supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), which provides about $4.5 million a year. 29 July 1973 was a Friday. That evening I was sitting at my terminal at home. Abruptly, I'm interrupted by a chat request from Lukasik. I had no idea he even knew how to do that. After we were connected, he asked if he printed something on his terminal, would I see it? I assured him I would. Immediately a ten point memo starts printing on my terminal. He's concerned that Congress might see this comment in Science and take aim at our AI program. His memo dealt with possible press or Congressional questions, coordination internally, etc. I understood completely he perceived a possible threat and was making sure we were manning the ramparts. Fortunately, the attack never came. Even so, we did have a session in the office on a Sunday afternoon later in the summer watching a taped copy of the debate between McCarthy and Lighthill. AI wars aside, the relevance to this thread is how quickly and effectively Lukasik absorbed the new technology and put it to use. Steve On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 8:48?PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history wrote: > "... In 1969 Roberts became director of the Information Processing > Techniques Office at ARPA. In 1971 he wrote one of the first e-mail > programs, RD, which for the first time allowed users to save, delete, and > organize their messages.... > so sez: > https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lawrence-Roberts > > while > > https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/1999-00/internet/email.html > sez: > > ...The Rise of Email by way of Convenient Mail-Managers > > Stephen Lukasik, one of ARPA's directors from 1971-75 might be one of the > most important advocates of email in its young age. He strongly encouraged > his staff to use email. It was even considered the most effective way to > reach Lukasik. Close friends and colleagues with Larry Roberts, Lukasik > confided to Roberts in 1973 that he was beginning to face problems > organizing the chaotic pile of messages received each day. (At this point, > in a study conducted by ARPA under Lukasik's direction discovered that 75% > of all ARPANET traffic was in the form of email.) Not to mention, reading > and responding to the messages was, as of yet not a simple matter. In > response, Roberts wrote the first "mail-manager software," RD. Its > functions included displaying a menu of messages and allowing the user to > file messages and delete messages. This inspired an outburst of variations > on the mail manager. A legendary variation, MSG was created in 1975 by John > Vittal. MSG quickly became the most widely used mail-management program due > to its convenient features. It could handle an even greater amount of mail > than RD, could sort messages into separate files, and most importantly, > reply and forward with much greater ease. MSG also spawned a large amount > of variations... > > [any others?] > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True From jeanjour at comcast.net Tue Aug 8 11:10:45 2023 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 14:10:45 -0400 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <027A3D83-C4DF-4300-A5AB-B28831C5AFDF@comcast.net> In 1972 maybe late 71, (I think it was Ross Callon from Case, a recent BBN hire) used the LINK command to create the first teleconferencing program. At least that is what we called it then. It was more like the Instant Messaging programs of latter. It was a bit of a kludge, because it couldn?t keep different messages separate. ;-) Just like when two people used the LINK command. ;-) Remember Tenex was character-at-a-time. So if someone said something and more than one person started to respond, it would interleave their responses character by character as it received them! ;-) So we had to work out who had the floor ourselves. ;-) But even so we had some lively discussions in the evenings, in fact most every evening, and were collaborating on how to do an application like that better and other software ideas. I don?t remember who all else was involved except John Iseli who started the ARPANET NEWS. My recollection is that that there was a paper or two at ICCC?72 on this form of teleconferencing, but I am not sure it used this application. About the same time, I did some figuring on how eventually one could put academic journals on line. The impetus was that in the biological sciences, they couldn?t publish many photos from electron microscopes because they had to be high resolution and it was expensive. So they had to be very selective in what the published. It was obvious that once it could be online, they could publish as many photos as they wanted. I did a little background digging into it as to what it would require. I think one of our people wrote a paper on that too. I might even have some transcripts from our sessions some place if they are still readable (They are on that heat-sensitive paper from Silent700s). If I don?t have them CBI does. Take care, John > On Aug 8, 2023, at 12:52, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history wrote: > > that was a really excellent "little bit" steve... if yours truly may add a > little bit more to "I'm interrupted by a chat request from Lukasik" > vis-a-vis the "chat request": > > that was known as the LINK command in the Tenex EXEC, where you could say > LINK USERNAME or link TTY# and your terminal session and the other person's > terminal session would be summarily LINKED to each other -- where each > would see exactly what the other was seeing... IIRC up to 5 terminals could > be LINKED together... ERGO, after Lukasik LINKED to you, he likely just > typed out the memo file on his terminal which of course came out on yours. > > when terminals were linked to one another, we would proceed our text with > an ";" -- which was the EXEC's "comment" character, i.e. > @; hi there > @; what's up? > [...] > with the occasional "flub" of where one would forget to proceed their > comment with the ";" and the EXEC would then interpret it as commands... > with sometimes "unusual" results... later, a program named TALK was written > what just took what was typed into it and did nothing with it... although > it did have a nice feature in that you could type stuff in without RETURNs > and it would automatically insert line breaks (CR's) after 60 some odd > characters or so... recalling that in those days we mostly had Teletype > Model 33 ASR's (or KSR's) that were only upper case and had a line length > of 72 characters (and printed out at 110 baud, or 10 characters per second > CPS) > > one last thing about LINKing on Tenex: if you were a WHEEL (I.e. > privileged user) it was possible to do one-way LINKS -- i.e. SPY on a > terminal or user... this was most useful for monitoring the CTY and/or TTY0 > which is where the monitor (or system daemon's/sysjob's) would spit out > "issues". > > geoff > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 9:24?AM Steve Crocker wrote: > >> Adding a little bit to your summary: >> >> I was in (D)ARPA/IPTO from mid 1971 to mid 1974. When I arrived, the >> Arpanet had been in operation for almost two years. IPTO consisted of the >> director (Larry Roberts), three program managers (Bruce Dolan, John Perry, >> me), a senior non-technical person who handled our budgets and >> related matters (Al Blue), and two secretaries. Steve Lukasik was the >> (D)ARPA director and hence Larry's boss. I write (D)ARPA here because the >> agency was christened the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and >> embedded within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) in 1958. On 1 >> July 1972 it was moved out of OSD and became a separate Defense Agency. In >> the process, it acquitted the initial D, i.e. Defense Advanced Research >> Projects Agency, hence DARPA. The transition made essentially no >> difference in our mission or operation. >> >> A short time later, we had a TIP installed in the office. This meant we >> could connect a large number of terminals. Everyone in our office had a >> terminal on the desk, and soon others through the agency had terminals >> too. Lukasik was a strong proponent and soon required that each of his >> direct reports, i.e. the directors of the other Offices, use email to >> communicate with him. Each of us was also given an account on the Tenex >> machine at the new USC Information Sciences Institute (USC-ISI). >> >> Lukasik used email to transform the way he conducted business. Even >> though we were all housed in the same office building -- 1400 Wilson Blvd, >> Arlington, VA, where a plaque now stands commemorating the creation of the >> Arpanet -- and could meet face to face easily, he found email made it >> possible for him to reorganize his time and attention. (More on this >> below.) >> >> The earliest made reader we had was RD. I believe Roberts wrote. He was >> a very competent TECO hacker, and he whipped it up quickly. In that >> version, mail was stored in a continuous file. In some later mail systems, >> each message was in a separate file, but at the beginning all of a user's >> mail was in a continuous file. These files grew fairly quickly. Moving to >> a particular message became a slow process. >> >> I too was a fairly competent TECO hacker. I took a look and realized why >> it was taking too long to find a message. In the file, each message was >> preceded by a line that had a string indicating it was the beginning of a >> message and a count of the number of characters in the message. In >> principle, that should have made it quick to move forward in the file from >> one message to the next. However, that count didn't coincide with the >> actual number of characters in the file. When the count was created, it >> treated the end of each line as one character, the newline character (NL), >> but when the message arrived, it became two characters, carriage return >> (CR) followed by line feed (LF). Hence the TECO code had a loop that moved >> forward one character at a time until it found the beginning of the next >> message. Very slow. (I might be misremembering and reversing these >> effects, but either way it was the discrepancy between the way ends of >> lines were demarcated at the point of creation and the the way ends of >> lines were demarcated on the receiving side.) >> >> I replaced that loop with code that skipped forward a line at a time and >> then adjusted the number of characters it still had to go. The speedup was >> dramatic. >> >> Above I alluded to changes in Lukasik's management style. My primary >> focus while I was at (D)ARPA was the AI portfolio, i.e., MIT, CMU, >> Stanford, SRI and BN and others. AI was unquestionably a long term bet. >> (D)ARPA's usual profile was heavy funding of some area for five years or so >> to trigger a large change. ("A factor of ten, not ten percent" was the >> common catchphrase.). We knew AI was a *much* longer trek. Fifty years, >> most likely. That meant it was a constant challenge to protect the funding >> and explain the research to Congress. >> >> In the UK, Science Research Council, the UK counterpart to the US NSF, had >> been funding Donald Michie's AI research at the University of Edinburgh. >> According to a 29 June 1973 news article in Science, "In early 1972 Sir >> James Lighthill of Cambridge University undertook to survey the field of >> artificial intelligence (AI) for the Science Research Council of Britain." >> His report was dismissive of AI and had a strongly negative influence on AI >> funding in the UK. Toward the end of the Science news article, the >> following was embedded: >> >> Even granting that AI is an intellectually important area for research, it >> is fair to ask whether the field is using its resources wisely. The >> Lighthill report suggests that, in the United States especially, little >> attention has been given to this question, in part because there has been a >> relatively assured source of funding. As is true for computer science in >> general, research on AI is pre-dominantly supported by the Defense >> Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), which provides about $4.5 million >> a year. >> >> 29 July 1973 was a Friday. That evening I was sitting at my terminal at >> home. Abruptly, I'm interrupted by a chat request from Lukasik. I had no >> idea he even knew how to do that. After we were connected, he asked if he >> printed something on his terminal, would I see it? I assured him I would. >> Immediately a ten point memo starts printing on my terminal. He's >> concerned that Congress might see this comment in Science and take aim at >> our AI program. His memo dealt with possible press or Congressional >> questions, coordination internally, etc. I understood completely he >> perceived a possible threat and was making sure we were manning the >> ramparts. Fortunately, the attack never came. Even so, we did have a >> session in the office on a Sunday afternoon later in the summer watching a >> taped copy of the debate between McCarthy and Lighthill. >> >> AI wars aside, the relevance to this thread is how quickly and effectively >> Lukasik absorbed the new technology and put it to use. >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 8:48?PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via >> Internet-history wrote: >> >>> "... In 1969 Roberts became director of the Information Processing >>> Techniques Office at ARPA. In 1971 he wrote one of the first e-mail >>> programs, RD, which for the first time allowed users to save, delete, and >>> organize their messages.... >>> so sez: >>> https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lawrence-Roberts >>> >>> while >>> >>> https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/1999-00/internet/email.html >>> sez: >>> >>> ...The Rise of Email by way of Convenient Mail-Managers >>> >>> Stephen Lukasik, one of ARPA's directors from 1971-75 might be one of the >>> most important advocates of email in its young age. He strongly encouraged >>> his staff to use email. It was even considered the most effective way to >>> reach Lukasik. Close friends and colleagues with Larry Roberts, Lukasik >>> confided to Roberts in 1973 that he was beginning to face problems >>> organizing the chaotic pile of messages received each day. (At this point, >>> in a study conducted by ARPA under Lukasik's direction discovered that 75% >>> of all ARPANET traffic was in the form of email.) Not to mention, reading >>> and responding to the messages was, as of yet not a simple matter. In >>> response, Roberts wrote the first "mail-manager software," RD. Its >>> functions included displaying a menu of messages and allowing the user to >>> file messages and delete messages. This inspired an outburst of variations >>> on the mail manager. A legendary variation, MSG was created in 1975 by >>> John >>> Vittal. MSG quickly became the most widely used mail-management program >>> due >>> to its convenient features. It could handle an even greater amount of mail >>> than RD, could sort messages into separate files, and most importantly, >>> reply and forward with much greater ease. MSG also spawned a large amount >>> of variations... >>> >>> [any others?] >>> >>> -- >>> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com >>> living as The Truth is True >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From geoff at iconia.com Tue Aug 8 12:04:27 2023 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 12:04:27 -0700 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] In-Reply-To: <027A3D83-C4DF-4300-A5AB-B28831C5AFDF@comcast.net> References: <027A3D83-C4DF-4300-A5AB-B28831C5AFDF@comcast.net> Message-ID: interesting that you mention teleconferencing and Case (CASE-10 PDP-10 Tenex), John... as Jim Calvin (also from Case and then to BBN) wrote IIRC his degree thesis on a teleconferencing client(TALK) and server (TELSER) that operated from multiple client hosts... i.e. we all didn't have to be logged into the same system to chat. when Jim graduated from Case yours truly ran a copy of it on SRI-AI to try to help facilitate what was known at the time as The Friday Night Forum... where a bunch of us would congregate on a host such as MIT-AI or SU-AI that could support more than 5 users LINKed together on Tenex. each person would use their login name, initials or some other unique abbreviation to indicate who grabbed the floor first... and when one was done with their input, you would end with a double return. ah, those were the days... :D g On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 11:11?AM John Day wrote: > In 1972 maybe late 71, (I think it was Ross Callon from Case, a recent BBN > hire) used the LINK command to create the first teleconferencing program. > At least that is what we called it then. It was more like the Instant > Messaging programs of latter. It was a bit of a kludge, because it couldn?t > keep different messages separate. ;-) Just like when two people used the > LINK command. ;-) > > Remember Tenex was character-at-a-time. So if someone said something and > more than one person started to respond, it would interleave their > responses character by character as it received them! ;-) So we had to work > out who had the floor ourselves. ;-) But even so we had some lively > discussions in the evenings, in fact most every evening, and were > collaborating on how to do an application like that better and other > software ideas. I don?t remember who all else was involved except John > Iseli who started the ARPANET NEWS. > > My recollection is that that there was a paper or two at ICCC?72 on this > form of teleconferencing, but I am not sure it used this application. > > About the same time, I did some figuring on how eventually one could put > academic journals on line. The impetus was that in the biological sciences, > they couldn?t publish many photos from electron microscopes because they > had to be high resolution and it was expensive. So they had to be very > selective in what the published. It was obvious that once it could be > online, they could publish as many photos as they wanted. I did a little > background digging into it as to what it would require. I think one of our > people wrote a paper on that too. > > I might even have some transcripts from our sessions some place if they > are still readable (They are on that heat-sensitive paper from Silent700s). > If I don?t have them CBI does. > > Take care, > John > > > On Aug 8, 2023, at 12:52, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via > Internet-history wrote: > > > > that was a really excellent "little bit" steve... if yours truly may add > a > > little bit more to "I'm interrupted by a chat request from Lukasik" > > vis-a-vis the "chat request": > > > > that was known as the LINK command in the Tenex EXEC, where you could say > > LINK USERNAME or link TTY# and your terminal session and the other > person's > > terminal session would be summarily LINKED to each other -- where each > > would see exactly what the other was seeing... IIRC up to 5 terminals > could > > be LINKED together... ERGO, after Lukasik LINKED to you, he likely just > > typed out the memo file on his terminal which of course came out on > yours. > > > > when terminals were linked to one another, we would proceed our text with > > an ";" -- which was the EXEC's "comment" character, i.e. > > @; hi there > > @; what's up? > > [...] > > with the occasional "flub" of where one would forget to proceed their > > comment with the ";" and the EXEC would then interpret it as commands... > > with sometimes "unusual" results... later, a program named TALK was > written > > what just took what was typed into it and did nothing with it... although > > it did have a nice feature in that you could type stuff in without > RETURNs > > and it would automatically insert line breaks (CR's) after 60 some odd > > characters or so... recalling that in those days we mostly had Teletype > > Model 33 ASR's (or KSR's) that were only upper case and had a line length > > of 72 characters (and printed out at 110 baud, or 10 characters per > second > > CPS) > > > > one last thing about LINKing on Tenex: if you were a WHEEL (I.e. > > privileged user) it was possible to do one-way LINKS -- i.e. SPY on a > > terminal or user... this was most useful for monitoring the CTY and/or > TTY0 > > which is where the monitor (or system daemon's/sysjob's) would spit out > > "issues". > > > > geoff > > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 9:24?AM Steve Crocker wrote: > > > >> Adding a little bit to your summary: > >> > >> I was in (D)ARPA/IPTO from mid 1971 to mid 1974. When I arrived, the > >> Arpanet had been in operation for almost two years. IPTO consisted of > the > >> director (Larry Roberts), three program managers (Bruce Dolan, John > Perry, > >> me), a senior non-technical person who handled our budgets and > >> related matters (Al Blue), and two secretaries. Steve Lukasik was the > >> (D)ARPA director and hence Larry's boss. I write (D)ARPA here because > the > >> agency was christened the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and > >> embedded within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) in 1958. > On 1 > >> July 1972 it was moved out of OSD and became a separate Defense > Agency. In > >> the process, it acquitted the initial D, i.e. Defense Advanced Research > >> Projects Agency, hence DARPA. The transition made essentially no > >> difference in our mission or operation. > >> > >> A short time later, we had a TIP installed in the office. This meant we > >> could connect a large number of terminals. Everyone in our office had > a > >> terminal on the desk, and soon others through the agency had terminals > >> too. Lukasik was a strong proponent and soon required that each of his > >> direct reports, i.e. the directors of the other Offices, use email to > >> communicate with him. Each of us was also given an account on the Tenex > >> machine at the new USC Information Sciences Institute (USC-ISI). > >> > >> Lukasik used email to transform the way he conducted business. Even > >> though we were all housed in the same office building -- 1400 Wilson > Blvd, > >> Arlington, VA, where a plaque now stands commemorating the creation of > the > >> Arpanet -- and could meet face to face easily, he found email made it > >> possible for him to reorganize his time and attention. (More on this > >> below.) > >> > >> The earliest made reader we had was RD. I believe Roberts wrote. He > was > >> a very competent TECO hacker, and he whipped it up quickly. In that > >> version, mail was stored in a continuous file. In some later mail > systems, > >> each message was in a separate file, but at the beginning all of a > user's > >> mail was in a continuous file. These files grew fairly quickly. > Moving to > >> a particular message became a slow process. > >> > >> I too was a fairly competent TECO hacker. I took a look and realized > why > >> it was taking too long to find a message. In the file, each message was > >> preceded by a line that had a string indicating it was the beginning of > a > >> message and a count of the number of characters in the message. In > >> principle, that should have made it quick to move forward in the file > from > >> one message to the next. However, that count didn't coincide with the > >> actual number of characters in the file. When the count was created, it > >> treated the end of each line as one character, the newline character > (NL), > >> but when the message arrived, it became two characters, carriage return > >> (CR) followed by line feed (LF). Hence the TECO code had a loop that > moved > >> forward one character at a time until it found the beginning of the next > >> message. Very slow. (I might be misremembering and reversing these > >> effects, but either way it was the discrepancy between the way ends of > >> lines were demarcated at the point of creation and the the way ends of > >> lines were demarcated on the receiving side.) > >> > >> I replaced that loop with code that skipped forward a line at a time and > >> then adjusted the number of characters it still had to go. The speedup > was > >> dramatic. > >> > >> Above I alluded to changes in Lukasik's management style. My primary > >> focus while I was at (D)ARPA was the AI portfolio, i.e., MIT, CMU, > >> Stanford, SRI and BN and others. AI was unquestionably a long term bet. > >> (D)ARPA's usual profile was heavy funding of some area for five years > or so > >> to trigger a large change. ("A factor of ten, not ten percent" was the > >> common catchphrase.). We knew AI was a *much* longer trek. Fifty years, > >> most likely. That meant it was a constant challenge to protect the > funding > >> and explain the research to Congress. > >> > >> In the UK, Science Research Council, the UK counterpart to the US NSF, > had > >> been funding Donald Michie's AI research at the University of Edinburgh. > >> According to a 29 June 1973 news article in Science, "In early 1972 Sir > >> James Lighthill of Cambridge University undertook to survey the field of > >> artificial intelligence (AI) for the Science Research Council of > Britain." > >> His report was dismissive of AI and had a strongly negative influence > on AI > >> funding in the UK. Toward the end of the Science news article, the > >> following was embedded: > >> > >> Even granting that AI is an intellectually important area for research, > it > >> is fair to ask whether the field is using its resources wisely. The > >> Lighthill report suggests that, in the United States especially, little > >> attention has been given to this question, in part because there has > been a > >> relatively assured source of funding. As is true for computer science > in > >> general, research on AI is pre-dominantly supported by the Defense > >> Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), which provides about $4.5 > million > >> a year. > >> > >> 29 July 1973 was a Friday. That evening I was sitting at my terminal at > >> home. Abruptly, I'm interrupted by a chat request from Lukasik. I had > no > >> idea he even knew how to do that. After we were connected, he asked if > he > >> printed something on his terminal, would I see it? I assured him I > would. > >> Immediately a ten point memo starts printing on my terminal. He's > >> concerned that Congress might see this comment in Science and take aim > at > >> our AI program. His memo dealt with possible press or Congressional > >> questions, coordination internally, etc. I understood completely he > >> perceived a possible threat and was making sure we were manning the > >> ramparts. Fortunately, the attack never came. Even so, we did have a > >> session in the office on a Sunday afternoon later in the summer > watching a > >> taped copy of the debate between McCarthy and Lighthill. > >> > >> AI wars aside, the relevance to this thread is how quickly and > effectively > >> Lukasik absorbed the new technology and put it to use. > >> > >> Steve > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 8:48?PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via > >> Internet-history wrote: > >> > >>> "... In 1969 Roberts became director of the Information Processing > >>> Techniques Office at ARPA. In 1971 he wrote one of the first e-mail > >>> programs, RD, which for the first time allowed users to save, delete, > and > >>> organize their messages.... > >>> so sez: > >>> https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lawrence-Roberts > >>> > >>> while > >>> > >>> > https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/1999-00/internet/email.html > >>> sez: > >>> > >>> ...The Rise of Email by way of Convenient Mail-Managers > >>> > >>> Stephen Lukasik, one of ARPA's directors from 1971-75 might be one of > the > >>> most important advocates of email in its young age. He strongly > encouraged > >>> his staff to use email. It was even considered the most effective way > to > >>> reach Lukasik. Close friends and colleagues with Larry Roberts, Lukasik > >>> confided to Roberts in 1973 that he was beginning to face problems > >>> organizing the chaotic pile of messages received each day. (At this > point, > >>> in a study conducted by ARPA under Lukasik's direction discovered that > 75% > >>> of all ARPANET traffic was in the form of email.) Not to mention, > reading > >>> and responding to the messages was, as of yet not a simple matter. In > >>> response, Roberts wrote the first "mail-manager software," RD. Its > >>> functions included displaying a menu of messages and allowing the user > to > >>> file messages and delete messages. This inspired an outburst of > variations > >>> on the mail manager. A legendary variation, MSG was created in 1975 by > >>> John > >>> Vittal. MSG quickly became the most widely used mail-management program > >>> due > >>> to its convenient features. It could handle an even greater amount of > mail > >>> than RD, could sort messages into separate files, and most importantly, > >>> reply and forward with much greater ease. MSG also spawned a large > amount > >>> of variations... > >>> > >>> [any others?] > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > >>> living as The Truth is True > >>> -- > >>> Internet-history mailing list > >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >>> > >> > > > > -- > > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > > living as The Truth is True > > -- > > Internet-history mailing list > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True From dhc at dcrocker.net Tue Aug 8 12:12:47 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 12:12:47 -0700 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] In-Reply-To: <027A3D83-C4DF-4300-A5AB-B28831C5AFDF@comcast.net> References: <027A3D83-C4DF-4300-A5AB-B28831C5AFDF@comcast.net> Message-ID: On 8/8/2023 11:10 AM, John Day via Internet-history wrote: > In 1972 maybe late 71, (I think it was Ross Callon from Case, a recent BBN hire) used the LINK command to create the first teleconferencing program. fwiw... Murray Turoff: Father of Computer Conferencing - ACM Digital Library https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1109/MAHC.2012.12 history-computer.com First chat program of Murray Turoff <#> Key Points History of Computers and Computing, Internet, Birth, First chat program of Murray Turoff First chat program of Murray Turoff In 1971 the Ph.D. in Physics Murray Turoff (born in San Francisco, February 13, 1936), while working in the U.S. Office of Emergency Preparedness (a federally coordinated system that augments the Nation?s medical response [?] ? https://history-computer.com/first-chat-program-of-murray-turoff/ and while I am at it: www.computerhistory.org A teleconference on teleconferencing : working paper ISI/WP-4 | 102775099 | Computer History Museum <#> ? https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102775099 d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From jeanjour at comcast.net Tue Aug 8 12:18:57 2023 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 15:18:57 -0400 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] In-Reply-To: References: <027A3D83-C4DF-4300-A5AB-B28831C5AFDF@comcast.net> Message-ID: <43B35115-E8EF-476D-BDA9-D8E0B68871B6@comcast.net> Right!!! It was Jim Calvin. I knew Ross Callon was wrong, but the name wouldn?t come up! Indeed those were the days. With this hack, you couldn?t grab the floor! it was everyone jumbled together until the rest backed off and let one person go. Thanks, > On Aug 8, 2023, at 15:04, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow wrote: > > interesting that you mention teleconferencing and Case (CASE-10 PDP-10 Tenex), John... as Jim Calvin (also from Case and then to BBN) wrote IIRC his degree thesis on a teleconferencing client(TALK) and server (TELSER) that operated from multiple client hosts... i.e. we all didn't have to be logged into the same system to chat. > > when Jim graduated from Case yours truly ran a copy of it on SRI-AI to try to help facilitate what was known at the time as The Friday Night Forum... where a bunch of us would congregate on a host such as MIT-AI or SU-AI that could support more than 5 users LINKed together on Tenex. > > each person would use their login name, initials or some other unique abbreviation to indicate who grabbed the floor first... and when one was done with their input, you would end with a double return. > > ah, those were the days... :D > > g > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 11:11?AM John Day > wrote: >> In 1972 maybe late 71, (I think it was Ross Callon from Case, a recent BBN hire) used the LINK command to create the first teleconferencing program. At least that is what we called it then. It was more like the Instant Messaging programs of latter. It was a bit of a kludge, because it couldn?t keep different messages separate. ;-) Just like when two people used the LINK command. ;-) >> >> Remember Tenex was character-at-a-time. So if someone said something and more than one person started to respond, it would interleave their responses character by character as it received them! ;-) So we had to work out who had the floor ourselves. ;-) But even so we had some lively discussions in the evenings, in fact most every evening, and were collaborating on how to do an application like that better and other software ideas. I don?t remember who all else was involved except John Iseli who started the ARPANET NEWS. >> >> My recollection is that that there was a paper or two at ICCC?72 on this form of teleconferencing, but I am not sure it used this application. >> >> About the same time, I did some figuring on how eventually one could put academic journals on line. The impetus was that in the biological sciences, they couldn?t publish many photos from electron microscopes because they had to be high resolution and it was expensive. So they had to be very selective in what the published. It was obvious that once it could be online, they could publish as many photos as they wanted. I did a little background digging into it as to what it would require. I think one of our people wrote a paper on that too. >> >> I might even have some transcripts from our sessions some place if they are still readable (They are on that heat-sensitive paper from Silent700s). If I don?t have them CBI does. >> >> Take care, >> John >> >> > On Aug 8, 2023, at 12:52, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history > wrote: >> > >> > that was a really excellent "little bit" steve... if yours truly may add a >> > little bit more to "I'm interrupted by a chat request from Lukasik" >> > vis-a-vis the "chat request": >> > >> > that was known as the LINK command in the Tenex EXEC, where you could say >> > LINK USERNAME or link TTY# and your terminal session and the other person's >> > terminal session would be summarily LINKED to each other -- where each >> > would see exactly what the other was seeing... IIRC up to 5 terminals could >> > be LINKED together... ERGO, after Lukasik LINKED to you, he likely just >> > typed out the memo file on his terminal which of course came out on yours. >> > >> > when terminals were linked to one another, we would proceed our text with >> > an ";" -- which was the EXEC's "comment" character, i.e. >> > @; hi there >> > @; what's up? >> > [...] >> > with the occasional "flub" of where one would forget to proceed their >> > comment with the ";" and the EXEC would then interpret it as commands... >> > with sometimes "unusual" results... later, a program named TALK was written >> > what just took what was typed into it and did nothing with it... although >> > it did have a nice feature in that you could type stuff in without RETURNs >> > and it would automatically insert line breaks (CR's) after 60 some odd >> > characters or so... recalling that in those days we mostly had Teletype >> > Model 33 ASR's (or KSR's) that were only upper case and had a line length >> > of 72 characters (and printed out at 110 baud, or 10 characters per second >> > CPS) >> > >> > one last thing about LINKing on Tenex: if you were a WHEEL (I.e. >> > privileged user) it was possible to do one-way LINKS -- i.e. SPY on a >> > terminal or user... this was most useful for monitoring the CTY and/or TTY0 >> > which is where the monitor (or system daemon's/sysjob's) would spit out >> > "issues". >> > >> > geoff >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 9:24?AM Steve Crocker > wrote: >> > >> >> Adding a little bit to your summary: >> >> >> >> I was in (D)ARPA/IPTO from mid 1971 to mid 1974. When I arrived, the >> >> Arpanet had been in operation for almost two years. IPTO consisted of the >> >> director (Larry Roberts), three program managers (Bruce Dolan, John Perry, >> >> me), a senior non-technical person who handled our budgets and >> >> related matters (Al Blue), and two secretaries. Steve Lukasik was the >> >> (D)ARPA director and hence Larry's boss. I write (D)ARPA here because the >> >> agency was christened the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and >> >> embedded within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) in 1958. On 1 >> >> July 1972 it was moved out of OSD and became a separate Defense Agency. In >> >> the process, it acquitted the initial D, i.e. Defense Advanced Research >> >> Projects Agency, hence DARPA. The transition made essentially no >> >> difference in our mission or operation. >> >> >> >> A short time later, we had a TIP installed in the office. This meant we >> >> could connect a large number of terminals. Everyone in our office had a >> >> terminal on the desk, and soon others through the agency had terminals >> >> too. Lukasik was a strong proponent and soon required that each of his >> >> direct reports, i.e. the directors of the other Offices, use email to >> >> communicate with him. Each of us was also given an account on the Tenex >> >> machine at the new USC Information Sciences Institute (USC-ISI). >> >> >> >> Lukasik used email to transform the way he conducted business. Even >> >> though we were all housed in the same office building -- 1400 Wilson Blvd, >> >> Arlington, VA, where a plaque now stands commemorating the creation of the >> >> Arpanet -- and could meet face to face easily, he found email made it >> >> possible for him to reorganize his time and attention. (More on this >> >> below.) >> >> >> >> The earliest made reader we had was RD. I believe Roberts wrote. He was >> >> a very competent TECO hacker, and he whipped it up quickly. In that >> >> version, mail was stored in a continuous file. In some later mail systems, >> >> each message was in a separate file, but at the beginning all of a user's >> >> mail was in a continuous file. These files grew fairly quickly. Moving to >> >> a particular message became a slow process. >> >> >> >> I too was a fairly competent TECO hacker. I took a look and realized why >> >> it was taking too long to find a message. In the file, each message was >> >> preceded by a line that had a string indicating it was the beginning of a >> >> message and a count of the number of characters in the message. In >> >> principle, that should have made it quick to move forward in the file from >> >> one message to the next. However, that count didn't coincide with the >> >> actual number of characters in the file. When the count was created, it >> >> treated the end of each line as one character, the newline character (NL), >> >> but when the message arrived, it became two characters, carriage return >> >> (CR) followed by line feed (LF). Hence the TECO code had a loop that moved >> >> forward one character at a time until it found the beginning of the next >> >> message. Very slow. (I might be misremembering and reversing these >> >> effects, but either way it was the discrepancy between the way ends of >> >> lines were demarcated at the point of creation and the the way ends of >> >> lines were demarcated on the receiving side.) >> >> >> >> I replaced that loop with code that skipped forward a line at a time and >> >> then adjusted the number of characters it still had to go. The speedup was >> >> dramatic. >> >> >> >> Above I alluded to changes in Lukasik's management style. My primary >> >> focus while I was at (D)ARPA was the AI portfolio, i.e., MIT, CMU, >> >> Stanford, SRI and BN and others. AI was unquestionably a long term bet. >> >> (D)ARPA's usual profile was heavy funding of some area for five years or so >> >> to trigger a large change. ("A factor of ten, not ten percent" was the >> >> common catchphrase.). We knew AI was a *much* longer trek. Fifty years, >> >> most likely. That meant it was a constant challenge to protect the funding >> >> and explain the research to Congress. >> >> >> >> In the UK, Science Research Council, the UK counterpart to the US NSF, had >> >> been funding Donald Michie's AI research at the University of Edinburgh. >> >> According to a 29 June 1973 news article in Science, "In early 1972 Sir >> >> James Lighthill of Cambridge University undertook to survey the field of >> >> artificial intelligence (AI) for the Science Research Council of Britain." >> >> His report was dismissive of AI and had a strongly negative influence on AI >> >> funding in the UK. Toward the end of the Science news article, the >> >> following was embedded: >> >> >> >> Even granting that AI is an intellectually important area for research, it >> >> is fair to ask whether the field is using its resources wisely. The >> >> Lighthill report suggests that, in the United States especially, little >> >> attention has been given to this question, in part because there has been a >> >> relatively assured source of funding. As is true for computer science in >> >> general, research on AI is pre-dominantly supported by the Defense >> >> Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), which provides about $4.5 million >> >> a year. >> >> >> >> 29 July 1973 was a Friday. That evening I was sitting at my terminal at >> >> home. Abruptly, I'm interrupted by a chat request from Lukasik. I had no >> >> idea he even knew how to do that. After we were connected, he asked if he >> >> printed something on his terminal, would I see it? I assured him I would. >> >> Immediately a ten point memo starts printing on my terminal. He's >> >> concerned that Congress might see this comment in Science and take aim at >> >> our AI program. His memo dealt with possible press or Congressional >> >> questions, coordination internally, etc. I understood completely he >> >> perceived a possible threat and was making sure we were manning the >> >> ramparts. Fortunately, the attack never came. Even so, we did have a >> >> session in the office on a Sunday afternoon later in the summer watching a >> >> taped copy of the debate between McCarthy and Lighthill. >> >> >> >> AI wars aside, the relevance to this thread is how quickly and effectively >> >> Lukasik absorbed the new technology and put it to use. >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 8:48?PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via >> >> Internet-history > wrote: >> >> >> >>> "... In 1969 Roberts became director of the Information Processing >> >>> Techniques Office at ARPA. In 1971 he wrote one of the first e-mail >> >>> programs, RD, which for the first time allowed users to save, delete, and >> >>> organize their messages.... >> >>> so sez: >> >>> https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lawrence-Roberts >> >>> >> >>> while >> >>> >> >>> https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/1999-00/internet/email.html >> >>> sez: >> >>> >> >>> ...The Rise of Email by way of Convenient Mail-Managers >> >>> >> >>> Stephen Lukasik, one of ARPA's directors from 1971-75 might be one of the >> >>> most important advocates of email in its young age. He strongly encouraged >> >>> his staff to use email. It was even considered the most effective way to >> >>> reach Lukasik. Close friends and colleagues with Larry Roberts, Lukasik >> >>> confided to Roberts in 1973 that he was beginning to face problems >> >>> organizing the chaotic pile of messages received each day. (At this point, >> >>> in a study conducted by ARPA under Lukasik's direction discovered that 75% >> >>> of all ARPANET traffic was in the form of email.) Not to mention, reading >> >>> and responding to the messages was, as of yet not a simple matter. In >> >>> response, Roberts wrote the first "mail-manager software," RD. Its >> >>> functions included displaying a menu of messages and allowing the user to >> >>> file messages and delete messages. This inspired an outburst of variations >> >>> on the mail manager. A legendary variation, MSG was created in 1975 by >> >>> John >> >>> Vittal. MSG quickly became the most widely used mail-management program >> >>> due >> >>> to its convenient features. It could handle an even greater amount of mail >> >>> than RD, could sort messages into separate files, and most importantly, >> >>> reply and forward with much greater ease. MSG also spawned a large amount >> >>> of variations... >> >>> >> >>> [any others?] >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com >> >>> living as The Truth is True >> >>> -- >> >>> Internet-history mailing list >> >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > -- >> > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com >> > living as The Truth is True >> > -- >> > Internet-history mailing list >> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> > > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > From chet.ramey at case.edu Tue Aug 8 12:23:35 2023 From: chet.ramey at case.edu (Chet Ramey) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 15:23:35 -0400 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] In-Reply-To: References: <027A3D83-C4DF-4300-A5AB-B28831C5AFDF@comcast.net> Message-ID: On 8/8/23 3:04 PM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history wrote: > interesting that you mention teleconferencing and Case (CASE-10 PDP-10 > Tenex), John... as Jim Calvin (also from Case and then to BBN) wrote IIRC > his degree thesis on a teleconferencing client(TALK) and server (TELSER) > that operated from multiple client hosts... i.e. we all didn't have to be > logged into the same system to chat. > > when Jim graduated from Case yours truly ran a copy of it on SRI-AI to try > to help facilitate what was known at the time as The Friday Night Forum... > where a bunch of us would congregate on a host such as MIT-AI or SU-AI that > could support more than 5 users LINKed together on Tenex. It's always good to see Case come up! Folks here did a lot of good work. -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU chet at case.edu http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/ From jack at 3kitty.org Tue Aug 8 12:55:42 2023 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 12:55:42 -0700 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] In-Reply-To: References: <027A3D83-C4DF-4300-A5AB-B28831C5AFDF@comcast.net> Message-ID: Just a few years ago, I stumbled across an Annual Report that MIT submitted for one year's work in the early 70s.? Since I was there at the time, I was curious how history recorded what we were doing then.? Looking at the section for our group, I found a description of a revolutionary implementation of a teleconferencing system that allowed people to interact in real time using the ARPANET which had been completed that year. I didn't remember that we had built any teleconferencing system. Of course with age comes memory loss.? But I remember lots of stuff we did then, but not a "teleconferencing system".?? A sign of encroaching dementia...? With further investigation... A bunch of us at MIT in Licklider's group spent a lot of hours getting multi-player MazeWar running on our fancy new Imlac minicomputers.? Someone added a feature where players could trash-talk each other with a shared screen space trying to lure them into an ambush or gloat on another kill.?? MazeWars of course had nothing to do with whatever research we were doing.?? Gettings MazeWar going was just a lot of fun. We all thought MazeWars was just a cool hack and extremely addictive game.?? If curious, see https://www.digibarn.com/collections/games/xerox-maze-war/index.html But the experience did reveal, to me at least, the importance of latency, and the difficulties of getting a bunch of computers to interact over a network.?? Imlacs had no I/O except RS232.? So, our "LAN" was a star-shaped configuration with Imlac minicomputers connected via RS232 to our PDP-10 as the center of the star (7 floors away), and I had goosed the RS232 hardware well beyond its spec to achieve almost 100 kb/sec.? I tried to convince BBN to upgrade the TIP hardware to support higher speed "terminals", but was rebuffed -- "The TIP supports terminals up to the maximum reasonable speed of 9600 bits/second." MIT's Annual Report touted Maze as a "teleconferencing system". Jack From steve at shinkuro.com Tue Aug 8 13:31:06 2023 From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 16:31:06 -0400 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] In-Reply-To: References: <027A3D83-C4DF-4300-A5AB-B28831C5AFDF@comcast.net> Message-ID: There were multiple conferencing system efforts in those early years. BBN built one that included video. I moved to ISI in 1974. The BBN system was built a bit later; I don't remember the exact date. I do remember sitting in a swivel chair, spinning it around, and then watching myself complete the swivel, so the latency was definitely noticeable. The Institute for the Future (IFF) developed a conferencing system called Forum. It was essentially identical to IRC, except it required everyone to be logged into the same machine. A user's input was considered to be a paragraph. Even if the user was working at a character-at-a-time terminal, which most of us were, output would be suppressed until the paragraph of input was complete. At that point, any paragraphs from others that had been queued up were then printed. If you tried to type new input, you would not see the echoed characters until all the queued up paragraphs had spewed out. This was a remarkably effective and usable system. I have a vivid memory of using it to interview a candidate to replace Larry Roberts as head of IPTO. On a Sunday afternoon, six of us participated: The candidate, Larry Roberts, Steve Lukasik, Alex Tachmindji, Bob Kahn, me. Tachmindji was Lukasik's deputy. Bob and I were program managers under Larry. All of us except the candidate were based in the DC area. Some of us were at home; others were in the office. The candidate was at home in another part of the country,elsewhere, working in his den. I was the most junior person on the call, so I said little but listened a lot. Also, Tachmindji had had the least experience with these tools, and I provided some help to him via a side chat. I noticed there were sometimes two or even three distinct threads in progress. It was not only fairly easy to follow them, it was actually more interesting than if we had all been in the same room. We didn't have to wait for each person to finish talking, so it seemed more efficient than a regular face to face meeting. I've often wondered why this mode of interaction is used more frequently. I've even tried it out when I had control of the group, but the results weren't great. Larry left DARPA in late 1973 or perhaps very early 1974, so that pins down the date moderately well. Cheers, Steve On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 3:56?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Just a few years ago, I stumbled across an Annual Report that MIT > submitted for one year's work in the early 70s. Since I was there at > the time, I was curious how history recorded what we were doing then. > Looking at the section for our group, I found a description of a > revolutionary implementation of a teleconferencing system that allowed > people to interact in real time using the ARPANET which had been > completed that year. > > I didn't remember that we had built any teleconferencing system. Of > course with age comes memory loss. But I remember lots of stuff we did > then, but not a "teleconferencing system". A sign of encroaching > dementia...? > > With further investigation... > > A bunch of us at MIT in Licklider's group spent a lot of hours getting > multi-player MazeWar running on our fancy new Imlac minicomputers. > Someone added a feature where players could trash-talk each other with a > shared screen space trying to lure them into an ambush or gloat on > another kill. MazeWars of course had nothing to do with whatever > research we were doing. Gettings MazeWar going was just a lot of fun. > We all thought MazeWars was just a cool hack and extremely addictive > game. If curious, see > https://www.digibarn.com/collections/games/xerox-maze-war/index.html > > But the experience did reveal, to me at least, the importance of > latency, and the difficulties of getting a bunch of computers to > interact over a network. Imlacs had no I/O except RS232. So, our > "LAN" was a star-shaped configuration with Imlac minicomputers connected > via RS232 to our PDP-10 as the center of the star (7 floors away), and I > had goosed the RS232 hardware well beyond its spec to achieve almost 100 > kb/sec. I tried to convince BBN to upgrade the TIP hardware to support > higher speed "terminals", but was rebuffed -- "The TIP supports > terminals up to the maximum reasonable speed of 9600 bits/second." > > MIT's Annual Report touted Maze as a "teleconferencing system". > > Jack > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From vint at google.com Tue Aug 8 13:35:26 2023 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 16:35:26 -0400 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] In-Reply-To: References: <027A3D83-C4DF-4300-A5AB-B28831C5AFDF@comcast.net> Message-ID: Wasn't there another system called Planet in that early era? V On Tue, Aug 8, 2023, 16:31 Steve Crocker via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > There were multiple conferencing system efforts in those early years. BBN > built one that included video. I moved to ISI in 1974. The BBN system was > built a bit later; I don't remember the exact date. I do remember sitting > in a swivel chair, spinning it around, and then watching myself complete > the swivel, so the latency was definitely noticeable. > > The Institute for the Future (IFF) developed a conferencing system called > Forum. It was essentially identical to IRC, except it required everyone to > be logged into the same machine. A user's input was considered to be a > paragraph. Even if the user was working at a character-at-a-time terminal, > which most of us were, output would be suppressed until the paragraph of > input was complete. At that point, any paragraphs from others that had > been queued up were then printed. If you tried to type new input, you > would not see the echoed characters until all the queued up paragraphs had > spewed out. > > This was a remarkably effective and usable system. I have a vivid memory > of using it to interview a candidate to replace Larry Roberts as head of > IPTO. On a Sunday afternoon, six of us participated: The candidate, Larry > Roberts, Steve Lukasik, Alex Tachmindji, Bob Kahn, me. Tachmindji was > Lukasik's deputy. Bob and I were program managers under Larry. All of us > except the candidate were based in the DC area. Some of us were at home; > others were in the office. The candidate was at home in another part of > the country,elsewhere, working in his den. > > I was the most junior person on the call, so I said little but listened a > lot. Also, Tachmindji had had the least experience with these tools, and I > provided some help to him via a side chat. > > I noticed there were sometimes two or even three distinct threads in > progress. It was not only fairly easy to follow them, it was actually more > interesting than if we had all been in the same room. We didn't have to > wait for each person to finish talking, so it seemed more efficient than a > regular face to face meeting. > > I've often wondered why this mode of interaction is used more frequently. > I've even tried it out when I had control of the group, but the results > weren't great. > > Larry left DARPA in late 1973 or perhaps very early 1974, so that pins down > the date moderately well. > > Cheers, > > Steve > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 3:56?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > Just a few years ago, I stumbled across an Annual Report that MIT > > submitted for one year's work in the early 70s. Since I was there at > > the time, I was curious how history recorded what we were doing then. > > Looking at the section for our group, I found a description of a > > revolutionary implementation of a teleconferencing system that allowed > > people to interact in real time using the ARPANET which had been > > completed that year. > > > > I didn't remember that we had built any teleconferencing system. Of > > course with age comes memory loss. But I remember lots of stuff we did > > then, but not a "teleconferencing system". A sign of encroaching > > dementia...? > > > > With further investigation... > > > > A bunch of us at MIT in Licklider's group spent a lot of hours getting > > multi-player MazeWar running on our fancy new Imlac minicomputers. > > Someone added a feature where players could trash-talk each other with a > > shared screen space trying to lure them into an ambush or gloat on > > another kill. MazeWars of course had nothing to do with whatever > > research we were doing. Gettings MazeWar going was just a lot of fun. > > We all thought MazeWars was just a cool hack and extremely addictive > > game. If curious, see > > https://www.digibarn.com/collections/games/xerox-maze-war/index.html > > > > But the experience did reveal, to me at least, the importance of > > latency, and the difficulties of getting a bunch of computers to > > interact over a network. Imlacs had no I/O except RS232. So, our > > "LAN" was a star-shaped configuration with Imlac minicomputers connected > > via RS232 to our PDP-10 as the center of the star (7 floors away), and I > > had goosed the RS232 hardware well beyond its spec to achieve almost 100 > > kb/sec. I tried to convince BBN to upgrade the TIP hardware to support > > higher speed "terminals", but was rebuffed -- "The TIP supports > > terminals up to the maximum reasonable speed of 9600 bits/second." > > > > MIT's Annual Report touted Maze as a "teleconferencing system". > > > > Jack > > > > > > -- > > 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 steve at shinkuro.com Tue Aug 8 13:38:31 2023 From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 16:38:31 -0400 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] In-Reply-To: References: <027A3D83-C4DF-4300-A5AB-B28831C5AFDF@comcast.net> Message-ID: Sounds familiar. Might have been the name BBN used for their system, but I'm not sure. On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 4:35?PM Vint Cerf wrote: > Wasn't there another system called Planet in that early era? > V > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023, 16:31 Steve Crocker via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> There were multiple conferencing system efforts in those early years. BBN >> built one that included video. I moved to ISI in 1974. The BBN system >> was >> built a bit later; I don't remember the exact date. I do remember sitting >> in a swivel chair, spinning it around, and then watching myself complete >> the swivel, so the latency was definitely noticeable. >> >> The Institute for the Future (IFF) developed a conferencing system called >> Forum. It was essentially identical to IRC, except it required everyone >> to >> be logged into the same machine. A user's input was considered to be a >> paragraph. Even if the user was working at a character-at-a-time >> terminal, >> which most of us were, output would be suppressed until the paragraph of >> input was complete. At that point, any paragraphs from others that had >> been queued up were then printed. If you tried to type new input, you >> would not see the echoed characters until all the queued up paragraphs had >> spewed out. >> >> This was a remarkably effective and usable system. I have a vivid memory >> of using it to interview a candidate to replace Larry Roberts as head of >> IPTO. On a Sunday afternoon, six of us participated: The candidate, Larry >> Roberts, Steve Lukasik, Alex Tachmindji, Bob Kahn, me. Tachmindji was >> Lukasik's deputy. Bob and I were program managers under Larry. All of us >> except the candidate were based in the DC area. Some of us were at home; >> others were in the office. The candidate was at home in another part of >> the country,elsewhere, working in his den. >> >> I was the most junior person on the call, so I said little but listened a >> lot. Also, Tachmindji had had the least experience with these tools, and >> I >> provided some help to him via a side chat. >> >> I noticed there were sometimes two or even three distinct threads in >> progress. It was not only fairly easy to follow them, it was actually >> more >> interesting than if we had all been in the same room. We didn't have to >> wait for each person to finish talking, so it seemed more efficient than a >> regular face to face meeting. >> >> I've often wondered why this mode of interaction is used more frequently. >> I've even tried it out when I had control of the group, but the results >> weren't great. >> >> Larry left DARPA in late 1973 or perhaps very early 1974, so that pins >> down >> the date moderately well. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Steve >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 3:56?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >> > Just a few years ago, I stumbled across an Annual Report that MIT >> > submitted for one year's work in the early 70s. Since I was there at >> > the time, I was curious how history recorded what we were doing then. >> > Looking at the section for our group, I found a description of a >> > revolutionary implementation of a teleconferencing system that allowed >> > people to interact in real time using the ARPANET which had been >> > completed that year. >> > >> > I didn't remember that we had built any teleconferencing system. Of >> > course with age comes memory loss. But I remember lots of stuff we did >> > then, but not a "teleconferencing system". A sign of encroaching >> > dementia...? >> > >> > With further investigation... >> > >> > A bunch of us at MIT in Licklider's group spent a lot of hours getting >> > multi-player MazeWar running on our fancy new Imlac minicomputers. >> > Someone added a feature where players could trash-talk each other with a >> > shared screen space trying to lure them into an ambush or gloat on >> > another kill. MazeWars of course had nothing to do with whatever >> > research we were doing. Gettings MazeWar going was just a lot of fun. >> > We all thought MazeWars was just a cool hack and extremely addictive >> > game. If curious, see >> > https://www.digibarn.com/collections/games/xerox-maze-war/index.html >> > >> > But the experience did reveal, to me at least, the importance of >> > latency, and the difficulties of getting a bunch of computers to >> > interact over a network. Imlacs had no I/O except RS232. So, our >> > "LAN" was a star-shaped configuration with Imlac minicomputers connected >> > via RS232 to our PDP-10 as the center of the star (7 floors away), and I >> > had goosed the RS232 hardware well beyond its spec to achieve almost 100 >> > kb/sec. I tried to convince BBN to upgrade the TIP hardware to support >> > higher speed "terminals", but was rebuffed -- "The TIP supports >> > terminals up to the maximum reasonable speed of 9600 bits/second." >> > >> > MIT's Annual Report touted Maze as a "teleconferencing system". >> > >> > Jack >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 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 johnl at iecc.com Tue Aug 8 13:43:09 2023 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 8 Aug 2023 16:43:09 -0400 Subject: [ih] 40 years ago net.motss was newgroup'd In-Reply-To: <7b4c8994-67f1-08f8-4d1d-66e53543c10c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20230808204309.E89AEFFA7FBD@ary.qy> It appears that Michael Thomas via Internet-history said: >into soc.motss was the internet's first gay newsgroup. It was created by >Steve Dyer late of BBN. It was a purposefully cryptic name to fly under >the radar. In the 1980s I lived in Harvard Square around the corner from Steve and his partner whose name I don't remember but who was, if such a thing is possible, even nicer than he was. Everyone knew they were gay which, fortunately in that part of Cambridge, was not a big deal. Cambridge had an Internet co-op called Centnet, and Steve had a blisteringly fast 56K DDS line that ran a few blocks from his house to Centnet's router, above a local restaurant as I recall. As an experiment I got a couple of Wavelan radio cards, a predecessor to Wifi, put one of them in an old PS/2 in Steve's house with the antenna stuck to a window, the other in an old PC in my attic with a yagi pointing out the window towards's Steve's house a block away, and set up pc-route on both machines with drivers and shims. Whaddaya know, it worked. Centnet assigned me a spare /24 from their /16 (those were the days) and I was now directly on the net. Steve never let me pay him but I think we did take them out to dinner a few times. R's, John From geoff at iconia.com Tue Aug 8 13:42:47 2023 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 13:42:47 -0700 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] In-Reply-To: References: <027A3D83-C4DF-4300-A5AB-B28831C5AFDF@comcast.net> Message-ID: indeed "there another system called Planet in that early era", viz.: "... In 1971, [Jacques] Vall?e left Stanford to join the Engelbart group as a senior research engineer. His tenure at ARC coincided with the group's immersion in Erhard Seminars Training and other social experiments, ultimately prompting his departure. While at the Institute for the Future as a senior research fellow from 1972 to 1976, he succeeded Paul Baran as principal investigator on the large National Science Foundation project for computer networking, which developed one of the first ARPANET conferencing systems, Planning Network (PLANET),[2] predating instant messaging by many years. The technology was spun off into InfoMedia, a startup company founded by Vall?e in 1976. Although the firm formed several international spinoffs and partnered with a variety of prominent firms and governmental organizations (including Lehman Brothers, Renault and NASA), it failed to attain long-term profitability... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Vall%C3%A9e On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 1:35?PM Vint Cerf via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Wasn't there another system called Planet in that early era? > V > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023, 16:31 Steve Crocker via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > There were multiple conferencing system efforts in those early years. > BBN > > built one that included video. I moved to ISI in 1974. The BBN system > was > > built a bit later; I don't remember the exact date. I do remember > sitting > > in a swivel chair, spinning it around, and then watching myself complete > > the swivel, so the latency was definitely noticeable. > > > > The Institute for the Future (IFF) developed a conferencing system called > > Forum. It was essentially identical to IRC, except it required everyone > to > > be logged into the same machine. A user's input was considered to be a > > paragraph. Even if the user was working at a character-at-a-time > terminal, > > which most of us were, output would be suppressed until the paragraph of > > input was complete. At that point, any paragraphs from others that had > > been queued up were then printed. If you tried to type new input, you > > would not see the echoed characters until all the queued up paragraphs > had > > spewed out. > > > > This was a remarkably effective and usable system. I have a vivid memory > > of using it to interview a candidate to replace Larry Roberts as head of > > IPTO. On a Sunday afternoon, six of us participated: The candidate, > Larry > > Roberts, Steve Lukasik, Alex Tachmindji, Bob Kahn, me. Tachmindji was > > Lukasik's deputy. Bob and I were program managers under Larry. All of > us > > except the candidate were based in the DC area. Some of us were at home; > > others were in the office. The candidate was at home in another part of > > the country,elsewhere, working in his den. > > > > I was the most junior person on the call, so I said little but listened a > > lot. Also, Tachmindji had had the least experience with these tools, > and I > > provided some help to him via a side chat. > > > > I noticed there were sometimes two or even three distinct threads in > > progress. It was not only fairly easy to follow them, it was actually > more > > interesting than if we had all been in the same room. We didn't have to > > wait for each person to finish talking, so it seemed more efficient than > a > > regular face to face meeting. > > > > I've often wondered why this mode of interaction is used more frequently. > > I've even tried it out when I had control of the group, but the results > > weren't great. > > > > Larry left DARPA in late 1973 or perhaps very early 1974, so that pins > down > > the date moderately well. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Steve > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 3:56?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > > Just a few years ago, I stumbled across an Annual Report that MIT > > > submitted for one year's work in the early 70s. Since I was there at > > > the time, I was curious how history recorded what we were doing then. > > > Looking at the section for our group, I found a description of a > > > revolutionary implementation of a teleconferencing system that allowed > > > people to interact in real time using the ARPANET which had been > > > completed that year. > > > > > > I didn't remember that we had built any teleconferencing system. Of > > > course with age comes memory loss. But I remember lots of stuff we did > > > then, but not a "teleconferencing system". A sign of encroaching > > > dementia...? > > > > > > With further investigation... > > > > > > A bunch of us at MIT in Licklider's group spent a lot of hours getting > > > multi-player MazeWar running on our fancy new Imlac minicomputers. > > > Someone added a feature where players could trash-talk each other with > a > > > shared screen space trying to lure them into an ambush or gloat on > > > another kill. MazeWars of course had nothing to do with whatever > > > research we were doing. Gettings MazeWar going was just a lot of fun. > > > We all thought MazeWars was just a cool hack and extremely addictive > > > game. If curious, see > > > https://www.digibarn.com/collections/games/xerox-maze-war/index.html > > > > > > But the experience did reveal, to me at least, the importance of > > > latency, and the difficulties of getting a bunch of computers to > > > interact over a network. Imlacs had no I/O except RS232. So, our > > > "LAN" was a star-shaped configuration with Imlac minicomputers > connected > > > via RS232 to our PDP-10 as the center of the star (7 floors away), and > I > > > had goosed the RS232 hardware well beyond its spec to achieve almost > 100 > > > kb/sec. I tried to convince BBN to upgrade the TIP hardware to support > > > higher speed "terminals", but was rebuffed -- "The TIP supports > > > terminals up to the maximum reasonable speed of 9600 bits/second." > > > > > > MIT's Annual Report touted Maze as a "teleconferencing system". > > > > > > Jack > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True From vint at google.com Tue Aug 8 13:45:38 2023 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 16:45:38 -0400 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] In-Reply-To: References: <027A3D83-C4DF-4300-A5AB-B28831C5AFDF@comcast.net> Message-ID: Thanks Geoff!! On Tue, Aug 8, 2023, 16:43 the keyboard of geoff goodfellow < geoff at iconia.com> wrote: > indeed "there another system called Planet in that early era", viz.: > > "... In 1971, [Jacques] Vall?e left Stanford to join the Engelbart group > as a senior research engineer. His tenure at ARC coincided with the group's > immersion in Erhard Seminars Training and other social experiments, > ultimately prompting his departure. While at the Institute for the Future > as a senior research fellow from 1972 to 1976, he succeeded Paul Baran as > principal investigator on the large National Science Foundation project for > computer networking, which developed one of the first ARPANET conferencing > systems, Planning Network (PLANET),[2] predating instant messaging by many > years. The technology was spun off into InfoMedia, a startup company > founded by Vall?e in 1976. Although the firm formed several international > spinoffs and partnered with a variety of prominent firms and governmental > organizations (including Lehman Brothers, Renault and NASA), it failed to > attain long-term profitability... > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Vall%C3%A9e > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 1:35?PM Vint Cerf via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> Wasn't there another system called Planet in that early era? >> V >> >> On Tue, Aug 8, 2023, 16:31 Steve Crocker via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >> > There were multiple conferencing system efforts in those early years. >> BBN >> > built one that included video. I moved to ISI in 1974. The BBN system >> was >> > built a bit later; I don't remember the exact date. I do remember >> sitting >> > in a swivel chair, spinning it around, and then watching myself complete >> > the swivel, so the latency was definitely noticeable. >> > >> > The Institute for the Future (IFF) developed a conferencing system >> called >> > Forum. It was essentially identical to IRC, except it required >> everyone to >> > be logged into the same machine. A user's input was considered to be a >> > paragraph. Even if the user was working at a character-at-a-time >> terminal, >> > which most of us were, output would be suppressed until the paragraph of >> > input was complete. At that point, any paragraphs from others that had >> > been queued up were then printed. If you tried to type new input, you >> > would not see the echoed characters until all the queued up paragraphs >> had >> > spewed out. >> > >> > This was a remarkably effective and usable system. I have a vivid >> memory >> > of using it to interview a candidate to replace Larry Roberts as head of >> > IPTO. On a Sunday afternoon, six of us participated: The candidate, >> Larry >> > Roberts, Steve Lukasik, Alex Tachmindji, Bob Kahn, me. Tachmindji was >> > Lukasik's deputy. Bob and I were program managers under Larry. All of >> us >> > except the candidate were based in the DC area. Some of us were at >> home; >> > others were in the office. The candidate was at home in another part of >> > the country,elsewhere, working in his den. >> > >> > I was the most junior person on the call, so I said little but listened >> a >> > lot. Also, Tachmindji had had the least experience with these tools, >> and I >> > provided some help to him via a side chat. >> > >> > I noticed there were sometimes two or even three distinct threads in >> > progress. It was not only fairly easy to follow them, it was actually >> more >> > interesting than if we had all been in the same room. We didn't have to >> > wait for each person to finish talking, so it seemed more efficient >> than a >> > regular face to face meeting. >> > >> > I've often wondered why this mode of interaction is used more >> frequently. >> > I've even tried it out when I had control of the group, but the results >> > weren't great. >> > >> > Larry left DARPA in late 1973 or perhaps very early 1974, so that pins >> down >> > the date moderately well. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Steve >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 3:56?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < >> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> > >> > > Just a few years ago, I stumbled across an Annual Report that MIT >> > > submitted for one year's work in the early 70s. Since I was there at >> > > the time, I was curious how history recorded what we were doing then. >> > > Looking at the section for our group, I found a description of a >> > > revolutionary implementation of a teleconferencing system that allowed >> > > people to interact in real time using the ARPANET which had been >> > > completed that year. >> > > >> > > I didn't remember that we had built any teleconferencing system. Of >> > > course with age comes memory loss. But I remember lots of stuff we >> did >> > > then, but not a "teleconferencing system". A sign of encroaching >> > > dementia...? >> > > >> > > With further investigation... >> > > >> > > A bunch of us at MIT in Licklider's group spent a lot of hours getting >> > > multi-player MazeWar running on our fancy new Imlac minicomputers. >> > > Someone added a feature where players could trash-talk each other >> with a >> > > shared screen space trying to lure them into an ambush or gloat on >> > > another kill. MazeWars of course had nothing to do with whatever >> > > research we were doing. Gettings MazeWar going was just a lot of >> fun. >> > > We all thought MazeWars was just a cool hack and extremely addictive >> > > game. If curious, see >> > > https://www.digibarn.com/collections/games/xerox-maze-war/index.html >> > > >> > > But the experience did reveal, to me at least, the importance of >> > > latency, and the difficulties of getting a bunch of computers to >> > > interact over a network. Imlacs had no I/O except RS232. So, our >> > > "LAN" was a star-shaped configuration with Imlac minicomputers >> connected >> > > via RS232 to our PDP-10 as the center of the star (7 floors away), >> and I >> > > had goosed the RS232 hardware well beyond its spec to achieve almost >> 100 >> > > kb/sec. I tried to convince BBN to upgrade the TIP hardware to >> support >> > > higher speed "terminals", but was rebuffed -- "The TIP supports >> > > terminals up to the maximum reasonable speed of 9600 bits/second." >> > > >> > > MIT's Annual Report touted Maze as a "teleconferencing system". >> > > >> > > Jack >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > 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 >> > > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > > From geoff at iconia.com Tue Aug 8 13:50:38 2023 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 13:50:38 -0700 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] In-Reply-To: References: <027A3D83-C4DF-4300-A5AB-B28831C5AFDF@comcast.net> Message-ID: vint, also recalling there was CONFER from/in That ERA (and WHAT An Era It WAS! :-) "CONFER is one of the first computer conferencing systems. Highly sophisticated for its time, it was developed in 1975 at the University of Michigan by then graduate student Robert Parnes.[1] The CONFER system continued to be a widely used communication tool until 1999.[2] CONFER is the progenitor of the computer conferencing systems Caucus, PicoSpan, and YAPP.[3] Origins and history CONFER was developed in the mid-1970s when University of Michigan experimental psychology graduate student Bob Parnes attended a seminar where Professor Merrill M. Flood discussed aspects of electronic mail and conferencing on group decision making.[4] Flood had a magnetic tape of a prototype system and approached Parnes about getting it to run on the Michigan Terminal System (MTS), the university's time-sharing system. Parnes declined, but offered instead to attempt writing a similar program for MTS.[5] With encouragement from Fred Goodman and LeVerne Collet at the School of Education and Karl Zinn at the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching (CRLT), CONFER was developed. Because of a graduate teaching assistant strike, Parnes was temporarily relieved of his teaching duties and had some extra time to devote to his experimental system, which he called "CONFER".[5] MTS served as an excellent development environment for CONFER, which was built on top of the MTS file structure and exploited its file sharing features. According to Parnes, "I don't think I could have written CONFER anywhere but on MTS." MTS at U-M and later at Wayne State University (WSU) was a good match for CONFER because both systems were attached to the Merit Network and thus had a broader reach within Michigan via Merit and within the U.S. and internationally via Merit's interconnections to Telenet (later SprintNet), Tymnet, ADP's Autonet, and later still the IBM Global Network and the Internet. Parnes' vision of the system was one where the individual group participant would alternate between being a producer and being a consumer of information. The unique CONFER feature in this regard was initially the functionality of the "vote." This feature allowed the consumer to voice their "feelings" or opinion on a statement by voting. Parnes went on to form his own company ? Advertel Communication Systems, Inc. ? which marketed and supported CONFER.[5] The CONFER system continued to be a widely used communication tool until 1999. By this time, U-M, WSU, and the University of Alberta had moved from the Michigan Terminal System to distributed computing environments and several newer digital technologies replaced the functionality provided by CONFER.[2] Sites where CONFER was used... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CONFER_(software) On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 1:42?PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow < geoff at iconia.com> wrote: > indeed "there another system called Planet in that early era", viz.: > > "... In 1971, [Jacques] Vall?e left Stanford to join the Engelbart group > as a senior research engineer. His tenure at ARC coincided with the group's > immersion in Erhard Seminars Training and other social experiments, > ultimately prompting his departure. While at the Institute for the Future > as a senior research fellow from 1972 to 1976, he succeeded Paul Baran as > principal investigator on the large National Science Foundation project for > computer networking, which developed one of the first ARPANET conferencing > systems, Planning Network (PLANET),[2] predating instant messaging by many > years. The technology was spun off into InfoMedia, a startup company > founded by Vall?e in 1976. Although the firm formed several international > spinoffs and partnered with a variety of prominent firms and governmental > organizations (including Lehman Brothers, Renault and NASA), it failed to > attain long-term profitability... > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Vall%C3%A9e > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 1:35?PM Vint Cerf via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> Wasn't there another system called Planet in that early era? >> V >> >> On Tue, Aug 8, 2023, 16:31 Steve Crocker via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >> > There were multiple conferencing system efforts in those early years. >> BBN >> > built one that included video. I moved to ISI in 1974. The BBN system >> was >> > built a bit later; I don't remember the exact date. I do remember >> sitting >> > in a swivel chair, spinning it around, and then watching myself complete >> > the swivel, so the latency was definitely noticeable. >> > >> > The Institute for the Future (IFF) developed a conferencing system >> called >> > Forum. It was essentially identical to IRC, except it required >> everyone to >> > be logged into the same machine. A user's input was considered to be a >> > paragraph. Even if the user was working at a character-at-a-time >> terminal, >> > which most of us were, output would be suppressed until the paragraph of >> > input was complete. At that point, any paragraphs from others that had >> > been queued up were then printed. If you tried to type new input, you >> > would not see the echoed characters until all the queued up paragraphs >> had >> > spewed out. >> > >> > This was a remarkably effective and usable system. I have a vivid >> memory >> > of using it to interview a candidate to replace Larry Roberts as head of >> > IPTO. On a Sunday afternoon, six of us participated: The candidate, >> Larry >> > Roberts, Steve Lukasik, Alex Tachmindji, Bob Kahn, me. Tachmindji was >> > Lukasik's deputy. Bob and I were program managers under Larry. All of >> us >> > except the candidate were based in the DC area. Some of us were at >> home; >> > others were in the office. The candidate was at home in another part of >> > the country,elsewhere, working in his den. >> > >> > I was the most junior person on the call, so I said little but listened >> a >> > lot. Also, Tachmindji had had the least experience with these tools, >> and I >> > provided some help to him via a side chat. >> > >> > I noticed there were sometimes two or even three distinct threads in >> > progress. It was not only fairly easy to follow them, it was actually >> more >> > interesting than if we had all been in the same room. We didn't have to >> > wait for each person to finish talking, so it seemed more efficient >> than a >> > regular face to face meeting. >> > >> > I've often wondered why this mode of interaction is used more >> frequently. >> > I've even tried it out when I had control of the group, but the results >> > weren't great. >> > >> > Larry left DARPA in late 1973 or perhaps very early 1974, so that pins >> down >> > the date moderately well. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Steve >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 3:56?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < >> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> > >> > > Just a few years ago, I stumbled across an Annual Report that MIT >> > > submitted for one year's work in the early 70s. Since I was there at >> > > the time, I was curious how history recorded what we were doing then. >> > > Looking at the section for our group, I found a description of a >> > > revolutionary implementation of a teleconferencing system that allowed >> > > people to interact in real time using the ARPANET which had been >> > > completed that year. >> > > >> > > I didn't remember that we had built any teleconferencing system. Of >> > > course with age comes memory loss. But I remember lots of stuff we >> did >> > > then, but not a "teleconferencing system". A sign of encroaching >> > > dementia...? >> > > >> > > With further investigation... >> > > >> > > A bunch of us at MIT in Licklider's group spent a lot of hours getting >> > > multi-player MazeWar running on our fancy new Imlac minicomputers. >> > > Someone added a feature where players could trash-talk each other >> with a >> > > shared screen space trying to lure them into an ambush or gloat on >> > > another kill. MazeWars of course had nothing to do with whatever >> > > research we were doing. Gettings MazeWar going was just a lot of >> fun. >> > > We all thought MazeWars was just a cool hack and extremely addictive >> > > game. If curious, see >> > > https://www.digibarn.com/collections/games/xerox-maze-war/index.html >> > > >> > > But the experience did reveal, to me at least, the importance of >> > > latency, and the difficulties of getting a bunch of computers to >> > > interact over a network. Imlacs had no I/O except RS232. So, our >> > > "LAN" was a star-shaped configuration with Imlac minicomputers >> connected >> > > via RS232 to our PDP-10 as the center of the star (7 floors away), >> and I >> > > had goosed the RS232 hardware well beyond its spec to achieve almost >> 100 >> > > kb/sec. I tried to convince BBN to upgrade the TIP hardware to >> support >> > > higher speed "terminals", but was rebuffed -- "The TIP supports >> > > terminals up to the maximum reasonable speed of 9600 bits/second." >> > > >> > > MIT's Annual Report touted Maze as a "teleconferencing system". >> > > >> > > Jack >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > 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 >> > > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Tue Aug 8 13:57:56 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 08:57:56 +1200 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] In-Reply-To: References: <027A3D83-C4DF-4300-A5AB-B28831C5AFDF@comcast.net> Message-ID: Jack, > Imlacs had no I/O except RS232. That's not quite true, but you needed a tame electronics engineer. I specified, and someone else designed, a 16-bit parallel communications interface for the Imlac PDS-1 in 1971. Like the PDP-8 and PDP-11, the Imlac had provision for connecting homebrew perhipherals. (The Imlac designers came from Digital.) Unfortunately I don't have any documentation of that hardware, but the associated software is documented at https://github.com/larsbrinkhoff/imlac-software/tree/master/CERN-PDS1 It certainly wasn't teleconferencing. Regards Brian Carpenter On 09-Aug-23 07:55, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > Just a few years ago, I stumbled across an Annual Report that MIT > submitted for one year's work in the early 70s.? Since I was there at > the time, I was curious how history recorded what we were doing then. > Looking at the section for our group, I found a description of a > revolutionary implementation of a teleconferencing system that allowed > people to interact in real time using the ARPANET which had been > completed that year. > > I didn't remember that we had built any teleconferencing system. Of > course with age comes memory loss.? But I remember lots of stuff we did > then, but not a "teleconferencing system".?? A sign of encroaching > dementia...? > > With further investigation... > > A bunch of us at MIT in Licklider's group spent a lot of hours getting > multi-player MazeWar running on our fancy new Imlac minicomputers. > Someone added a feature where players could trash-talk each other with a > shared screen space trying to lure them into an ambush or gloat on > another kill.?? MazeWars of course had nothing to do with whatever > research we were doing.?? Gettings MazeWar going was just a lot of fun. > We all thought MazeWars was just a cool hack and extremely addictive > game.?? If curious, see > https://www.digibarn.com/collections/games/xerox-maze-war/index.html > > But the experience did reveal, to me at least, the importance of > latency, and the difficulties of getting a bunch of computers to > interact over a network.?? Imlacs had no I/O except RS232.? So, our > "LAN" was a star-shaped configuration with Imlac minicomputers connected > via RS232 to our PDP-10 as the center of the star (7 floors away), and I > had goosed the RS232 hardware well beyond its spec to achieve almost 100 > kb/sec.? I tried to convince BBN to upgrade the TIP hardware to support > higher speed "terminals", but was rebuffed -- "The TIP supports > terminals up to the maximum reasonable speed of 9600 bits/second." > > MIT's Annual Report touted Maze as a "teleconferencing system". > > Jack > > From j at shoch.com Tue Aug 8 14:36:21 2023 From: j at shoch.com (John Shoch) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 14:36:21 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste Message-ID: The text editor history is fun, but I thought I might return to Dave C.'s initial question: the origin of "cut and paste" -- or perhaps more narrowly "cut and paste as we know it today." --This is a phrase which goes back centuries, in the world of printing. A quick search of the OED finds a usage from 1772: *"1772. *This was only cutting and pasting, as I used to call it: For when I met with any passages in preceding authors that suited my present purpose, without ceremony I cut the books to pieces, and, by adding a connecting sentence or two of my own, tacked the copy together,..and sent it to the press." *Younger Brother vol. II. 166* https://www.oed.com/dictionary/cut_v?tab=meaning_and_use --Clearly, all the early computer text editors had the ability to do the equivalent function of a cut and paste, under various names and/or command sequences. --But these early character- and line-oriented editors usually depended on you knowing where you were in a file, or in a line of text. --I presume it was NLS, at SRI, which introduced the first mouse-based selection of a 2D block of text. From the "NLS User Training Guide": https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2021/06/102734155-05-01-acc.pdf "...moving or copying any portion of text from one file to another (automating the traditional cut and paste technique)...." But recall that NLS included both a Display NLS (DNLS), with a complicated Command/Operand structure, and a Terminal NLS (TNLS) that was much more complex. --Ca. 1972 at Parc Bill Duvall built an NLS-style editor (CGEDIT), running on a Nova 800 with a hardware character generator. It supported proportionally spaced fonts, and the ability to select arbitrary words, lines, or "TEXT (Bug-left [Bug-right])". Commands were called Insert, Replace/Delete, and Move. --In a 12/23/1973 memo Larry Tesler was working to simplify text editing for secretarial users: "The results suggest certain modifications to the CGEDIT-type user interface...." "The sophisticated display editing systems designed by computerists for computerists often put off laymen who consider them complicated." "The intuitive use of a keyset is as a set of control keys (not as the alphabet in binary)." "The command-first (prefix) command language of NLS and CGEDIT is awkward and unintuitive.... A command-last (postfix) language would be better...." --This led to Gypsy: a system commissioned by Ginn, a publishing company then owned by Xerox, to be used by their book editors. Built on a foundation from Bravo, It embodied Larry's belief in a "modeless editing" system. To simplify usage the keyset was not used as a chord-keyset, but as 5 individual function keys; adopting terminology from the printing industry, two of them were labelled Cut and Paste. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsy_(software) http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/xerox/alto/GypsyEvaluation_Sep76.pdf You can see some of this in Larry's demo on this page, at around 11:00 min. https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/19/21144516/larry-tesler-cut-copy-paste-dies-at-74-apple-xerox-amazon-obituary --Later, at Apple, Cut and Paste were moved from the keyset to the toolbar, under Edit -- where they live to this day. To sum up: --The phrase "cut and paste" goes back centuries. --Many early text editors had the equivalent functions, under different names. --Yet if we try to define "cut and paste as we know it today" it might include: a. Mouse-based UI. b. 2D selection of text. c. "Postfix" application of the editing commands. d. The names Cut and Paste for two of these operations. e. A dedicated key or menu item to invoke them. --Under that umbrella, Tesler and his colleagues who built Gypsy deserve the credit.... John S., From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Tue Aug 8 14:46:21 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 09:46:21 +1200 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: <8BA19E15-F332-4CEE-A06A-1F10EC68EAD1@strayalpha.com> References: <20230808151614.3A2B1FFA14B3@ary.qy> <8BA19E15-F332-4CEE-A06A-1F10EC68EAD1@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: <9a87a9f4-d333-9f6f-08e1-7c2e2eb13c83@gmail.com> On 09-Aug-23 03:32, touch--- via Internet-history wrote: ... > May and may? > March and march? > Turkey and turkey? This is exactly why T?rkiye now wants to be known as T?rkiye: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/member-states/turkiye I have always found that "an internet" vs "the Internet" solves the nomenclature problem, but in case of doubt I write "the global Internet" (although one can quibble about that, too). It's also somewhat flattering that "the internet" has become the norm, like "the air". Brian From enervatron at gmail.com Tue Aug 8 16:10:51 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 16:10:51 -0700 Subject: [ih] 40 years ago net.motss was newgroup'd In-Reply-To: <20230808204309.E89AEFFA7FBD@ary.qy> References: <20230808204309.E89AEFFA7FBD@ary.qy> Message-ID: <2b956796-e606-c2ba-e934-deaf29c24a1c@gmail.com> On 8/8/23 1:43 PM, John Levine wrote: > It appears that Michael Thomas via Internet-history said: >> into soc.motss was the internet's first gay newsgroup. It was created by >> Steve Dyer late of BBN. It was a purposefully cryptic name to fly under >> the radar. > In the 1980s I lived in Harvard Square around the corner from Steve > and his partner whose name I don't remember but who was, if such a > thing is possible, even nicer than he was. Everyone knew they were > gay which, fortunately in that part of Cambridge, was not a big deal. > I was never quite clear what Steve did at BBN. Maybe somebody here remembers? FWIW: my domain name is a result of Steve's spdcc.com. I needed to create LLC in a hurry and this is what popped into my mind. But one other point is that it's funny how gay politics intersected the nascent internet. I don't have proof of it, but my suspicion is that a lot of changes especially in Silicon Valley but elsewhere as well with companies and HR policies were very facilitated by the internet. It's not like you would set up phone trees to get people to lobby HR, after all. The net really facilitated that and probably in a big way. Mike From jack at 3kitty.org Tue Aug 8 16:10:58 2023 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 16:10:58 -0700 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] In-Reply-To: References: <027A3D83-C4DF-4300-A5AB-B28831C5AFDF@comcast.net> Message-ID: BBN Planet was an ISP that BBN started sometime in the 90s.?? I don't recall if there was another "Planet" project at BBN earlier, but there certainly could have been. ----- FYI, Licklider's vision for "Computer Assisted Human Communication" tied a lot of the pieces together.? Electronic mail was the first part, and actually got implemented.?? But the vision was that humans could communicate using a variety of mechanisms that could change as a discussion progressed. So two people might start an email chat, then have some exchanges over some kind of real-time system (linking terminals, sending text or multimedia messages, whatever), possibly transition into a voice and/or video call, and freely mix all of these mechanisms as part of one discussion.? At some point they might bring in other participants, and give them access to the saved history of prior discussions which they could digest to "come up to speed".?? A discussion might blossom into a "forum" where lots of people discuss something (like here), and their computers can help keep it all organized so its human-friendly. The archives of all human communications would be kept on the Datacomputer so it would be accessible to all.? (I wrote code to do that)? The computers involved would keep track of all the participants, how to reach each by each different communications mechanism, who had seen which interactions and other administrative trivia.?? Computers are good at such work.?? All just part of the Galactic Network services to help humans communicate amongst themselves. Sadly, we don't seem to have gotten there.?? We have lots of mechanisms for human communications, but they can't talk to each other.?? If I remember reading something somewhere it's not easy to find it in the jumble of my mail program folders, those on various servers, or maybe I saw it in a text message or Zoom session. Sure wish my computers could help. Jack On 8/8/23 13:38, Steve Crocker wrote: > Sounds familiar.? Might?have?been the name BBN used for their system, > but I'm not sure. > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 4:35?PM Vint Cerf wrote: > > Wasn't there another system called Planet in that early era? > V > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023, 16:31 Steve Crocker via Internet-history > wrote: > > There were multiple conferencing system efforts in those early > years.? BBN > built one that included video.? I moved to ISI in 1974. The > BBN system was > built a bit later; I don't remember the exact date.? I do > remember sitting > in a swivel chair, spinning it around, and then watching > myself complete > the swivel, so the latency was definitely noticeable. > > The Institute for the Future (IFF) developed a conferencing > system called > Forum.? It was essentially identical to IRC, except it > required everyone to > be logged into the same machine.? A user's input was > considered to be a > paragraph.? Even if the user was working at a > character-at-a-time terminal, > which most of us were, output would be suppressed until the > paragraph of > input was complete.? At that point, any paragraphs from others > that had > been queued up were then printed.? If you tried to type new > input, you > would not see the echoed characters until all the queued up > paragraphs had > spewed out. > > This was a remarkably effective and usable system.? I have a > vivid memory > of using it to interview a candidate to replace Larry Roberts > as head of > IPTO.? On a Sunday afternoon, six of us participated: The > candidate, Larry > Roberts, Steve Lukasik, Alex Tachmindji, Bob Kahn, me. > Tachmindji was > Lukasik's deputy.? Bob and I were program managers under > Larry.? All of us > except the candidate were based in the DC area.? Some of us > were at home; > others were in the office.? The candidate was at home in > another part of > the country,elsewhere, working in his den. > > I was the most junior person on the call, so I said little but > listened a > lot.? Also, Tachmindji had had the least experience with these > tools, and I > provided some help to him via a side chat. > > I noticed there were sometimes two or even three distinct > threads in > progress.? It was not only fairly easy to follow them, it was > actually more > interesting than if we had all been in the same room.? We > didn't have to > wait for each person to finish talking, so it seemed more > efficient than a > regular face to face meeting. > > I've often wondered why this mode of interaction is used more > frequently. > I've even tried it out when I had control of the group, but > the results > weren't great. > > Larry left DARPA in late 1973 or perhaps very early 1974, so > that pins down > the date moderately well. > > Cheers, > > Steve > > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 3:56?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > Just a few years ago, I stumbled across an Annual Report > that MIT > > submitted for one year's work in the early 70s. Since I was > there at > > the time, I was curious how history recorded what we were > doing then. > > Looking at the section for our group, I found a description of a > > revolutionary implementation of a teleconferencing system > that allowed > > people to interact in real time using the ARPANET which had been > > completed that year. > > > > I didn't remember that we had built any teleconferencing > system. Of > > course with age comes memory loss.? But I remember lots of > stuff we did > > then, but not a "teleconferencing system".? ?A sign of > encroaching > > dementia...? > > > > With further investigation... > > > > A bunch of us at MIT in Licklider's group spent a lot of > hours getting > > multi-player MazeWar running on our fancy new Imlac > minicomputers. > > Someone added a feature where players could trash-talk each > other with a > > shared screen space trying to lure them into an ambush or > gloat on > > another kill.? ?MazeWars of course had nothing to do with > whatever > > research we were doing.? ?Gettings MazeWar going was just a > lot of fun. > > We all thought MazeWars was just a cool hack and extremely > addictive > > game.? ?If curious, see > > > https://www.digibarn.com/collections/games/xerox-maze-war/index.html > > > > But the experience did reveal, to me at least, the importance of > > latency, and the difficulties of getting a bunch of computers to > > interact over a network.? ?Imlacs had no I/O except RS232.? > So, our > > "LAN" was a star-shaped configuration with Imlac > minicomputers connected > > via RS232 to our PDP-10 as the center of the star (7 floors > away), and I > > had goosed the RS232 hardware well beyond its spec to > achieve almost 100 > > kb/sec.? I tried to convince BBN to upgrade the TIP hardware > to support > > higher speed "terminals", but was rebuffed -- "The TIP supports > > terminals up to the maximum reasonable speed of 9600 > bits/second." > > > > MIT's Annual Report touted Maze as a "teleconferencing system". > > > > Jack > > > > > > -- > > 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 Tue Aug 8 16:45:57 2023 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 16:45:57 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Cut and paste" probably dates to shortly after Gutenberg.? From my high school days, I remember "editors" literally cutting articles into pieces, cutting photographs to a particular size, and then literally pasting the pieces onto a large piece of cardboard, the size of a newspaper page.? They could move things around as needed to get everything to fit, and putting "continued on page xx" for the pieces that wouldn't fit. ? the paste was applied and then that piece of cardboard was sent off to the Printer, who painstakingly set the lead type into the frames for the printing press that put the page onto paper. ? Very Ben Franklin-esque. I've wondered what an editor might look like if it didn't just mimic ancient traditional non-computer practice.? Is "copy and paste" the only way to use computers to manipulate documents??? Perhaps with the advent of AI we'll see some entirely new ways of doing such things. Jack On 8/8/23 14:36, John Shoch via Internet-history wrote: > The text editor history is fun, but I thought I might return to Dave C.'s > initial question: the origin of "cut and paste" -- or perhaps more > narrowly "cut and paste as we know it today." > > > > --This is a phrase which goes back centuries, in the world of printing. > > A quick search of the OED finds a usage from 1772: > > > > *"1772. *This was only cutting and pasting, as I used to call it: For when > I met with any passages in preceding authors that suited my present > purpose, without ceremony I cut the books to pieces, and, by adding a > connecting sentence or two of my own, tacked the copy together,..and sent > it to the press." > > *Younger Brother vol. II. 166* > > https://www.oed.com/dictionary/cut_v?tab=meaning_and_use > > > > --Clearly, all the early computer text editors had the ability to do the > equivalent function of a cut and paste, under various names and/or command > sequences. > > > --But these early character- and line-oriented editors usually depended on > you knowing where you were in a file, or in a line of text. > > > > --I presume it was NLS, at SRI, which introduced the first mouse-based > selection of a 2D block of text. From the "NLS User Training Guide": > > https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2021/06/102734155-05-01-acc.pdf > > "...moving or copying any portion of text from one file to another > (automating the traditional cut and paste technique)...." > > But recall that NLS included both a Display NLS (DNLS), with a complicated > Command/Operand structure, and a Terminal NLS (TNLS) that was much more > complex. > > > > --Ca. 1972 at Parc Bill Duvall built an NLS-style editor (CGEDIT), running > on a Nova 800 with a hardware character generator. It supported > proportionally spaced fonts, and the ability to select arbitrary words, > lines, or "TEXT (Bug-left [Bug-right])". Commands were called Insert, > Replace/Delete, and Move. > > > > --In a 12/23/1973 memo Larry Tesler was working to simplify text editing > for secretarial users: > > "The results suggest certain modifications to the CGEDIT-type user > interface...." > > "The sophisticated display editing systems designed by computerists for > computerists often put off laymen who consider them complicated." > > "The intuitive use of a keyset is as a set of control keys (not as the > alphabet in binary)." > > "The command-first (prefix) command language of NLS and CGEDIT is awkward > and unintuitive.... A command-last (postfix) language would be better...." > > > > --This led to Gypsy: a system commissioned by Ginn, a publishing company > then owned by Xerox, to be used by their book editors. Built on a > foundation from Bravo, It embodied Larry's belief in a "modeless editing" > system. To simplify usage the keyset was not used as a chord-keyset, but > as 5 individual function keys; adopting terminology from the printing > industry, two of them were labelled Cut and Paste. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsy_(software) > > http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/xerox/alto/GypsyEvaluation_Sep76.pdf > > You can see some of this in Larry's demo on this page, at around 11:00 min. > > https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/19/21144516/larry-tesler-cut-copy-paste-dies-at-74-apple-xerox-amazon-obituary > > > > --Later, at Apple, Cut and Paste were moved from the keyset to the toolbar, > under Edit -- where they live to this day. > > > > To sum up: > > --The phrase "cut and paste" goes back centuries. > > --Many early text editors had the equivalent functions, under different > names. > > --Yet if we try to define "cut and paste as we know it today" it might > include: > > a. Mouse-based UI. > > b. 2D selection of text. > > c. "Postfix" application of the editing commands. > > d. The names Cut and Paste for two of these operations. > > e. A dedicated key or menu item to invoke them. > > --Under that umbrella, Tesler and his colleagues who built Gypsy deserve > the credit.... > > > > John S., From olejacobsen at me.com Tue Aug 8 17:10:07 2023 From: olejacobsen at me.com (Ole Jacobsen) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 17:10:07 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, the term "cut-and-paste" refers to the process of assembling "camera-ready art" (which includes text and graphics/photographs, etc) onto paste-up boards. I am going to guess that your high-school days didn't actually involve movable lead type, but rather a camera that would photograph the whole paste-up board and generate a piece of film which would then be used to etch an offset plate for printing. My first publication, ConneXions--The Interoperability Report was produced in this manner, using some combination of multi-page sheets (up to 16 pages per sheet). Yeah, I know, we've moved away from the original topic :-) Ole > On Aug 8, 2023, at 16:45, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > > "Cut and paste" probably dates to shortly after Gutenberg. From my high school days, I remember "editors" literally cutting articles into pieces, cutting photographs to a particular size, and then literally pasting the pieces onto a large piece of cardboard, the size of a newspaper page. They could move things around as needed to get everything to fit, and putting "continued on page xx" for the pieces that wouldn't fit. the paste was applied and then that piece of cardboard was sent off to the Printer, who painstakingly set the lead type into the frames for the printing press that put the page onto paper. Very Ben Franklin-esque. > > I've wondered what an editor might look like if it didn't just mimic ancient traditional non-computer practice. Is "copy and paste" the only way to use computers to manipulate documents? Perhaps with the advent of AI we'll see some entirely new ways of doing such things. > > Jack > Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher The Internet Protocol Journal Office: +1 415-550-9433 Cell: +1 415-370-4628 Docomo: +81 90 3337-9311 Web: protocoljournal.org E-mail: olejacobsen at me.com E-mail: ole at protocoljournal.org From jack at 3kitty.org Tue Aug 8 17:25:26 2023 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 17:25:26 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7cf8e338-21f7-d8c8-420f-87ec5b285863@3kitty.org> Hi Ole!? Yes, you're probably right.?? Although my experience occurred in Philadelphia, so maybe the Franklin effect was still strong. Speaking of Connexions -- are the old issues archived online somewhere??? They may be historically valuable. Jack On 8/8/23 17:10, Ole Jacobsen wrote: > > Yes, the term "cut-and-paste" refers to the process of assembling > "camera-ready art" (which includes > text and graphics/photographs, etc) onto paste-up boards. > > I am going to guess that your high-school days didn't actually involve > movable lead type, but rather a > camera that would photograph the whole paste-up board and generate a > piece of film which would > then be used to etch an offset plate for printing. My first > publication, ConneXions--The Interoperability > Report was produced in this manner, using some combination of > multi-page sheets (up to 16 pages per sheet). > > Yeah, I know, we've moved away from the original topic :-) > > Ole > >> On Aug 8, 2023, at 16:45, Jack Haverty via Internet-history >> wrote: >> >> "Cut and paste" probably dates to shortly after Gutenberg.? From my >> high school days, I remember "editors" literally cutting articles >> into pieces, cutting photographs to a particular size, and then >> literally pasting the pieces onto a large piece of cardboard, the >> size of a newspaper page.? They could move things around as needed to >> get everything to fit, and putting "continued on page xx" for the >> pieces that wouldn't fit. ? the paste was applied and then that piece >> of cardboard was sent off to the Printer, who painstakingly set the >> lead type into the frames for the printing press that put the page >> onto paper. ? Very Ben Franklin-esque. >> >> I've wondered what an editor might look like if it didn't just mimic >> ancient traditional non-computer practice.? Is "copy and paste" the >> only way to use computers to manipulate documents??? Perhaps with the >> advent of AI we'll see some entirely new ways of doing such things. >> >> Jack >> > Ole J. Jacobsen > Editor and Publisher > The Internet Protocol?Journal > Office: +1 415-550-9433 > Cell: ? +1 415-370-4628 > Docomo: +81 90 3337-9311 > Web:?protocoljournal.org > E-mail: olejacobsen at me.com > E-mail: ole at protocoljournal.org > > > > > > > From geoff at iconia.com Tue Aug 8 17:30:23 2023 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 17:30:23 -0700 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: for some unknown reason the IH list is randomly not sending out items sent to it... luckily, Steve sent yours truly this reply directly -- now being fwd'd: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Steve Crocker Date: Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 5:23?PM Subject: Re: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] To: the keyboard of geoff goodfellow Cc: Internet-history On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 12:52?PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow < geoff at iconia.com> wrote: > that was a really excellent "little bit" steve... if yours truly may add a > little bit more to "I'm interrupted by a chat request from Lukasik" > vis-a-vis the "chat request": > > that was known as the LINK command in the Tenex EXEC, where you could say > LINK USERNAME or link TTY# and your terminal session and the other person's > terminal session would be summarily LINKED to each other -- where each > would see exactly what the other was seeing... IIRC up to 5 terminals could > be LINKED together... ERGO, after Lukasik LINKED to you, he likely just > typed out the memo file on his terminal which of course came out on yours. > Yes, that sounds right. I don't remember typing the semicolon, but it was obviously necessary. An earlier hack, not involving Lukasik or Roberts was to login to a Tenex machine, Telnet back to the same machine, and then link the two sessions. Typing a single character caused an endless flow. A related but different issue arose when typing control-C in a session that was a Telnet session to another machine. Would the control-C be interpreted by the first session or the second session? Some wag coined the term cybergammaphobia, inordinate fear of control-C. Thanks, Steve > > when terminals were linked to one another, we would proceed our text with > an ";" -- which was the EXEC's "comment" character, i.e. > @; hi there > @; what's up? > [...] > with the occasional "flub" of where one would forget to proceed their > comment with the ";" and the EXEC would then interpret it as commands... > with sometimes "unusual" results... later, a program named TALK was written > what just took what was typed into it and did nothing with it... although > it did have a nice feature in that you could type stuff in without RETURNs > and it would automatically insert line breaks (CR's) after 60 some odd > characters or so... recalling that in those days we mostly had Teletype > Model 33 ASR's (or KSR's) that were only upper case and had a line length > of 72 characters (and printed out at 110 baud, or 10 characters per second > CPS) > > one last thing about LINKing on Tenex: if you were a WHEEL (I.e. > privileged user) it was possible to do one-way LINKS -- i.e. SPY on a > terminal or user... this was most useful for monitoring the CTY and/or TTY0 > which is where the monitor (or system daemon's/sysjob's) would spit out > "issues". > > geoff > > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 9:24?AM Steve Crocker wrote: > >> Adding a little bit to your summary: >> >> I was in (D)ARPA/IPTO from mid 1971 to mid 1974. When I arrived, the >> Arpanet had been in operation for almost two years. IPTO consisted of the >> director (Larry Roberts), three program managers (Bruce Dolan, John Perry, >> me), a senior non-technical person who handled our budgets and >> related matters (Al Blue), and two secretaries. Steve Lukasik was the >> (D)ARPA director and hence Larry's boss. I write (D)ARPA here because the >> agency was christened the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and >> embedded within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) in 1958. On 1 >> July 1972 it was moved out of OSD and became a separate Defense Agency. In >> the process, it acquitted the initial D, i.e. Defense Advanced Research >> Projects Agency, hence DARPA. The transition made essentially no >> difference in our mission or operation. >> >> A short time later, we had a TIP installed in the office. This meant we >> could connect a large number of terminals. Everyone in our office had a >> terminal on the desk, and soon others through the agency had terminals >> too. Lukasik was a strong proponent and soon required that each of his >> direct reports, i.e. the directors of the other Offices, use email to >> communicate with him. Each of us was also given an account on the Tenex >> machine at the new USC Information Sciences Institute (USC-ISI). >> >> Lukasik used email to transform the way he conducted business. Even >> though we were all housed in the same office building -- 1400 Wilson Blvd, >> Arlington, VA, where a plaque now stands commemorating the creation of the >> Arpanet -- and could meet face to face easily, he found email made it >> possible for him to reorganize his time and attention. (More on this >> below.) >> >> The earliest made reader we had was RD. I believe Roberts wrote. He was >> a very competent TECO hacker, and he whipped it up quickly. In that >> version, mail was stored in a continuous file. In some later mail systems, >> each message was in a separate file, but at the beginning all of a user's >> mail was in a continuous file. These files grew fairly quickly. Moving to >> a particular message became a slow process. >> >> I too was a fairly competent TECO hacker. I took a look and realized why >> it was taking too long to find a message. In the file, each message was >> preceded by a line that had a string indicating it was the beginning of a >> message and a count of the number of characters in the message. In >> principle, that should have made it quick to move forward in the file from >> one message to the next. However, that count didn't coincide with the >> actual number of characters in the file. When the count was created, it >> treated the end of each line as one character, the newline character (NL), >> but when the message arrived, it became two characters, carriage return >> (CR) followed by line feed (LF). Hence the TECO code had a loop that moved >> forward one character at a time until it found the beginning of the next >> message. Very slow. (I might be misremembering and reversing these >> effects, but either way it was the discrepancy between the way ends of >> lines were demarcated at the point of creation and the the way ends of >> lines were demarcated on the receiving side.) >> >> I replaced that loop with code that skipped forward a line at a time and >> then adjusted the number of characters it still had to go. The speedup was >> dramatic. >> >> Above I alluded to changes in Lukasik's management style. My primary >> focus while I was at (D)ARPA was the AI portfolio, i.e., MIT, CMU, >> Stanford, SRI and BN and others. AI was unquestionably a long term bet. >> (D)ARPA's usual profile was heavy funding of some area for five years or so >> to trigger a large change. ("A factor of ten, not ten percent" was the >> common catchphrase.). We knew AI was a *much* longer trek. Fifty years, >> most likely. That meant it was a constant challenge to protect the funding >> and explain the research to Congress. >> >> In the UK, Science Research Council, the UK counterpart to the US NSF, >> had been funding Donald Michie's AI research at the University of >> Edinburgh. According to a 29 June 1973 news article in Science, "In early >> 1972 Sir James Lighthill of Cambridge University undertook to survey the >> field of artificial intelligence (AI) for the Science Research Council of >> Britain." His report was dismissive of AI and had a strongly negative >> influence on AI funding in the UK. Toward the end of the Science news >> article, the following was embedded: >> >> Even granting that AI is an intellectually important area for research, >> it is fair to ask whether the field is using its resources wisely. The >> Lighthill report suggests that, in the United States especially, little >> attention has been given to this question, in part because there has been a >> relatively assured source of funding. As is true for computer science >> in general, research on AI is pre-dominantly supported by the Defense >> Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), which provides about $4.5 million >> a year. >> >> 29 July 1973 was a Friday. That evening I was sitting at my terminal at >> home. Abruptly, I'm interrupted by a chat request from Lukasik. I had no >> idea he even knew how to do that. After we were connected, he asked if he >> printed something on his terminal, would I see it? I assured him I would. >> Immediately a ten point memo starts printing on my terminal. He's >> concerned that Congress might see this comment in Science and take aim at >> our AI program. His memo dealt with possible press or Congressional >> questions, coordination internally, etc. I understood completely he >> perceived a possible threat and was making sure we were manning the >> ramparts. Fortunately, the attack never came. Even so, we did have a >> session in the office on a Sunday afternoon later in the summer watching a >> taped copy of the debate between McCarthy and Lighthill. >> >> AI wars aside, the relevance to this thread is how quickly and >> effectively Lukasik absorbed the new technology and put it to use. >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 8:48?PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via >> Internet-history wrote: >> >>> "... In 1969 Roberts became director of the Information Processing >>> Techniques Office at ARPA. In 1971 he wrote one of the first e-mail >>> programs, RD, which for the first time allowed users to save, delete, and >>> organize their messages.... >>> so sez: >>> https://www.britannica.com/biography/Lawrence-Roberts >>> >>> while >>> >>> https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects/1999-00/internet/email.html >>> sez: >>> >>> ...The Rise of Email by way of Convenient Mail-Managers >>> >>> Stephen Lukasik, one of ARPA's directors from 1971-75 might be one of the >>> most important advocates of email in its young age. He strongly >>> encouraged >>> his staff to use email. It was even considered the most effective way to >>> reach Lukasik. Close friends and colleagues with Larry Roberts, Lukasik >>> confided to Roberts in 1973 that he was beginning to face problems >>> organizing the chaotic pile of messages received each day. (At this >>> point, >>> in a study conducted by ARPA under Lukasik's direction discovered that >>> 75% >>> of all ARPANET traffic was in the form of email.) Not to mention, reading >>> and responding to the messages was, as of yet not a simple matter. In >>> response, Roberts wrote the first "mail-manager software," RD. Its >>> functions included displaying a menu of messages and allowing the user to >>> file messages and delete messages. This inspired an outburst of >>> variations >>> on the mail manager. A legendary variation, MSG was created in 1975 by >>> John >>> Vittal. MSG quickly became the most widely used mail-management program >>> due >>> to its convenient features. It could handle an even greater amount of >>> mail >>> than RD, could sort messages into separate files, and most importantly, >>> reply and forward with much greater ease. MSG also spawned a large amount >>> of variations... >>> >>> [any others?] >>> >>> -- >>> Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com >>> living as The Truth is True >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> > > -- > Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com > living as The Truth is True > > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True From steffen at sdaoden.eu Tue Aug 8 17:33:37 2023 From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso) Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2023 02:33:37 +0200 Subject: [ih] 40 years ago net.motss was newgroup'd In-Reply-To: <2b956796-e606-c2ba-e934-deaf29c24a1c@gmail.com> References: <20230808204309.E89AEFFA7FBD@ary.qy> <2b956796-e606-c2ba-e934-deaf29c24a1c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20230809003337.xqmOV%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote in <2b956796-e606-c2ba-e934-deaf29c24a1c at gmail.com>: |On 8/8/23 1:43 PM, John Levine wrote: |> It appears that Michael Thomas via Internet-history m> said: |>> into soc.motss was the internet's first gay newsgroup. It was created by |>> Steve Dyer late of BBN. It was a purposefully cryptic name to fly under |>> the radar. |> In the 1980s I lived in Harvard Square around the corner from Steve |> and his partner whose name I don't remember but who was, if such a |> thing is possible, even nicer than he was. Everyone knew they were |> gay which, fortunately in that part of Cambridge, was not a big deal. |> |I was never quite clear what Steve did at BBN. Maybe somebody here |remembers? | |FWIW: my domain name is a result of Steve's spdcc.com. I needed to |create LLC in a hurry and this is what popped into my mind. | |But one other point is that it's funny how gay politics intersected the |nascent internet. I don't have proof of it, but my suspicion is that a |lot of changes especially in Silicon Valley but elsewhere as well with |companies and HR policies were very facilitated by the internet. It's |not like you would set up phone trees to get people to lobby HR, after |all. The net really facilitated that and probably in a big way. I do have _no_ idea, but from my German-centred point of view, i see (now letting aside the Bible with Moses and his personal opinion of "it is an atrocity", but the law that there may be no "male temple prostitutes" (iirc), and, 3500 years later, people like Benjamin Britten, etc etc ETC) a clear path from Rosa von Praunheim's "Nicht der Homosexuelle ist pervers, sondern die Situation, in der er lebt" from 1971 ([1]), over the coming out of Freddy Mercury and his famour parties in Munich, Germany, as well as, of course, Rock Hudson's death (hm), now i skipped the big big Bronski Beat "Age of Consent" as well as, of course, "My Beautiful Laundrette", and, to end this, "Silverlake Life" [2]. Whoever saw the latter (here it could be seen around midnight in german TV of public law; and i must say, in my memories they shone even brighter, i was a bit distressed to see the film again over twenty years later), you know. Madonnas "SEX" was present in Germany through Udo Kier (censored in Japan i read now ;), and now i lost track. So let's Divine, and "Shake it up". All of those had nothing to do with the internet, however, so i am off-topic. But were omnipresent in Germany. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Is_Not_the_Homosexual_Who_Is_Perverse,_But_the_Society_in_Which_He_Lives [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverlake_Life:_The_View_from_Here --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) From enervatron at gmail.com Tue Aug 8 17:58:27 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 17:58:27 -0700 Subject: [ih] 40 years ago net.motss was newgroup'd In-Reply-To: <20230809003337.xqmOV%steffen@sdaoden.eu> References: <20230808204309.E89AEFFA7FBD@ary.qy> <2b956796-e606-c2ba-e934-deaf29c24a1c@gmail.com> <20230809003337.xqmOV%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Message-ID: On 8/8/23 5:33 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso via Internet-history wrote: > Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote in > <2b956796-e606-c2ba-e934-deaf29c24a1c at gmail.com>: > |On 8/8/23 1:43 PM, John Levine wrote: > |> It appears that Michael Thomas via Internet-history |> m> said: > |>> into soc.motss was the internet's first gay newsgroup. It was created by > |>> Steve Dyer late of BBN. It was a purposefully cryptic name to fly under > |>> the radar. > |> In the 1980s I lived in Harvard Square around the corner from Steve > |> and his partner whose name I don't remember but who was, if such a > |> thing is possible, even nicer than he was. Everyone knew they were > |> gay which, fortunately in that part of Cambridge, was not a big deal. > |> > |I was never quite clear what Steve did at BBN. Maybe somebody here > |remembers? > | > |FWIW: my domain name is a result of Steve's spdcc.com. I needed to > |create LLC in a hurry and this is what popped into my mind. > | > |But one other point is that it's funny how gay politics intersected the > |nascent internet. I don't have proof of it, but my suspicion is that a > |lot of changes especially in Silicon Valley but elsewhere as well with > |companies and HR policies were very facilitated by the internet. It's > |not like you would set up phone trees to get people to lobby HR, after > |all. The net really facilitated that and probably in a big way. > > I do have _no_ idea, but from my German-centred point of view, > i see (now letting aside the Bible with Moses and his personal > opinion of "it is an atrocity", but the law that there may be no > "male temple prostitutes" (iirc), and, 3500 years later, people > like Benjamin Britten, etc etc ETC) a clear path from Rosa von > Praunheim's "Nicht der Homosexuelle ist pervers, sondern die > Situation, in der er lebt" from 1971 ([1]), over the coming out of > Freddy Mercury and his famour parties in Munich, Germany, as well > as, of course, Rock Hudson's death (hm), now i skipped the big big > Bronski Beat "Age of Consent" as well as, of course, "My Beautiful > Laundrette", and, to end this, "Silverlake Life" [2]. > Whoever saw the latter (here it could be seen around midnight in > german TV of public law; and i must say, in my memories they shone > even brighter, i was a bit distressed to see the film again over > twenty years later), you know. Madonnas "SEX" was present in > Germany through Udo Kier (censored in Japan i read now ;), and now > i lost track. So let's Divine, and "Shake it up". > All of those had nothing to do with the internet, however, so i am > off-topic. But were omnipresent in Germany. Freddie Mercury didn't really come out in the classic sense of the word. He did what I call "coming out by not coming out" which is to say that he just lived his life and maintained a bit of plausible deniability. Growing up Hollywood adjacent, that was very common. Like everybody knew about Rock, for example. Oddly enough, I never had much to do with Silverlake because there was an entire and huge gay community in Orange County where I grew up. I do wonder what the buzz was on motss at the time. I vividly remember seeing Rock on Dynasty and thinking "OMG HE HAS IT!". The internet could have done so much to get the word out had it been more available at the time. By the time the internet really started gathering a head of steam, anti-retrovirals were finally on the horizon but even to this day pig-ignorance and bigotry are still far too common. But yeah, Berlin. What could have been had the Nazis not snuffed it out. Sigh. Mike, who still rues that he didn't come up to ISI in the late 80's for an IETF meeting to see if there was interest in printing transport protocols From lars at nocrew.org Tue Aug 8 23:30:04 2023 From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff) Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2023 06:30:04 +0000 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] (fwd) In-Reply-To: (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history's message of "Tue, 8 Aug 2023 17:30:23 -0700") References: Message-ID: <7w7cq4enir.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> I stumbled across some SUMEX-AIM files which I believe refer to Roberts' RD macros. Unfortunately the TECO file seems scrambled, so I'm not sure it's useful. https://github.com/PDP-10/tenex/blob/master/cusps/rd.instructions https://github.com/PDP-10/tenex/raw/master/cusps/rd.tecomacros The latter will not display due to the plethora of control characters, but it can be downloaded and examined locally. From dcrocker at bbiw.net Mon Aug 7 14:39:04 2023 From: dcrocker at bbiw.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 14:39:04 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8da65f7d-ee02-91aa-8f91-6ce1dacfa513@bbiw.net> On 8/7/2023 2:35 PM, Steve Crocker wrote: > EMACS had -- and still has -- control-X for cutting, control-C for > copying, and, IIRC, control-V for pasting.? I used EMACS regularly at > MIT in the late 60s.? Others can supply more details.? HOWEVER, I > don't believe a mouse was involved.? It was straight ASCII text, > without fonts, boldface, etc. IMO the mouse is entirely orthogonal, although, yeah, a "personal computer" might be the environment implied. > > I assume the references to Larry Tesler pertained to cut-and-paste in > the context of a graphical user interface. mumble. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From dcrocker at bbiw.net Mon Aug 7 14:47:18 2023 From: dcrocker at bbiw.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 14:47:18 -0700 Subject: [ih] cut and paste In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ff84a3f-a5f2-b3d3-060e-0aa27a84dbc2@bbiw.net> On 8/7/2023 2:41 PM, Bob Purvy wrote: > what's weird is, they don't seem to realize that he died months ago. Most of what I'm seeing is a game of copying the claim about creating cut and paste.? Presumably this is honoring by doing. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From dcrocker at bbiw.net Mon Aug 7 21:09:23 2023 From: dcrocker at bbiw.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 21:09:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: <2A06D7C2-F9C2-42B4-8347-E9F568D4F55B@strayalpha.com> References: <20230808005534.35A4DFF99301@ary.qy> <6fe86171-bd18-d079-43a2-1ef7dadbc12f@dcrocker.net> <2A06D7C2-F9C2-42B4-8347-E9F568D4F55B@strayalpha.com> Message-ID: <0412488c-d2aa-48d5-9be0-0e60d21a6f09@bbiw.net> ---------------------------------------- *From: *touch at strayalpha.com *To: *dcrocker at bbiw.net *CC: *Jack Haverty ; Internet History list ; Dave Crocker *Date: *Aug 7, 2023 7:25:04 PM *Subject: *Re: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" >> On Aug 7, 2023, at 7:09 PM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >> >> On 8/7/2023 6:14 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >>> But I don't know what is "practice" today.?? Do corporations still have their own private internets??? Or have they actually all migrated to the Internet and somehow addressed all of the security concerns? >> >> I suggest a simple basis for answering this: >> >> 1. Posit 'global' operational semantics.? Ports, DNS, etc. > > https://www.strayalpha.com/internet-rights/ > >> 2. If a network constrains or alters that semantic, it is an Internet, >> ??but is not (fully) part of /the/ Internet. > > It *could be* an internet. The question is what?s ?an internet? at that point - just using IP won?t work as a definition.? > > But yeah, IMO, basically. > > Joe > Why? From lyman at interisle.net Tue Aug 8 08:53:56 2023 From: lyman at interisle.net (Lyman Chapin) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 11:53:56 -0400 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: <20230808143234.80A0818C0A7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20230808143234.80A0818C0A7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: > On Aug 8, 2023, at 10:32 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: > >> From: "John Levine" > >> You know, sometimes it's time to let go. > > We created a _second_ word (back before almost anyone else knew what an > 'internet' even was) for use in our technical discussions, because we _needed_ > a second term. It is not clear to me that that need has passed. (I am under > the strong impression that there are still quite a few internets which are not > connected to the Internet; just do a Web search for 'air gap'. Note that one > can't even _say_ that observation without two different words.) > > Whether people who can exchange information with people conected to the > Internet, but are not able to send IP packets to them directly, are 'on' the > Internet is basically a marketing discussion in which I am utterly > un-interested. (Note that this discussion has been around since the dawn of > time; early on, people who were not directly conected to the Internet could > often exchange email with those who were - were the former group 'on' the > Internet?) December 1991 probably qualifies as ?the dawn of time.? I still like the suggestion we made at the first IAB Architecture Retreat (see RFC 1287): to stop talking about connectivity (?I can ping you?) and talk instead about naming (?I can identify you using the same namespace in which I am identified?). We propose instead a new definition of the Internet, based on a different unifying concept: * "Old" Internet concept: IP-based. The organizing principle is the IP address, i.e., a common network address space. * "New" Internet concept: Application-based. The organizing principle is the domain name system and directories, i.e., a common - albeit necessarily multiform - application name space. This suggests that the idea of "connected status", which has traditionally been tied to the IP address(via network numbers, should instead be coupled to the names and related identifying information contained in the distributed Internet directory. - Lyman > > The fact that 'ordinary' people (such as the afore-mentioned idiots at the > AP) are confused in their terminology is not relevant. Ordinary people often > speak of 'germs' - but that does not mean that micro-biologists have stopped > carefully using the two terms 'bacteria' and 'virus'. For a micro-biologist > to start using 'germ' in a technical discussion would be pretty much > equivalent to wearing a 'kick me' sign - even though plenty of > ordinary people use it. > > Noel > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From touch at strayalpha.com Wed Aug 9 08:23:37 2023 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 08:23:37 -0700 Subject: [ih] Reminder about post email addresses Message-ID: Hi all, I just pushed through a few posts that were held because we require the source email address be subscribed to the list. If you want to post from other accounts, please make sure to subscribe those addresses too. Note you can select nomail to avoid receiving duplicate posts. Joe (list admin) From vgcerf at gmail.com Wed Aug 9 09:23:28 2023 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 12:23:28 -0400 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: References: <20230808143234.80A0818C0A7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: Interestingly, discussions about the interplanetary internet lead to isolated internets using IPv6 but in a way that does not lead to duplicate assignments (so later interconnection of isolated internets on the Moon or Mars, for instance, will not have IP address conflicts). Interoperation across the solar system uses the Bundle Protocol Suite. Email addresses are intended to work and even some aspects of WWW may work (RESTFUL interfaces but not the usual link-filled web page). So Lyman's observation might match this likely evolution. v On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 11:21?AM Lyman Chapin via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > On Aug 8, 2023, at 10:32 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > >> From: "John Levine" > > > >> You know, sometimes it's time to let go. > > > > We created a _second_ word (back before almost anyone else knew what an > > 'internet' even was) for use in our technical discussions, because we > _needed_ > > a second term. It is not clear to me that that need has passed. (I am > under > > the strong impression that there are still quite a few internets which > are not > > connected to the Internet; just do a Web search for 'air gap'. Note that > one > > can't even _say_ that observation without two different words.) > > > > Whether people who can exchange information with people conected to the > > Internet, but are not able to send IP packets to them directly, are 'on' > the > > Internet is basically a marketing discussion in which I am utterly > > un-interested. (Note that this discussion has been around since the dawn > of > > time; early on, people who were not directly conected to the Internet > could > > often exchange email with those who were - were the former group 'on' the > > Internet?) > > December 1991 probably qualifies as ?the dawn of time.? I still like the > suggestion we made at the first IAB Architecture Retreat (see RFC 1287): to > stop talking about connectivity (?I can ping you?) and talk instead about > naming (?I can identify you using the same namespace in which I am > identified?). > > We propose instead a new definition of the Internet, based on a different > unifying concept: > > * "Old" Internet concept: IP-based. > > The organizing principle is the IP address, i.e., a common > > network address space. > > * "New" Internet concept: Application-based. > > The organizing principle is the domain name system and > > directories, i.e., a common - albeit necessarily multiform - > > application name space. > > This suggests that the idea of "connected status", which has > > traditionally been tied to the IP address(via network numbers, > > should instead be coupled to the names and related identifying > > information contained in the distributed Internet directory. > > - Lyman > > > > > The fact that 'ordinary' people (such as the afore-mentioned idiots at > the > > AP) are confused in their terminology is not relevant. Ordinary people > often > > speak of 'germs' - but that does not mean that micro-biologists have > stopped > > carefully using the two terms 'bacteria' and 'virus'. For a > micro-biologist > > to start using 'germ' in a technical discussion would be pretty much > > equivalent to wearing a 'kick me' sign - even though plenty of > > ordinary people use 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 dave.taht at gmail.com Wed Aug 9 09:30:18 2023 From: dave.taht at gmail.com (Dave Taht) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 09:30:18 -0700 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: <20230808151614.3A2B1FFA14B3@ary.qy> References: <20230808143234.80A0818C0A7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <20230808151614.3A2B1FFA14B3@ary.qy> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 8:16?AM John Levine via Internet-history wrote: > > It appears that Noel Chiappa via Internet-history said: > > > From: "John Levine" > > > > > You know, sometimes it's time to let go. > > ... > > >The fact that 'ordinary' people (such as the afore-mentioned idiots at the > >AP) are confused in their terminology is not relevant. ... > > I understand the difference, but in retrospect, it wasn't a great idea > to come up with two terms with different meanings that differ only in > capitalization. (How does one pronounce internet and Internet?) > > Rather than telling the entire world that they are stupid, which is > not a great way to change minds, perhaps we can come up with a snappy > memorable term for a disconnected group of networks that exchange IP > packets that doesn't look and sound exactly like a word that means > something else. "Broadband"? /me hides I have been fighting to get my issues understood by those funding and those funded by the $70B NTIA BEAD programs for over two years now. It is astonishing, how many talking heads eyes glaze over at a question as simple as: "So, this "broadband" of which you speak... does it have IPv6?" :blank stare: I kind of gave up on pushing anything but "latency under load", and only by the time I gave up a few months ago, got "Latency" into the vocabulary. > As already noted, there are lots of them in the IoT > world, at least I hope there are. > > R's, > John > > PS: Of course, XKCD has something to say on this topic: > > https://xkcd.com/1984/ > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxmoBr4cBKg Dave T?ht CSO, LibreQos From jmamodio at gmail.com Wed Aug 9 09:41:43 2023 From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 11:41:43 -0500 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and "Internet" In-Reply-To: References: <20230808143234.80A0818C0A7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: That is correct, we are working on some architectures where we will see local deployments of IP based networks (most probably IPv6) on planetary bodies, where those networks may look "isolated" from an IP point of view but it will be the "same" Interplanetary Network from a BP point of view. We may have some satellite links with no IP connectivity but using link protocols from CCSDS. There is also an active conversation and work on a draft on the IETF DTN-WG about encapsulating BP directly on Ethernet frames, this will be of great application for example on local satellite/lander buses that are using GigE switches to interconnect different sections of the spacecraft, removing the IP layer will reduce the burden on having to assign extra address, deal with protocol layers, etc. My .02 Jorge PS BP != IP Let it Bundle On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 11:23?AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Interestingly, discussions about the interplanetary internet lead to > isolated internets using IPv6 but in a way that does not lead to duplicate > assignments (so later interconnection of isolated internets on the Moon or > Mars, for instance, will not have IP address conflicts). Interoperation > across the solar system uses the Bundle Protocol Suite. Email addresses are > intended to work and even some aspects of WWW may work (RESTFUL interfaces > but not the usual link-filled web page). So Lyman's observation might match > this likely evolution. > > v > > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 11:21?AM Lyman Chapin via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Aug 8, 2023, at 10:32 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history < > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > > >> From: "John Levine" > > > > > >> You know, sometimes it's time to let go. > > > > > > We created a _second_ word (back before almost anyone else knew what an > > > 'internet' even was) for use in our technical discussions, because we > > _needed_ > > > a second term. It is not clear to me that that need has passed. (I am > > under > > > the strong impression that there are still quite a few internets which > > are not > > > connected to the Internet; just do a Web search for 'air gap'. Note > that > > one > > > can't even _say_ that observation without two different words.) > > > > > > Whether people who can exchange information with people conected to the > > > Internet, but are not able to send IP packets to them directly, are > 'on' > > the > > > Internet is basically a marketing discussion in which I am utterly > > > un-interested. (Note that this discussion has been around since the > dawn > > of > > > time; early on, people who were not directly conected to the Internet > > could > > > often exchange email with those who were - were the former group 'on' > the > > > Internet?) > > > > December 1991 probably qualifies as ?the dawn of time.? I still like the > > suggestion we made at the first IAB Architecture Retreat (see RFC 1287): > to > > stop talking about connectivity (?I can ping you?) and talk instead about > > naming (?I can identify you using the same namespace in which I am > > identified?). > > > > We propose instead a new definition of the Internet, based on a different > > unifying concept: > > > > * "Old" Internet concept: IP-based. > > > > The organizing principle is the IP address, i.e., a common > > > > network address space. > > > > * "New" Internet concept: Application-based. > > > > The organizing principle is the domain name system and > > > > directories, i.e., a common - albeit necessarily multiform - > > > > application name space. > > > > This suggests that the idea of "connected status", which has > > > > traditionally been tied to the IP address(via network numbers, > > > > should instead be coupled to the names and related identifying > > > > information contained in the distributed Internet directory. > > > > - Lyman > > > > > > > > The fact that 'ordinary' people (such as the afore-mentioned idiots at > > the > > > AP) are confused in their terminology is not relevant. Ordinary people > > often > > > speak of 'germs' - but that does not mean that micro-biologists have > > stopped > > > carefully using the two terms 'bacteria' and 'virus'. For a > > micro-biologist > > > to start using 'germ' in a technical discussion would be pretty much > > > equivalent to wearing a 'kick me' sign - even though plenty of > > > ordinary people use 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 don at donhopkins.com Wed Aug 9 11:16:34 2023 From: don at donhopkins.com (Don Hopkins) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 20:16:34 +0200 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] (fwd) In-Reply-To: <7w7cq4enir.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> References: <7w7cq4enir.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Message-ID: How is it even possible to tell if a TECO file is scrambled or not??! -Don > On Aug 9, 2023, at 08:30, Lars Brinkhoff via Internet-history wrote: > > I stumbled across some SUMEX-AIM files which I believe refer to > Roberts' RD macros. Unfortunately the TECO file seems scrambled, > so I'm not sure it's useful. > > https://github.com/PDP-10/tenex/blob/master/cusps/rd.instructions > https://github.com/PDP-10/tenex/raw/master/cusps/rd.tecomacros > > The latter will not display due to the plethora of control characters, > but it can be downloaded and examined locally. > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From steffen at sdaoden.eu Wed Aug 9 11:15:35 2023 From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso) Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2023 20:15:35 +0200 Subject: [ih] 40 years ago net.motss was newgroup'd In-Reply-To: References: <20230808204309.E89AEFFA7FBD@ary.qy> <2b956796-e606-c2ba-e934-deaf29c24a1c@gmail.com> <20230809003337.xqmOV%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Message-ID: <20230809181535.nDFff%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote in : |On 8/8/23 5:33 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso via Internet-history wrote: |> Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote in |> <2b956796-e606-c2ba-e934-deaf29c24a1c at gmail.com>: |>|On 8/8/23 1:43 PM, John Levine wrote: |>|> It appears that Michael Thomas via Internet-history |> o\ |>|> m> said: |>|>> into soc.motss was the internet's first gay newsgroup. It was \ |>|>> created by |>|>> Steve Dyer late of BBN. It was a purposefully cryptic name to \ |>|>> fly under |>|>> the radar. |>|> In the 1980s I lived in Harvard Square around the corner from Steve |>|> and his partner whose name I don't remember but who was, if such a |>|> thing is possible, even nicer than he was. Everyone knew they were |>|> gay which, fortunately in that part of Cambridge, was not a big deal. |>|> |>|I was never quite clear what Steve did at BBN. Maybe somebody here |>|remembers? |>| |>|FWIW: my domain name is a result of Steve's spdcc.com. I needed to |>|create LLC in a hurry and this is what popped into my mind. |>| |>|But one other point is that it's funny how gay politics intersected the |>|nascent internet. I don't have proof of it, but my suspicion is that a |>|lot of changes especially in Silicon Valley but elsewhere as well with |>|companies and HR policies were very facilitated by the internet. It's |>|not like you would set up phone trees to get people to lobby HR, after |>|all. The net really facilitated that and probably in a big way. |> |> I do have _no_ idea, but from my German-centred point of view, |> i see (now letting aside the Bible with Moses and his personal |> opinion of "it is an atrocity", but the law that there may be no |> "male temple prostitutes" (iirc), and, 3500 years later, people |> like Benjamin Britten, etc etc ETC) a clear path from Rosa von |> Praunheim's "Nicht der Homosexuelle ist pervers, sondern die |> Situation, in der er lebt" from 1971 ([1]), over the coming out of |> Freddy Mercury and his famour parties in Munich, Germany, as well |> as, of course, Rock Hudson's death (hm), now i skipped the big big |> Bronski Beat "Age of Consent" as well as, of course, "My Beautiful |> Laundrette", and, to end this, "Silverlake Life" [2]. |> Whoever saw the latter (here it could be seen around midnight in |> german TV of public law; and i must say, in my memories they shone |> even brighter, i was a bit distressed to see the film again over |> twenty years later), you know. Madonnas "SEX" was present in |> Germany through Udo Kier (censored in Japan i read now ;), and now |> i lost track. So let's Divine, and "Shake it up". |> All of those had nothing to do with the internet, however, so i am |> off-topic. But were omnipresent in Germany. | |Freddie Mercury didn't really come out in the classic sense of the word. |He did what I call "coming out by not coming out" which is to say that |he just lived his life and maintained a bit of plausible deniability. |Growing up Hollywood adjacent, that was very common. Like everybody knew Ok i also do "remember his (female) wife", and him sitting in an interview dressed like a super-conservative. 'Must have been american TV (colors etc. not like here). (Btw not a Queen fan, .. at least not the music group.) Here in Germany the super-dressed-up parties in Munich could be seen everywhere, TV, magazines etc., must have been at least second part of the 80s, if not sooner. "Lived his life", .. ok. But leather trouses with holes in the back and such, i think even i as a young teenager had a glue on what was going on. (There was much more at that time, Culture Club's "Do you really want to hurt me" was world-wide in i think 1982, you know, in the German "anti war" film "Das Boot" you see a gay dancing like in the 20s (cool! i think gay, yes), in the famous German TV series (and by that time private TV was new and "noone" was looking it, meaning *everybody* was looking *that*) "Kir Royal" there is a Munich restaurant with naked gay man standing on the tables (maybe a bit inspired from that Clockwork Orange milk bar, well). Many homosexuals in books of Harold Robbins, in-american-prison mass-rape-prevented-only-by-becoming-lover from Arthur Hailey, and such, english/american mega stars in the 70s+.) But i recall coming-outs, and how unbelievable brave those (surely) had to be who truly did it. This continues to this day, a former national football (soccer..) player revealed in this century, and for football it was still a no-go, and a nation wide sensation. I also recall malicous revealing of sexual orientation of other people in early 90s at latest. Famous german TV moderator Alfred Biolek (in whoms show Kate Bush made their first TV appearance ever, and Sammy Davis Jr. said something like "man this is a fantastic show, something like this would be impossible in America") for example was outed like that, iirc. An early form of "me too" maybe. |about Rock, for example. Oddly enough, I never had much to do with |Silverlake because there was an entire and huge gay community in Orange |County where I grew up. | |I do wonder what the buzz was on motss at the time. I vividly remember |seeing Rock on Dynasty and thinking "OMG HE HAS IT!". The internet could |have done so much to get the word out had it been more available at the |time. By the time the internet really started gathering a head of steam, |anti-retrovirals were finally on the horizon but even to this day |pig-ignorance and bigotry are still far too common. | |But yeah, Berlin. What could have been had the Nazis not snuffed it out. |Sigh. The americans (as absolute leaders) were also very much smarter with Japan after WWII than what was done with Germany after WWI. Very, very much. (I am not a fan of the 20s, except for some things which possibly could have happened all the time, in culture, in journalism. To be honest, it is quite the opposite, and under the ground, or even totally obvious, things changed. I do not think the picture of some hip clubs in Berlin is correct. But even if, Paris had them, too. Funky cabarets and such there were before, when we still had an emperor. ..To the best of my knowledge, and totally off-topic, of course.) |Mike, who still rues that he didn't come up to ISI in the late 80's for |an IETF meeting to see if there was interest in printing transport \ |protocols --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) From jeanjour at comcast.net Wed Aug 9 12:50:29 2023 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 15:50:29 -0400 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: <7w7cq4enir.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Message-ID: +1 ;-) lol > On Aug 9, 2023, at 14:16, Don Hopkins via Internet-history wrote: > > How is it even possible to tell if a TECO file is scrambled or not??! > > -Don > >> On Aug 9, 2023, at 08:30, Lars Brinkhoff via Internet-history wrote: >> >> I stumbled across some SUMEX-AIM files which I believe refer to >> Roberts' RD macros. Unfortunately the TECO file seems scrambled, >> so I'm not sure it's useful. >> >> https://github.com/PDP-10/tenex/blob/master/cusps/rd.instructions >> https://github.com/PDP-10/tenex/raw/master/cusps/rd.tecomacros >> >> The latter will not display due to the plethora of control characters, >> but it can be downloaded and examined locally. >> -- >> 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 brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Wed Aug 9 15:04:30 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:04:30 +1200 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: <7w7cq4enir.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Message-ID: On 10-Aug-23 06:16, Don Hopkins via Internet-history wrote: > How is it even possible to tell if a TECO file is scrambled or not??! OK, now I have to tell my only TECO story. Understand that I have never used TECO, although I did know DEC-10 fanatics at CERN who were very keen on it. In about 1980 my team at CERN had a Russian visitor for a year (whose name I cannot recall, and he hardly spoke any English). He was allegedly a wizard programmer, so we asked him to create a syntax-driven editor for the high level language we were using for accelerator control. One day he announced that it was ready and offered a demonstration. At this point it became clear that the only editor he knew was TECO, and his editor was (a) full of modes and (b) the commands were single letters. He asked me to have a go. As I always did in those days to test the robustness of interactive code, I typed in a random string. Just before I hit "Enter" he grabbed my hand, shouting "No! No!". There was "EK" in my random string - apparently it would have destroyed everything. We never used his code. Sorry for the interruption. Brian From geoff at iconia.com Wed Aug 9 15:25:46 2023 From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 15:25:46 -0700 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: <7w7cq4enir.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Message-ID: fond memories of the Bravo on the Xerox Alto when one typed the: "... EDIT command Early versions of Bravo had a command interface designed such that a user attempting to enter the command "EDIT" in command-mode would instead irreversibly replace all text with a "T". The "e" was interpreted to select everything. The "d" would delete everything selected. The "i" would switch back to input-mode with the "t" appearing as the only text. Only one action could be undone, so only the insertion of the t could be reversed.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bravo_(editor) On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 3:04?PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > On 10-Aug-23 06:16, Don Hopkins via Internet-history wrote: > > How is it even possible to tell if a TECO file is scrambled or not??! > > OK, now I have to tell my only TECO story. Understand that I have never > used TECO, although I did know DEC-10 fanatics at CERN who were very > keen on it. In about 1980 my team at CERN had a Russian visitor for > a year (whose name I cannot recall, and he hardly spoke any English). > He was allegedly a wizard programmer, so we asked him to create a > syntax-driven editor for the high level language we were using > for accelerator control. One day he announced that it was ready > and offered a demonstration. At this point it became clear that the > only editor he knew was TECO, and his editor was (a) full of modes > and (b) the commands were single letters. He asked me to have > a go. As I always did in those days to test the robustness of > interactive code, I typed in a random string. Just before I hit > "Enter" he grabbed my hand, shouting "No! No!". There was "EK" in > my random string - apparently it would have destroyed everything. > > We never used his code. > > Sorry for the interruption. > > Brian > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com living as The Truth is True From sob at sobco.com Wed Aug 9 15:45:20 2023 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott O. Bradner) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 18:45:20 -0400 Subject: [ih] Larry Roberts & RD the first electronic mail manager software [was written in TECO on TENEX] (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: <7w7cq4enir.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Message-ID: you were a taco geek if you knew what your name would do if typed into teco an aside, the secretaries at BBN used teco as their word processor - they did not much like it (a number of them told me so) Scott > On Aug 9, 2023, at 6:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > > On 10-Aug-23 06:16, Don Hopkins via Internet-history wrote: >> How is it even possible to tell if a TECO file is scrambled or not??! > > OK, now I have to tell my only TECO story. Understand that I have never > used TECO, although I did know DEC-10 fanatics at CERN who were very > keen on it. In about 1980 my team at CERN had a Russian visitor for > a year (whose name I cannot recall, and he hardly spoke any English). > He was allegedly a wizard programmer, so we asked him to create a > syntax-driven editor for the high level language we were using > for accelerator control. One day he announced that it was ready > and offered a demonstration. At this point it became clear that the > only editor he knew was TECO, and his editor was (a) full of modes > and (b) the commands were single letters. He asked me to have > a go. As I always did in those days to test the robustness of > interactive code, I typed in a random string. Just before I hit > "Enter" he grabbed my hand, shouting "No! No!". There was "EK" in > my random string - apparently it would have destroyed everything. > > We never used his code. > > Sorry for the interruption. > > Brian > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From gregskinner0 at icloud.com Wed Aug 9 16:37:22 2023 From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2023 16:37:22 -0700 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> CMU CS General Bboard Contents from 25-Nov-82 to 31-Dec-82 (makes mention of the flag day) Bboard Thread about Changing the Arpanet Protocol from NCP to TCP/IP https://web.archive.org/web/20081218182638/http://research.microsoft.com:80/en-us/um/people/mbj/Smiley/Nov-Dec-82_BBoard_Contents.html Bboard Thread about Changing the Arpanet Protocol from NCP to TCP/IP (culled from previous link) https://web.archive.org/web/20081218175346/http://research.microsoft.com:80/en-us/um/people/mbj/Smiley/Arpanet_Protocol_Thread.html The MIT BUG-ITS list from June 1979 to April 1983, including some discussion about the flag day (JNC contributed to this list at times) https://github.com/larsbrinkhoff/its-archives/blob/master/email/its.obugs0? its-archives/email/its.obugs0 at master ? larsbrinkhoff/its-archives github.com I remember the flag day was discussed during MIT LCS meetings. I wasn?t online for the actual cutover because I was on vacation with no network access, but I remember problems with the cutover being discussed during the first meeting of 1983 (4 January). David Clark asked someone during the meeting if [s]he was able to get a message out. ?gregbo > On Aug 6, 2023, at 4:34 AM, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > Does anybody have some memories of the TCP/IP Flag Day they can share? > > I'm doing some writing about "how network ecosystems develop" looking at how the Internet evolved from the days the net was a gleam in a few people's eyes, Licklider distributed his famous memo, the NWG & IETF evolved, Flag Day, etc. Also looking at the Environmental Movement (Earth Day, Whole Earth Catalog, ...), FOSS, Crisis Mapping, Entrepreneurship Support, Makers - all of which I've been up close and personal with, and now trying to document some common threads & techniques. > > A particular focus is on organizing for significant changes/transformations - like the transition to IP that pretty much marks the birth of the Internet as we know it. Hence a particular interest in what led up to the Flag Day, and how folks responded. > > In particular, I'm wondering how folks organized at various network sites (universities, military bases, etc.) to respond to the mandate. Working groups, plans & programs, that sort of thing. How did folks get their act together? > > Anybody have any stories they can share? > > Thanks Very Much, > > 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 > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From gnu at toad.com Wed Aug 9 18:50:52 2023 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2023 18:50:52 -0700 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> Message-ID: <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> I had a "tourist" account at the MIT-AI system running ITS, back in the NCP days. I used to log in to it over a TIP that had RS232 cables quietly connecting it to a Telenet node. I'd dial in to a local Telenet access point, connect to the cross-connect's node and port, and be talking to a TIP, where I'd "@o 134" to get to MIT-AI. When NCP was turned off on the Flag Day, that stopped working. At MIT, as I understand it, they decided not to implement TCP/IP for ITS. The workaround for tourists like me was to borrow someone's account at MIT-OZ, which had TCP support and could also talk to ITS (over Chaosnet?). So I'd connect from the TIP using TCP to MIT-OZ, and then connect to MIT-AI. It worked OK, though I had to remember when (and how many times) to double the escape characters. My access was via a dialup modem, which was probably the slowest part of the whole system. Moving to the present day... I continue to see Internet old-timers who long nostalgicly for somebody, somewhere, to force a "flag day" to shut down IPv4. The IETF has unfortunately been captured by these folks, who object to making even tiny improvements to IPv4 protocols on the grounds that "we shouldn't make it easier to use IPv4 because that would reduce the urgency of switching to IPv6". It is taken for granted in much of IETF that "IPv4 is dead, or it should be" even though it carries far more global daily traffic, to a far broader range of locations, than IPv6 does. There was even a move to "declare IPv4 Historic" which would officially recommend that nobody use it any more. That draft RFC was approved in 2017 by the Sunset4 working group on a vote of three zealots, but it got killed once saner heads looked at the implications. For a discussion of that history, and pointers to the source materials, see section 4 of: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4-01.txt (The IETF, predictably, declined to support the publication of an RFC describing this history or succinctly stating that IETF would continue maintaining IPv4.) John From jack at 3kitty.org Thu Aug 10 09:16:34 2023 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 09:16:34 -0700 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: I've been wondering if the IETF is still effective today.?? It's been trying for decades to cajole the Internet into adopting IPV6. Instead we now live with a multi-protocol Internet, and the complexity and problems that come with it.? In the 90s, the world embraced TCP and got rid of all the other protocols.?? As I understand it, the IETF now "puts new technology on the shelf, where anyone is free to pick it up and use it" - quite different from the management process that orchestrated "Flag Day" and managed the evolution of the Internet technology in the field.?? Some people have "picked up" IPV6, but many have not.?? I can't tell if I have. I also have no idea how I would do it.?? Or why I should. Perhaps someone can fill in the history of how the Internet got from then to now?? I sent an email on this topic a week or so ago, but it seems to have never come out of the elists.isoc.org system.?? FYI, here it is, in case you didn't get it: -------------------- IIRC, the "Flag Day" was one piece of a larger plan. I don't recall the timing of the pieces - it was 40+- years ago. But there was also a bureaucratic action in that same era to declare TCP a "DoD Standard", and require its presence in DoD procurements - any computer system in a DoD purchase using networking had to have TCP. Also, there was a program created by NIST (or was it still NBS then?) to provide a test suite for conformance to the TCP standard.?? So any contractor who wanted to sell something to DoD had to have TCP, and by going through the NIST test suite they could get a certificate proving that they had TCP implemented properly. I don't remember which of these happened in what order or how it related to Flag Day (1/1/1983).?? But it all seems to me to be part of some larger plan to migrate the admittedly small existing network to a new standard. At BBN, we went through the NIST process to become a certified testing lab, so we could run the tests for anyone who needed it and issue conformance certificates.? I'm not sure how many other such labs there were.? We also provided consulting services to help people understand TCP and figure out why their software didn't pass the tests.?? This was never seen as any kind of "money maker", but seemed important to do it, since we had access to IMPs and such which made it easy to set up a small test lab. I never saw "the plan", but it struck me that there was a lot going on behind the scenes to make things like this happen, outside of the research or Arpanet community or technology per se, in order to facilitate the introduction of TCP to DoD.? Maybe someone else knows more about who was involved in all that activity.?? Somebody made those things happen... In retrospect, it seems to me that such "soft technology" (conformance certification etc.) was complementary to the technical work documented in the stream of RFCs, and was important to making TCP "real", and establishing a bit of regulation around its use "in the field" with mechanisms such as "Flag Day" to enforce a migration from old to new. The Internet is now arguably world class "infrastructure".?? But, IMHO, it still lacks a lot of the mechanisms that surround other, older, infrastructures that move things from point A to point B - e.g., highways, electrical service, railroads, airplanes, etc.?? The early work on things like Flag Day, TCP Conformance Tests, DoD Standardization, and such were the beginning of adding a management structure around the Internet technology. As near as I can tell, no such effort continues today.?? It may have faded away back in the 1980s, before TCP became the dominant technology.?? Perhaps the Internet is just too new for such machinery to be created? Other infrastructures have gone through stages as rules, regulations, and practices congeal.? In the early days of electricity it was common for accidents to occur, causing fires, deaths, or other disasters.? Electrical Codes, safety mechanisms, licensing, rules and practices have made using electricity much less dangerous.? The same is true of highways, railroads, etc. I've always wondered what happened to that "management framework" that started in the 1980s around the Internet infrastructure, and why it hasn't resulted in mechanisms today to make the Internet "safer".?? I suspect all infrastructures need things like electrical codes, UL testing, development of fuses, circuit breakers, GFIs, etc., that are used in the electrical infrastructure.?? But nobody seems to be doing that for the Internet? There's lots of such mechanisms I know about in the US to manage infrastructures.? My car occasionally gets a government-mandated recall.? Airplanes get grounded by FAA.? Train crashes are investigated by the Department of Transportation.?? Other governments have similar mechanisms to manage infrastructure. Has any Internet component, hardware or software, ever been recalled...??? "Flag Day" was the last enforcement action I can remember. Jack Haverty -------------------- On 8/9/23 18:50, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote: > I had a "tourist" account at the MIT-AI system running ITS, back in the > NCP days. I used to log in to it over a TIP that had RS232 cables > quietly connecting it to a Telenet node. I'd dial in to a local Telenet > access point, connect to the cross-connect's node and port, and be > talking to a TIP, where I'd "@o 134" to get to MIT-AI. > > When NCP was turned off on the Flag Day, that stopped working. At MIT, > as I understand it, they decided not to implement TCP/IP for ITS. The > workaround for tourists like me was to borrow someone's account at > MIT-OZ, which had TCP support and could also talk to ITS (over > Chaosnet?). So I'd connect from the TIP using TCP to MIT-OZ, and then > connect to MIT-AI. It worked OK, though I had to remember when (and how > many times) to double the escape characters. My access was via a dialup > modem, which was probably the slowest part of the whole system. > > Moving to the present day... > > I continue to see Internet old-timers who long nostalgicly for somebody, > somewhere, to force a "flag day" to shut down IPv4. The IETF has > unfortunately been captured by these folks, who object to making even > tiny improvements to IPv4 protocols on the grounds that "we shouldn't > make it easier to use IPv4 because that would reduce the urgency of > switching to IPv6". It is taken for granted in much of IETF that "IPv4 > is dead, or it should be" even though it carries far more global daily > traffic, to a far broader range of locations, than IPv6 does. There was > even a move to "declare IPv4 Historic" which would officially recommend > that nobody use it any more. That draft RFC was approved in 2017 by the > Sunset4 working group on a vote of three zealots, but it got killed once > saner heads looked at the implications. For a discussion of that > history, and pointers to the source materials, see section 4 of: > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4-01.txt > > (The IETF, predictably, declined to support the publication of an RFC > describing this history or succinctly stating that IETF would continue > maintaining IPv4.) > > John > From sob at sobco.com Thu Aug 10 09:35:13 2023 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott Bradner) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 12:35:13 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> mixed picture of IETF relevance the world's telephony runs over IETF technology (SIP & RTP) except for some pockets of analog phones, IETF technology specified by ITU and 3GPP of the 100s of proposed and full standards, only a few are in significant use IPv6 has had a very slow deployment - most, imo, because it does not offer enough difference from IPv4 and because NATs have reduced the pressure to change - but, according to Google, they are getting a lot of IPv6 queries (about 45%) ( see https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) - e.g. your iPhone runs IPv6 by default people still show up for IETF meetings (> 1500 paid for Yokohama in March - in person & remote) Scott > On Aug 10, 2023, at 12:16 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > > I've been wondering if the IETF is still effective today. It's been trying for decades to cajole the Internet into adopting IPV6. > > Instead we now live with a multi-protocol Internet, and the complexity and problems that come with it. In the 90s, the world embraced TCP and got rid of all the other protocols. As I understand it, the IETF now "puts new technology on the shelf, where anyone is free to pick it up and use it" - quite different from the management process that orchestrated "Flag Day" and managed the evolution of the Internet technology in the field. Some people have "picked up" IPV6, but many have not. I can't tell if I have. I also have no idea how I would do it. Or why I should. > > Perhaps someone can fill in the history of how the Internet got from then to now? I sent an email on this topic a week or so ago, but it seems to have never come out of the elists.isoc.org system. FYI, here it is, in case you didn't get it: > > -------------------- > > IIRC, the "Flag Day" was one piece of a larger plan. > > I don't recall the timing of the pieces - it was 40+- years ago. But there was also a bureaucratic action in that same era to declare TCP a "DoD Standard", and require its presence in DoD procurements - any computer system in a DoD purchase using networking had to have TCP. Also, there was a program created by NIST (or was it still NBS then?) to provide a test suite for conformance to the TCP standard. So any contractor who wanted to sell something to DoD had to have TCP, and by going through the NIST test suite they could get a certificate proving that they had TCP implemented properly. I don't remember which of these happened in what order or how it related to Flag Day (1/1/1983). But it all seems to me to be part of some larger plan to migrate the admittedly small existing network to a new standard. > > At BBN, we went through the NIST process to become a certified testing lab, so we could run the tests for anyone who needed it and issue conformance certificates. I'm not sure how many other such labs there were. We also provided consulting services to help people understand TCP and figure out why their software didn't pass the tests. This was never seen as any kind of "money maker", but seemed important to do it, since we had access to IMPs and such which made it easy to set up a small test lab. > > I never saw "the plan", but it struck me that there was a lot going on behind the scenes to make things like this happen, outside of the research or Arpanet community or technology per se, in order to facilitate the introduction of TCP to DoD. Maybe someone else knows more about who was involved in all that activity. Somebody made those things happen... > > In retrospect, it seems to me that such "soft technology" (conformance certification etc.) was complementary to the technical work documented in the stream of RFCs, and was important to making TCP "real", and establishing a bit of regulation around its use "in the field" with mechanisms such as "Flag Day" to enforce a migration from old to new. > > The Internet is now arguably world class "infrastructure". But, IMHO, it still lacks a lot of the mechanisms that surround other, older, infrastructures that move things from point A to point B - e.g., highways, electrical service, railroads, airplanes, etc. The early work on things like Flag Day, TCP Conformance Tests, DoD Standardization, and such were the beginning of adding a management structure around the Internet technology. > > As near as I can tell, no such effort continues today. It may have faded away back in the 1980s, before TCP became the dominant technology. Perhaps the Internet is just too new for such machinery to be created? > > Other infrastructures have gone through stages as rules, regulations, and practices congeal. In the early days of electricity it was common for accidents to occur, causing fires, deaths, or other disasters. Electrical Codes, safety mechanisms, licensing, rules and practices have made using electricity much less dangerous. The same is true of highways, railroads, etc. > > I've always wondered what happened to that "management framework" that started in the 1980s around the Internet infrastructure, and why it hasn't resulted in mechanisms today to make the Internet "safer". I suspect all infrastructures need things like electrical codes, UL testing, development of fuses, circuit breakers, GFIs, etc., that are used in the electrical infrastructure. But nobody seems to be doing that for the Internet? > > There's lots of such mechanisms I know about in the US to manage infrastructures. My car occasionally gets a government-mandated recall. Airplanes get grounded by FAA. Train crashes are investigated by the Department of Transportation. Other governments have similar mechanisms to manage infrastructure. > > Has any Internet component, hardware or software, ever been recalled...? "Flag Day" was the last enforcement action I can remember. > > Jack Haverty > > > -------------------- > > On 8/9/23 18:50, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote: >> I had a "tourist" account at the MIT-AI system running ITS, back in the >> NCP days. I used to log in to it over a TIP that had RS232 cables >> quietly connecting it to a Telenet node. I'd dial in to a local Telenet >> access point, connect to the cross-connect's node and port, and be >> talking to a TIP, where I'd "@o 134" to get to MIT-AI. >> >> When NCP was turned off on the Flag Day, that stopped working. At MIT, >> as I understand it, they decided not to implement TCP/IP for ITS. The >> workaround for tourists like me was to borrow someone's account at >> MIT-OZ, which had TCP support and could also talk to ITS (over >> Chaosnet?). So I'd connect from the TIP using TCP to MIT-OZ, and then >> connect to MIT-AI. It worked OK, though I had to remember when (and how >> many times) to double the escape characters. My access was via a dialup >> modem, which was probably the slowest part of the whole system. >> >> Moving to the present day... >> >> I continue to see Internet old-timers who long nostalgicly for somebody, >> somewhere, to force a "flag day" to shut down IPv4. The IETF has >> unfortunately been captured by these folks, who object to making even >> tiny improvements to IPv4 protocols on the grounds that "we shouldn't >> make it easier to use IPv4 because that would reduce the urgency of >> switching to IPv6". It is taken for granted in much of IETF that "IPv4 >> is dead, or it should be" even though it carries far more global daily >> traffic, to a far broader range of locations, than IPv6 does. There was >> even a move to "declare IPv4 Historic" which would officially recommend >> that nobody use it any more. That draft RFC was approved in 2017 by the >> Sunset4 working group on a vote of three zealots, but it got killed once >> saner heads looked at the implications. For a discussion of that >> history, and pointers to the source materials, see section 4 of: >> >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4-01.txt >> >> (The IETF, predictably, declined to support the publication of an RFC >> describing this history or succinctly stating that IETF would continue >> maintaining IPv4.) >> >> John >> > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jack at 3kitty.org Thu Aug 10 10:57:23 2023 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 10:57:23 -0700 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: <9cbdb291-88e9-c678-6378-916ec63bc6c5@3kitty.org> Some more memories of Flag Day have been captured in this podcast: https://www.inc.com/computerfreaks See Episode 5 - Protocol Wars Jack Haverty From gnu at toad.com Thu Aug 10 11:09:56 2023 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 11:09:56 -0700 Subject: [ih] 'internet' and 'catenet' In-Reply-To: <7060a65f-7f5e-17ea-3899-f0ee62770c3e@good-stuff.co.uk> Message-ID: <30552.1691690996@hop.toad.com> > perhaps we can come up with a snappy memorable term for a disconnected > group of networks that exchange IP packets ... A "catenet"? That was a good meme that never got picked up by the press and the public. Maybe it's time to recycle it. https://gizmodo.com/the-internet-was-almost-called-the-catenet-875644368 John PS: Since cat images are "that essential building block of the [Ii]nternet", why not give them star billing in the name "catenet"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cats_and_the_Internet PPS: Since this is the Internet-History list, here's an unrelated 1969-07-15 article from the UCLA Daily Bruin, quoting Len Kleinrock about the not-yet-created ARPANET: https://gizmodo.com/the-internets-save-the-date-a-tiny-item-in-a-ucla-stud-898064971 From frantisek.borsik at gmail.com Thu Aug 10 13:12:20 2023 From: frantisek.borsik at gmail.com (Frantisek Borsik) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 22:12:20 +0200 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <20230807202644.2iP1L%steffen@sdaoden.eu> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <93929a75-5f11-e6b0-3858-fe776a57f933@gmail.com> <46ef2037-41cb-1735-fdc9-9bca3a3eb930@meetinghouse.net> <20230807202644.2iP1L%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Message-ID: *RE:* "I would rather reread Simone de Beauvoir's memoirs, they shall live in and eat dense worlds that evaluated over real lifetime (books)." *https://www.removepaywall.com/https:/www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/style/digital-divide-screens-schools.html * Me too. Because: *?The digital divide was about access to technology, and now that everyone has access, the new digital divide is limiting access to technology.?* All the best, Frank Frantisek (Frank) Borsik https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 Skype: casioa5302ca frantisek.borsik at gmail.com On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 10:28?PM Steffen Nurpmeso via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote in > <46ef2037-41cb-1735-fdc9-9bca3a3eb930 at meetinghouse.net>: > |So now big folks, like Google, just implement things like DMARC, > |unilaterally; or stop supporting calendaring standards - and break the > |Internet big time. And then, there's the Great Firewall of China. > > India recently cut-off some not so small parts of their country > from the internet due to deadly ethnic riots (there). This > happens all the time. And let me say: necessarily, and it is > right. I would consider keeping my child away from at least > english wikipedia main page, for example, due to all the totally > biased, and yes, let me say it, brainwashing with "correct" > statements, until you look in detaul: a child should be lead to > the century old historic context, to learn about the respect that > is due, instead of having to read the garbage that is vomitted > onto main pages due to today's (more than questionable) political > desires -- of the U.S., in this example. > > |Remember when interoperability was a thing, and a design goal > |approaching a mandate. Now we're going back to walled gardens. Sigh... > | > > Child locks are not hundred percent secure. Oh, and how i would > have become outraged to find myself in such a lock as a child. > (Despite the normal "nationally-agreed-in" census that is > everywhere, or, like the German superstar Herbert Gr?nemeyer sang > hm about 40 years ago, "wir werden dosiert zensiert [, Menschen > achtlos diffamiert]", "we are dosedly censored [, humans > carelessly defamed]". That was ~15 years before his wife died, > resulting in his mostly human album "Mensch", "Human"; 'and still > remembering Sir Paul McCartney's famous Cavern Club performance, > .. December 1999? Around the same time.) > > The Chinese now want to incur maximum internet usage time for > children. I think two hours for 16/17 year old, and about 40 > Minutes for younger-than-ten, iirc. Parents can do something > about this. Many parents would still claim this is too much! > I would rather reread Simone de Beauvoir's memoirs, they shall > live in and eat dense worlds that evaluated over real lifetime > (books). And "hear that crack" Simone is talking about. > > Sometimes throats gets slipped! > I am more concerned about invisible firewalls that are silently > agreed with in very large extent, and "bullshitted further upon" > even, building upon that > > I believe the perception caused by civilian casualties is one of > the most dangerous enemies we face. > > of US-General Stanley A. McCrystal. I recently read again the > "four dragons by the mekong", a really good book that truly > strives for (some) context and tries to shed light on all sides, > of the wonderful german journalist Winfried Scharlau, i wish > someone like him would still be present. > I think the time has come to swing the pendulum back, it has swung > so long and so far in one direction, after the "open journalism" > of the Vietnam war, which of course was also short-sighted, > uninformed, hyping false understandings etc. > > So if there is only a mob of zombies that hysterically screams > "meat!" and runs for it, no matter what, then i think something > has to be done. Yes. As long as truth shines through. This is > even Christian. 1. Mose 5:3, Adam seems to have grown to 930 > years. Things are worse in my German translation of the Quran, > you only can look high to get through the translators comments :), > so i am following Rainer-Maria Rilke's conclusion that the islam > is a "religion of the undisguised space", of pure creature > feeling: earth can be perceived as a "pure star": "creatureliness > of the earth can appear pure and undisguised". > > The religions, as far as i can tell, and as many as i know, do not > think it is easy, and that it can be gained fast. > I think they are right. > So whereas techically i am all in favour of what you say on > interoperability, (i personally even think there are too many > standards, and that it all shall be minimized: nothing against > young man or some sophisticated man/woman striving to reach > a target, and gaining some "fame", but then it shall be good; > there are things more important than working 60-90 hours a week, > one day it comes out as just an addiction of a "horse running > away" (Germany lost Martin Walser last week iirc)), i do not think > you can compare commercial walled gardens with walls incurred by > some "higher" principle. You may now be of an opinion on the > "quality" of that "higher principle", and want "freedom". > You (especially as the hard-core US american i see you as) may be > right, but i personally have great doubts, also, and especially, > when looking at the state of our planet, and the responsibility > that "freedom" accounts on that. > One thing is plain: the sheer number of lies and shortcutted > contexts, and "blankings", regarding several of todays conflicts, > seems to support my point of view. > > --steffen > | > |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, > |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one > |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off > |(By Robert Gernhardt) > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From johnl at iecc.com Thu Aug 10 14:14:14 2023 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 10 Aug 2023 17:14:14 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> Message-ID: <20230810211414.D4CECFFBDE89@ary.qy> It appears that Scott Bradner via Internet-history said: >mixed picture of IETF relevance > >the world's telephony runs over IETF technology (SIP & RTP) except for some pockets of analog phones, >IETF technology specified by ITU and 3GPP I'd say WebRTC is a significant success. That's how videoconferencing in browsers works (and in apps which are browser skins.) There's also incremental stuff like TLS 1.2 and 1.3, and also QUIC, which fixes the performance bugs of HTTP. I don't follow IoT very closely but it is my impression that COAP and CBOR are widely used. >IPv6 has had a very slow deployment - most, imo, because it does not offer enough difference from IPv4 >and because NATs have reduced the pressure to change - but, according to Google, they are getting a lot >of IPv6 queries (about 45%) In retrospect it was a big mistake not to have a migration path from IPv4 to IPv6, and the IPv6 crowd did themselves no favors by insisting for years that it was perfect and it didn't need DHCP and a bunch of other stuff that it now finally has. People also discovered that you can put a lot of users behind a NAT with most of them not even noticing, and that once we gave up on the fiction that you can't sell IP addresses, vast numbers of underused addresses came on the market. e.g., MIT renumbered from their /8 down to a /11 and sold off the rest. Often when a small network wonders whether to add IPv6, it's cheaper just to buy another block of v4 and put it in front of a NAT, so IPv4 will never die, nor is there any compelling reason for it to do so. On the other hand, there is a whole lot of IPv6 in use that nobody notices. Pretty much every mobile network is IPv6 internally with some kind of 464NAT for backward compatibility. Every large cable network I know has native IPv6, and a whole lot of application traffic to web servers and Netflix goes over v6 without anyone noticing. It varies a lot by place; India is 70% IPv6, the US 55%, the UK 40%. All that is why the IETF has no interest in the silly proposal to turn IPv4 Class E addresses and some part of 127/8 into public addresses. Since it's not backward compatible, it'd need some kind of flag day, and a lot of incentives for all the routers and other infrastructure to change. Why would Cisco and Juniper spend money on that when their customers already know how to buy existing v4 space or move stuff to v6? R's, John From agmalis at gmail.com Thu Aug 10 14:43:43 2023 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 17:43:43 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> Message-ID: If we're cataloging IETF successes, in the routing area (other than the routing protocols themselves) MPLS literally generated multiple billions of dollars of revenue for equipment vendors selling to service providers, and many multiple billions of dollars of service provider revenues for enterprise MPLS-based VPNs and pseudowire services (which they are still selling to this day). Cheers, Andy On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 12:35?PM Scott Bradner via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > mixed picture of IETF relevance > > the world's telephony runs over IETF technology (SIP & RTP) except for > some pockets of analog phones, > IETF technology specified by ITU and 3GPP > > of the 100s of proposed and full standards, only a few are in significant > use > > IPv6 has had a very slow deployment - most, imo, because it does not offer > enough difference from IPv4 > and because NATs have reduced the pressure to change - but, according to > Google, they are getting a lot > of IPv6 queries (about 45%) ( see > https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) - e.g. your iPhone > runs IPv6 by default > > people still show up for IETF meetings (> 1500 paid for Yokohama in March > - in person & remote) > > Scott > > > On Aug 10, 2023, at 12:16 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > I've been wondering if the IETF is still effective today. It's been > trying for decades to cajole the Internet into adopting IPV6. > > > > Instead we now live with a multi-protocol Internet, and the complexity > and problems that come with it. In the 90s, the world embraced TCP and got > rid of all the other protocols. As I understand it, the IETF now "puts > new technology on the shelf, where anyone is free to pick it up and use it" > - quite different from the management process that orchestrated "Flag Day" > and managed the evolution of the Internet technology in the field. Some > people have "picked up" IPV6, but many have not. I can't tell if I have. > I also have no idea how I would do it. Or why I should. > > > > Perhaps someone can fill in the history of how the Internet got from > then to now? I sent an email on this topic a week or so ago, but it seems > to have never come out of the elists.isoc.org system. FYI, here it is, > in case you didn't get it: > > > > -------------------- > > > > IIRC, the "Flag Day" was one piece of a larger plan. > > > > I don't recall the timing of the pieces - it was 40+- years ago. But > there was also a bureaucratic action in that same era to declare TCP a "DoD > Standard", and require its presence in DoD procurements - any computer > system in a DoD purchase using networking had to have TCP. Also, there was > a program created by NIST (or was it still NBS then?) to provide a test > suite for conformance to the TCP standard. So any contractor who wanted > to sell something to DoD had to have TCP, and by going through the NIST > test suite they could get a certificate proving that they had TCP > implemented properly. I don't remember which of these happened in what > order or how it related to Flag Day (1/1/1983). But it all seems to me to > be part of some larger plan to migrate the admittedly small existing > network to a new standard. > > > > At BBN, we went through the NIST process to become a certified testing > lab, so we could run the tests for anyone who needed it and issue > conformance certificates. I'm not sure how many other such labs there > were. We also provided consulting services to help people understand TCP > and figure out why their software didn't pass the tests. This was never > seen as any kind of "money maker", but seemed important to do it, since we > had access to IMPs and such which made it easy to set up a small test lab. > > > > I never saw "the plan", but it struck me that there was a lot going on > behind the scenes to make things like this happen, outside of the research > or Arpanet community or technology per se, in order to facilitate the > introduction of TCP to DoD. Maybe someone else knows more about who was > involved in all that activity. Somebody made those things happen... > > > > In retrospect, it seems to me that such "soft technology" (conformance > certification etc.) was complementary to the technical work documented in > the stream of RFCs, and was important to making TCP "real", and > establishing a bit of regulation around its use "in the field" with > mechanisms such as "Flag Day" to enforce a migration from old to new. > > > > The Internet is now arguably world class "infrastructure". But, IMHO, > it still lacks a lot of the mechanisms that surround other, older, > infrastructures that move things from point A to point B - e.g., highways, > electrical service, railroads, airplanes, etc. The early work on things > like Flag Day, TCP Conformance Tests, DoD Standardization, and such were > the beginning of adding a management structure around the Internet > technology. > > > > As near as I can tell, no such effort continues today. It may have > faded away back in the 1980s, before TCP became the dominant technology. > Perhaps the Internet is just too new for such machinery to be created? > > > > Other infrastructures have gone through stages as rules, regulations, > and practices congeal. In the early days of electricity it was common for > accidents to occur, causing fires, deaths, or other disasters. Electrical > Codes, safety mechanisms, licensing, rules and practices have made using > electricity much less dangerous. The same is true of highways, railroads, > etc. > > > > I've always wondered what happened to that "management framework" that > started in the 1980s around the Internet infrastructure, and why it hasn't > resulted in mechanisms today to make the Internet "safer". I suspect all > infrastructures need things like electrical codes, UL testing, development > of fuses, circuit breakers, GFIs, etc., that are used in the electrical > infrastructure. But nobody seems to be doing that for the Internet? > > > > There's lots of such mechanisms I know about in the US to manage > infrastructures. My car occasionally gets a government-mandated recall. > Airplanes get grounded by FAA. Train crashes are investigated by the > Department of Transportation. Other governments have similar mechanisms > to manage infrastructure. > > > > Has any Internet component, hardware or software, ever been > recalled...? "Flag Day" was the last enforcement action I can remember. > > > > Jack Haverty > > > > > > -------------------- > > > > On 8/9/23 18:50, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote: > >> I had a "tourist" account at the MIT-AI system running ITS, back in the > >> NCP days. I used to log in to it over a TIP that had RS232 cables > >> quietly connecting it to a Telenet node. I'd dial in to a local Telenet > >> access point, connect to the cross-connect's node and port, and be > >> talking to a TIP, where I'd "@o 134" to get to MIT-AI. > >> > >> When NCP was turned off on the Flag Day, that stopped working. At MIT, > >> as I understand it, they decided not to implement TCP/IP for ITS. The > >> workaround for tourists like me was to borrow someone's account at > >> MIT-OZ, which had TCP support and could also talk to ITS (over > >> Chaosnet?). So I'd connect from the TIP using TCP to MIT-OZ, and then > >> connect to MIT-AI. It worked OK, though I had to remember when (and how > >> many times) to double the escape characters. My access was via a dialup > >> modem, which was probably the slowest part of the whole system. > >> > >> Moving to the present day... > >> > >> I continue to see Internet old-timers who long nostalgicly for somebody, > >> somewhere, to force a "flag day" to shut down IPv4. The IETF has > >> unfortunately been captured by these folks, who object to making even > >> tiny improvements to IPv4 protocols on the grounds that "we shouldn't > >> make it easier to use IPv4 because that would reduce the urgency of > >> switching to IPv6". It is taken for granted in much of IETF that "IPv4 > >> is dead, or it should be" even though it carries far more global daily > >> traffic, to a far broader range of locations, than IPv6 does. There was > >> even a move to "declare IPv4 Historic" which would officially recommend > >> that nobody use it any more. That draft RFC was approved in 2017 by the > >> Sunset4 working group on a vote of three zealots, but it got killed once > >> saner heads looked at the implications. For a discussion of that > >> history, and pointers to the source materials, see section 4 of: > >> > >> > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4-01.txt > >> > >> (The IETF, predictably, declined to support the publication of an RFC > >> describing this history or succinctly stating that IETF would continue > >> maintaining IPv4.) > >> > >> John > >> > > > > -- > > 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 brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Thu Aug 10 15:44:26 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 10:44:26 +1200 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <20230810211414.D4CECFFBDE89@ary.qy> References: <20230810211414.D4CECFFBDE89@ary.qy> Message-ID: On 11-Aug-23 09:14, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: ... > In retrospect it was a big mistake not to have a migration path from > IPv4 to IPv6, What do you mean? There's always been a migration path. It has been immensely complicated by the market success of NAT44, but we knew from Day 1 that we needed both coexistence and a transition plan. In fact, we knew it before IPv6 was picked as the design (RFC1671). > and the IPv6 crowd did themselves no favors by insisting > for years that it was perfect and it didn't need DHCP and a bunch of > other stuff that it now finally has. Well, DHCPv6 was standardised by 2003, before IPv6 deployment really got serious. DHCP(v4) was standardised in 1993, but at the time of IPv6 basic design it was neither proven nor widespread, so IPv6 took its cue for automatic configuration from various successful proprietary protocols. On 11-Aug-23 04:16, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: ... > Instead we now live with a multi-protocol Internet, and the complexity > and problems that come with it. That's true, but I'm afraid it was historically inevitable. The need for IPv6 was identified around the same time that the start of the Web and the invention of NAT44 (or more precisely NAPT44) led to the .com boom. That boom made a rapid transition of the network layer impossible - i.e., not only was no flag day conceivable, but also a consensual managed transition became completely impracticable. On the good news front, I hear that traffic on the WLCG (the Worldwide Large Hadron Collider Computing Grid) is now "regularly more than 90-95% using IPv6". They have essentially completed a managed transition. If you want to dig into the details, several people have contributed to this writeup: https://github.com/becarpenter/book6/blob/main/3.%20Coexistence%20with%20Legacy%20IPv4/3.%20Coexistence%20with%20Legacy%20IPv4.md Brian From steffen at sdaoden.eu Thu Aug 10 16:13:36 2023 From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 01:13:36 +0200 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <93929a75-5f11-e6b0-3858-fe776a57f933@gmail.com> <46ef2037-41cb-1735-fdc9-9bca3a3eb930@meetinghouse.net> <20230807202644.2iP1L%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Message-ID: <20230810231336.AgAUQ%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Frantisek Borsik wrote in : |*RE:* "I would rather reread Simone de Beauvoir's memoirs, they shall |live in and eat dense worlds that evaluated over real lifetime |(books)." | |*https://www.removepaywall.com/https:/www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/style/d\ |igital-divide-screens-schools.html |* | |Me too. Because: *?The digital divide was about access to technology, and |now that everyone has access, the new digital divide is limiting access to |technology.?* Her father then had lesser and lesser money. Well, it is a bit off-topic (again), .., but it was Anton Pavlovi? ?echov who said that "technology is the only hope" while being (also etc) doctor on the russian countryside (cannot find the citation right now). In a completely different context the Club of Rome gave this as one of the two possibilities in its "Limits to Growth" (do not ask me no questions). I never believed it. I read a citation of an african catholic i think bishop (i really have to find _that_ citation), who said at the beginning of the 60s something like "in the year 2700, when the white man has destroyed life on earth, the age of the Africans begins", when i was a young teenager, and i was at a glance convinced he was right. So regarding the article (what worked was [1]), i _personally_ think yes, they should have access to libraries and such. But for example Germany, we have millions of childs which live in poverty -- really! -- and they get bad food, i hope the current government pushes school canteens so that they get a good meal at least once a day. Now if you or some several many 100K income Google analytic talks about school computers, sorry, but i get sad. This is a wide field. But i personally would be happy if such a kid learns to sink into a "good" book, and start living within it, strengthening its phantasie and empathic senses, for example. A good thing needs time. This is much better than that short lived hopping over documents (of questionable quality) on the internet. This is my very personal opinion. Another one is that a child that can play for hours with a piece of wood, which becomes many things in his mind, or maybe later even learns to create something out of it, is much much better engaged then one that plays a computer game. Especially for young childs. But hey, you all do what you want anyway. Maybe, at a later time, you then come to the Solaris world. I know people where the childs may not use computers, or only very rarely. I bet these kids will become engineers, or doctors, or scientists. No fast food in education. ?Once it sinks its teeth into these kids, it?s really hard,? Yes! [1] curl -O https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/style/digital-divide-screens-schools.html --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) From dcrocker at bbiw.net Thu Aug 10 17:26:22 2023 From: dcrocker at bbiw.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 17:26:22 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <20230810211414.D4CECFFBDE89@ary.qy> Message-ID: On 8/10/2023 3:44 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > What do you mean? There's always been a migration path. It has > been immensely complicated by the market success of NAT44, but > we knew from Day 1 that we needed both coexistence and a > transition plan. In fact, we knew it before IPv6 was picked > as the design (RFC1671). Brian, There was even a working group on transition to IPv6, before there was a chosen IPv6.? (Chaired by Bob Hinden and me.)? As nearly as I can tell, the work was ignored. The model for 'transition' that was adopted was "implement a parallel, independent stack".? This raised the adoption barrier to be as high as possible. Might as well have been an OSI stack. Note if there had been serious concern for minimizing adoption effort, an example alternative that could have been adopted -- especially if Steve Deering's original proposal had been adopted -- would have been to make IPv4 address space a subset of IPv6 address space. This would have eliminated any initial administrative effort, with gateways could function largely as interoperable routers, and a minimum of address syntax adaptation. That is, IPv6 address administration could have been entirely removed as an initial adoption barrier. But as I say, that's just an example of a difference between taking barriers to adoption as a serious concern, versus what actually happened. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Thu Aug 10 20:08:06 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 15:08:06 +1200 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <20230810211414.D4CECFFBDE89@ary.qy> Message-ID: On 11-Aug-23 12:26, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 8/10/2023 3:44 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >> What do you mean? There's always been a migration path. It has >> been immensely complicated by the market success of NAT44, but >> we knew from Day 1 that we needed both coexistence and a >> transition plan. In fact, we knew it before IPv6 was picked >> as the design (RFC1671). > > Brian, > > There was even a working group on transition to IPv6, before there was a > chosen IPv6.? (Chaired by Bob Hinden and me.)? As nearly as I can tell, > the work was ignored. Interesting. Since this clearly wasn't ngtrans, can you point to it in https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/concluded/ ? > > The model for 'transition' that was adopted was "implement a parallel, > independent stack".? This raised the adoption barrier to be as high as > possible. Might as well have been an OSI stack. Some of the coexistence mechanisms (e.g. IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses) would have been effectively impossible with OSI NSAP addressing. I dread to think what NAT between IPv4 and CLNP would have looked like. It really would have ships in the night, with icebergs. Actually we never said it should be an independent stack. In fact, RFC1671 said: "This requirement does not imply that IPng hosts really have two completely separate IP implementations (dual stacks and dual APIs), but just that they behave as if they did." I believe that is exactly what happened. > > Note if there had been serious concern for minimizing adoption effort, > an example alternative that could have been adopted -- especially if > Steve Deering's original proposal had been adopted -- would have been to > make IPv4 address space a subset of IPv6 address space. My recollection, without looking at the archives, is that this was *explicitly* rejected as a Bad Idea because it would have, by definition, have imported the IPv4 BGP-4 "swamp" into the IPng default-free zone. Whether that was the right decision could be analyzed today, but it was very clear at that time. > > This would have eliminated any initial administrative effort, with > gateways could function largely as interoperable routers, and a minimum > of address syntax adaptation. > > That is, IPv6 address administration could have been entirely removed as > an initial adoption barrier. The real-world problem for a long time was that available commercial enterprise IPAM (IP Address Management) systems could not handle addresses larger than 32 bits. Whether the 128 bit space was a superset of the 32 bit space was a minor matter. As a matter of fact it *is* a superset; that's the point of IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses, and that format is very useful for IPAM implementers. You even find it, bizarrely and mistakenly, in DNS. See the "Bogus" column at https://www.employees.org/~dwing/aaaa-stats/ But on the wire, an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address leads to IPv4 packets. > But as I say, that's just an example of a difference between taking > barriers to adoption as a serious concern, versus what actually happened. The main barrier to adoption has always been "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Where we see adoption is where people have hit IPv4 brokenness. Brian From dcrocker at bbiw.net Thu Aug 10 20:45:56 2023 From: dcrocker at bbiw.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:45:56 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <20230810211414.D4CECFFBDE89@ary.qy> Message-ID: <10453f1d-9faa-a437-a68a-6026a8233407@bbiw.net> On 8/10/2023 8:08 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 11-Aug-23 12:26, Dave Crocker wrote: >> On 8/10/2023 3:44 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >>> What do you mean? There's always been a migration path. It has >>> been immensely complicated by the market success of NAT44, but >>> we knew from Day 1 that we needed both coexistence and a >>> transition plan. In fact, we knew it before IPv6 was picked >>> as the design (RFC1671). >> >> Brian, >> >> There was even a working group on transition to IPv6, before there was a >> chosen IPv6.? (Chaired by Bob Hinden and me.)? As nearly as I can tell, >> the work was ignored. > > Interesting. Since this clearly wasn't ngtrans, can you point to it in > https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/concluded/ ? I think it was IPAE, though they don't show Bob as co-chair: IP Address Encapsulation (ipae) <#> ? https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ipae/about/ However the associated ID does have us as co-authors: Logo of the IETF IP Address Encapsulation (IPAE): A Mechanism for Introducing a New IP <#> The Internet seeks to increase the amount of IP address space that is available for hosts and to decrease the amount of table storage that is required by routers. Ultimately, the current IP (IP version 4) and any replacement are inherently incompatible and movement to the new version requires very substantial change to the IP installed base. This specification describes an approach which retains as much software, operations and training as possible, and minimizes overall operational disruption by allowing subsets of the Internet to carry the new-format Internet datagrams inside old-style IPv4 datagrams, using a technique called 'IP Address Encapsulation' (IPAE). This permits incremental and asynchronous introduction and makes transition entirely optional for portions of the Internet infrastructure. It further permits early reduction to routing table size. ? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipae-new-ip/ >> >> The model for 'transition' that was adopted was "implement a parallel, >> independent stack".? This raised the adoption barrier to be as high as >> possible. Might as well have been an OSI stack. > Some of the coexistence mechanisms (e.g. IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses) > would have been effectively impossible with OSI NSAP addressing. > I dread to think what NAT between IPv4 and CLNP would have looked > like. It really would have ships in the night, with icebergs. It is always easy to make design choices that prevent something, as well as allow something. Note that I referred to Steve's original proposal. And my suggestion of using a subset and allocate it to IPv4. Your comment references a scheme outside of that. > > Actually we never said it should be an independent stack. In fact, But the pragmatics basically dictated it. >> >> Note if there had been serious concern for minimizing adoption effort, >> an example alternative that could have been adopted -- especially if >> Steve Deering's original proposal had been adopted -- would have been to >> make IPv4 address space a subset of IPv6 address space. > > My recollection, without looking at the archives, is that this was > *explicitly* rejected as a Bad Idea because it would have, by definition, > have imported the IPv4 BGP-4 "swamp" into the IPng default-free zone. > Whether that was the right decision could be analyzed today, but it was > very clear at that time. Perhaps my point about taking issues out of critical path, where possible, was missed? There was a pervasive feeling that all sorts of problems had to be fixed simultaneously.? When working at scale, that tends to be a problematic choice.? 30 years later, one would think the lesson would be self-explanatory. >> >> This would have eliminated any initial administrative effort, with >> gateways could function largely as interoperable routers, and a minimum >> of address syntax adaptation. >> >> That is, IPv6 address administration could have been entirely removed as >> an initial adoption barrier. > > The real-world problem for a long time was that available commercial > enterprise IPAM (IP Address Management) systems could not handle > addresses > larger than 32 bits. Whether the 128 bit space was a superset of the > 32 bit space was a minor matter. Except that my point was that it could have been central, in terms of operational transition focus. You are merely citing yet-another piece that would have benefited from being taken out of initial adoption critical path. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Thu Aug 10 22:13:03 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 17:13:03 +1200 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <10453f1d-9faa-a437-a68a-6026a8233407@bbiw.net> References: <20230810211414.D4CECFFBDE89@ary.qy> <10453f1d-9faa-a437-a68a-6026a8233407@bbiw.net> Message-ID: I think this subthread is about over, but, yes, IPAE was around and I cited it in draft-carpenter-aeiou-00. However, the consensus (which it wasn't my job to assess) seemed to be that the IETF wanted to make a clean break. If we'd done something like IPAE, EIP (RFC1385) or AEIOU, things would certainly have been different. Whether they would have been better is hard to say. Regards Brian Carpenter On 11-Aug-23 15:45, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 8/10/2023 8:08 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> On 11-Aug-23 12:26, Dave Crocker wrote: >>> On 8/10/2023 3:44 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >>>> What do you mean? There's always been a migration path. It has >>>> been immensely complicated by the market success of NAT44, but >>>> we knew from Day 1 that we needed both coexistence and a >>>> transition plan. In fact, we knew it before IPv6 was picked >>>> as the design (RFC1671). >>> >>> Brian, >>> >>> There was even a working group on transition to IPv6, before there was a >>> chosen IPv6.? (Chaired by Bob Hinden and me.)? As nearly as I can tell, >>> the work was ignored. >> >> Interesting. Since this clearly wasn't ngtrans, can you point to it in >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/concluded/ ? > I think it was IPAE, though they don't show Bob as co-chair: > > IP Address Encapsulation (ipae) <#> > > ? https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ipae/about/ > > > However the associated ID does have us as co-authors: > > Logo of the IETF > > IP Address Encapsulation (IPAE): A Mechanism for Introducing a New IP <#> > > The Internet seeks to increase the amount of IP address space that is available for hosts and to decrease the amount of table storage that is required by routers. Ultimately, the current IP (IP version 4) and any replacement are inherently incompatible and movement to the new version requires very substantial change to the IP installed base. This specification describes an approach which retains as much software, operations and training as possible, and minimizes overall operational disruption by allowing subsets of the Internet to carry the new-format Internet datagrams inside old-style IPv4 datagrams, using a technique called 'IP Address Encapsulation' (IPAE). This permits incremental and asynchronous introduction and makes transition entirely optional for portions of the Internet infrastructure. It further permits early reduction to routing table size. > > ? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipae-new-ip/ > >>> >>> The model for 'transition' that was adopted was "implement a parallel, >>> independent stack".? This raised the adoption barrier to be as high as >>> possible. Might as well have been an OSI stack. >> Some of the coexistence mechanisms (e.g. IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses) >> would have been effectively impossible with OSI NSAP addressing. >> I dread to think what NAT between IPv4 and CLNP would have looked >> like. It really would have ships in the night, with icebergs. > > It is always easy to make design choices that prevent something, as well as allow something. > > Note that I referred to Steve's original proposal. And my suggestion of using a subset and allocate it to IPv4. > > Your comment references a scheme outside of that. > > >> >> Actually we never said it should be an independent stack. In fact, > > But the pragmatics basically dictated it. > > >>> >>> Note if there had been serious concern for minimizing adoption effort, >>> an example alternative that could have been adopted -- especially if >>> Steve Deering's original proposal had been adopted -- would have been to >>> make IPv4 address space a subset of IPv6 address space. >> >> My recollection, without looking at the archives, is that this was >> *explicitly* rejected as a Bad Idea because it would have, by definition, >> have imported the IPv4 BGP-4 "swamp" into the IPng default-free zone. >> Whether that was the right decision could be analyzed today, but it was >> very clear at that time. > > Perhaps my point about taking issues out of critical path, where possible, was missed? > > There was a pervasive feeling that all sorts of problems had to be fixed simultaneously.? When working at scale, that tends to be a problematic choice.? 30 years later, one would think the lesson would be self-explanatory. > > >>> >>> This would have eliminated any initial administrative effort, with >>> gateways could function largely as interoperable routers, and a minimum >>> of address syntax adaptation. >>> >>> That is, IPv6 address administration could have been entirely removed as >>> an initial adoption barrier. >> >> The real-world problem for a long time was that available commercial >> enterprise IPAM (IP Address Management) systems could not handle addresses >> larger than 32 bits. Whether the 128 bit space was a superset of the >> 32 bit space was a minor matter. > > Except that my point was that it could have been central, in terms of operational transition focus. > > You are merely citing yet-another piece that would have benefited from being taken out of initial adoption critical path. > > > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social > From gnu at toad.com Fri Aug 11 04:31:10 2023 From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 04:31:10 -0700 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: <16395.1691753470@hop.toad.com> Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > In the 90s, the world embraced TCP and got rid of all the other protocols. > ... Some people have "picked up" IPV6, but many have not. Here's the fundamental difference, as I see it. In the 1990s, the TCP/IPv4 was competing with a bunch of protocols that just couldn't match its features: * They couldn't scale up to global scale (eg Netware). * They required identical speeds at both ends (eg telco leased lines). * They were only supported by one vendor's equipment (eg DECnet). * They were only provisioned by one vendor (eg Telenet). * They only worked for one application (eg The Source). * They didn't network (eg RS232 cables, dialup modems). * They didn't layer over or under other protocols (eg SNA). * They didn't speed up on the same curve as Ethernet (eg Token Ring). * They were custom niche protocols (eg Chaosnet). * They didn't put you 300ms away from nearly everyone on earth. As a result, TCP/IPv4 and Ethernet, as a team, took so much market share from all those other protocols that they are all now historical relics. When WWW was added, late in the game, it was the final nail in their coffins. When I saw Ethernet jacks appearing on the cash registers in little shops, and URLs on billboards advertising underwear, I knew it had won. The situation for IPv6 is far worse. It is competing with a highly capable, cheap, widely deployed and well regarded competitor: TCP/IPv4 on Ethernet with WWW. It can't mow down all the competitors by being 1000x as good/cheap/fast, on an increasingly compelling scale. It's maybe 2x as good as IPv4, or 3x if you can keep NAT out of it, but trading in your whole infrastructure for a 2-3x win is not much of an incentive. By analogy, 240-volt power is better at some things than 120V power. You could convert your house and your company to 240V power, while everyone around you kept using 120V. But: the step from NO electricity to 120V in the early 1900's was a huge sea-change -- for lighting, for motors, for radio and TV, for electronics. The step from 120V to 240V just means your coffee boils a bit sooner and your ebike charges faster. Meanwhile, every time you buy a lamp from a local shop, you incur a cost: you need to provision a 240V-to-120V plug adapter and check the lamp's bulb compatability, rather than just slinging it into the back of the car and plugging it in when you get home. In some countries, 240V was the original standard, so that cost is reduced or eliminated: if everyone around you uses 240V then it's as cheap and easy as 110V. The Internet started worldwide at "110V" and was truly amazing; but only nerds or people with specialized needs are changing out all their plugs and fuses and bulbs and stuff to upgrade to "240V" IPv6, when it adds only a small incremental improvement. Even brand-new houses are installing just one or two 240V plugs, for the stove and the electric car, because the end user wins by having simple compatability everywhere else, with what's already omnipresent. John From dhc at dcrocker.net Fri Aug 11 04:35:44 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 04:35:44 -0700 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <16395.1691753470@hop.toad.com> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <16395.1691753470@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: <9516cae0-960a-3207-cb1f-33fbb08dc66d@dcrocker.net> On 8/11/2023 4:31 AM, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote: > just couldn't match its features: Fun list. I think you left off one more bullet: * They didn't have extensive field experience, at scale: OSI d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From vgcerf at gmail.com Fri Aug 11 05:17:21 2023 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 08:17:21 -0400 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 12:16?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > I've been wondering if the IETF is still effective today. It's been > trying for decades to cajole the Internet into adopting IPV6. > > Instead we now live with a multi-protocol Internet, and the complexity > and problems that come with it. In the 90s, the world embraced TCP and > got rid of all the other protocols. As I understand it, the IETF now > "puts new technology on the shelf, where anyone is free to pick it up > and use it" - quite different from the management process that > orchestrated "Flag Day" and managed the evolution of the Internet > technology in the field. Some people have "picked up" IPV6, but many > have not. I can't tell if I have. I also have no idea how I would do > it. Or why I should. > users should not have to care or notice. > > Perhaps someone can fill in the history of how the Internet got from > then to now? I sent an email on this topic a week or so ago, but it > seems to have never come out of the elists.isoc.org system. FYI, here > it is, in case you didn't get it: > > -------------------- > > IIRC, the "Flag Day" was one piece of a larger plan. > > I don't recall the timing of the pieces - it was 40+- years ago. But > there was also a bureaucratic action in that same era to declare TCP a > "DoD Standard", and require its presence in DoD procurements - any > computer system in a DoD purchase using networking had to have TCP. > Also, there was a program created by NIST (or was it still NBS then?) to > provide a test suite for conformance to the TCP standard. So any > contractor who wanted to sell something to DoD had to have TCP, and by > going through the NIST test suite they could get a certificate proving > that they had TCP implemented properly. I don't remember which of these > happened in what order or how it related to Flag Day (1/1/1983). But > it all seems to me to be part of some larger plan to migrate the > admittedly small existing network to a new standard. > > At BBN, we went through the NIST process to become a certified testing > lab, so we could run the tests for anyone who needed it and issue > conformance certificates. I'm not sure how many other such labs there > were. We also provided consulting services to help people understand > TCP and figure out why their software didn't pass the tests. This was > never seen as any kind of "money maker", but seemed important to do it, > since we had access to IMPs and such which made it easy to set up a > small test lab. > > I never saw "the plan", but it struck me that there was a lot going on > behind the scenes to make things like this happen, outside of the > research or Arpanet community or technology per se, in order to > facilitate the introduction of TCP to DoD. Maybe someone else knows > more about who was involved in all that activity. Somebody made those > things happen... > > In retrospect, it seems to me that such "soft technology" (conformance > certification etc.) was complementary to the technical work documented > in the stream of RFCs, and was important to making TCP "real", and > establishing a bit of regulation around its use "in the field" with > mechanisms such as "Flag Day" to enforce a migration from old to new. > > The Internet is now arguably world class "infrastructure". But, IMHO, > it still lacks a lot of the mechanisms that surround other, older, > infrastructures that move things from point A to point B - e.g., > highways, electrical service, railroads, airplanes, etc. The early > work on things like Flag Day, TCP Conformance Tests, DoD > Standardization, and such were the beginning of adding a management > structure around the Internet technology. > > As near as I can tell, no such effort continues today. It may have > faded away back in the 1980s, before TCP became the dominant > technology. Perhaps the Internet is just too new for such machinery to > be created? > > Other infrastructures have gone through stages as rules, regulations, > and practices congeal. In the early days of electricity it was common > for accidents to occur, causing fires, deaths, or other disasters. > Electrical Codes, safety mechanisms, licensing, rules and practices have > made using electricity much less dangerous. The same is true of > highways, railroads, etc. > > I've always wondered what happened to that "management framework" that > started in the 1980s around the Internet infrastructure, and why it > hasn't resulted in mechanisms today to make the Internet "safer". I > suspect all infrastructures need things like electrical codes, UL > testing, development of fuses, circuit breakers, GFIs, etc., that are > used in the electrical infrastructure. But nobody seems to be doing > that for the Internet? > > There's lots of such mechanisms I know about in the US to manage > infrastructures. My car occasionally gets a government-mandated > recall. Airplanes get grounded by FAA. Train crashes are investigated > by the Department of Transportation. Other governments have similar > mechanisms to manage infrastructure. > > Has any Internet component, hardware or software, ever been > recalled...? "Flag Day" was the last enforcement action I can remember. > > Jack Haverty > > > -------------------- > > On 8/9/23 18:50, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote: > > I had a "tourist" account at the MIT-AI system running ITS, back in the > > NCP days. I used to log in to it over a TIP that had RS232 cables > > quietly connecting it to a Telenet node. I'd dial in to a local Telenet > > access point, connect to the cross-connect's node and port, and be > > talking to a TIP, where I'd "@o 134" to get to MIT-AI. > > > > When NCP was turned off on the Flag Day, that stopped working. At MIT, > > as I understand it, they decided not to implement TCP/IP for ITS. The > > workaround for tourists like me was to borrow someone's account at > > MIT-OZ, which had TCP support and could also talk to ITS (over > > Chaosnet?). So I'd connect from the TIP using TCP to MIT-OZ, and then > > connect to MIT-AI. It worked OK, though I had to remember when (and how > > many times) to double the escape characters. My access was via a dialup > > modem, which was probably the slowest part of the whole system. > > > > Moving to the present day... > > > > I continue to see Internet old-timers who long nostalgicly for somebody, > > somewhere, to force a "flag day" to shut down IPv4. The IETF has > > unfortunately been captured by these folks, who object to making even > > tiny improvements to IPv4 protocols on the grounds that "we shouldn't > > make it easier to use IPv4 because that would reduce the urgency of > > switching to IPv6". It is taken for granted in much of IETF that "IPv4 > > is dead, or it should be" even though it carries far more global daily > > traffic, to a far broader range of locations, than IPv6 does. There was > > even a move to "declare IPv4 Historic" which would officially recommend > > that nobody use it any more. That draft RFC was approved in 2017 by the > > Sunset4 working group on a vote of three zealots, but it got killed once > > saner heads looked at the implications. For a discussion of that > > history, and pointers to the source materials, see section 4 of: > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4-01.txt > > > > (The IETF, predictably, declined to support the publication of an RFC > > describing this history or succinctly stating that IETF would continue > > maintaining IPv4.) > > > > John > > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From agmalis at gmail.com Fri Aug 11 06:53:23 2023 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 09:53:23 -0400 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: Jack, If you have a smartphone, then you're using IPv6. You may be using IPv6 in your home network as well. Try opening a terminal and typing "ping 2001:4860:4860::8888". If that works, then you're using IPv6. Cheers, Andy On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 8:17?AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 12:16?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > I've been wondering if the IETF is still effective today. It's been > > trying for decades to cajole the Internet into adopting IPV6. > > > > Instead we now live with a multi-protocol Internet, and the complexity > > and problems that come with it. In the 90s, the world embraced TCP and > > got rid of all the other protocols. As I understand it, the IETF now > > "puts new technology on the shelf, where anyone is free to pick it up > > and use it" - quite different from the management process that > > orchestrated "Flag Day" and managed the evolution of the Internet > > technology in the field. Some people have "picked up" IPV6, but many > > have not. I can't tell if I have. I also have no idea how I would do > > it. Or why I should. > > > users should not have to care or notice. > > > > > Perhaps someone can fill in the history of how the Internet got from > > then to now? I sent an email on this topic a week or so ago, but it > > seems to have never come out of the elists.isoc.org system. FYI, here > > it is, in case you didn't get it: > > > > -------------------- > > > > IIRC, the "Flag Day" was one piece of a larger plan. > > > > I don't recall the timing of the pieces - it was 40+- years ago. But > > there was also a bureaucratic action in that same era to declare TCP a > > "DoD Standard", and require its presence in DoD procurements - any > > computer system in a DoD purchase using networking had to have TCP. > > Also, there was a program created by NIST (or was it still NBS then?) to > > provide a test suite for conformance to the TCP standard. So any > > contractor who wanted to sell something to DoD had to have TCP, and by > > going through the NIST test suite they could get a certificate proving > > that they had TCP implemented properly. I don't remember which of these > > happened in what order or how it related to Flag Day (1/1/1983). But > > it all seems to me to be part of some larger plan to migrate the > > admittedly small existing network to a new standard. > > > > At BBN, we went through the NIST process to become a certified testing > > lab, so we could run the tests for anyone who needed it and issue > > conformance certificates. I'm not sure how many other such labs there > > were. We also provided consulting services to help people understand > > TCP and figure out why their software didn't pass the tests. This was > > never seen as any kind of "money maker", but seemed important to do it, > > since we had access to IMPs and such which made it easy to set up a > > small test lab. > > > > I never saw "the plan", but it struck me that there was a lot going on > > behind the scenes to make things like this happen, outside of the > > research or Arpanet community or technology per se, in order to > > facilitate the introduction of TCP to DoD. Maybe someone else knows > > more about who was involved in all that activity. Somebody made those > > things happen... > > > > In retrospect, it seems to me that such "soft technology" (conformance > > certification etc.) was complementary to the technical work documented > > in the stream of RFCs, and was important to making TCP "real", and > > establishing a bit of regulation around its use "in the field" with > > mechanisms such as "Flag Day" to enforce a migration from old to new. > > > > The Internet is now arguably world class "infrastructure". But, IMHO, > > it still lacks a lot of the mechanisms that surround other, older, > > infrastructures that move things from point A to point B - e.g., > > highways, electrical service, railroads, airplanes, etc. The early > > work on things like Flag Day, TCP Conformance Tests, DoD > > Standardization, and such were the beginning of adding a management > > structure around the Internet technology. > > > > As near as I can tell, no such effort continues today. It may have > > faded away back in the 1980s, before TCP became the dominant > > technology. Perhaps the Internet is just too new for such machinery to > > be created? > > > > Other infrastructures have gone through stages as rules, regulations, > > and practices congeal. In the early days of electricity it was common > > for accidents to occur, causing fires, deaths, or other disasters. > > Electrical Codes, safety mechanisms, licensing, rules and practices have > > made using electricity much less dangerous. The same is true of > > highways, railroads, etc. > > > > I've always wondered what happened to that "management framework" that > > started in the 1980s around the Internet infrastructure, and why it > > hasn't resulted in mechanisms today to make the Internet "safer". I > > suspect all infrastructures need things like electrical codes, UL > > testing, development of fuses, circuit breakers, GFIs, etc., that are > > used in the electrical infrastructure. But nobody seems to be doing > > that for the Internet? > > > > There's lots of such mechanisms I know about in the US to manage > > infrastructures. My car occasionally gets a government-mandated > > recall. Airplanes get grounded by FAA. Train crashes are investigated > > by the Department of Transportation. Other governments have similar > > mechanisms to manage infrastructure. > > > > Has any Internet component, hardware or software, ever been > > recalled...? "Flag Day" was the last enforcement action I can remember. > > > > Jack Haverty > > > > > > -------------------- > > > > On 8/9/23 18:50, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote: > > > I had a "tourist" account at the MIT-AI system running ITS, back in the > > > NCP days. I used to log in to it over a TIP that had RS232 cables > > > quietly connecting it to a Telenet node. I'd dial in to a local > Telenet > > > access point, connect to the cross-connect's node and port, and be > > > talking to a TIP, where I'd "@o 134" to get to MIT-AI. > > > > > > When NCP was turned off on the Flag Day, that stopped working. At MIT, > > > as I understand it, they decided not to implement TCP/IP for ITS. The > > > workaround for tourists like me was to borrow someone's account at > > > MIT-OZ, which had TCP support and could also talk to ITS (over > > > Chaosnet?). So I'd connect from the TIP using TCP to MIT-OZ, and then > > > connect to MIT-AI. It worked OK, though I had to remember when (and > how > > > many times) to double the escape characters. My access was via a > dialup > > > modem, which was probably the slowest part of the whole system. > > > > > > Moving to the present day... > > > > > > I continue to see Internet old-timers who long nostalgicly for > somebody, > > > somewhere, to force a "flag day" to shut down IPv4. The IETF has > > > unfortunately been captured by these folks, who object to making even > > > tiny improvements to IPv4 protocols on the grounds that "we shouldn't > > > make it easier to use IPv4 because that would reduce the urgency of > > > switching to IPv6". It is taken for granted in much of IETF that "IPv4 > > > is dead, or it should be" even though it carries far more global daily > > > traffic, to a far broader range of locations, than IPv6 does. There > was > > > even a move to "declare IPv4 Historic" which would officially recommend > > > that nobody use it any more. That draft RFC was approved in 2017 by > the > > > Sunset4 working group on a vote of three zealots, but it got killed > once > > > saner heads looked at the implications. For a discussion of that > > > history, and pointers to the source materials, see section 4 of: > > > > > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4-01.txt > > > > > > (The IETF, predictably, declined to support the publication of an RFC > > > describing this history or succinctly stating that IETF would continue > > > maintaining IPv4.) > > > > > > John > > > > > > > -- > > 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 agmalis at gmail.com Fri Aug 11 07:21:16 2023 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 10:21:16 -0400 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: I just mistyped - I meant to type "ping6", not "ping". So try "ping6 2001:4860:4860::8888" Cheers, Andy On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 9:53?AM Andrew G. Malis wrote: > Jack, > > If you have a smartphone, then you're using IPv6. > > You may be using IPv6 in your home network as well. Try opening a terminal > and typing "ping 2001:4860:4860::8888". If that works, then you're using > IPv6. > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 8:17?AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 12:16?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >> > I've been wondering if the IETF is still effective today. It's been >> > trying for decades to cajole the Internet into adopting IPV6. >> > >> > Instead we now live with a multi-protocol Internet, and the complexity >> > and problems that come with it. In the 90s, the world embraced TCP and >> > got rid of all the other protocols. As I understand it, the IETF now >> > "puts new technology on the shelf, where anyone is free to pick it up >> > and use it" - quite different from the management process that >> > orchestrated "Flag Day" and managed the evolution of the Internet >> > technology in the field. Some people have "picked up" IPV6, but many >> > have not. I can't tell if I have. I also have no idea how I would do >> > it. Or why I should. >> > >> users should not have to care or notice. >> >> > >> > Perhaps someone can fill in the history of how the Internet got from >> > then to now? I sent an email on this topic a week or so ago, but it >> > seems to have never come out of the elists.isoc.org system. FYI, here >> > it is, in case you didn't get it: >> > >> > -------------------- >> > >> > IIRC, the "Flag Day" was one piece of a larger plan. >> > >> > I don't recall the timing of the pieces - it was 40+- years ago. But >> > there was also a bureaucratic action in that same era to declare TCP a >> > "DoD Standard", and require its presence in DoD procurements - any >> > computer system in a DoD purchase using networking had to have TCP. >> > Also, there was a program created by NIST (or was it still NBS then?) to >> > provide a test suite for conformance to the TCP standard. So any >> > contractor who wanted to sell something to DoD had to have TCP, and by >> > going through the NIST test suite they could get a certificate proving >> > that they had TCP implemented properly. I don't remember which of these >> > happened in what order or how it related to Flag Day (1/1/1983). But >> > it all seems to me to be part of some larger plan to migrate the >> > admittedly small existing network to a new standard. >> > >> > At BBN, we went through the NIST process to become a certified testing >> > lab, so we could run the tests for anyone who needed it and issue >> > conformance certificates. I'm not sure how many other such labs there >> > were. We also provided consulting services to help people understand >> > TCP and figure out why their software didn't pass the tests. This was >> > never seen as any kind of "money maker", but seemed important to do it, >> > since we had access to IMPs and such which made it easy to set up a >> > small test lab. >> > >> > I never saw "the plan", but it struck me that there was a lot going on >> > behind the scenes to make things like this happen, outside of the >> > research or Arpanet community or technology per se, in order to >> > facilitate the introduction of TCP to DoD. Maybe someone else knows >> > more about who was involved in all that activity. Somebody made those >> > things happen... >> > >> > In retrospect, it seems to me that such "soft technology" (conformance >> > certification etc.) was complementary to the technical work documented >> > in the stream of RFCs, and was important to making TCP "real", and >> > establishing a bit of regulation around its use "in the field" with >> > mechanisms such as "Flag Day" to enforce a migration from old to new. >> > >> > The Internet is now arguably world class "infrastructure". But, IMHO, >> > it still lacks a lot of the mechanisms that surround other, older, >> > infrastructures that move things from point A to point B - e.g., >> > highways, electrical service, railroads, airplanes, etc. The early >> > work on things like Flag Day, TCP Conformance Tests, DoD >> > Standardization, and such were the beginning of adding a management >> > structure around the Internet technology. >> > >> > As near as I can tell, no such effort continues today. It may have >> > faded away back in the 1980s, before TCP became the dominant >> > technology. Perhaps the Internet is just too new for such machinery to >> > be created? >> > >> > Other infrastructures have gone through stages as rules, regulations, >> > and practices congeal. In the early days of electricity it was common >> > for accidents to occur, causing fires, deaths, or other disasters. >> > Electrical Codes, safety mechanisms, licensing, rules and practices have >> > made using electricity much less dangerous. The same is true of >> > highways, railroads, etc. >> > >> > I've always wondered what happened to that "management framework" that >> > started in the 1980s around the Internet infrastructure, and why it >> > hasn't resulted in mechanisms today to make the Internet "safer". I >> > suspect all infrastructures need things like electrical codes, UL >> > testing, development of fuses, circuit breakers, GFIs, etc., that are >> > used in the electrical infrastructure. But nobody seems to be doing >> > that for the Internet? >> > >> > There's lots of such mechanisms I know about in the US to manage >> > infrastructures. My car occasionally gets a government-mandated >> > recall. Airplanes get grounded by FAA. Train crashes are investigated >> > by the Department of Transportation. Other governments have similar >> > mechanisms to manage infrastructure. >> > >> > Has any Internet component, hardware or software, ever been >> > recalled...? "Flag Day" was the last enforcement action I can >> remember. >> > >> > Jack Haverty >> > >> > >> > -------------------- >> > >> > On 8/9/23 18:50, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote: >> > > I had a "tourist" account at the MIT-AI system running ITS, back in >> the >> > > NCP days. I used to log in to it over a TIP that had RS232 cables >> > > quietly connecting it to a Telenet node. I'd dial in to a local >> Telenet >> > > access point, connect to the cross-connect's node and port, and be >> > > talking to a TIP, where I'd "@o 134" to get to MIT-AI. >> > > >> > > When NCP was turned off on the Flag Day, that stopped working. At >> MIT, >> > > as I understand it, they decided not to implement TCP/IP for ITS. The >> > > workaround for tourists like me was to borrow someone's account at >> > > MIT-OZ, which had TCP support and could also talk to ITS (over >> > > Chaosnet?). So I'd connect from the TIP using TCP to MIT-OZ, and then >> > > connect to MIT-AI. It worked OK, though I had to remember when (and >> how >> > > many times) to double the escape characters. My access was via a >> dialup >> > > modem, which was probably the slowest part of the whole system. >> > > >> > > Moving to the present day... >> > > >> > > I continue to see Internet old-timers who long nostalgicly for >> somebody, >> > > somewhere, to force a "flag day" to shut down IPv4. The IETF has >> > > unfortunately been captured by these folks, who object to making even >> > > tiny improvements to IPv4 protocols on the grounds that "we shouldn't >> > > make it easier to use IPv4 because that would reduce the urgency of >> > > switching to IPv6". It is taken for granted in much of IETF that >> "IPv4 >> > > is dead, or it should be" even though it carries far more global daily >> > > traffic, to a far broader range of locations, than IPv6 does. There >> was >> > > even a move to "declare IPv4 Historic" which would officially >> recommend >> > > that nobody use it any more. That draft RFC was approved in 2017 by >> the >> > > Sunset4 working group on a vote of three zealots, but it got killed >> once >> > > saner heads looked at the implications. For a discussion of that >> > > history, and pointers to the source materials, see section 4 of: >> > > >> > > >> > >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4-01.txt >> > > >> > > (The IETF, predictably, declined to support the publication of an RFC >> > > describing this history or succinctly stating that IETF would continue >> > > maintaining IPv4.) >> > > >> > > John >> > > >> > >> > -- >> > 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 Fri Aug 11 07:50:36 2023 From: sob at sobco.com (Scott Bradner) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 10:50:36 -0400 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: <1BEF9B4E-67BA-44CD-9DED-179426284E69@sobco.com> or easier: ping6 www.cnn.com or on your smartphone go to arin.net and see what IP address it shows for you (turn off wifi first) or on your smartphone go to test-ipv6.com Scott > On Aug 11, 2023, at 10:21 AM, Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history wrote: > > I just mistyped - I meant to type "ping6", not "ping". So try "ping6 > 2001:4860:4860::8888" > > Cheers, > Andy > > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 9:53?AM Andrew G. Malis wrote: > >> Jack, >> >> If you have a smartphone, then you're using IPv6. >> >> You may be using IPv6 in your home network as well. Try opening a terminal >> and typing "ping 2001:4860:4860::8888". If that works, then you're using >> IPv6. >> >> Cheers, >> Andy >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 8:17?AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 12:16?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I've been wondering if the IETF is still effective today. It's been >>>> trying for decades to cajole the Internet into adopting IPV6. >>>> >>>> Instead we now live with a multi-protocol Internet, and the complexity >>>> and problems that come with it. In the 90s, the world embraced TCP and >>>> got rid of all the other protocols. As I understand it, the IETF now >>>> "puts new technology on the shelf, where anyone is free to pick it up >>>> and use it" - quite different from the management process that >>>> orchestrated "Flag Day" and managed the evolution of the Internet >>>> technology in the field. Some people have "picked up" IPV6, but many >>>> have not. I can't tell if I have. I also have no idea how I would do >>>> it. Or why I should. >>>> >>> users should not have to care or notice. >>> >>>> >>>> Perhaps someone can fill in the history of how the Internet got from >>>> then to now? I sent an email on this topic a week or so ago, but it >>>> seems to have never come out of the elists.isoc.org system. FYI, here >>>> it is, in case you didn't get it: >>>> >>>> -------------------- >>>> >>>> IIRC, the "Flag Day" was one piece of a larger plan. >>>> >>>> I don't recall the timing of the pieces - it was 40+- years ago. But >>>> there was also a bureaucratic action in that same era to declare TCP a >>>> "DoD Standard", and require its presence in DoD procurements - any >>>> computer system in a DoD purchase using networking had to have TCP. >>>> Also, there was a program created by NIST (or was it still NBS then?) to >>>> provide a test suite for conformance to the TCP standard. So any >>>> contractor who wanted to sell something to DoD had to have TCP, and by >>>> going through the NIST test suite they could get a certificate proving >>>> that they had TCP implemented properly. I don't remember which of these >>>> happened in what order or how it related to Flag Day (1/1/1983). But >>>> it all seems to me to be part of some larger plan to migrate the >>>> admittedly small existing network to a new standard. >>>> >>>> At BBN, we went through the NIST process to become a certified testing >>>> lab, so we could run the tests for anyone who needed it and issue >>>> conformance certificates. I'm not sure how many other such labs there >>>> were. We also provided consulting services to help people understand >>>> TCP and figure out why their software didn't pass the tests. This was >>>> never seen as any kind of "money maker", but seemed important to do it, >>>> since we had access to IMPs and such which made it easy to set up a >>>> small test lab. >>>> >>>> I never saw "the plan", but it struck me that there was a lot going on >>>> behind the scenes to make things like this happen, outside of the >>>> research or Arpanet community or technology per se, in order to >>>> facilitate the introduction of TCP to DoD. Maybe someone else knows >>>> more about who was involved in all that activity. Somebody made those >>>> things happen... >>>> >>>> In retrospect, it seems to me that such "soft technology" (conformance >>>> certification etc.) was complementary to the technical work documented >>>> in the stream of RFCs, and was important to making TCP "real", and >>>> establishing a bit of regulation around its use "in the field" with >>>> mechanisms such as "Flag Day" to enforce a migration from old to new. >>>> >>>> The Internet is now arguably world class "infrastructure". But, IMHO, >>>> it still lacks a lot of the mechanisms that surround other, older, >>>> infrastructures that move things from point A to point B - e.g., >>>> highways, electrical service, railroads, airplanes, etc. The early >>>> work on things like Flag Day, TCP Conformance Tests, DoD >>>> Standardization, and such were the beginning of adding a management >>>> structure around the Internet technology. >>>> >>>> As near as I can tell, no such effort continues today. It may have >>>> faded away back in the 1980s, before TCP became the dominant >>>> technology. Perhaps the Internet is just too new for such machinery to >>>> be created? >>>> >>>> Other infrastructures have gone through stages as rules, regulations, >>>> and practices congeal. In the early days of electricity it was common >>>> for accidents to occur, causing fires, deaths, or other disasters. >>>> Electrical Codes, safety mechanisms, licensing, rules and practices have >>>> made using electricity much less dangerous. The same is true of >>>> highways, railroads, etc. >>>> >>>> I've always wondered what happened to that "management framework" that >>>> started in the 1980s around the Internet infrastructure, and why it >>>> hasn't resulted in mechanisms today to make the Internet "safer". I >>>> suspect all infrastructures need things like electrical codes, UL >>>> testing, development of fuses, circuit breakers, GFIs, etc., that are >>>> used in the electrical infrastructure. But nobody seems to be doing >>>> that for the Internet? >>>> >>>> There's lots of such mechanisms I know about in the US to manage >>>> infrastructures. My car occasionally gets a government-mandated >>>> recall. Airplanes get grounded by FAA. Train crashes are investigated >>>> by the Department of Transportation. Other governments have similar >>>> mechanisms to manage infrastructure. >>>> >>>> Has any Internet component, hardware or software, ever been >>>> recalled...? "Flag Day" was the last enforcement action I can >>> remember. >>>> >>>> Jack Haverty >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------- >>>> >>>> On 8/9/23 18:50, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> I had a "tourist" account at the MIT-AI system running ITS, back in >>> the >>>>> NCP days. I used to log in to it over a TIP that had RS232 cables >>>>> quietly connecting it to a Telenet node. I'd dial in to a local >>> Telenet >>>>> access point, connect to the cross-connect's node and port, and be >>>>> talking to a TIP, where I'd "@o 134" to get to MIT-AI. >>>>> >>>>> When NCP was turned off on the Flag Day, that stopped working. At >>> MIT, >>>>> as I understand it, they decided not to implement TCP/IP for ITS. The >>>>> workaround for tourists like me was to borrow someone's account at >>>>> MIT-OZ, which had TCP support and could also talk to ITS (over >>>>> Chaosnet?). So I'd connect from the TIP using TCP to MIT-OZ, and then >>>>> connect to MIT-AI. It worked OK, though I had to remember when (and >>> how >>>>> many times) to double the escape characters. My access was via a >>> dialup >>>>> modem, which was probably the slowest part of the whole system. >>>>> >>>>> Moving to the present day... >>>>> >>>>> I continue to see Internet old-timers who long nostalgicly for >>> somebody, >>>>> somewhere, to force a "flag day" to shut down IPv4. The IETF has >>>>> unfortunately been captured by these folks, who object to making even >>>>> tiny improvements to IPv4 protocols on the grounds that "we shouldn't >>>>> make it easier to use IPv4 because that would reduce the urgency of >>>>> switching to IPv6". It is taken for granted in much of IETF that >>> "IPv4 >>>>> is dead, or it should be" even though it carries far more global daily >>>>> traffic, to a far broader range of locations, than IPv6 does. There >>> was >>>>> even a move to "declare IPv4 Historic" which would officially >>> recommend >>>>> that nobody use it any more. That draft RFC was approved in 2017 by >>> the >>>>> Sunset4 working group on a vote of three zealots, but it got killed >>> once >>>>> saner heads looked at the implications. For a discussion of that >>>>> history, and pointers to the source materials, see section 4 of: >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4-01.txt >>>>> >>>>> (The IETF, predictably, declined to support the publication of an RFC >>>>> describing this history or succinctly stating that IETF would continue >>>>> maintaining IPv4.) >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 jaap at NLnetLabs.nl Fri Aug 11 08:11:09 2023 From: jaap at NLnetLabs.nl (Jaap Akkerhuis) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 17:11:09 +0200 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <1BEF9B4E-67BA-44CD-9DED-179426284E69@sobco.com> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <1BEF9B4E-67BA-44CD-9DED-179426284E69@sobco.com> Message-ID: <202308111511.37BFB95r054567@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> > > I just mistyped - I meant to type "ping6", not "ping". So try "ping6 > > 2001:4860:4860::8888" On my system (FreeBSD), ping just works, it recognizes the ipv6 syntax. jaap From frantisek.borsik at gmail.com Fri Aug 11 13:44:09 2023 From: frantisek.borsik at gmail.com (Frantisek Borsik) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 22:44:09 +0200 Subject: [ih] Perfect explanation of WHY our internet was built for speed/bandwidth not latency In-Reply-To: References: <1d6c10c9a692bb3f2869fb1b40fa449a@rjmcmahon.com> <005d1e7e3e1d19bce308436e46a3ec5e@rjmcmahon.com> <569691b3e7dfc57bbf98c4fc168fc6cf@rjmcmahon.com> <2885829.1679221616@dyas> <20230321001019.GA4531@sunf68.rd.bbc.co.uk> <4295238B-FA57-49B6-B57B-78FFB2603B90@gmx.de> <8301258b8fffa18bd14279bff043dd03@rjmcmahon.com> <43bcbc338aecb44a1bef49489ab6f9c8@rjmcmahon.com> Message-ID: Hello to all, Sorry for a messy (and broken English) subject but I would like to share this take on "why our internet was built for speed/bandwidth, not low latency" with You. It was shared by Robert (Bob) McMahon at one of the bufferbloat.net mailing lists a while ago...and I encourage You all to join some of them as well. Thanks for the feedback in advance, I'm looking forward to seeing Your understanding of the situation, too. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: rjmcmahon Date: Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 8:58?PM Subject: Re: [Rpm] [Starlink] [LibreQoS] On FiWi To: Frantisek Borsik Cc: Rpm , dan , < brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk>, libreqos , Dave Taht via Starlink , bloat < bloat at lists.bufferbloat.net> I was around when BGP & other critical junctures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_juncture_theory the commercial internet. Here's a short write-up from another thread with some thoughts (Note: there are no queues in the Schramm Model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schramm%27s_model_of_communication ) On why we're here. I think Stuart's point about not having the correct framing is spot on. I also think part of that may come from the internet's origin story so-to-speak. In the early days of the commercial internet, ISPs formed by buying MODEM banks from suppliers and connecting them to the telephone company central offices (thanks Strowger!) and then leasing T1 lines from the same telco, connecting the two. Products like a Cisco Access Gateway were used for the MODEM side. The 4K independent ISPs formed in the U.S. took advantage of statistical multiplexing per IP packets to optimize the PSTN's time division multiplexing (TDM) design. That design had a lot of extra capacity because of the mother's day problem - the network had to carry the peak volume of calls. It was always odd to me that the telephone companies basically contracted out statistical to TDM coupling of networks and didn't do it themselves. This was rectified with broadband and most all the independent ISPs went out of business. IP statistical multiplexing was great except for one thing. The attached computers were faster than their network i/o so TCP had to do things like congestion control to avoid network collapse based on congestion signals (and a very imperfect control loop.) Basically, that extra TDM capacity for voice calls was consumed very quickly. This set in motion the idea that network channel capacity is a proxy for computer speed as when networks are underprovisioned and congested that's basically accurate. Van Jacobson's work was most always about congestion on what today are bandwidth constrained networks. This also started a bit of a cultural war colloquially known as Bellheads vs Netheads. The human engineers took sides more or less. The netheads mostly kept increasing capacity. The market demand curve for computer connections drove this. It's come to a head though, in that netheads most always overprovisioned similar to solving the mother's day problem. (This is different from the electric build out where the goal is to drive peak and average loads to merge in order to keep generators efficient at a constant speed.) Many were first stuck with the concept of bandwidth scarcity per those origins. But then came bandwidth abundance and many haven't adjusted. Mental block number one. Mental block two occurs when one sees all that bandwidth and says, let's use it all as it's going to be scarce, like a Great Depression-era person hoarding basic items. A digression; This isn't that much different in the early days before Einstein. Einstein changed thinking by realizing that the speed of causality was defined or limited by the speed of massless particles, i.e. energy or photons. We all come from energy in one way or another. So of course it makes sense that our causality system, e.g. aging, is determined by that speed. It had to be relative for Maxwell's equations to be held true - which Einstein agreed with as true irrelevant of inertial frame. A leap for us comes when we realize that the speed of causality, i.e. time, is fundamentally the speed of energy. It's true for all clocks, objects, etc. even computers. So when we engineer systems that queue information, we don't slow down energy, we slow down information. Computers are mass information tools so slowing down information slows down distributed compute. As Stuart says, "It's the latency, stupid". It's physics too. I was trying to explain to a dark fiber provider that I wanted 100Gb/s SFPs to a residential building in Boston. They said, nobody needs 100Gb/s and that's correct from a link capacity perspective. But the economics & energy required for the lowest latency ber bit delivered actually is 100Gb/s SERDES attached to lasers attached to fiber. What we really want is low latency at the lowest energy possible, and also to be unleashed from cables (as we're not dogs.) Hence FiWi. Bob > I do believe that we all want to get the best - latency and speed, > hopefully, in this particular order :-) > The problem was that from the very beginning of the Internet (yeah, I > was still not here, on this planet, when it all started), everything > was optimised for speed, bandwidth and other numbers, but not so much > for bufferbloat in general. > Some of the things that goes into it in the need for speed, are > directly against the fixing latency...and it was not setup for it. > Gamers and Covid (work from home, the need for the enterprise network > but in homes...) brings it into conversation, thankfully, and now we > will deal with it. > > Also, there is another thing I see and it's a negative sentiment > against anything business (monetisation of, say - lower latency > solutions) in general. If it comes from the general geeky/open > source/etc folks, I can understand it a bit. But it comes also from > the business people - assuming some of You works in big corporations > or run ISPs. I'm all against cronyism, but to throw out the baby with > the bathwater - to say that doing business (i.e. getting paid for > delivering something that is missing/fixing something that is > implementing insufficiently) is wrong, to look at it with disdain, is > asinine. > > This has the connection with the general "Net Neutrality" (NN) > sentiment. I have 2 suggestions for reading from the other side of the > aisle, on this topic: https://www.martingeddes.com/1261-2 [1]/ (Martin > was censored by all major social media back then, during the days of > NN fight in the FCC and elsewhere.) Second thing is written by one and > only Dave Taht: > https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/net_neutrality_customers/ > > To conclude, we need to find the way how to benchmark and/or > communicate (translate, if You will) the whole variety of the quality > of network statistics/metrics (which are complex) like QoE, QoS, > latency, jitter, bufferbloat...to something, that is meaningful for > the end user. See this short proposition of the Quality of Outcome by > Domos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=MRmcWyIVXvg&t=4185s > There is definitely a lot of work on this - and also on the finding > the right benchmark and its actual measurement side, but it's a step > in the right direction. > > Looking forward to seeing Your take on that proposed Quality of > Outcome. Thanks a lot. > > All the best, > > Frank > > Frantisek (Frank) Borsik > > https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik > > Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 > > iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 > > Skype: casioa5302ca > > frantisek.borsik at gmail.com > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 7:08?PM rjmcmahon via Rpm > wrote: > >> Also, I want my network to be the color clear because I value >> transparency, honesty, and clarity. >> >> > https://carbuzz.com/news/car-colors-are-more-important-to-buyers-than-you-think >> >> "There are many factors to consider when buying a new car, from >> price >> and comfort to safety equipment. For many people, color is another >> important factor since it reflects their personality." >> >> "In a study by Automotive Color Preferences 2021 Consumer Survey, >> 4,000 >> people aged 25 to 60 in four of the largest car markets in the world >> >> (China, Germany, Mexico and the US) were asked about their car color >> >> preferences. Out of these, 88 percent said that color is a key >> deciding >> factor when buying a car." >> >> Bob >>> I think we may all be still stuck on numbers. Since infinity is >> taken, >>> the new marketing number is "infinity & beyond" per Buzz Lightyear >>> >>> Here's what I want, I'm sure others have ideas too: >>> >>> o) We all deserve COPPA. Get the advertiser & their cohorts to >> stop >>> mining my data & communications - limit or prohibit access to my >>> information by those who continue to violate privacy rights >>> o) An unlimited storage offering with the lowest possible latency >> paid >>> for annually. That equipment ends up as close as possible to my >> main >>> home per speed of light limits. >>> o) Security of my network including 24x7x365 monitoring for >> breaches >>> and for performance >>> o) Access to any cloud software app. Google & Apple are getting >>> something like 30% for every app on a phone. Seems like a >> last-mile >>> provider should get a revenue share for hosting apps that aren't >> being >>> downloaded. Blockbuster did this for DVDs before streaming took >> over. >>> Revenue shares done properly, while imperfect, can work. >>> o) A life-support capable, future proof, componentized, >> leash-free, >>> in-home network that is dual-homed over the last mile for >> redundancy >>> o) Per room FiWi and sensors that can be replaced and upgraded by >> me >>> ordering and swapping the parts without an ISP getting all my >>> neighbors' consensus & buy in >>> o) VPN capabilities & offerings to the content rights owners' >>> intellectual property for when the peering agreements fall apart >>> o) Video conferencing that works 24x7x365 on all devices >>> o) A single & robust shut-off circuit >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> PS. I think the sweet spot may turn out to be 100Gb/s when >> considering >>> climate impact. Type 2 emissions are a big deal so we need to >> deliver >>> the fastest causality possible (incl. no queueing) at the lowest >>> energy consumption engineers can achieve. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Rpm mailing list >>> Rpm at lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm >> _______________________________________________ >> Rpm mailing list >> Rpm at lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm > > > Links: > ------ > [1] https://www.martingeddes.com/1261-2 From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Fri Aug 11 13:49:07 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2023 08:49:07 +1200 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <202308111511.37BFB95r054567@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <1BEF9B4E-67BA-44CD-9DED-179426284E69@sobco.com> <202308111511.37BFB95r054567@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> Message-ID: On 12-Aug-23 03:11, Jaap Akkerhuis via Internet-history wrote: > > > I just mistyped - I meant to type "ping6", not "ping". So try "ping6 > > > 2001:4860:4860::8888" > > On my system (FreeBSD), ping just works, it recognizes the ipv6 syntax. Also on reasonably modern Linux, I think, and for many years on Windows. Or just browse to https://test-ipv6.com/ on any device Brian From enervatron at gmail.com Fri Aug 11 14:02:29 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 14:02:29 -0700 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <1BEF9B4E-67BA-44CD-9DED-179426284E69@sobco.com> <202308111511.37BFB95r054567@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> Message-ID: On 8/11/23 1:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > On 12-Aug-23 03:11, Jaap Akkerhuis via Internet-history wrote: >> ? > > I just mistyped - I meant to type "ping6", not "ping". So try >> "ping6 >> ? > > 2001:4860:4860::8888" >> >> On my system (FreeBSD), ping just works, it recognizes the ipv6 syntax. > > Also on reasonably modern Linux, I think, and for many years on Windows. > Does it use happy eyeballs? Mike From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Fri Aug 11 14:53:13 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2023 09:53:13 +1200 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <1BEF9B4E-67BA-44CD-9DED-179426284E69@sobco.com> <202308111511.37BFB95r054567@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> Message-ID: <2a3d6ca6-a95d-67f6-bcd9-24ce12b7a9e7@gmail.com> On 12-Aug-23 09:02, Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote: > > On 8/11/23 1:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >> On 12-Aug-23 03:11, Jaap Akkerhuis via Internet-history wrote: >>> ? > > I just mistyped - I meant to type "ping6", not "ping". So try >>> "ping6 >>> ? > > 2001:4860:4860::8888" >>> >>> On my system (FreeBSD), ping just works, it recognizes the ipv6 syntax. >> >> Also on reasonably modern Linux, I think, and for many years on Windows. >> > Does it use happy eyeballs? Surely ping doesn't use HE? Brian From johnl at iecc.com Fri Aug 11 18:58:25 2023 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 11 Aug 2023 21:58:25 -0400 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <2a3d6ca6-a95d-67f6-bcd9-24ce12b7a9e7@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20230812015826.9AD70FFCC78C@ary.qy> It appears that Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history said: >On 12-Aug-23 09:02, Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote: >> >> On 8/11/23 1:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >>> On 12-Aug-23 03:11, Jaap Akkerhuis via Internet-history wrote: >>>> ? > > I just mistyped - I meant to type "ping6", not "ping". So try >>>> "ping6 >>>> ? > > 2001:4860:4860::8888" >>>> >>>> On my system (FreeBSD), ping just works, it recognizes the ipv6 syntax. >>> >>> Also on reasonably modern Linux, I think, and for many years on Windows. >>> >> Does it use happy eyeballs? > >Surely ping doesn't use HE? More or less. If you give it an IP address, it does the appropriate kind of ping. If you give it a domain name, it looks for AAAA then A records. You can use -4 or -6 if you want to force it one way or the other. R's, John From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Fri Aug 11 19:16:41 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2023 14:16:41 +1200 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <20230812015826.9AD70FFCC78C@ary.qy> References: <20230812015826.9AD70FFCC78C@ary.qy> Message-ID: <2706b3ff-3a26-b9d3-0e7c-c3a9a67c322c@gmail.com> On 12-Aug-23 13:58, John Levine wrote: > It appears that Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history said: >> On 12-Aug-23 09:02, Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote: >>> >>> On 8/11/23 1:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >>>> On 12-Aug-23 03:11, Jaap Akkerhuis via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> ? > > I just mistyped - I meant to type "ping6", not "ping". So try >>>>> "ping6 >>>>> ? > > 2001:4860:4860::8888" >>>>> >>>>> On my system (FreeBSD), ping just works, it recognizes the ipv6 syntax. >>>> >>>> Also on reasonably modern Linux, I think, and for many years on Windows. >>>> >>> Does it use happy eyeballs? >> >> Surely ping doesn't use HE? > > More or less. If you give it an IP address, it does the appropriate > kind of ping. If you give it a domain name, it looks for AAAA then A > records. But I'm pretty sure that on Windows and recent Linux, it gives IPv6 precedence, whereas HE tries both and picks the better one. Brian > You can use -4 or -6 if you want to force it one way or the > other. > > R's, > John From jaap at NLnetLabs.nl Sat Aug 12 03:39:46 2023 From: jaap at NLnetLabs.nl (Jaap Akkerhuis) Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2023 12:39:46 +0200 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <2a3d6ca6-a95d-67f6-bcd9-24ce12b7a9e7@gmail.com> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <1BEF9B4E-67BA-44CD-9DED-179426284E69@sobco.com> <202308111511.37BFB95r054567@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> <2a3d6ca6-a95d-67f6-bcd9-24ce12b7a9e7@gmail.com> Message-ID: <202308121039.37CAdkGa076091@bela.nlnetlabs.nl> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history writes: > On 12-Aug-23 09:02, Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote: > > > > On 8/11/23 1:49 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > >> On 12-Aug-23 03:11, Jaap Akkerhuis via Internet-history wrote: > >>> ? > > I just mistyped - I meant to type "ping6", not "ping". So try > >>> "ping6 > >>> ? > > 2001:4860:4860::8888" > >>> > >>> On my system (FreeBSD), ping just works, it recognizes the ipv6 syntax. > >> > >> Also on reasonably modern Linux, I think, and for many years on Windows. > >> > > Does it use happy eyeballs? > > Surely ping doesn't use HE? Apparently someone merged ping & ping6 into one binary: 2006462 -r-sr-xr-x 2 root wheel 63720 Jun 23 10:38 /sbin/ping 2006462 -r-sr-xr-x 2 root wheel 63720 Jun 23 10:38 /sbin/ping6 jaap From gregskinner0 at icloud.com Sun Aug 13 00:14:54 2023 From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner) Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2023 00:14:54 -0700 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: Jack, The following two links may speak to some of the concerns you have raised. The first [1] discusses the completion of an IPv6 transition plan for (US) Federal information systems and services. The second [2] is a NIST publication. Additional material may be found by following links from the DuckDuckGo query results at https://duckduckgo.com/?va=a&t=hn&q=us+government+ipv6+mandate&ia=web. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/M-21-07.pdf [2] https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2020/12/nist-updates-usgv6-program-support-new-federal-ipv6-initiatives ?gregbo > On Aug 10, 2023, at 9:16 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > > I've been wondering if the IETF is still effective today. It's been trying for decades to cajole the Internet into adopting IPV6. > > Instead we now live with a multi-protocol Internet, and the complexity and problems that come with it. In the 90s, the world embraced TCP and got rid of all the other protocols. As I understand it, the IETF now "puts new technology on the shelf, where anyone is free to pick it up and use it" - quite different from the management process that orchestrated "Flag Day" and managed the evolution of the Internet technology in the field. Some people have "picked up" IPV6, but many have not. I can't tell if I have. I also have no idea how I would do it. Or why I should. > > Perhaps someone can fill in the history of how the Internet got from then to now? I sent an email on this topic a week or so ago, but it seems to have never come out of the elists.isoc.org system. FYI, here it is, in case you didn't get it: > > -------------------- > > IIRC, the "Flag Day" was one piece of a larger plan. > > I don't recall the timing of the pieces - it was 40+- years ago. But there was also a bureaucratic action in that same era to declare TCP a "DoD Standard", and require its presence in DoD procurements - any computer system in a DoD purchase using networking had to have TCP. Also, there was a program created by NIST (or was it still NBS then?) to provide a test suite for conformance to the TCP standard. So any contractor who wanted to sell something to DoD had to have TCP, and by going through the NIST test suite they could get a certificate proving that they had TCP implemented properly. I don't remember which of these happened in what order or how it related to Flag Day (1/1/1983). But it all seems to me to be part of some larger plan to migrate the admittedly small existing network to a new standard. > > At BBN, we went through the NIST process to become a certified testing lab, so we could run the tests for anyone who needed it and issue conformance certificates. I'm not sure how many other such labs there were. We also provided consulting services to help people understand TCP and figure out why their software didn't pass the tests. This was never seen as any kind of "money maker", but seemed important to do it, since we had access to IMPs and such which made it easy to set up a small test lab. > > I never saw "the plan", but it struck me that there was a lot going on behind the scenes to make things like this happen, outside of the research or Arpanet community or technology per se, in order to facilitate the introduction of TCP to DoD. Maybe someone else knows more about who was involved in all that activity. Somebody made those things happen... > > In retrospect, it seems to me that such "soft technology" (conformance certification etc.) was complementary to the technical work documented in the stream of RFCs, and was important to making TCP "real", and establishing a bit of regulation around its use "in the field" with mechanisms such as "Flag Day" to enforce a migration from old to new. > > The Internet is now arguably world class "infrastructure". But, IMHO, it still lacks a lot of the mechanisms that surround other, older, infrastructures that move things from point A to point B - e.g., highways, electrical service, railroads, airplanes, etc. The early work on things like Flag Day, TCP Conformance Tests, DoD Standardization, and such were the beginning of adding a management structure around the Internet technology. > > As near as I can tell, no such effort continues today. It may have faded away back in the 1980s, before TCP became the dominant technology. Perhaps the Internet is just too new for such machinery to be created? > > Other infrastructures have gone through stages as rules, regulations, and practices congeal. In the early days of electricity it was common for accidents to occur, causing fires, deaths, or other disasters. Electrical Codes, safety mechanisms, licensing, rules and practices have made using electricity much less dangerous. The same is true of highways, railroads, etc. > > I've always wondered what happened to that "management framework" that started in the 1980s around the Internet infrastructure, and why it hasn't resulted in mechanisms today to make the Internet "safer". I suspect all infrastructures need things like electrical codes, UL testing, development of fuses, circuit breakers, GFIs, etc., that are used in the electrical infrastructure. But nobody seems to be doing that for the Internet? > > There's lots of such mechanisms I know about in the US to manage infrastructures. My car occasionally gets a government-mandated recall. Airplanes get grounded by FAA. Train crashes are investigated by the Department of Transportation. Other governments have similar mechanisms to manage infrastructure. > > Has any Internet component, hardware or software, ever been recalled...? "Flag Day" was the last enforcement action I can remember. > > Jack Haverty > > > -------------------- > > On 8/9/23 18:50, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote: >> I had a "tourist" account at the MIT-AI system running ITS, back in the >> NCP days. I used to log in to it over a TIP that had RS232 cables >> quietly connecting it to a Telenet node. I'd dial in to a local Telenet >> access point, connect to the cross-connect's node and port, and be >> talking to a TIP, where I'd "@o 134" to get to MIT-AI. >> >> When NCP was turned off on the Flag Day, that stopped working. At MIT, >> as I understand it, they decided not to implement TCP/IP for ITS. The >> workaround for tourists like me was to borrow someone's account at >> MIT-OZ, which had TCP support and could also talk to ITS (over >> Chaosnet?). So I'd connect from the TIP using TCP to MIT-OZ, and then >> connect to MIT-AI. It worked OK, though I had to remember when (and how >> many times) to double the escape characters. My access was via a dialup >> modem, which was probably the slowest part of the whole system. >> >> Moving to the present day... >> >> I continue to see Internet old-timers who long nostalgicly for somebody, >> somewhere, to force a "flag day" to shut down IPv4. The IETF has >> unfortunately been captured by these folks, who object to making even >> tiny improvements to IPv4 protocols on the grounds that "we shouldn't >> make it easier to use IPv4 because that would reduce the urgency of >> switching to IPv6". It is taken for granted in much of IETF that "IPv4 >> is dead, or it should be" even though it carries far more global daily >> traffic, to a far broader range of locations, than IPv6 does. There was >> even a move to "declare IPv4 Historic" which would officially recommend >> that nobody use it any more. That draft RFC was approved in 2017 by the >> Sunset4 working group on a vote of three zealots, but it got killed once >> saner heads looked at the implications. For a discussion of that >> history, and pointers to the source materials, see section 4 of: >> >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4-01.txt >> >> (The IETF, predictably, declined to support the publication of an RFC >> describing this history or succinctly stating that IETF would continue >> maintaining IPv4.) >> >> John >> > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jack at 3kitty.org Wed Aug 16 09:19:44 2023 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 09:19:44 -0700 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: Thanks Greg -- very interesting documents.?? I'm not "in the loop" these days, but it looks like a US-government-wide edict to complete the migration of all "public-facing" services first to include IPV6, and then transition to IPV6 only, removing IPV4.?? NIST is producing new testing mechanisms too. Sounds very similar to the NCT->TCP "Flag Day" in 1983 that successfully decommissioned NCP.?? But of course the US government is a much smaller player in today's Internet. However, those documents don't say anything about any IT hardware or software that is not government-owned.? There's a *lot* more of that on the 'net now than there was in 1983.? I don't see anything in the plans describing how all of those users' IT will be upgraded to only use IPV6. But it looks like at some point fairly soon (few years), if you want to use any US government services, you'll have to use IPV6 to do it.? It will be interesting to see if that carrot/stick is now enough to get IPV4 replaced.?? I wonder when they're going to tell the public. The schedule is interesting.? That document is dated November 2020. By now there should be plans for the implementation of IPV6 "native" operation (i.e., IPV4 no longer used at all) - see item 4 below. Anyone find these online??? Or similar plans from other governments or ISPs etc.? Jack "To keep pace with and leverage this evolution in networking technology, agencies shall: 1. Designate an agency-wide IPv6 integrated project team (including acquisition, policy, and technical members), or other governance structure, within 45 days of issuance of this policy to effectively govern and enforce IPv6 efforts; 2. Issue and make available on the agency's publicly accessible website, an agency-wide IPv6 policy, within 180 days of issuance of this memorandum. The agency-wide IPv6 policy must require that, no later than Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, all new networked Federal information systems are IPv6-enabled 7 at the time of deployment, and state the agency's strategic intent to phase out the use of IPv4 for all systems; 3. Identify opportunities for IPv6 pilots and complete at least one pilot of an IPv6-only operational system by the end of FY 2021 and report the results of the pilot to 0MB upon request; 4. Develop an IPv6 implementation plan 9 by the end of FY 2021, and update the Information Resources Management (IRM) Strategic Plan 10 as appropriate, to update all networked Federal information systems (and the IP-enabled assets associated with these systems) to fully enable native IPv6 11 operation. The plan shall describe the agency transition process and include the following milestones and actions: 12 ?a. At least 20% of IP-enabled assets on Federal networks are operating in IPv6-only environments by the end of FY 2023; 13 ?b. At least 50% of IP-enabled assets on Federal networks are operating in IPv6-only environments by the end of FY 2024; ?c. At least 80% ofIP-enabled assets on Federal networks are operating in IPv6-only environments by the end of FY 2025; and ?d. Identify and justify Federal information systems that cannot be converted to use IPv6 and provide a schedule for replacing or retiring these systems; 5. Work with external partners to identify systems that interface with networked Federal information systems and develop plans to migrate all such network interfaces to the use ofIPv6;and 6. Complete the upgrade of public/external facing servers and services ( e.g., web, email, DNS, and ISP services) and internal client applications that communicate with public Internet services and supporting enterprise networks to operationally use native 1Pv6. " On 8/13/23 00:14, Greg Skinner wrote: > Jack, > > The following two links may speak to some of the concerns you have > raised. ?The first [1] discusses the completion of an IPv6 transition > plan for (US) Federal information systems and services. The second [2] > is a NIST publication. > > Additional material may be found by following links from the > DuckDuckGo query results at > https://duckduckgo.com/?va=a&t=hn&q=us+government+ipv6+mandate&ia=web > . > > [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/M-21-07.pdf > > [2] > https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2020/12/nist-updates-usgv6-program-support-new-federal-ipv6-initiatives > > ?gregbo > >> On Aug 10, 2023, at 9:16 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history >> wrote: >> >> I've been wondering if the IETF is still effective today.?? It's been >> trying for decades to cajole the Internet into adopting IPV6. >> >> Instead we now live with a multi-protocol Internet, and the >> complexity and problems that come with it.? In the 90s, the world >> embraced TCP and got rid of all the other protocols.?? As I >> understand it, the IETF now "puts new technology on the shelf, where >> anyone is free to pick it up and use it" - quite different from the >> management process that orchestrated "Flag Day" and managed the >> evolution of the Internet technology in the field. Some people have >> "picked up" IPV6, but many have not. I can't tell if I have. I also >> have no idea how I would do it.?? Or why I should. >> >> Perhaps someone can fill in the history of how the Internet got from >> then to now?? I sent an email on this topic a week or so ago, but it >> seems to have never come out of the elists.isoc.org system.?? FYI, >> here it is, in case you didn't get it: >> >> -------------------- >> >> IIRC, the "Flag Day" was one piece of a larger plan. >> >> I don't recall the timing of the pieces - it was 40+- years ago. But >> there was also a bureaucratic action in that same era to declare TCP >> a "DoD Standard", and require its presence in DoD procurements - any >> computer system in a DoD purchase using networking had to have TCP. >> Also, there was a program created by NIST (or was it still NBS then?) >> to provide a test suite for conformance to the TCP standard.?? So any >> contractor who wanted to sell something to DoD had to have TCP, and >> by going through the NIST test suite they could get a certificate >> proving that they had TCP implemented properly. I don't remember >> which of these happened in what order or how it related to Flag Day >> (1/1/1983). But it all seems to me to be part of some larger plan to >> migrate the admittedly small existing network to a new standard. >> >> At BBN, we went through the NIST process to become a certified >> testing lab, so we could run the tests for anyone who needed it and >> issue conformance certificates.? I'm not sure how many other such >> labs there were.? We also provided consulting services to help people >> understand TCP and figure out why their software didn't pass the >> tests.?? This was never seen as any kind of "money maker", but seemed >> important to do it, since we had access to IMPs and such which made >> it easy to set up a small test lab. >> >> I never saw "the plan", but it struck me that there was a lot going >> on behind the scenes to make things like this happen, outside of the >> research or Arpanet community or technology per se, in order to >> facilitate the introduction of TCP to DoD.? Maybe someone else knows >> more about who was involved in all that activity.?? Somebody made >> those things happen... >> >> In retrospect, it seems to me that such "soft technology" >> (conformance certification etc.) was complementary to the technical >> work documented in the stream of RFCs, and was important to making >> TCP "real", and establishing a bit of regulation around its use "in >> the field" with mechanisms such as "Flag Day" to enforce a migration >> from old to new. >> >> The Internet is now arguably world class "infrastructure".?? But, >> IMHO, it still lacks a lot of the mechanisms that surround other, >> older, infrastructures that move things from point A to point B - >> e.g., highways, electrical service, railroads, airplanes, etc.?? The >> early work on things like Flag Day, TCP Conformance Tests, DoD >> Standardization, and such were the beginning of adding a management >> structure around the Internet technology. >> >> As near as I can tell, no such effort continues today. It may have >> faded away back in the 1980s, before TCP became the dominant >> technology.?? Perhaps the Internet is just too new for such machinery >> to be created? >> >> Other infrastructures have gone through stages as rules, regulations, >> and practices congeal.? In the early days of electricity it was >> common for accidents to occur, causing fires, deaths, or other >> disasters.? Electrical Codes, safety mechanisms, licensing, rules and >> practices have made using electricity much less dangerous.? The same >> is true of highways, railroads, etc. >> >> I've always wondered what happened to that "management framework" >> that started in the 1980s around the Internet infrastructure, and why >> it hasn't resulted in mechanisms today to make the Internet >> "safer".?? I suspect all infrastructures need things like electrical >> codes, UL testing, development of fuses, circuit breakers, GFIs, >> etc., that are used in the electrical infrastructure. But nobody >> seems to be doing that for the Internet? >> >> There's lots of such mechanisms I know about in the US to manage >> infrastructures.? My car occasionally gets a government-mandated >> recall.? Airplanes get grounded by FAA.? Train crashes are >> investigated by the Department of Transportation.?? Other governments >> have similar mechanisms to manage infrastructure. >> >> Has any Internet component, hardware or software, ever been >> recalled...??? "Flag Day" was the last enforcement action I can remember. >> >> Jack Haverty >> >> >> -------------------- >> >> On 8/9/23 18:50, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote: >>> I had a "tourist" account at the MIT-AI system running ITS, back in the >>> NCP days. ?I used to log in to it over a TIP that had RS232 cables >>> quietly connecting it to a Telenet node. ?I'd dial in to a local Telenet >>> access point, connect to the cross-connect's node and port, and be >>> talking to a TIP, where I'd "@o 134" to get to MIT-AI. >>> >>> When NCP was turned off on the Flag Day, that stopped working. ?At MIT, >>> as I understand it, they decided not to implement TCP/IP for ITS. ?The >>> workaround for tourists like me was to borrow someone's account at >>> MIT-OZ, which had TCP support and could also talk to ITS (over >>> Chaosnet?). ?So I'd connect from the TIP using TCP to MIT-OZ, and then >>> connect to MIT-AI. ?It worked OK, though I had to remember when (and how >>> many times) to double the escape characters. ?My access was via a dialup >>> modem, which was probably the slowest part of the whole system. >>> >>> Moving to the present day... >>> >>> I continue to see Internet old-timers who long nostalgicly for somebody, >>> somewhere, to force a "flag day" to shut down IPv4. ?The IETF has >>> unfortunately been captured by these folks, who object to making even >>> tiny improvements to IPv4 protocols on the grounds that "we shouldn't >>> make it easier to use IPv4 because that would reduce the urgency of >>> switching to IPv6". ?It is taken for granted in much of IETF that "IPv4 >>> is dead, or it should be" even though it carries far more global daily >>> traffic, to a far broader range of locations, than IPv6 does. ?There was >>> even a move to "declare IPv4 Historic" which would officially recommend >>> that nobody use it any more. ?That draft RFC was approved in 2017 by the >>> Sunset4 working group on a vote of three zealots, but it got killed once >>> saner heads looked at the implications. ?For a discussion of that >>> history, and pointers to the source materials, see section 4 of: >>> >>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4-01.txt >>> >>> (The IETF, predictably, declined to support the publication of an RFC >>> describing this history or succinctly stating that IETF would continue >>> maintaining IPv4.) >>> >>> John >>> >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From gregskinner0 at icloud.com Wed Aug 16 17:23:27 2023 From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner) Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 17:23:27 -0700 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <54BAAF3E-990F-4EF2-BF5E-AFE338318DC6@icloud.com> Dan Lynch gave some memories of the flag day (and some other things we?ve been discussing lately) in this Computer History Museum interview. https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2016/02/102717120-05-01-acc.pdf > On Aug 6, 2023, at 4:34 AM, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > Does anybody have some memories of the TCP/IP Flag Day they can share? > > I'm doing some writing about "how network ecosystems develop" looking at how the Internet evolved from the days the net was a gleam in a few people's eyes, Licklider distributed his famous memo, the NWG & IETF evolved, Flag Day, etc. Also looking at the Environmental Movement (Earth Day, Whole Earth Catalog, ...), FOSS, Crisis Mapping, Entrepreneurship Support, Makers - all of which I've been up close and personal with, and now trying to document some common threads & techniques. > > A particular focus is on organizing for significant changes/transformations - like the transition to IP that pretty much marks the birth of the Internet as we know it. Hence a particular interest in what led up to the Flag Day, and how folks responded. > > In particular, I'm wondering how folks organized at various network sites (universities, military bases, etc.) to respond to the mandate. Working groups, plans & programs, that sort of thing. How did folks get their act together? > > Anybody have any stories they can share? > > Thanks Very Much, > > 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 > > -- > 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 Thu Aug 17 18:58:22 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 13:58:22 +1200 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <54BAAF3E-990F-4EF2-BF5E-AFE338318DC6@icloud.com> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <54BAAF3E-990F-4EF2-BF5E-AFE338318DC6@icloud.com> Message-ID: On 17-Aug-23 12:23, Greg Skinner via Internet-history wrote: > Dan Lynch gave some memories of the flag day (and some other things we?ve been discussing lately) in this Computer History Museum interview. > > https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2016/02/102717120-05-01-acc.pdf Thanks for that pointer. I liked this: >>> Lynch: We built it for remote login and file transfer, ok, access to remote resources that was its absolute thing. E-mail was an accident. In 1995, I'd have said of the CERN and HEP (high energy physics) networks: "We built them for email, remote login and file transfer, ok, access to remote resources. WWW was an accident." So it goes. Brian From enervatron at gmail.com Thu Aug 17 19:01:41 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 19:01:41 -0700 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <54BAAF3E-990F-4EF2-BF5E-AFE338318DC6@icloud.com> Message-ID: On 8/17/23 6:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > On 17-Aug-23 12:23, Greg Skinner via Internet-history wrote: >> Dan Lynch gave some memories of the flag day (and some other things >> we?ve been discussing lately) in this Computer History Museum interview. >> >> https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2016/02/102717120-05-01-acc.pdf >> > > Thanks for that pointer. I liked this: > >>>> Lynch: We built it for remote login and file transfer, ok, access >>>> to remote resources that was its absolute thing. E-mail was an >>>> accident. > > In 1995, I'd have said of the CERN and HEP (high energy physics) > networks: > > "We built them for email, remote login and file transfer, ok, access > to remote resources. WWW was an accident." > In Where Wizards Stay Up Late, email was the accident. I'm still endlessly shocked and amused that I had a hand in Her Emails in 2016. Not that I liked the outcome. Mike From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Thu Aug 17 19:20:43 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 14:20:43 +1200 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> Message-ID: <2f79e9d2-aab0-9b47-9a41-6a0efe5cf0b2@gmail.com> Jack, Three comments. 1. For many people, the whole business of governments formally requiring a switch to IPv6 is too reminiscent of GOSIP and its abject failure for comfort. You'll find a lot of cynicism in the netops community about this. 2. As you say: > ... those documents don't say anything about any IT hardware or > software that is not government-owned. There's a *lot* more of that on > the 'net now than there was in 1983. I don't see anything in the plans > describing how all of those users' IT will be upgraded to only use IPV6. Despite various government mandates around the world over many years, industry is never going to migrate to IPv6 just because somebody tells them to. We're now at between 30% and 50% IPv6 support (according to whose statistics you prefer) because operators have decided that's beneficial to them. (Many vendors and open-source implementers are well ahead of operators, but it's deployment that counts.) > But it looks like at some point fairly soon (few years), if you want to > use any US government services, you'll have to use IPV6 to do it. I don't think so. All the evidence is that operators of public-facing services will retain IPv4 support indefinitely, alongside IPv6. On the other hand, *contractors* for government departments might find IPv6 support to be mandatory. Regards Brian Carpenter On 17-Aug-23 04:19, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > Thanks Greg -- very interesting documents.?? I'm not "in the loop" these > days, but it looks like a US-government-wide edict to complete the > migration of all "public-facing" services first to include IPV6, and > then transition to IPV6 only, removing IPV4.?? NIST is producing new > testing mechanisms too. > > Sounds very similar to the NCT->TCP "Flag Day" in 1983 that successfully > decommissioned NCP.?? But of course the US government is a much smaller > player in today's Internet. > > However, those documents don't say anything about any IT hardware or > software that is not government-owned.? There's a *lot* more of that on > the 'net now than there was in 1983.? I don't see anything in the plans > describing how all of those users' IT will be upgraded to only use IPV6. > > But it looks like at some point fairly soon (few years), if you want to > use any US government services, you'll have to use IPV6 to do it.? It > will be interesting to see if that carrot/stick is now enough to get > IPV4 replaced.?? I wonder when they're going to tell the public. > > The schedule is interesting.? That document is dated November 2020. By > now there should be plans for the implementation of IPV6 "native" > operation (i.e., IPV4 no longer used at all) - see item 4 below. Anyone > find these online??? Or similar plans from other governments or ISPs etc.? > > Jack > > "To keep pace with and leverage this evolution in networking technology, > agencies shall: > 1. Designate an agency-wide IPv6 integrated project team (including > acquisition, policy, > and technical members), or other governance structure, within 45 days of > issuance of this > policy to effectively govern and enforce IPv6 efforts; > 2. Issue and make available on the agency's publicly accessible website, > an agency-wide > IPv6 policy, within 180 days of issuance of this memorandum. The > agency-wide IPv6 > policy must require that, no later than Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, all new > networked Federal > information systems are IPv6-enabled 7 at the time of deployment, and > state the agency's > strategic intent to phase out the use of IPv4 for all systems; > 3. Identify opportunities for IPv6 pilots and complete at least one > pilot of an IPv6-only > operational system by the end of FY 2021 and report the results of the > pilot to 0MB upon > request; > 4. Develop an IPv6 implementation plan 9 by the end of FY 2021, and > update the > Information Resources Management (IRM) Strategic Plan 10 as appropriate, > to update all > networked Federal information systems (and the IP-enabled assets > associated with these > systems) to fully enable native IPv6 11 operation. The plan shall > describe the agency > transition process and include the following milestones and actions: 12 > ?a. At least 20% of IP-enabled assets on Federal networks are operating > in IPv6-only > environments by the end of FY 2023; 13 > ?b. At least 50% of IP-enabled assets on Federal networks are operating > in IPv6-only > environments by the end of FY 2024; > ?c. At least 80% ofIP-enabled assets on Federal networks are operating > in IPv6-only > environments by the end of FY 2025; and > ?d. Identify and justify Federal information systems that cannot be > converted to use > IPv6 and provide a schedule for replacing or retiring these systems; > 5. Work with external partners to identify systems that interface with > networked Federal > information systems and develop plans to migrate all such network > interfaces to the use > ofIPv6;and > 6. Complete the upgrade of public/external facing servers and services ( > e.g., web, email, > DNS, and ISP services) and internal client applications that communicate > with public > Internet services and supporting enterprise networks to operationally > use native 1Pv6. > " > > > On 8/13/23 00:14, Greg Skinner wrote: >> Jack, >> >> The following two links may speak to some of the concerns you have >> raised. ?The first [1] discusses the completion of an IPv6 transition >> plan for (US) Federal information systems and services. The second [2] >> is a NIST publication. >> >> Additional material may be found by following links from the >> DuckDuckGo query results at >> https://duckduckgo.com/?va=a&t=hn&q=us+government+ipv6+mandate&ia=web >> . >> >> [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/M-21-07.pdf >> >> [2] >> https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2020/12/nist-updates-usgv6-program-support-new-federal-ipv6-initiatives >> >> ?gregbo >> >>> On Aug 10, 2023, at 9:16 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history >>> wrote: >>> >>> I've been wondering if the IETF is still effective today.?? It's been >>> trying for decades to cajole the Internet into adopting IPV6. >>> >>> Instead we now live with a multi-protocol Internet, and the >>> complexity and problems that come with it.? In the 90s, the world >>> embraced TCP and got rid of all the other protocols.?? As I >>> understand it, the IETF now "puts new technology on the shelf, where >>> anyone is free to pick it up and use it" - quite different from the >>> management process that orchestrated "Flag Day" and managed the >>> evolution of the Internet technology in the field. Some people have >>> "picked up" IPV6, but many have not. I can't tell if I have. I also >>> have no idea how I would do it.?? Or why I should. >>> >>> Perhaps someone can fill in the history of how the Internet got from >>> then to now?? I sent an email on this topic a week or so ago, but it >>> seems to have never come out of the elists.isoc.org system.?? FYI, >>> here it is, in case you didn't get it: >>> >>> -------------------- >>> >>> IIRC, the "Flag Day" was one piece of a larger plan. >>> >>> I don't recall the timing of the pieces - it was 40+- years ago. But >>> there was also a bureaucratic action in that same era to declare TCP >>> a "DoD Standard", and require its presence in DoD procurements - any >>> computer system in a DoD purchase using networking had to have TCP. >>> Also, there was a program created by NIST (or was it still NBS then?) >>> to provide a test suite for conformance to the TCP standard.?? So any >>> contractor who wanted to sell something to DoD had to have TCP, and >>> by going through the NIST test suite they could get a certificate >>> proving that they had TCP implemented properly. I don't remember >>> which of these happened in what order or how it related to Flag Day >>> (1/1/1983). But it all seems to me to be part of some larger plan to >>> migrate the admittedly small existing network to a new standard. >>> >>> At BBN, we went through the NIST process to become a certified >>> testing lab, so we could run the tests for anyone who needed it and >>> issue conformance certificates.? I'm not sure how many other such >>> labs there were.? We also provided consulting services to help people >>> understand TCP and figure out why their software didn't pass the >>> tests.?? This was never seen as any kind of "money maker", but seemed >>> important to do it, since we had access to IMPs and such which made >>> it easy to set up a small test lab. >>> >>> I never saw "the plan", but it struck me that there was a lot going >>> on behind the scenes to make things like this happen, outside of the >>> research or Arpanet community or technology per se, in order to >>> facilitate the introduction of TCP to DoD.? Maybe someone else knows >>> more about who was involved in all that activity.?? Somebody made >>> those things happen... >>> >>> In retrospect, it seems to me that such "soft technology" >>> (conformance certification etc.) was complementary to the technical >>> work documented in the stream of RFCs, and was important to making >>> TCP "real", and establishing a bit of regulation around its use "in >>> the field" with mechanisms such as "Flag Day" to enforce a migration >>> from old to new. >>> >>> The Internet is now arguably world class "infrastructure".?? But, >>> IMHO, it still lacks a lot of the mechanisms that surround other, >>> older, infrastructures that move things from point A to point B - >>> e.g., highways, electrical service, railroads, airplanes, etc.?? The >>> early work on things like Flag Day, TCP Conformance Tests, DoD >>> Standardization, and such were the beginning of adding a management >>> structure around the Internet technology. >>> >>> As near as I can tell, no such effort continues today. It may have >>> faded away back in the 1980s, before TCP became the dominant >>> technology.?? Perhaps the Internet is just too new for such machinery >>> to be created? >>> >>> Other infrastructures have gone through stages as rules, regulations, >>> and practices congeal.? In the early days of electricity it was >>> common for accidents to occur, causing fires, deaths, or other >>> disasters.? Electrical Codes, safety mechanisms, licensing, rules and >>> practices have made using electricity much less dangerous.? The same >>> is true of highways, railroads, etc. >>> >>> I've always wondered what happened to that "management framework" >>> that started in the 1980s around the Internet infrastructure, and why >>> it hasn't resulted in mechanisms today to make the Internet >>> "safer".?? I suspect all infrastructures need things like electrical >>> codes, UL testing, development of fuses, circuit breakers, GFIs, >>> etc., that are used in the electrical infrastructure. But nobody >>> seems to be doing that for the Internet? >>> >>> There's lots of such mechanisms I know about in the US to manage >>> infrastructures.? My car occasionally gets a government-mandated >>> recall.? Airplanes get grounded by FAA.? Train crashes are >>> investigated by the Department of Transportation.?? Other governments >>> have similar mechanisms to manage infrastructure. >>> >>> Has any Internet component, hardware or software, ever been >>> recalled...??? "Flag Day" was the last enforcement action I can remember. >>> >>> Jack Haverty >>> >>> >>> -------------------- >>> >>> On 8/9/23 18:50, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote: >>>> I had a "tourist" account at the MIT-AI system running ITS, back in the >>>> NCP days. ?I used to log in to it over a TIP that had RS232 cables >>>> quietly connecting it to a Telenet node. ?I'd dial in to a local Telenet >>>> access point, connect to the cross-connect's node and port, and be >>>> talking to a TIP, where I'd "@o 134" to get to MIT-AI. >>>> >>>> When NCP was turned off on the Flag Day, that stopped working. ?At MIT, >>>> as I understand it, they decided not to implement TCP/IP for ITS. ?The >>>> workaround for tourists like me was to borrow someone's account at >>>> MIT-OZ, which had TCP support and could also talk to ITS (over >>>> Chaosnet?). ?So I'd connect from the TIP using TCP to MIT-OZ, and then >>>> connect to MIT-AI. ?It worked OK, though I had to remember when (and how >>>> many times) to double the escape characters. ?My access was via a dialup >>>> modem, which was probably the slowest part of the whole system. >>>> >>>> Moving to the present day... >>>> >>>> I continue to see Internet old-timers who long nostalgicly for somebody, >>>> somewhere, to force a "flag day" to shut down IPv4. ?The IETF has >>>> unfortunately been captured by these folks, who object to making even >>>> tiny improvements to IPv4 protocols on the grounds that "we shouldn't >>>> make it easier to use IPv4 because that would reduce the urgency of >>>> switching to IPv6". ?It is taken for granted in much of IETF that "IPv4 >>>> is dead, or it should be" even though it carries far more global daily >>>> traffic, to a far broader range of locations, than IPv6 does. ?There was >>>> even a move to "declare IPv4 Historic" which would officially recommend >>>> that nobody use it any more. ?That draft RFC was approved in 2017 by the >>>> Sunset4 working group on a vote of three zealots, but it got killed once >>>> saner heads looked at the implications. ?For a discussion of that >>>> history, and pointers to the source materials, see section 4 of: >>>> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4-01.txt >>>> >>>> (The IETF, predictably, declined to support the publication of an RFC >>>> describing this history or succinctly stating that IETF would continue >>>> maintaining IPv4.) >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 Thu Aug 17 19:27:07 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 14:27:07 +1200 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <54BAAF3E-990F-4EF2-BF5E-AFE338318DC6@icloud.com> Message-ID: <40f537c2-ce37-e725-7829-6a9695af5c03@gmail.com> On 18-Aug-23 14:01, Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote: > > On 8/17/23 6:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >> On 17-Aug-23 12:23, Greg Skinner via Internet-history wrote: >>> Dan Lynch gave some memories of the flag day (and some other things >>> we?ve been discussing lately) in this Computer History Museum interview. >>> >>> https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2016/02/102717120-05-01-acc.pdf >>> >> >> Thanks for that pointer. I liked this: >> >>>>> Lynch: We built it for remote login and file transfer, ok, access >>>>> to remote resources that was its absolute thing. E-mail was an >>>>> accident. >> >> In 1995, I'd have said of the CERN and HEP (high energy physics) >> networks: >> >> "We built them for email, remote login and file transfer, ok, access >> to remote resources. WWW was an accident." >> > In Where Wizards Stay Up Late, email was the accident. Sure, and the WWW was literally an afterthought, mentioned very briefly in the Epilogue. Brian I'm still > endlessly shocked and amused that I had a hand in Her Emails in 2016. > Not that I liked the outcome. > > Mike > From enervatron at gmail.com Thu Aug 17 19:30:05 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 19:30:05 -0700 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <40f537c2-ce37-e725-7829-6a9695af5c03@gmail.com> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <54BAAF3E-990F-4EF2-BF5E-AFE338318DC6@icloud.com> <40f537c2-ce37-e725-7829-6a9695af5c03@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 8/17/23 7:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 18-Aug-23 14:01, Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote: >> >> On 8/17/23 6:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >>> On 17-Aug-23 12:23, Greg Skinner via Internet-history wrote: >>>> Dan Lynch gave some memories of the flag day (and some other things >>>> we?ve been discussing lately) in this Computer History Museum >>>> interview. >>>> >>>> https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2016/02/102717120-05-01-acc.pdf >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Thanks for that pointer. I liked this: >>> >>>>>> Lynch: We built it for remote login and file transfer, ok, access >>>>>> to remote resources that was its absolute thing. E-mail was an >>>>>> accident. >>> >>> In 1995, I'd have said of the CERN and HEP (high energy physics) >>> networks: >>> >>> "We built them for email, remote login and file transfer, ok, access >>> to remote resources. WWW was an accident." >>> >> In Where Wizards Stay Up Late, email was the accident. > > Sure, and the WWW was literally an afterthought, mentioned very > briefly in the Epilogue. > I remember seeing hyperlink tech at DECUS probably in the mid to late 80's? What the internet brought was reach. Mike From dhc at dcrocker.net Thu Aug 17 19:40:30 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 19:40:30 -0700 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <54BAAF3E-990F-4EF2-BF5E-AFE338318DC6@icloud.com> Message-ID: <7127a601-0b4b-cb50-6071-cd19ce9e72ec@dcrocker.net> On 8/17/2023 6:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >>>> Lynch: We built it for remote login and file transfer, ok, access >>>> to remote resources that was its absolute thing. E-mail was an >>>> accident. > > In 1995, I'd have said of the CERN and HEP (high energy physics) > networks: > > "We built them for email, remote login and file transfer, ok, access > to remote resources. WWW was an accident." At the earliest stages of effort to build the Arpanet, perhaps email was not in the minds of the immediate workers. And in the motivating paper from Licklider and Taylor: https://bbiw.net/reports/lick-taylor-1968.pdf there is no concept of person-to-person 'messaging' explicitly stated. What /was/ stated was people interacting.? Push that requirement and it has to lead to asynchronous, as well as synchronous communications. Bhushan said that email was part of the plan for FTP.? It didn't show up in the earliest FTP work, but it showed up pretty darn quickly. On 8/17/2023 7:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > Sure, and the WWW was literally an afterthought, mentioned very > briefly in the Epilogue. As soon as there was Anonymous FTP, a richer and more usable version of distributed document sharing was inevitable.? So while the particular winner was ad hoc and from an unexpected source, something like it was certain to happen. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Thu Aug 17 20:02:36 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 15:02:36 +1200 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <54BAAF3E-990F-4EF2-BF5E-AFE338318DC6@icloud.com> <40f537c2-ce37-e725-7829-6a9695af5c03@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4f66b0e0-fa2b-c546-0d85-9e32bf33eb08@gmail.com> On 18-Aug-23 14:30, Michael Thomas wrote: > > On 8/17/23 7:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> On 18-Aug-23 14:01, Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote: >>> >>> On 8/17/23 6:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >>>> On 17-Aug-23 12:23, Greg Skinner via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> Dan Lynch gave some memories of the flag day (and some other things >>>>> we?ve been discussing lately) in this Computer History Museum >>>>> interview. >>>>> >>>>> https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2016/02/102717120-05-01-acc.pdf >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for that pointer. I liked this: >>>> >>>>>>> Lynch: We built it for remote login and file transfer, ok, access >>>>>>> to remote resources that was its absolute thing. E-mail was an >>>>>>> accident. >>>> >>>> In 1995, I'd have said of the CERN and HEP (high energy physics) >>>> networks: >>>> >>>> "We built them for email, remote login and file transfer, ok, access >>>> to remote resources. WWW was an accident." >>>> >>> In Where Wizards Stay Up Late, email was the accident. >> >> Sure, and the WWW was literally an afterthought, mentioned very >> briefly in the Epilogue. >> > I remember seeing hyperlink tech at DECUS probably in the mid to late > 80's? What the internet brought was reach. Of course. Tim Berners-Lee showed me his own hyperlink technology in 1980, and he didn't invent the idea. Brian From enervatron at gmail.com Thu Aug 17 20:08:28 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 20:08:28 -0700 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <4f66b0e0-fa2b-c546-0d85-9e32bf33eb08@gmail.com> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <54BAAF3E-990F-4EF2-BF5E-AFE338318DC6@icloud.com> <40f537c2-ce37-e725-7829-6a9695af5c03@gmail.com> <4f66b0e0-fa2b-c546-0d85-9e32bf33eb08@gmail.com> Message-ID: <004813f5-0095-79ff-ab95-5aae9e35ccdb@gmail.com> On 8/17/23 8:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > On 18-Aug-23 14:30, Michael Thomas wrote: >> >> On 8/17/23 7:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> On 18-Aug-23 14:01, Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote: >>>> >>>> On 8/17/23 6:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> On 17-Aug-23 12:23, Greg Skinner via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> Dan Lynch gave some memories of the flag day (and some other things >>>>>> we?ve been discussing lately) in this Computer History Museum >>>>>> interview. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2016/02/102717120-05-01-acc.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for that pointer. I liked this: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Lynch: We built it for remote login and file transfer, ok, access >>>>>>>> to remote resources that was its absolute thing. E-mail was an >>>>>>>> accident. >>>>> >>>>> In 1995, I'd have said of the CERN and HEP (high energy physics) >>>>> networks: >>>>> >>>>> "We built them for email, remote login and file transfer, ok, access >>>>> to remote resources. WWW was an accident." >>>>> >>>> In Where Wizards Stay Up Late, email was the accident. >>> >>> Sure, and the WWW was literally an afterthought, mentioned very >>> briefly in the Epilogue. >>> >> I remember seeing hyperlink tech at DECUS probably in the mid to late >> 80's? What the internet brought was reach. > > Of course. Tim Berners-Lee showed me his own hyperlink technology > in 1980, and he didn't invent the idea. > I guess what it shows is that the network effect -- yet again -- is the key ingredient. But I think that the web was very intertwined with mixed media. The DECUS kiosks I saw were pretty boring since it was all just... text. Mike From touch at strayalpha.com Thu Aug 17 20:30:18 2023 From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 20:30:18 -0700 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <004813f5-0095-79ff-ab95-5aae9e35ccdb@gmail.com> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <54BAAF3E-990F-4EF2-BF5E-AFE338318DC6@icloud.com> <40f537c2-ce37-e725-7829-6a9695af5c03@gmail.com> <4f66b0e0-fa2b-c546-0d85-9e32bf33eb08@gmail.com> <004813f5-0095-79ff-ab95-5aae9e35ccdb@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5D78A56C-7346-4C9B-B906-34E5B6893D20@strayalpha.com> > On Aug 17, 2023, at 8:08 PM, Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote: > >> Of course. Tim Berners-Lee showed me his own hyperlink technology >> in 1980, and he didn't invent the idea. >> > I guess what it shows is that the network effect -- yet again -- is the key ingredient. Yes, but although the market tends to winnow down to one, it doesn?t always pick ?the winner?. May ?last one standing? examples aren?t the best (VHS, AC electricity, as two examples). They?re simply the last one left after some set of what are sometime arbitrary selections. Joe From j at shoch.com Thu Aug 17 23:22:26 2023 From: j at shoch.com (John Shoch) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 23:22:26 -0700 Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 45, Issue 38 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dave Crocker wrote: "At the earliest stages of effort to build the Arpanet, perhaps email was not in the minds of the immediate workers. And in the motivating paper from Licklider and Taylor: https://bbiw.net/reports/lick-taylor-1968.pdf there is no concept of person-to-person 'messaging' explicitly stated. What /was/ stated was people interacting.? Push that requirement and it has to lead to asynchronous, as well as synchronous communications." --On email matters I will ALWAYS defer to Dave. --For more background, I hope people are familiar with the comprehensive "Email Innovation Timeline" by Jake Feinler and John Vittal: https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2022/08/102806104-05-01-acc.pdf --They have a pointer to a retrospective paper by Larry Roberts published in 1986, about his thoughts in 1967 (19 years earlier): "The initial plan for the ARPANET was published in October 1967 at the ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles in Gatlinburg Tennessee (3). The reasons given at that time for establishing a computer network were: A. Load Sharing: Send program and data to remote computer to balance load. B. Message Service: Electronic mail service (mailbox service). C. Data Sharing: Remote access to data bases. D. Program Sharing: Send data, program remote, e.g. Supercomputer. E. Remote Service: Log-in to remote computer, use its programs and data." https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/12178.12182 --If you read the original SOSP 1967 paper it touches upon these 5 elements; but the actual comments on messaging are a bit more......ambivalent: "Attempts at computer networks have been made in the past; however, the usual motivation has been either load sharing or interpersonal message handling." "Message Service: In addition to computational network activities, a network can be used to handle interpersonal message transmissions. This type of service can also be used for educational services and conference activities. However, it is not an important motivation for a network of scientific computers." https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/800001.811680 John Shoch From jeanjour at comcast.net Fri Aug 18 13:49:42 2023 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 16:49:42 -0400 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <7127a601-0b4b-cb50-6071-cd19ce9e72ec@dcrocker.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <54BAAF3E-990F-4EF2-BF5E-AFE338318DC6@icloud.com> <7127a601-0b4b-cb50-6071-cd19ce9e72ec@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <3F102599-8504-4ABF-BB03-95D08408EE0E@comcast.net> This has been discussed many time before on this list. Mail was officially introduced into FTP in March 1973. However, there were earlier versions and quite quickly the direction of the NWG was to replicate on the ARPANET the facilities found in most timesharing systems, that is where TELNET, FTP, and RJE came from and mail was one. I remember Steve Crocker showing up near the end of the March FTP meeting and saying, ?put in mail before you leave.? ;-) or words to that effect. As for hyperlinks, NLS was a hypertext system by design and demonstrated at NCC in 1968. Take care, John > On Aug 17, 2023, at 22:40, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > > On 8/17/2023 6:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> Lynch: We built it for remote login and file transfer, ok, access to remote resources that was its absolute thing. E-mail was an accident. >> >> In 1995, I'd have said of the CERN and HEP (high energy physics) networks: >> >> "We built them for email, remote login and file transfer, ok, access to remote resources. WWW was an accident." > > > At the earliest stages of effort to build the Arpanet, perhaps email was not in the minds of the immediate workers. > > And in the motivating paper from Licklider and Taylor: > > https://bbiw.net/reports/lick-taylor-1968.pdf > > there is no concept of person-to-person 'messaging' explicitly stated. > > What /was/ stated was people interacting. Push that requirement and it has to lead to asynchronous, as well as synchronous communications. > > Bhushan said that email was part of the plan for FTP. It didn't show up in the earliest FTP work, but it showed up pretty darn quickly. > > > On 8/17/2023 7:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >> Sure, and the WWW was literally an afterthought, mentioned very >> briefly in the Epilogue. > > As soon as there was Anonymous FTP, a richer and more usable version of distributed document sharing was inevitable. So while the particular winner was ad hoc and from an unexpected source, something like it was certain to happen. > > > d/ > > > > > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From dhc at dcrocker.net Fri Aug 18 13:58:33 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 13:58:33 -0700 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <3F102599-8504-4ABF-BB03-95D08408EE0E@comcast.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <54BAAF3E-990F-4EF2-BF5E-AFE338318DC6@icloud.com> <7127a601-0b4b-cb50-6071-cd19ce9e72ec@dcrocker.net> <3F102599-8504-4ABF-BB03-95D08408EE0E@comcast.net> Message-ID: <69237978-c8fb-c6f2-b109-4dba73c7a42b@dcrocker.net> On 8/18/2023 1:49 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote: > As for hyperlinks, NLS was a hypertext system by design and demonstrated at NCC in 1968. I tend to distinguish between broad vision, component technology, and systems integration. Visions tend to be long on painting a kind of world and short (and often inaccurate) on details.? Component technology is foundational innovation.? Systems integration puts things together to produce a directly usable capability. The web is a lot more than just links.? It has been argued that it invented no components.? I think that's probably true.? But what it did that hadn't been done before was integrate a particular set of components with a balance of capabilities, usability, and extensibility. Skills and accomplishments at systems integration like this are often undervalued, compared with component innovation.? IMO. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From jeanjour at comcast.net Fri Aug 18 14:07:46 2023 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 17:07:46 -0400 Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <69237978-c8fb-c6f2-b109-4dba73c7a42b@dcrocker.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <54BAAF3E-990F-4EF2-BF5E-AFE338318DC6@icloud.com> <7127a601-0b4b-cb50-6071-cd19ce9e72ec@dcrocker.net> <3F102599-8504-4ABF-BB03-95D08408EE0E@comcast.net> <69237978-c8fb-c6f2-b109-4dba73c7a42b@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <697C0E56-07B8-4577-87A8-71671B140766@comcast.net> Yes, I am unclear what this has to do with what I said. Someone was commenting on when hypertext appeared. I offered a fact. Nothing else. A bit more explanation would help. > On Aug 18, 2023, at 16:58, Dave Crocker wrote: > > On 8/18/2023 1:49 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote: >> As for hyperlinks, NLS was a hypertext system by design and demonstrated at NCC in 1968. > > I tend to distinguish between broad vision, component technology, and systems integration. > > Visions tend to be long on painting a kind of world and short (and often inaccurate) on details. Component technology is foundational innovation. Systems integration puts things together to produce a directly usable capability. > > The web is a lot more than just links. It has been argued that it invented no components. I think that's probably true. But what it did that hadn't been done before was integrate a particular set of components with a balance of capabilities, usability, and extensibility. > > Skills and accomplishments at systems integration like this are often undervalued, compared with component innovation. IMO. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social > From johnl at iecc.com Fri Aug 18 14:44:56 2023 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 18 Aug 2023 17:44:56 -0400 Subject: [ih] lots of links, Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <4f66b0e0-fa2b-c546-0d85-9e32bf33eb08@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20230818214457.7CE631005C782@ary.qy> According to Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history : >> I remember seeing hyperlink tech at DECUS probably in the mid to late >> 80's? What the internet brought was reach. > >Of course. Tim Berners-Lee showed me his own hyperlink technology >in 1980, and he didn't invent the idea. Engelbart showed them in the famous 1968 demo, Ted Nelson showed me hyperlinks in the 1970s, and told me he got the idea from an article Vannevar Bush wrote in the 1940s. Tim's contribution was to pare them down to a point where they were still flexible enough to be useful but constrained enough to implement at scale. Ted never forgave him for making links one-way rather than two-way, even though after decades of effort nobody's been able to get two-way links to work beyond toy sized systems. R's, John From beebe at math.utah.edu Sat Aug 19 07:32:53 2023 From: beebe at math.utah.edu (Nelson H. F. Beebe) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2023 08:32:53 -0600 Subject: [ih] lots of links, Memories of Flag Day? In-Reply-To: <20230818214457.7CE631005C782@ary.qy> Message-ID: John Levine writes on 18 Aug 2023 17:44:56 -0400: >> Engelbart showed them in the famous 1968 demo, Ted Nelson showed me >> hyperlinks in the 1970s, and told me he got the idea from an article >> Vannevar Bush wrote in the 1940s. Here is some background that may be interest to some Internet History list readers. Bush's article is widely cited: As We May Think [July 1945] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/ Vannevar Bush was enormously influential, and was behind the founding of the US National Science Foundation. Here is a link to an obituary: Dr. Vannevar Bush Is Dead at 84 https://www.nytimes.com/1974/06/30/archives/dr-vannevar-bush-is-dead-at-84-dr-vannevar-bush-who-marshaled.html and to an encyclopedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vannevar_Bush His invention of the differential analyzer, an electromechanical device for solving certain kinds of differential equations, in the early 1930s is described here: The differential analyzer. A new machine for solving differential equations Journal of The Franklin Institute 212(4) 447--488 (July/December) 1931 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-0032(31)90616-9 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_analyser Bush's work at MIT in Cambridge, MA, USA inspired others to be built, including ones by Douglas Hartree in Manchester, UK (his first working model was built with Meccano parts borrowed from his children (Meccano is a toy construction set similar to the US Erector sets), then in Cambridge, UK by Maurice Wilkes, in Belfast, Northern Ireland by H. S. W. Massey and others, and at the Royal Aircraft Establishment in Farnborough, UK (50k southwest of London). Others were built in the US, Canada, Norway, and Japan. The biggest may have been the one in Norway: Svein Rosseland and the Oslo analyzer IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 18(4) 16--26 (October/December) 1996 https://doi.org/10.1109/85.539912 By the early 1950s, the far more general digital computers made such machines obsolete, but they played important roles in 1930s scientific research, and in World War II for artillery ballistics work. Finally, there is a recent historical article on his influence: The Fall of Vannevar Bush: The Forgotten War for Control of Science Policy in Postwar America Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences (2021) 51 (4): 507???541. https://doi.org/10.1525/hsns.2021.51.4.507 I'm reasonably current on this subject because of this recent addition to the BibNet Project: http://www.math.utah.edu/pub/bibnet/authors/h/hartree-douglas-r.bib http://www.math.utah.edu/pub/bibnet/authors/h/hartree-douglas-r.html They look similar on the screen, but the .html form has live hyperlinks. In 1952, Hartree wrote the first English language book with the title "Numerical Analysis". The docstring in the bibliography preamble tells much more about him. He inspired Wilkes, who built the EDSAC 1 and 2 at Cambridge UK. The first of those was in turn inspired by the ENIAC at Princeton University. Entry Wilkes:1985:MCP in the bibliography is for Wilkes' memoirs, and the Hartree bibliography has more entries for Wilkes' works. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Nelson H. F. Beebe Tel: +1 801 581 5254 - - University of Utah - - Department of Mathematics, 110 LCB Internet e-mail: beebe at math.utah.edu - - 155 S 1400 E RM 233 beebe at acm.org beebe at computer.org - - Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090, USA URL: http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From jklensin at gmail.com Sat Aug 19 07:32:52 2023 From: jklensin at gmail.com (John Klensin) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2023 10:32:52 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> Message-ID: Scott, Sorry for the slow response time. It took me a long time to write this and even longer to decide whether to post it. No real disagreement with your comments, but I see things from a different perspective... In the IPv6 case, not only was it not different enough to create significant "pull" but, as I see it, the one really important area of innovation/difference was the inclusion of mechanisms for encryption at the IP layer. I'm, not aware of any specific problems with that technology as specified, but slow uptake doomed us to widespread use of SSL and then TLS at the application layer and that, in turn, has, I think, contributing to protocol designs that have undermined both parts of the TCP/IP model and the IETF. However, there was an impediment at the other end of the design that I think may have retarded IPv6 deployment even more: It was not similar enough to IPv4 to allow deploying it in a single, albeit enhanced, stack environment. Consequently, we didn't have easily-deployed IPv4-IPv6 interoperability but, instead, had gateways and address translation and, often, applications that had to be aware of the difference. Had one of the "IPv4 with long addresses" models that would have permitted a single stack prevailed instead, who knows? The other thing I think we counted on to drive deployment -- running out of IPv4 space-- was, as you suggest, decelerated by NATs, possibly encouraged by the realization that different address spaces on LANs than on the WANs to which they were connected posed some advantages for both security and multihomed network perspectives. That seems to be catching up with us now, 20-odd years after it was expected, and driven precisely by the perceived need for public addresses for phones, IoT devices, etc. Isn't a quarter-century of hindsight wonderful? But, with the understanding that I don't know whether patterns and behaviors I see from my peculiar corner of the world are general patterns or just risks, nor do I know if it is wise and good for the Internet to say things things "in public"... I think the IETF's relevance issues come from somewhere else, probably a few other places. From experience in completely different fields, there are differences between successful standards development effor that are concerned with the specification of new/ innovative technologies and those that are primarily concerned with extending, enhancing, and tuning existing ones. The observation has been made repeatedly that, at early stages of, e.g., protocol design, companies are willing to send their best design-level people to participate. Academic and other researchers at the leading edge show up, participate, and contribute (or lead) too. Because of its roots in research and design discussions and a focus on getting something that would work, when the IETF (and its predecessor arrangements) started talking about "standards", it had huge advantages over more established standards developers. However, when the main focus evolves away from initial development of core protocols (or equivalent), things shift. Many of the core design-level people with inherently broad perspectives stop showing up -- the organizations that supported their work and their primary research and thought agendas shift elsewhere. In many cases, their seats are filled by people who are interested in protecting their company's products or feeling important by putting their particular marks on things. Flag day was possible because it occurred in a small, administratively centralized, network in which that decision could be made and enforced. Contrast that with jokes about the "protocol police" in the last couple of decades. Had NCP lasted longer --perhaps long enough for some analogy of what I saw as the decisions that core Internet protocols and operations were not research any more to occur-- it seems to me quite possible that we would either be running a great grandchild of NCP today (with a patchwork of fixes and kludges to allow it to function) or that OSI would actually have taken over because of longer addresses, better scaling properties, and the very real possibility that ISO, its National Member Bodies, and ITU would eventually have gotten their acts together and produced something that would have worked globally without multiple non-interoperable options and profiles. Those early-stage efforts have another advantage as well: Not only is it possible from a design standpoint to say "got that wrong (at least given considerations about the future), let's discard it and do something else" --the critical prerequisite of a successful Flag Day transition -- but interoperability is in everyone's best interest. Later, if there is enough deployment, especially commercial deployment accompanied by the emergence of a few dominant players (or players who are self-confident or arrogant enough to aspire to dominance), making variations on the protocols, ones that don't quite interoperate, in order to advertise one's advantages over others or, more commonly, to lock users in by making vendor-switching very painful, is often treated as very attractive. If that becomes a regular pattern, It of course conflicts with interoperability as a primary goal., Other standards bodies have recognized those trends (even if often not explicitly) and adapted their ways of doing things to adjust for them or reduce the risks to quality and credibility of standards to which they might lead. Sometimes they have been successful, sometimes not, but . AFAICT, the IETF has been unable or unwilling to recognize or engage on them. In addition to those general trends, it appears to me that there have been several changes in the IETF in recent years that I see as (at least potentially) self-inflicted wounds with likely effects on the credibility and relevance of our work. While I'm sure others might look at the same things and see increased efficiency and consistency, I see an increasing reliance on, and control of decisions by, staff, and increasing transfers of authority to people with roles that have little or no accountability to the community. Some of that is accompanied by increasing numbers of specific, overly rigid, rules and procedures, many of them created with little involvement from the broader IETF community. Some of them determine policy or create Procrustean beds because there are no effective override mechanisms for unusual cases. I'm not yet ready to conclude that it is a regular and long-lasting pattern but others seem to believe that, in practice, many recent rules about behavior and the like do not apply to people who are close to the leadership but are are instead used as weapons against some of those who are not or who disagree with leadership positions. Whether that view of things is accurate or not, the perception that it occurs is damaging to the IETF's credibility and, at least potentially, to its relevance. Has the IETF become irrelevant? Probably not yet but perhaps working on it. And I don't see any realistic signs of a fallback plan. Sadly, john p.s. I don't see attendance at a particular meeting, or even a sequence of meetings, as providing much useful information, especailly when many of those are first-time (or very infrequent) attendees from the general local area. It is too easy to drop in out of curiosity, to say one has been to a meeting, or even to play a specialized version of "go to the zoo and see the geeks". Data on the number of people who show up at a given meeting who, a few years later, are participating and contributing actively would be far more interesting. On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 12:35?PM Scott Bradner via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > mixed picture of IETF relevance > > the world's telephony runs over IETF technology (SIP & RTP) except for > some pockets of analog phones, > IETF technology specified by ITU and 3GPP > > of the 100s of proposed and full standards, only a few are in significant > use > > IPv6 has had a very slow deployment - most, imo, because it does not offer > enough difference from IPv4 > and because NATs have reduced the pressure to change - but, according to > Google, they are getting a lot > of IPv6 queries (about 45%) ( see > https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) - e.g. your iPhone > runs IPv6 by default > > people still show up for IETF meetings (> 1500 paid for Yokohama in March > - in person & remote) > > Scott > > > On Aug 10, 2023, at 12:16 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > I've been wondering if the IETF is still effective today. It's been > trying for decades to cajole the Internet into adopting IPV6. > > > > Instead we now live with a multi-protocol Internet, and the complexity > and problems that come with it. In the 90s, the world embraced TCP and got > rid of all the other protocols. As I understand it, the IETF now "puts > new technology on the shelf, where anyone is free to pick it up and use it" > - quite different from the management process that orchestrated "Flag Day" > and managed the evolution of the Internet technology in the field. Some > people have "picked up" IPV6, but many have not. I can't tell if I have. > I also have no idea how I would do it. Or why I should. > > > > Perhaps someone can fill in the history of how the Internet got from > then to now? I sent an email on this topic a week or so ago, but it seems > to have never come out of the elists.isoc.org system. FYI, here it is, > in case you didn't get it: > > > > -------------------- > > > > IIRC, the "Flag Day" was one piece of a larger plan. > > > > I don't recall the timing of the pieces - it was 40+- years ago. But > there was also a bureaucratic action in that same era to declare TCP a "DoD > Standard", and require its presence in DoD procurements - any computer > system in a DoD purchase using networking had to have TCP. Also, there was > a program created by NIST (or was it still NBS then?) to provide a test > suite for conformance to the TCP standard. So any contractor who wanted > to sell something to DoD had to have TCP, and by going through the NIST > test suite they could get a certificate proving that they had TCP > implemented properly. I don't remember which of these happened in what > order or how it related to Flag Day (1/1/1983). But it all seems to me to > be part of some larger plan to migrate the admittedly small existing > network to a new standard. > > > > At BBN, we went through the NIST process to become a certified testing > lab, so we could run the tests for anyone who needed it and issue > conformance certificates. I'm not sure how many other such labs there > were. We also provided consulting services to help people understand TCP > and figure out why their software didn't pass the tests. This was never > seen as any kind of "money maker", but seemed important to do it, since we > had access to IMPs and such which made it easy to set up a small test lab. > > > > I never saw "the plan", but it struck me that there was a lot going on > behind the scenes to make things like this happen, outside of the research > or Arpanet community or technology per se, in order to facilitate the > introduction of TCP to DoD. Maybe someone else knows more about who was > involved in all that activity. Somebody made those things happen... > > > > In retrospect, it seems to me that such "soft technology" (conformance > certification etc.) was complementary to the technical work documented in > the stream of RFCs, and was important to making TCP "real", and > establishing a bit of regulation around its use "in the field" with > mechanisms such as "Flag Day" to enforce a migration from old to new. > > > > The Internet is now arguably world class "infrastructure". But, IMHO, > it still lacks a lot of the mechanisms that surround other, older, > infrastructures that move things from point A to point B - e.g., highways, > electrical service, railroads, airplanes, etc. The early work on things > like Flag Day, TCP Conformance Tests, DoD Standardization, and such were > the beginning of adding a management structure around the Internet > technology. > > > > As near as I can tell, no such effort continues today. It may have > faded away back in the 1980s, before TCP became the dominant technology. > Perhaps the Internet is just too new for such machinery to be created? > > > > Other infrastructures have gone through stages as rules, regulations, > and practices congeal. In the early days of electricity it was common for > accidents to occur, causing fires, deaths, or other disasters. Electrical > Codes, safety mechanisms, licensing, rules and practices have made using > electricity much less dangerous. The same is true of highways, railroads, > etc. > > > > I've always wondered what happened to that "management framework" that > started in the 1980s around the Internet infrastructure, and why it hasn't > resulted in mechanisms today to make the Internet "safer". I suspect all > infrastructures need things like electrical codes, UL testing, development > of fuses, circuit breakers, GFIs, etc., that are used in the electrical > infrastructure. But nobody seems to be doing that for the Internet? > > > > There's lots of such mechanisms I know about in the US to manage > infrastructures. My car occasionally gets a government-mandated recall. > Airplanes get grounded by FAA. Train crashes are investigated by the > Department of Transportation. Other governments have similar mechanisms > to manage infrastructure. > > > > Has any Internet component, hardware or software, ever been > recalled...? "Flag Day" was the last enforcement action I can remember. > > > > Jack Haverty > > > > > > -------------------- > > > > On 8/9/23 18:50, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote: > >> I had a "tourist" account at the MIT-AI system running ITS, back in the > >> NCP days. I used to log in to it over a TIP that had RS232 cables > >> quietly connecting it to a Telenet node. I'd dial in to a local Telenet > >> access point, connect to the cross-connect's node and port, and be > >> talking to a TIP, where I'd "@o 134" to get to MIT-AI. > >> > >> When NCP was turned off on the Flag Day, that stopped working. At MIT, > >> as I understand it, they decided not to implement TCP/IP for ITS. The > >> workaround for tourists like me was to borrow someone's account at > >> MIT-OZ, which had TCP support and could also talk to ITS (over > >> Chaosnet?). So I'd connect from the TIP using TCP to MIT-OZ, and then > >> connect to MIT-AI. It worked OK, though I had to remember when (and how > >> many times) to double the escape characters. My access was via a dialup > >> modem, which was probably the slowest part of the whole system. > >> > >> Moving to the present day... > >> > >> I continue to see Internet old-timers who long nostalgicly for somebody, > >> somewhere, to force a "flag day" to shut down IPv4. The IETF has > >> unfortunately been captured by these folks, who object to making even > >> tiny improvements to IPv4 protocols on the grounds that "we shouldn't > >> make it easier to use IPv4 because that would reduce the urgency of > >> switching to IPv6". It is taken for granted in much of IETF that "IPv4 > >> is dead, or it should be" even though it carries far more global daily > >> traffic, to a far broader range of locations, than IPv6 does. There was > >> even a move to "declare IPv4 Historic" which would officially recommend > >> that nobody use it any more. That draft RFC was approved in 2017 by the > >> Sunset4 working group on a vote of three zealots, but it got killed once > >> saner heads looked at the implications. For a discussion of that > >> history, and pointers to the source materials, see section 4 of: > >> > >> > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4-01.txt > >> > >> (The IETF, predictably, declined to support the publication of an RFC > >> describing this history or succinctly stating that IETF would continue > >> maintaining IPv4.) > >> > >> John > >> > > > > -- > > 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 jklensin at gmail.com Thu Aug 24 16:07:26 2023 From: jklensin at gmail.com (John Klensin) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 19:07:26 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> Message-ID: Jack, I'm confident there are people on this list who are more in the mainstream of today's IETF than I am and should respond to the rest of your note, but two quick comments (maybe corrections but at least adjustments): (1) The IETF has certainly not "become the ISO". While there are a wide range of opinions about how successful they have been (and answers may differ by TC), ISO has made serious efforts to understand the evolutionary processes I described and to create procedural and other mechanisms to deal with the risks and issues they present. At least IMO, the IETF has, instead, largely pretended that those processes and their consequences do not exist and continues to do so. (2) The IETF already had an active Applications area by the time I started getting actively involved with it as an organization (circa 1990 or 1991) rather than just reviewing or contributing to an occasional document. I was involved with parts of the IANA and RFC Editor functions much earlier but, as you know, they were not part of the IETF or under its control at the time. Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to the IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and validation by the community than has been the case in many other Areas, but that doesn't mean the work did not come in and benefit from IETF involvement. The web of the mid-1990s is actually a fairly good example with the some of the CERN-developed protocols and systems undergoing significant discussion and refinement in the IETF and, btw, HTTP is still primarily and IETF protocol. best, john On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:13?PM Jack Haverty wrote: > John, > > Thanks for the perspective on the history. I wasn't involved in the IETF > for much of that period, but what you say sounds very plausible. I've also > seen similar evolutions of patterns and behaviors in other situations. > After reading your message, my reaction was "Oh, now I see, the IETF has > become the ISO." I have always thought that the IETF was an Engineering > activity. I hadn't realized it has become a Standards Body. The > "Internet Standards Organization"? > > Fifty years or hindsight is even better than twenty-five. A couple of > other comments and observations about how history might record the last 40+ > years... > > In the early days of the 80s, I agree it was a much smaller and simpler > environment. But there were some other characteristics which IMHO made a > huge difference. > > First, at the time in the 70s/80s, there was a tight coupling between the > designers and the operators of the technology. People who attended > Internet meetings, argued about protocols and algorithms, and debated how > many bits to have in headers, also wrote the code, debugged it, and kept it > working out on the operational Internet. ARPA sponsored a lot of projects > to create such code, and then made it freely available for anyone to use as > a "reference implementation". That behavior led to the Internet Mantra -- > "Rough Consensus and Running Code". The "shelf" was stocked with code; > documents and specifications followed somewhat later. > > With such tight coupling between design and operation, and the small size > of the community, change was a lot easier than today. Although the > NCP->TCP "Flag Day" was dramatic, TCP itself had several later transitions, > progressing from TCP 2, to 2.5, to 2.5+espilon, to 3, and eventually to 4, > all in a period of a year or two. We expected that rapidity of change to > continue as the theory of protocol design met the harsh reality of > operational systems, and the imposing list of unsolved research topics > evolved into rough consensus and running code. Much of the changes that > occurred in those transitions were results of experiences in Internet > operations, which either caused some change or added another item to the > to-do list of research topics. > > Over time, it seems that such tight coupling has perhaps dissolved. Are > IETF participants actually involved in deploying and operating pieces of > today's Internet -- not just their company, but the individuals themselves? > > Second, again at the time in the early 80s, the "Internet Project" > embraced a wide view of its role. Everything that was involved in using > the neonatal Internet was part of the engineering task of making the > Internet usable. At the time, most usage fit into three categories: remote > login (Telnet), file manipulation (FTP), and electronic mail (SMTP). > During the various transitions, much effort was placed into designing and > implementing strategies and mechanisms for making sure that all of those > services continued to work during and after transitions. > > Today, the IETF seems to have drawn a fuzzy line around the Internet, with > the IETF's "Internet" on one side and "Applications" on the other. The > IETF focuses on the "Internet" side. As far as I can tell, no one, or > everyone, or anyone, deals with "Applications". > > In the early 90s, the Web appeared (thanks TimBL!) as the next "killer > app" that we had been seeking since the earliest days of the Arpanet. I > was at Oracle at the time, arranged for Oracle to join W3C as a founding > member, and then participated as the corporate rep. I recall wondering, > even then, why the IETF wasn't involved. There were individuals belonging > to both IETF and W3C, but IIRC no organizational level interactions. Now > I surmise that the Web was, in IETF's view, even then an "Application" and > not a component of The Internet. In the non-techie users' view, many > think the Web is the Internet. > > Third, TCP introduced a fundamental change in the network architecture, > which may have made it much harder to make transitions as the size > exploded. In the NCP world, the packet switches - the IMPs in the Arpanet > - contained much of the mechanisms for providing a reliable "virtual > circuit" service. In the TCP world, most of those mechanisms are > contained in the "host" computers, and the network itself is only > responsible for a best efforts delivery of individual IP datagrams, > possibly lost, duplicated, corrupted, reordered, or otherwise mangled. > TCP, in the computers, compensates for whatever happens in the underlying > networks. > > In effect, the mechanisms of the Arpanet IMPs contained the functional > equivalent of TCP. The Internet architecture moves those mechanisms into > the computers that interact over the Internet. I'm wondering if that > restructuring is part of the problem in getting new technology deployed to > replace the old. > > In today's Internet, there are of course many more network switches than > were in the Arpanet. So it would be a hard problem to change the software > in all the routers now in the Internet. But there are now far more > computers, each containing TCP, attached to each of those routers. > Anecdotally, on my own home LAN I'm nearing a two order of magnitude > difference. There are almost 100 times as many computers (each containing > TCP) on my LAN than routers, manufactured by many more vendors, some of > whom no longer exist. Changing all of just my software and hardware is a > very hard problem. With billions of computers? > > I've always wondered about the motivation for that movement of TCP > functionality from network switches to attached computers. Was the impact > of growth considered? Or perhaps the motivation was simple pragmatism? > The Arpanet managers were unwilling to risk removing the internal > management mechanisms and provide datagram service - so the only place > where such changes could be tried was in the computers themselves. > > ----- > > Regardless of the history, today's Internet has arguably become a global > infrastructure. I'm still curious about how that infrastructure is and > will be managed, and how the technology will be evolved. Other > infrastructures seem to have evolved over decades or even centuries to be > surrounded by a morass of management mechanisms - standards bodies, > government regulators and laws, safety codes, industry organizations, and > even international treaties. Telephony, airlines, railroads, highways and > vehicles, postal services, radio/TV, finance, et al are examples. > > Is the Internet somehow different, and doesn't need more mechanisms? Or > is it simply too young and they haven't developed yet? How will > "applications" be managed? How is the IETF involved? > > Jack Haverty > > > > On 8/19/23 07:32, John Klensin wrote: > > Scott, > > Sorry for the slow response time. It took me a long time to write this > and even longer to decide whether to post it. > > No real disagreement with your comments, but I see things from a different > perspective... In the IPv6 case, not only was it not different enough to > create significant "pull" but, as I see it, the one really important area > of innovation/difference was the inclusion of mechanisms for encryption at > the IP layer. I'm, not aware of any specific problems with that technology > as specified, but slow uptake doomed us to widespread use of SSL and then > TLS at the application layer and that, in turn, has, I think, contributing > to protocol designs that have undermined both parts of the TCP/IP model and > the IETF. However, there was an impediment at the other end of the design > that I think may have retarded IPv6 deployment even more: It was not > similar enough to IPv4 to allow deploying it in a single, albeit enhanced, > stack environment. Consequently, we didn't have easily-deployed IPv4-IPv6 > interoperability but, instead, had gateways and address translation and, > often, applications that had to be aware of the difference. Had one of > the "IPv4 with long addresses" models that would have permitted a single > stack prevailed instead, who knows? > > The other thing I think we counted on to drive deployment -- running out > of IPv4 space-- was, as you suggest, decelerated by NATs, possibly > encouraged by the realization that different address spaces on LANs than on > the WANs to which they were connected posed some advantages for both > security and multihomed network perspectives. That seems to be catching up > with us now, 20-odd years after it was expected, and driven precisely by > the perceived need for public addresses for phones, IoT devices, etc. > > Isn't a quarter-century of hindsight wonderful? > > But, with the understanding that I don't know whether patterns and > behaviors I see from my peculiar corner of the world are general patterns > or just risks, nor do I know if it is wise and good for the Internet to say > things things "in public"... > > I think the IETF's relevance issues come from somewhere else, probably a > few other places. From experience in completely different fields, there > are differences between successful standards development effor that are > concerned with the specification of new/ innovative technologies and those > that are primarily concerned with extending, enhancing, and tuning existing > ones. The observation has been made repeatedly that, at early stages of, > e.g., protocol design, companies are willing to send their best > design-level people to participate. Academic and other researchers at the > leading edge show up, participate, and contribute (or lead) too. Because > of its roots in research and design discussions and a focus on getting > something that would work, when the IETF (and its predecessor arrangements) > started talking about "standards", it had huge advantages over more > established standards developers. However, when the main focus evolves > away from initial development of core protocols (or equivalent), things > shift. Many of the core design-level people with inherently broad > perspectives stop showing up -- the organizations that supported their work > and their primary research and thought agendas shift elsewhere. In many > cases, their seats are filled by people who are interested in protecting > their company's products or feeling important by putting their particular > marks on things. > > Flag day was possible because it occurred in a small, administratively > centralized, network in which that decision could be made and enforced. > Contrast that with jokes about the "protocol police" in the last couple of > decades. Had NCP lasted longer --perhaps long enough for some analogy of > what I saw as the decisions that core Internet protocols and operations > were not research any more to occur-- it seems to me quite possible that > we would either be running a great grandchild of NCP today (with a > patchwork of fixes and kludges to allow it to function) or that OSI would > actually have taken over because of longer addresses, better scaling > properties, and the very real possibility that ISO, its National Member > Bodies, and ITU would eventually have gotten their acts together and > produced something that would have worked globally without multiple > non-interoperable options and profiles. > > Those early-stage efforts have another advantage as well: Not only is it > possible from a design standpoint to say "got that wrong (at least given > considerations about the future), let's discard it and do something else" > --the critical prerequisite of a successful Flag Day transition -- but > interoperability is in everyone's best interest. Later, if there is enough > deployment, especially commercial deployment accompanied by the emergence > of a few dominant players (or players who are self-confident or arrogant > enough to aspire to dominance), making variations on the protocols, ones > that don't quite interoperate, in order to advertise one's advantages over > others or, more commonly, to lock users in by making vendor-switching very > painful, is often treated as very attractive. If that becomes a regular > pattern, It of course conflicts with interoperability as a primary goal., > > Other standards bodies have recognized those trends (even if often not > explicitly) and adapted their ways of doing things to adjust for them or > reduce the risks to quality and credibility of standards to which they > might lead. Sometimes they have been successful, sometimes not, but . > AFAICT, the IETF has been unable or unwilling to recognize or engage on > them. > > In addition to those general trends, it appears to me that there have been > several changes in the IETF in recent years that I see as (at least > potentially) self-inflicted wounds with likely effects on the credibility > and relevance of our work. While I'm sure others might look at the same > things and see increased efficiency and consistency, I see an increasing > reliance on, and control of decisions by, staff, and increasing transfers > of authority to people with roles that have little or no accountability to > the community. Some of that is accompanied by increasing numbers of > specific, overly rigid, rules and procedures, many of them created with > little involvement from the broader IETF community. Some of them determine > policy or create Procrustean beds because there are no effective override > mechanisms for unusual cases. I'm not yet ready to conclude that it is a > regular and long-lasting pattern but others seem to believe that, in > practice, many recent rules about behavior and the like do not apply to > people who are close to the leadership but are are instead used as weapons > against some of those who are not or who disagree with leadership > positions. Whether that view of things is accurate or not, the perception > that it occurs is damaging to the IETF's credibility and, at least > potentially, to its relevance. > > Has the IETF become irrelevant? Probably not yet but perhaps working on > it. And I don't see any realistic signs of a fallback plan. > > Sadly, > john > > p.s. I don't see attendance at a particular meeting, or even a sequence of > meetings, as providing much useful information, especailly when many of > those are first-time (or very infrequent) attendees from the general local > area. It is too easy to drop in out of curiosity, to say one has been to > a meeting, or even to play a specialized version of "go to the zoo and see > the geeks". Data on the number of people who show up at a given meeting > who, a few years later, are participating and contributing actively would > be far more interesting. > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 12:35?PM Scott Bradner via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> mixed picture of IETF relevance >> >> the world's telephony runs over IETF technology (SIP & RTP) except for >> some pockets of analog phones, >> IETF technology specified by ITU and 3GPP >> >> of the 100s of proposed and full standards, only a few are in significant >> use >> >> IPv6 has had a very slow deployment - most, imo, because it does not >> offer enough difference from IPv4 >> and because NATs have reduced the pressure to change - but, according to >> Google, they are getting a lot >> of IPv6 queries (about 45%) ( see >> https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) - e.g. your iPhone >> runs IPv6 by default >> >> people still show up for IETF meetings (> 1500 paid for Yokohama in March >> - in person & remote) >> >> Scott >> >> > On Aug 10, 2023, at 12:16 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> > >> > I've been wondering if the IETF is still effective today. It's been >> trying for decades to cajole the Internet into adopting IPV6. >> > >> > Instead we now live with a multi-protocol Internet, and the complexity >> and problems that come with it. In the 90s, the world embraced TCP and got >> rid of all the other protocols. As I understand it, the IETF now "puts >> new technology on the shelf, where anyone is free to pick it up and use it" >> - quite different from the management process that orchestrated "Flag Day" >> and managed the evolution of the Internet technology in the field. Some >> people have "picked up" IPV6, but many have not. I can't tell if I have. >> I also have no idea how I would do it. Or why I should. >> > >> > Perhaps someone can fill in the history of how the Internet got from >> then to now? I sent an email on this topic a week or so ago, but it seems >> to have never come out of the elists.isoc.org system. FYI, here it is, >> in case you didn't get it: >> > >> > -------------------- >> > >> > IIRC, the "Flag Day" was one piece of a larger plan. >> > >> > I don't recall the timing of the pieces - it was 40+- years ago. But >> there was also a bureaucratic action in that same era to declare TCP a "DoD >> Standard", and require its presence in DoD procurements - any computer >> system in a DoD purchase using networking had to have TCP. Also, there was >> a program created by NIST (or was it still NBS then?) to provide a test >> suite for conformance to the TCP standard. So any contractor who wanted >> to sell something to DoD had to have TCP, and by going through the NIST >> test suite they could get a certificate proving that they had TCP >> implemented properly. I don't remember which of these happened in what >> order or how it related to Flag Day (1/1/1983). But it all seems to me to >> be part of some larger plan to migrate the admittedly small existing >> network to a new standard. >> > >> > At BBN, we went through the NIST process to become a certified testing >> lab, so we could run the tests for anyone who needed it and issue >> conformance certificates. I'm not sure how many other such labs there >> were. We also provided consulting services to help people understand TCP >> and figure out why their software didn't pass the tests. This was never >> seen as any kind of "money maker", but seemed important to do it, since we >> had access to IMPs and such which made it easy to set up a small test lab. >> > >> > I never saw "the plan", but it struck me that there was a lot going on >> behind the scenes to make things like this happen, outside of the research >> or Arpanet community or technology per se, in order to facilitate the >> introduction of TCP to DoD. Maybe someone else knows more about who was >> involved in all that activity. Somebody made those things happen... >> > >> > In retrospect, it seems to me that such "soft technology" (conformance >> certification etc.) was complementary to the technical work documented in >> the stream of RFCs, and was important to making TCP "real", and >> establishing a bit of regulation around its use "in the field" with >> mechanisms such as "Flag Day" to enforce a migration from old to new. >> > >> > The Internet is now arguably world class "infrastructure". But, IMHO, >> it still lacks a lot of the mechanisms that surround other, older, >> infrastructures that move things from point A to point B - e.g., highways, >> electrical service, railroads, airplanes, etc. The early work on things >> like Flag Day, TCP Conformance Tests, DoD Standardization, and such were >> the beginning of adding a management structure around the Internet >> technology. >> > >> > As near as I can tell, no such effort continues today. It may have >> faded away back in the 1980s, before TCP became the dominant technology. >> Perhaps the Internet is just too new for such machinery to be created? >> > >> > Other infrastructures have gone through stages as rules, regulations, >> and practices congeal. In the early days of electricity it was common for >> accidents to occur, causing fires, deaths, or other disasters. Electrical >> Codes, safety mechanisms, licensing, rules and practices have made using >> electricity much less dangerous. The same is true of highways, railroads, >> etc. >> > >> > I've always wondered what happened to that "management framework" that >> started in the 1980s around the Internet infrastructure, and why it hasn't >> resulted in mechanisms today to make the Internet "safer". I suspect all >> infrastructures need things like electrical codes, UL testing, development >> of fuses, circuit breakers, GFIs, etc., that are used in the electrical >> infrastructure. But nobody seems to be doing that for the Internet? >> > >> > There's lots of such mechanisms I know about in the US to manage >> infrastructures. My car occasionally gets a government-mandated recall. >> Airplanes get grounded by FAA. Train crashes are investigated by the >> Department of Transportation. Other governments have similar mechanisms >> to manage infrastructure. >> > >> > Has any Internet component, hardware or software, ever been >> recalled...? "Flag Day" was the last enforcement action I can remember. >> > >> > Jack Haverty >> > >> > >> > -------------------- >> > >> > On 8/9/23 18:50, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote: >> >> I had a "tourist" account at the MIT-AI system running ITS, back in the >> >> NCP days. I used to log in to it over a TIP that had RS232 cables >> >> quietly connecting it to a Telenet node. I'd dial in to a local >> Telenet >> >> access point, connect to the cross-connect's node and port, and be >> >> talking to a TIP, where I'd "@o 134" to get to MIT-AI. >> >> >> >> When NCP was turned off on the Flag Day, that stopped working. At MIT, >> >> as I understand it, they decided not to implement TCP/IP for ITS. The >> >> workaround for tourists like me was to borrow someone's account at >> >> MIT-OZ, which had TCP support and could also talk to ITS (over >> >> Chaosnet?). So I'd connect from the TIP using TCP to MIT-OZ, and then >> >> connect to MIT-AI. It worked OK, though I had to remember when (and >> how >> >> many times) to double the escape characters. My access was via a >> dialup >> >> modem, which was probably the slowest part of the whole system. >> >> >> >> Moving to the present day... >> >> >> >> I continue to see Internet old-timers who long nostalgicly for >> somebody, >> >> somewhere, to force a "flag day" to shut down IPv4. The IETF has >> >> unfortunately been captured by these folks, who object to making even >> >> tiny improvements to IPv4 protocols on the grounds that "we shouldn't >> >> make it easier to use IPv4 because that would reduce the urgency of >> >> switching to IPv6". It is taken for granted in much of IETF that "IPv4 >> >> is dead, or it should be" even though it carries far more global daily >> >> traffic, to a far broader range of locations, than IPv6 does. There >> was >> >> even a move to "declare IPv4 Historic" which would officially recommend >> >> that nobody use it any more. That draft RFC was approved in 2017 by >> the >> >> Sunset4 working group on a vote of three zealots, but it got killed >> once >> >> saner heads looked at the implications. For a discussion of that >> >> history, and pointers to the source materials, see section 4 of: >> >> >> >> >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4-01.txt >> >> >> >> (The IETF, predictably, declined to support the publication of an RFC >> >> describing this history or succinctly stating that IETF would continue >> >> maintaining IPv4.) >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> > >> > -- >> > 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 Thu Aug 24 20:12:29 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 20:12:29 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> Message-ID: <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: > Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to the > IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and validation by > the community I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an application protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last 25 years, that has seen widespread success. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Thu Aug 24 20:15:44 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2023 15:15:44 +1200 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> Message-ID: On 25-Aug-23 11:07, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: > Jack, > > I'm confident there are people on this list who are more in the mainstream > of today's IETF than I am and should respond to the rest of your note, but > two quick comments (maybe corrections but at least adjustments): > > (1) The IETF has certainly not "become the ISO". While there are a wide > range of opinions about how successful they have been (and answers may > differ by TC), ISO has made serious efforts to understand the evolutionary > processes I described and to create procedural and other mechanisms to deal > with the risks and issues they present. At least IMO, the IETF has, > instead, largely pretended that those processes and their consequences do > not exist and continues to do so. > > (2) The IETF already had an active Applications area by the time I started > getting actively involved with it as an organization (circa 1990 or 1991) > rather than just reviewing or contributing to an occasional document. I > was involved with parts of the IANA and RFC Editor functions much earlier > but, as you know, they were not part of the IETF or under its control at > the time. Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to the > IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and validation by > the community than has been the case in many other Areas, but that doesn't > mean the work did not come in and benefit from IETF involvement. The web > of the mid-1990s is actually a fairly good example with the some of the > CERN-developed protocols and systems undergoing significant discussion and > refinement in the IETF and, btw, HTTP is still primarily and IETF protocol. I believe I was the first person from CERN to attend the IETF (#25, November 1992, Washington DC). My main interest then was IP over ATM and other "high speed" links, and in what was about to be named IPng. Tim Berners-Lee was not there, except in spirit. The first meeting of the Uniform Resource Identifiers Working Group (URI) took place and a paper 'titled "Universal Resource Locators" by Tim Berners-Lee was reviewed.' At IETF 26, Tim was present (I wasn't) and there was a World-Wide Web (WWW) BOF. Tim continued attending for a while, basically until the W3C was formed and HTML moved away from the IETF. So, yes, the IETF was involved at a crucial stage of the Web's childhood, even before Mosaic 1.0 was released and changed everything. However, in fairness, the Web was its own best advertisement. Brian P.S. In those days, the minutes of IETF meetings were done properly. Historians trying to find out who said what in recent years will be disappointed. > > best, > john > > > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:13?PM Jack Haverty wrote: > >> John, >> >> Thanks for the perspective on the history. I wasn't involved in the IETF >> for much of that period, but what you say sounds very plausible. I've also >> seen similar evolutions of patterns and behaviors in other situations. >> After reading your message, my reaction was "Oh, now I see, the IETF has >> become the ISO." I have always thought that the IETF was an Engineering >> activity. I hadn't realized it has become a Standards Body. The >> "Internet Standards Organization"? >> >> Fifty years or hindsight is even better than twenty-five. A couple of >> other comments and observations about how history might record the last 40+ >> years... >> >> In the early days of the 80s, I agree it was a much smaller and simpler >> environment. But there were some other characteristics which IMHO made a >> huge difference. >> >> First, at the time in the 70s/80s, there was a tight coupling between the >> designers and the operators of the technology. People who attended >> Internet meetings, argued about protocols and algorithms, and debated how >> many bits to have in headers, also wrote the code, debugged it, and kept it >> working out on the operational Internet. ARPA sponsored a lot of projects >> to create such code, and then made it freely available for anyone to use as >> a "reference implementation". That behavior led to the Internet Mantra -- >> "Rough Consensus and Running Code". The "shelf" was stocked with code; >> documents and specifications followed somewhat later. >> >> With such tight coupling between design and operation, and the small size >> of the community, change was a lot easier than today. Although the >> NCP->TCP "Flag Day" was dramatic, TCP itself had several later transitions, >> progressing from TCP 2, to 2.5, to 2.5+espilon, to 3, and eventually to 4, >> all in a period of a year or two. We expected that rapidity of change to >> continue as the theory of protocol design met the harsh reality of >> operational systems, and the imposing list of unsolved research topics >> evolved into rough consensus and running code. Much of the changes that >> occurred in those transitions were results of experiences in Internet >> operations, which either caused some change or added another item to the >> to-do list of research topics. >> >> Over time, it seems that such tight coupling has perhaps dissolved. Are >> IETF participants actually involved in deploying and operating pieces of >> today's Internet -- not just their company, but the individuals themselves? >> >> Second, again at the time in the early 80s, the "Internet Project" >> embraced a wide view of its role. Everything that was involved in using >> the neonatal Internet was part of the engineering task of making the >> Internet usable. At the time, most usage fit into three categories: remote >> login (Telnet), file manipulation (FTP), and electronic mail (SMTP). >> During the various transitions, much effort was placed into designing and >> implementing strategies and mechanisms for making sure that all of those >> services continued to work during and after transitions. >> >> Today, the IETF seems to have drawn a fuzzy line around the Internet, with >> the IETF's "Internet" on one side and "Applications" on the other. The >> IETF focuses on the "Internet" side. As far as I can tell, no one, or >> everyone, or anyone, deals with "Applications". >> >> In the early 90s, the Web appeared (thanks TimBL!) as the next "killer >> app" that we had been seeking since the earliest days of the Arpanet. I >> was at Oracle at the time, arranged for Oracle to join W3C as a founding >> member, and then participated as the corporate rep. I recall wondering, >> even then, why the IETF wasn't involved. There were individuals belonging >> to both IETF and W3C, but IIRC no organizational level interactions. Now >> I surmise that the Web was, in IETF's view, even then an "Application" and >> not a component of The Internet. In the non-techie users' view, many >> think the Web is the Internet. >> >> Third, TCP introduced a fundamental change in the network architecture, >> which may have made it much harder to make transitions as the size >> exploded. In the NCP world, the packet switches - the IMPs in the Arpanet >> - contained much of the mechanisms for providing a reliable "virtual >> circuit" service. In the TCP world, most of those mechanisms are >> contained in the "host" computers, and the network itself is only >> responsible for a best efforts delivery of individual IP datagrams, >> possibly lost, duplicated, corrupted, reordered, or otherwise mangled. >> TCP, in the computers, compensates for whatever happens in the underlying >> networks. >> >> In effect, the mechanisms of the Arpanet IMPs contained the functional >> equivalent of TCP. The Internet architecture moves those mechanisms into >> the computers that interact over the Internet. I'm wondering if that >> restructuring is part of the problem in getting new technology deployed to >> replace the old. >> >> In today's Internet, there are of course many more network switches than >> were in the Arpanet. So it would be a hard problem to change the software >> in all the routers now in the Internet. But there are now far more >> computers, each containing TCP, attached to each of those routers. >> Anecdotally, on my own home LAN I'm nearing a two order of magnitude >> difference. There are almost 100 times as many computers (each containing >> TCP) on my LAN than routers, manufactured by many more vendors, some of >> whom no longer exist. Changing all of just my software and hardware is a >> very hard problem. With billions of computers? >> >> I've always wondered about the motivation for that movement of TCP >> functionality from network switches to attached computers. Was the impact >> of growth considered? Or perhaps the motivation was simple pragmatism? >> The Arpanet managers were unwilling to risk removing the internal >> management mechanisms and provide datagram service - so the only place >> where such changes could be tried was in the computers themselves. >> >> ----- >> >> Regardless of the history, today's Internet has arguably become a global >> infrastructure. I'm still curious about how that infrastructure is and >> will be managed, and how the technology will be evolved. Other >> infrastructures seem to have evolved over decades or even centuries to be >> surrounded by a morass of management mechanisms - standards bodies, >> government regulators and laws, safety codes, industry organizations, and >> even international treaties. Telephony, airlines, railroads, highways and >> vehicles, postal services, radio/TV, finance, et al are examples. >> >> Is the Internet somehow different, and doesn't need more mechanisms? Or >> is it simply too young and they haven't developed yet? How will >> "applications" be managed? How is the IETF involved? >> >> Jack Haverty >> >> >> >> On 8/19/23 07:32, John Klensin wrote: >> >> Scott, >> >> Sorry for the slow response time. It took me a long time to write this >> and even longer to decide whether to post it. >> >> No real disagreement with your comments, but I see things from a different >> perspective... In the IPv6 case, not only was it not different enough to >> create significant "pull" but, as I see it, the one really important area >> of innovation/difference was the inclusion of mechanisms for encryption at >> the IP layer. I'm, not aware of any specific problems with that technology >> as specified, but slow uptake doomed us to widespread use of SSL and then >> TLS at the application layer and that, in turn, has, I think, contributing >> to protocol designs that have undermined both parts of the TCP/IP model and >> the IETF. However, there was an impediment at the other end of the design >> that I think may have retarded IPv6 deployment even more: It was not >> similar enough to IPv4 to allow deploying it in a single, albeit enhanced, >> stack environment. Consequently, we didn't have easily-deployed IPv4-IPv6 >> interoperability but, instead, had gateways and address translation and, >> often, applications that had to be aware of the difference. Had one of >> the "IPv4 with long addresses" models that would have permitted a single >> stack prevailed instead, who knows? >> >> The other thing I think we counted on to drive deployment -- running out >> of IPv4 space-- was, as you suggest, decelerated by NATs, possibly >> encouraged by the realization that different address spaces on LANs than on >> the WANs to which they were connected posed some advantages for both >> security and multihomed network perspectives. That seems to be catching up >> with us now, 20-odd years after it was expected, and driven precisely by >> the perceived need for public addresses for phones, IoT devices, etc. >> >> Isn't a quarter-century of hindsight wonderful? >> >> But, with the understanding that I don't know whether patterns and >> behaviors I see from my peculiar corner of the world are general patterns >> or just risks, nor do I know if it is wise and good for the Internet to say >> things things "in public"... >> >> I think the IETF's relevance issues come from somewhere else, probably a >> few other places. From experience in completely different fields, there >> are differences between successful standards development effor that are >> concerned with the specification of new/ innovative technologies and those >> that are primarily concerned with extending, enhancing, and tuning existing >> ones. The observation has been made repeatedly that, at early stages of, >> e.g., protocol design, companies are willing to send their best >> design-level people to participate. Academic and other researchers at the >> leading edge show up, participate, and contribute (or lead) too. Because >> of its roots in research and design discussions and a focus on getting >> something that would work, when the IETF (and its predecessor arrangements) >> started talking about "standards", it had huge advantages over more >> established standards developers. However, when the main focus evolves >> away from initial development of core protocols (or equivalent), things >> shift. Many of the core design-level people with inherently broad >> perspectives stop showing up -- the organizations that supported their work >> and their primary research and thought agendas shift elsewhere. In many >> cases, their seats are filled by people who are interested in protecting >> their company's products or feeling important by putting their particular >> marks on things. >> >> Flag day was possible because it occurred in a small, administratively >> centralized, network in which that decision could be made and enforced. >> Contrast that with jokes about the "protocol police" in the last couple of >> decades. Had NCP lasted longer --perhaps long enough for some analogy of >> what I saw as the decisions that core Internet protocols and operations >> were not research any more to occur-- it seems to me quite possible that >> we would either be running a great grandchild of NCP today (with a >> patchwork of fixes and kludges to allow it to function) or that OSI would >> actually have taken over because of longer addresses, better scaling >> properties, and the very real possibility that ISO, its National Member >> Bodies, and ITU would eventually have gotten their acts together and >> produced something that would have worked globally without multiple >> non-interoperable options and profiles. >> >> Those early-stage efforts have another advantage as well: Not only is it >> possible from a design standpoint to say "got that wrong (at least given >> considerations about the future), let's discard it and do something else" >> --the critical prerequisite of a successful Flag Day transition -- but >> interoperability is in everyone's best interest. Later, if there is enough >> deployment, especially commercial deployment accompanied by the emergence >> of a few dominant players (or players who are self-confident or arrogant >> enough to aspire to dominance), making variations on the protocols, ones >> that don't quite interoperate, in order to advertise one's advantages over >> others or, more commonly, to lock users in by making vendor-switching very >> painful, is often treated as very attractive. If that becomes a regular >> pattern, It of course conflicts with interoperability as a primary goal., >> >> Other standards bodies have recognized those trends (even if often not >> explicitly) and adapted their ways of doing things to adjust for them or >> reduce the risks to quality and credibility of standards to which they >> might lead. Sometimes they have been successful, sometimes not, but . >> AFAICT, the IETF has been unable or unwilling to recognize or engage on >> them. >> >> In addition to those general trends, it appears to me that there have been >> several changes in the IETF in recent years that I see as (at least >> potentially) self-inflicted wounds with likely effects on the credibility >> and relevance of our work. While I'm sure others might look at the same >> things and see increased efficiency and consistency, I see an increasing >> reliance on, and control of decisions by, staff, and increasing transfers >> of authority to people with roles that have little or no accountability to >> the community. Some of that is accompanied by increasing numbers of >> specific, overly rigid, rules and procedures, many of them created with >> little involvement from the broader IETF community. Some of them determine >> policy or create Procrustean beds because there are no effective override >> mechanisms for unusual cases. I'm not yet ready to conclude that it is a >> regular and long-lasting pattern but others seem to believe that, in >> practice, many recent rules about behavior and the like do not apply to >> people who are close to the leadership but are are instead used as weapons >> against some of those who are not or who disagree with leadership >> positions. Whether that view of things is accurate or not, the perception >> that it occurs is damaging to the IETF's credibility and, at least >> potentially, to its relevance. >> >> Has the IETF become irrelevant? Probably not yet but perhaps working on >> it. And I don't see any realistic signs of a fallback plan. >> >> Sadly, >> john >> >> p.s. I don't see attendance at a particular meeting, or even a sequence of >> meetings, as providing much useful information, especailly when many of >> those are first-time (or very infrequent) attendees from the general local >> area. It is too easy to drop in out of curiosity, to say one has been to >> a meeting, or even to play a specialized version of "go to the zoo and see >> the geeks". Data on the number of people who show up at a given meeting >> who, a few years later, are participating and contributing actively would >> be far more interesting. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 12:35?PM Scott Bradner via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >>> mixed picture of IETF relevance >>> >>> the world's telephony runs over IETF technology (SIP & RTP) except for >>> some pockets of analog phones, >>> IETF technology specified by ITU and 3GPP >>> >>> of the 100s of proposed and full standards, only a few are in significant >>> use >>> >>> IPv6 has had a very slow deployment - most, imo, because it does not >>> offer enough difference from IPv4 >>> and because NATs have reduced the pressure to change - but, according to >>> Google, they are getting a lot >>> of IPv6 queries (about 45%) ( see >>> https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html) - e.g. your iPhone >>> runs IPv6 by default >>> >>> people still show up for IETF meetings (> 1500 paid for Yokohama in March >>> - in person & remote) >>> >>> Scott >>> >>>> On Aug 10, 2023, at 12:16 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history < >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> I've been wondering if the IETF is still effective today. It's been >>> trying for decades to cajole the Internet into adopting IPV6. >>>> >>>> Instead we now live with a multi-protocol Internet, and the complexity >>> and problems that come with it. In the 90s, the world embraced TCP and got >>> rid of all the other protocols. As I understand it, the IETF now "puts >>> new technology on the shelf, where anyone is free to pick it up and use it" >>> - quite different from the management process that orchestrated "Flag Day" >>> and managed the evolution of the Internet technology in the field. Some >>> people have "picked up" IPV6, but many have not. I can't tell if I have. >>> I also have no idea how I would do it. Or why I should. >>>> >>>> Perhaps someone can fill in the history of how the Internet got from >>> then to now? I sent an email on this topic a week or so ago, but it seems >>> to have never come out of the elists.isoc.org system. FYI, here it is, >>> in case you didn't get it: >>>> >>>> -------------------- >>>> >>>> IIRC, the "Flag Day" was one piece of a larger plan. >>>> >>>> I don't recall the timing of the pieces - it was 40+- years ago. But >>> there was also a bureaucratic action in that same era to declare TCP a "DoD >>> Standard", and require its presence in DoD procurements - any computer >>> system in a DoD purchase using networking had to have TCP. Also, there was >>> a program created by NIST (or was it still NBS then?) to provide a test >>> suite for conformance to the TCP standard. So any contractor who wanted >>> to sell something to DoD had to have TCP, and by going through the NIST >>> test suite they could get a certificate proving that they had TCP >>> implemented properly. I don't remember which of these happened in what >>> order or how it related to Flag Day (1/1/1983). But it all seems to me to >>> be part of some larger plan to migrate the admittedly small existing >>> network to a new standard. >>>> >>>> At BBN, we went through the NIST process to become a certified testing >>> lab, so we could run the tests for anyone who needed it and issue >>> conformance certificates. I'm not sure how many other such labs there >>> were. We also provided consulting services to help people understand TCP >>> and figure out why their software didn't pass the tests. This was never >>> seen as any kind of "money maker", but seemed important to do it, since we >>> had access to IMPs and such which made it easy to set up a small test lab. >>>> >>>> I never saw "the plan", but it struck me that there was a lot going on >>> behind the scenes to make things like this happen, outside of the research >>> or Arpanet community or technology per se, in order to facilitate the >>> introduction of TCP to DoD. Maybe someone else knows more about who was >>> involved in all that activity. Somebody made those things happen... >>>> >>>> In retrospect, it seems to me that such "soft technology" (conformance >>> certification etc.) was complementary to the technical work documented in >>> the stream of RFCs, and was important to making TCP "real", and >>> establishing a bit of regulation around its use "in the field" with >>> mechanisms such as "Flag Day" to enforce a migration from old to new. >>>> >>>> The Internet is now arguably world class "infrastructure". But, IMHO, >>> it still lacks a lot of the mechanisms that surround other, older, >>> infrastructures that move things from point A to point B - e.g., highways, >>> electrical service, railroads, airplanes, etc. The early work on things >>> like Flag Day, TCP Conformance Tests, DoD Standardization, and such were >>> the beginning of adding a management structure around the Internet >>> technology. >>>> >>>> As near as I can tell, no such effort continues today. It may have >>> faded away back in the 1980s, before TCP became the dominant technology. >>> Perhaps the Internet is just too new for such machinery to be created? >>>> >>>> Other infrastructures have gone through stages as rules, regulations, >>> and practices congeal. In the early days of electricity it was common for >>> accidents to occur, causing fires, deaths, or other disasters. Electrical >>> Codes, safety mechanisms, licensing, rules and practices have made using >>> electricity much less dangerous. The same is true of highways, railroads, >>> etc. >>>> >>>> I've always wondered what happened to that "management framework" that >>> started in the 1980s around the Internet infrastructure, and why it hasn't >>> resulted in mechanisms today to make the Internet "safer". I suspect all >>> infrastructures need things like electrical codes, UL testing, development >>> of fuses, circuit breakers, GFIs, etc., that are used in the electrical >>> infrastructure. But nobody seems to be doing that for the Internet? >>>> >>>> There's lots of such mechanisms I know about in the US to manage >>> infrastructures. My car occasionally gets a government-mandated recall. >>> Airplanes get grounded by FAA. Train crashes are investigated by the >>> Department of Transportation. Other governments have similar mechanisms >>> to manage infrastructure. >>>> >>>> Has any Internet component, hardware or software, ever been >>> recalled...? "Flag Day" was the last enforcement action I can remember. >>>> >>>> Jack Haverty >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------- >>>> >>>> On 8/9/23 18:50, John Gilmore via Internet-history wrote: >>>>> I had a "tourist" account at the MIT-AI system running ITS, back in the >>>>> NCP days. I used to log in to it over a TIP that had RS232 cables >>>>> quietly connecting it to a Telenet node. I'd dial in to a local >>> Telenet >>>>> access point, connect to the cross-connect's node and port, and be >>>>> talking to a TIP, where I'd "@o 134" to get to MIT-AI. >>>>> >>>>> When NCP was turned off on the Flag Day, that stopped working. At MIT, >>>>> as I understand it, they decided not to implement TCP/IP for ITS. The >>>>> workaround for tourists like me was to borrow someone's account at >>>>> MIT-OZ, which had TCP support and could also talk to ITS (over >>>>> Chaosnet?). So I'd connect from the TIP using TCP to MIT-OZ, and then >>>>> connect to MIT-AI. It worked OK, though I had to remember when (and >>> how >>>>> many times) to double the escape characters. My access was via a >>> dialup >>>>> modem, which was probably the slowest part of the whole system. >>>>> >>>>> Moving to the present day... >>>>> >>>>> I continue to see Internet old-timers who long nostalgicly for >>> somebody, >>>>> somewhere, to force a "flag day" to shut down IPv4. The IETF has >>>>> unfortunately been captured by these folks, who object to making even >>>>> tiny improvements to IPv4 protocols on the grounds that "we shouldn't >>>>> make it easier to use IPv4 because that would reduce the urgency of >>>>> switching to IPv6". It is taken for granted in much of IETF that "IPv4 >>>>> is dead, or it should be" even though it carries far more global daily >>>>> traffic, to a far broader range of locations, than IPv6 does. There >>> was >>>>> even a move to "declare IPv4 Historic" which would officially recommend >>>>> that nobody use it any more. That draft RFC was approved in 2017 by >>> the >>>>> Sunset4 working group on a vote of three zealots, but it got killed >>> once >>>>> saner heads looked at the implications. For a discussion of that >>>>> history, and pointers to the source materials, see section 4 of: >>>>> >>>>> >>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4-01.txt >>>>> >>>>> (The IETF, predictably, declined to support the publication of an RFC >>>>> describing this history or succinctly stating that IETF would continue >>>>> maintaining IPv4.) >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Mon Aug 28 10:52:25 2023 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 13:52:25 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: >> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to the >> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and >> validation by >> the community > > I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an application > protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last 25 years, > that has seen widespread success. > > d/ > Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella.? Is it not the RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of things? 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 brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Mon Aug 28 14:00:28 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 09:00:28 +1200 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: > Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: >>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to the >>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and >>> validation by >>> the community >> >> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an application >> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last 25 years, >> that has seen widespread success. >> >> d/ >> > Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated about 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office at CERN, more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was wrong a few days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). The WWW BOF at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first deployed, to my personal knowledge. > Is it not the > RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of things? In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded both rough consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and still the best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with the spec. Third best is OSI. Brian From dcrocker at bbiw.net Mon Aug 28 14:17:19 2023 From: dcrocker at bbiw.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 14:17:19 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <9e5aa6fc-d510-775f-b963-4380c626e553@bbiw.net> On 8/28/2023 10:52 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella.? Is it not the > RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of things? hence my reference to origination.? http was not originated in the IETF. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Mon Aug 28 14:25:08 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 09:25:08 +1200 Subject: [ih] Fwd: [SIGCIS-Members] Internet Histories, Volume 7, Issue 3 (2023) is now available online In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43b0a8bf-1e87-4d26-3efb-2ad24c5dea06@gmail.com> FYI -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Internet Histories, Volume 7, Issue 3 (2023) is now available online Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 08:03:56 +0000 From: Asger Harlung via Members Reply-To: Asger Harlung To: To whom it may concern The editors of Internet Histories are pleased to announce that Internet Histories, Volume 7, Issue 3, December 2023 is complete, and available online. Two articles are open access. Internet Histories, Volume 7, Issue 3, December 2023 https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rint20/7/3 Contents: Articles Internet freedom, free culture, and free information: Aaron Swartz and cyberlibertarianism?s neoliberal turn Michael Buozis Shaping the digital world: views on the internet in India in Prime Ministerial speeches (1998?2019) Lasya Tandon A history of features for online tie breaking, 1997-2021 | Open Access Nicholas John & Dekel Katz Cryptoeconomics as governance: an intellectual history from ?Crypto Anarchy? to ?Cryptoeconomics? | Open Access Kelsie Nabben Genealogy of an archive. The birth, construction, and development of the World Wide Web collection at CERN | Open Access Martin Fomasi, Deborah Barcella, Eleonora Benecchi & Gabriele Balbi Kind regards on behalf of the Internet Histories editorial team, Asger Harlung, Editorial Assistant, Internet Histories From johnl at iecc.com Mon Aug 28 18:59:42 2023 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 28 Aug 2023 21:59:42 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <20230829015942.536F810122A54@ary.qy> It appears that Dave Crocker via Internet-history said: >I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an application >protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last 25 years, >that has seen widespread success. One could argue that DKIM originated in the IETF. It had two predecessors, DomainKeys and IIM. The development process more or less involved adding the bad ideas from IIM into DomainKeys, then taking them back out. It took several tries to get usable DNSSEC, with the version we use now published in 2005. But you're right, the stuff people use is mostly imported from outside. From dhc at dcrocker.net Mon Aug 28 19:26:27 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 19:26:27 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <20230829015942.536F810122A54@ary.qy> References: <20230829015942.536F810122A54@ary.qy> Message-ID: On 8/28/2023 6:59 PM, John Levine wrote: > One could argue that DKIM originated in the IETF. It had two > predecessors, DomainKeys and IIM. The development process more or less > involved adding the bad ideas from IIM into DomainKeys, then taking > them back out. Nope. Not even close. On two counts. First, DKIM really is a small evolution of DomainKeys, which itself had two versions fielded by Yahoo.? The IIM influence was, really, pretty minor. (I'm being kinder than you, but that doesn't mean I disagree about its influence.) Second, and even more importantly, the ad hoc, private cabal we were part of, that did the evolution from DomainKeys to DKIM ,was explicitly outside of the IETF.? And that was at the IETF's request. We first came to the IETF to pursue the integration but when they saw the challenges between the two constituencies, we were told to take care of it before doing an IETF WG.? This was almost certainly an essential and correct direction. > It took several tries to get usable DNSSEC, with the version we > use now published in 2005. I haven't been tracking it's development in the last decade or so, but my impression is that its use was pretty marginal. Small tidbit for amusement is that I was the AD over the initial DNSSec work, circa 1990 or 92. I had no influence over it. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From enervatron at gmail.com Mon Aug 28 19:26:51 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 19:26:51 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <20230829015942.536F810122A54@ary.qy> References: <20230829015942.536F810122A54@ary.qy> Message-ID: <84460ad4-650a-ecd3-3bfb-7357ee40649a@gmail.com> On 8/28/23 6:59 PM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: > It appears that Dave Crocker via Internet-history said: >> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an application >> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last 25 years, >> that has seen widespread success. > One could argue that DKIM originated in the IETF. It had two > predecessors, DomainKeys and IIM. The development process more or less > involved adding the bad ideas from IIM into DomainKeys, then taking > them back out. No it didn't. DKIM was resolved before it came to IETF. It happened around my dinning room table in San Francisco and you weren't there. As it turns out the bad idea was positing that DNSSec would be a sufficient and deployed. It isn't. IIM got that right using TLS. Mike From enervatron at gmail.com Mon Aug 28 19:45:43 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 19:45:43 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <20230829015942.536F810122A54@ary.qy> Message-ID: On 8/28/23 7:26 PM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > On 8/28/2023 6:59 PM, John Levine wrote: >> One could argue that DKIM originated in the IETF. It had two >> predecessors, DomainKeys and IIM. The development process more or less >> involved adding the bad ideas from IIM into DomainKeys, then taking >> them back out. > > Nope. Not even close. > > On two counts. First, DKIM really is a small evolution of DomainKeys, > which itself had two versions fielded by Yahoo.? The IIM influence > was, really, pretty minor. (I'm being kinder than you, but that > doesn't mean I disagree about its influence.) IIM had the first draft submitted and was deployed before we submitted it. I checked with Mark and it's still not clear who deployed first. This is revisionist history. DK and IIM were developed independently. It was Harald that found out that we were both working on essentially the same thing at the same time. It was a merger with us concerned about enterprise considerations and Yahoo concerned about service provider considerations. Your belittling of our contribution shows your agenda and is insulting. There were minor influences, but it wasn't us. I take solace with Where Wizards Stay Up Late. > > Second, and even more importantly, the ad hoc, private cabal we were > part of, that did the evolution from DomainKeys to DKIM ,was > explicitly outside of the IETF.? And that was at the IETF's request. You were not part of the "private cabal". I was the one who decided that DNSSec wasn't worth fighting about. I was wrong as it turns out. DNSSec deployment has been a disaster. DK got that completely wrong. I hosted the meeting where the two drafts were merged at my house in San Francisco. You weren't there. Mike From johnl at iecc.com Mon Aug 28 19:47:12 2023 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 28 Aug 2023 22:47:12 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20230829024712.82507101236BD@ary.qy> It appears that Dave Crocker via Internet-history said: >> It took several tries to get usable DNSSEC, with the version we >> use now published in 2005. > >I haven't been tracking it's development in the last decade or so, but >my impression is that its use was pretty marginal. ICANN has some stats that claim that 30% of users use resolvers that perform DNSSEC validation. https://ithi.research.icann.org/graph-m5.html#currentId4 It's harder to find stats on how many names are signed. I know it hugely varies depending on incentives. I gather a whole lot of .SE is signed because they had some kind of promotion and they made it really easy to do. From enervatron at gmail.com Mon Aug 28 19:59:02 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 19:59:02 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <20230829024712.82507101236BD@ary.qy> References: <20230829024712.82507101236BD@ary.qy> Message-ID: <446a2891-cb8f-b0cd-edac-046dd0830528@gmail.com> On 8/28/23 7:47 PM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote: > It appears that Dave Crocker via Internet-history said: >>> It took several tries to get usable DNSSEC, with the version we >>> use now published in 2005. >> I haven't been tracking it's development in the last decade or so, but >> my impression is that its use was pretty marginal. > ICANN has some stats that claim that 30% of users use resolvers that > perform DNSSEC validation. https://ithi.research.icann.org/graph-m5.html#currentId4 > > It's harder to find stats on how many names are signed. I know it > hugely varies depending on incentives. I gather a whole lot of .SE is > signed because they had some kind of promotion and they made it really > easy to do. vs like 100% of https. DK got that wrong. IIM got that right. Mike From enervatron at gmail.com Mon Aug 28 20:08:50 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 20:08:50 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <20230829015942.536F810122A54@ary.qy> Message-ID: <4c8d670e-e885-e0a7-45c0-8a7cb313061a@gmail.com> On 8/28/23 7:26 PM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > > We first came to the IETF to pursue the integration but when they saw > the challenges between the two constituencies, we were told to take > care of it before doing an IETF WG.? This was almost certainly an > essential and correct direction. > > No "we" didn't. Mark Delaney came over to Cisco from Yahoo and we worked it out. You had nothing to do with that. The meeting at my house was how to work out the differences which you and John had no part of. It was Eric Allman, Jon Callas, Jim and I and Miles Libby. But before that meeting we already had the parameters of how it would be merged. For people who are interested in the actual history of DKIM I wrote this which I've socialized with both Mark and Jim: https://rip-van-webble.blogspot.com/2021/01/birthing-dkim.html Mike From dhc at dcrocker.net Mon Aug 28 20:19:46 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 20:19:46 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <20230829015942.536F810122A54@ary.qy> Message-ID: On 8/28/2023 7:45 PM, Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote: > You were not part of the "private cabal". I was the one who decided > that DNSSec wasn't worth fighting about. I was wrong as it turns out. > DNSSec deployment has been a disaster. DK got that completely wrong. I > hosted the meeting where the two drafts were merged at my house in San > Francisco. You weren't there. sigh. Mark Delany, at Yahoo, solicited continuing 'community' comments from me and Eric Allman, early in the development of DomainKeys. It became highly collaborative.? And this was long before there was any interaction with the IETF.? I'd guess a year. I've no idea how the timelines compared.? DomainKeys was quickly quite visible.? I didn't know of IIM until much later, as DK was getting ready to move to the IETF, as I recall. I do know that the cabal I'm referring to had a substantial number of companies involved, and an extended series of meetings, over roughly a year, and at a variety venues.? Yours might have been one of them.? For the most part, the cabal's dynamic was quite collaborative among the range of participants.? There was an exception, of course. I also have no idea what your reference to DNSSec and Domainkeys is about, since DK didn't involve DNSSec. As for minor vs. major influences, I'll note that: 4870 *Domain-Based Email Authentication Using Public Keys Advertised in the DNS (DomainKeys)* M. Delany [ May 2007 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoleted-By RFC4871 ) (Status: HISTORIC) (Stream: IETF, WG: NON WORKING GROUP) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC4870) 4871 *DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures* E. Allman, J. Callas, M. Delany, M. Libbey, J. Fenton, M. Thomas [ May 2007 ] (TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC4870 ) (Obsoleted-By RFC6376 ) (Updated-By RFC5672 ) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD) (Stream: IETF, Area: art, WG: dkim) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC4871) permits easy comparison between the original Yahoo work and DKIM.? Perhaps significantly, IIM was not published as an RFC. As part of the process to resolve some essential issues, during the DKIM effort, at one point I did a functional matrix to compare the two source specifications.? One was quite pragmatic, aesthetically ugly, and very badly written.? The other was very well written, prettier in design, but had adoption challenges, such as requiringd creation of a new global database. Developing the comparison analysis was educational. As for who was present for what, my recollection is that there were a number of us present at pretty much all of the activity, across the arc from Yahoo's effort to DKIM's initial and revised publications. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From dhc at dcrocker.net Mon Aug 28 20:35:32 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 20:35:32 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <4c8d670e-e885-e0a7-45c0-8a7cb313061a@gmail.com> References: <20230829015942.536F810122A54@ary.qy> <4c8d670e-e885-e0a7-45c0-8a7cb313061a@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 8/28/2023 8:08 PM, Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote: > No "we" didn't. Mark Delaney came over to Cisco from Yahoo and we > worked it out. So the extensive meetings, held over an extended period, including many people and companies, having discussions that any outside observer would call collaborative design was really a charade? Good to know. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From enervatron at gmail.com Mon Aug 28 20:38:38 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 20:38:38 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <20230829015942.536F810122A54@ary.qy> Message-ID: On 8/28/23 8:19 PM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > On 8/28/2023 7:45 PM, Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote: >> You were not part of the "private cabal". I was the one who decided >> that DNSSec wasn't worth fighting about. I was wrong as it turns out. >> DNSSec deployment has been a disaster. DK got that completely wrong. >> I hosted the meeting where the two drafts were merged at my house in >> San Francisco. You weren't there. > > sigh. > > Mark Delany, at Yahoo, solicited continuing 'community' comments from > me and Eric Allman, early in the development of DomainKeys. It became > highly collaborative.? And this was long before there was any > interaction with the IETF.? I'd guess a year. > > I've no idea how the timelines compared.? DomainKeys was quickly quite > visible.? I didn't know of IIM until much later, as DK was getting > ready to move to the IETF, as I recall. Yet we came first with an ID with no knowledge of DK until Harald clued us in. Your knowledge is irrelevant and hardly an arbiter of anything. > > I do know that the cabal I'm referring to had a substantial number of > companies involved, and an extended series of meetings, over roughly a > year, and at a variety venues.? Yours might have been one of them.? > For the most part, the cabal's dynamic was quite collaborative among > the range of participants.? There was an exception, of course. > > I also have no idea what your reference to DNSSec and Domainkeys is > about, since DK didn't involve DNSSec. IIM protected the integrity of fetching the key record using TLS. DNSSec was never deployed widely. So yes, by all means let's ignore that DK's security for fetching the selector never materialized where IIM got it right using TLS. Alice, Bob and Eve entered the chat. > > permits easy comparison between the original Yahoo work and DKIM. > Perhaps significantly, IIM was not published as an RFC. Maybe we didn't care about it? A historical RFC is about as relevant as my blog post. > > As part of the process to resolve some essential issues, during the > DKIM effort, at one point I did a functional matrix to compare the two > source specifications.? One was quite pragmatic, aesthetically ugly, > and very badly written.? The other was very well written, prettier in > design, but had adoption challenges, such as requiringd creation of a > new global database. Developing the comparison analysis was educational. They were essentially the same and I resent this ad hominem attack. And a database on the web is the norm, not DNS. It's what SRV records were designed for. And of course to this day, DKIM is not suitable for more high value PKI uses because of its expectation of DNSSec. IIM got that right. > > As for who was present for what, my recollection is that there were a > number of us present at pretty much all of the activity, across the > arc from Yahoo's effort to DKIM's initial and revised publications. > You and John had nothing to do with the merger, and your influence was minimal. I for one have never even met John. I wrote the first implementation of DKIM. What is your claim? Mike From enervatron at gmail.com Mon Aug 28 20:45:43 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 20:45:43 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <20230829015942.536F810122A54@ary.qy> <4c8d670e-e885-e0a7-45c0-8a7cb313061a@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1242a0bf-051e-aa7a-ff04-3fd8ff9d614e@gmail.com> On 8/28/23 8:35 PM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > On 8/28/2023 8:08 PM, Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote: >> No "we" didn't. Mark Delaney came over to Cisco from Yahoo and we >> worked it out. > > So the extensive meetings, held over an extended period, including > many people and companies, having discussions that any outside > observer would call collaborative design was really a charade? > They were window dressing. Jim, Mark and I had already agreed to the shape of what the output would be well before you ever inserted yourself into the discussion. It was good to have industry buy in to make sure we weren't doing something stupid. But nothing fundamentally changed after our meeting at Cisco. The main change that happened was the relaxed canonicalization that Paul Hoffman wanted. Big whoop. The only thing that happened in IETF was delay and credit grabbing. A perennial problem. Mike From dhc at dcrocker.net Mon Aug 28 21:18:55 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 21:18:55 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <20230829015942.536F810122A54@ary.qy> Message-ID: <87543265-b7d0-3311-6571-9b309d8a6ef9@dcrocker.net> On 8/28/2023 8:19 PM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > As part of the process to resolve some essential issues, during the > DKIM effort, at one point I did a functional matrix to compare the two > source specifications. So far, I'm not finding that comparison matrix, but I did come across an DomainKeys>DKIM delta list we posted on the DKIM site, no later than 2007: https://www.dkim.org/info/dkim-faq.html#related d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From enervatron at gmail.com Mon Aug 28 21:23:05 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 21:23:05 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <87543265-b7d0-3311-6571-9b309d8a6ef9@dcrocker.net> References: <20230829015942.536F810122A54@ary.qy> <87543265-b7d0-3311-6571-9b309d8a6ef9@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <7882ba75-073c-24dc-0e3c-8d65591f1523@gmail.com> On 8/28/23 9:18 PM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > On 8/28/2023 8:19 PM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >> As part of the process to resolve some essential issues, during the >> DKIM effort, at one point I did a functional matrix to compare the >> two source specifications. > > So far, I'm not finding that comparison matrix, but I did come across > an DomainKeys>DKIM delta list we posted on the DKIM site, no later > than 2007: > > ?? https://www.dkim.org/info/dkim-faq.html#related > ?? > > lol. all of this was resolved in 2005 at the latest. Mike, Where Wizards Stay Up Late From enervatron at gmail.com Mon Aug 28 21:29:32 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 21:29:32 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <87543265-b7d0-3311-6571-9b309d8a6ef9@dcrocker.net> References: <20230829015942.536F810122A54@ary.qy> <87543265-b7d0-3311-6571-9b309d8a6ef9@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <9030de95-4a18-0bda-989d-2c9833b449a0@gmail.com> On 8/28/23 9:18 PM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > On 8/28/2023 8:19 PM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >> As part of the process to resolve some essential issues, during the >> DKIM effort, at one point I did a functional matrix to compare the >> two source specifications. > > So far, I'm not finding that comparison matrix, but I did come across > an DomainKeys>DKIM delta list we posted on the DKIM site, no later > than 2007: > > ?? https://www.dkim.org/info/dkim-faq.html#related > ?? > > And of course you ignore that without DNSSec, there is an > impersonaltion attack against plain text selectors. lol. IIM didn't > have that problem yet you discount it... because... why? Mike, Where Wizards Stay Up Late From enervatron at gmail.com Mon Aug 28 21:47:41 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 21:47:41 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <87543265-b7d0-3311-6571-9b309d8a6ef9@dcrocker.net> References: <20230829015942.536F810122A54@ary.qy> <87543265-b7d0-3311-6571-9b309d8a6ef9@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <3550a5c8-095a-4223-283f-13345d7e16fb@gmail.com> On 8/28/23 9:18 PM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > On 8/28/2023 8:19 PM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >> As part of the process to resolve some essential issues, during the >> DKIM effort, at one point I did a functional matrix to compare the >> two source specifications. > > So far, I'm not finding that comparison matrix, but I did come across > an DomainKeys>DKIM delta list we posted on the DKIM site, no later > than 2007: > > ?? https://www.dkim.org/info/dkim-faq.html#related > ?? > > Lol. "we". You still don't understand what the failure of DNSSec means. You don't understand anything. We is "you". "we" failed. Your pathetic self-serving. yeah. Where Wizards Stayed Up Late. Mike From dhc at dcrocker.net Tue Aug 29 12:00:33 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 12:00:33 -0700 Subject: [ih] DKIM timeline Message-ID: Forensic archeology can be fun.? I started looking around for documentation on the early details of DKIM creation. Some milestones and references... 5/19/2004 Public announcement of DomainKeys ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys 5/2004: draft-delany-domainkeys-base-00.txt Yahoo's DomainKeys spec draft issued 8/2/2004: ietf-mailsig at imc.org starts discussion,? to formulate the MASS wg draft charter. Acknowledgements section cites a long list of folk ietf-mailsig list hosted at Internet Mail Consortium, now unavailable, but: * http://www.imc.org/ietf-mailsig/ * archive.org and a copy I stashed on Dropbox: ? http://web.archive.org/web/20071002205029/http://www.imc.org/ietf-mailsig/ ? https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/6ygzj6wpyywgqcldmsgir/ietf-mailsig-archve.mbox?rlkey=csg3m1zcvfnscc7b71dx1qg44&dl=0 The initial list discussion was for chartering an IETF working group: MASS (Message Authentication Signature Standards) Draft charter cites: * DomainKeys, draft-delany-domainkeys-base-00.txt * Identified Internet Mail, draft-fenton-identified-mail-00.txt * E-mail Postmarks, http://www.lessspam.org/EmailPostmarks.pdf * MTA Signatures, http://www.elan.net/~william/mta_signatures.htm * Entity-to-Entity S/MIME, draft-hallambaker-entity-00.txt 1/18/2005 Security Review of Two MASS Proposals draft-housley-mass-sec-review-00 5/31/2005 Exchange between Sam Harman and Dave Crocker included disclosure of ad hoc, outside effort (cabal). ?My note contained: "In the intervening time there has been an enormous amount of work and progress at integrating the two proposals. The best way to characterize that effort, in IETF terms, is a pre-chartering design team.? Happily that effort is nearing completion.? It's not quite ready for the next stage of effort, namely public review and modification, but it's darn close. (IMNSHO)." 6/2/2005 DKIM proposal announced 7/10/2005 DKIM spec announced 10/1/2005 DKIM working group chartering begun 1/5/2006 DKIM working group chartered 5/2007 RFC 4871: DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures published 9/2011 RFC 6376: DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures current revision published d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From dhc at dcrocker.net Tue Aug 29 12:13:55 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 12:13:55 -0700 Subject: [ih] DKIM timeline In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 8/29/2023 12:00 PM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > > Some milestones and references... well, it was in a nice table format when I sent it.? sigh. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From johnl at iecc.com Tue Aug 29 20:04:09 2023 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 29 Aug 2023 23:04:09 -0400 Subject: [ih] DKIM history, was IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20230830030409.C74E31013E0C1@ary.qy> It appears that Michael Thomas via Internet-history said: >> I also have no idea what your reference to DNSSec and Domainkeys is >> about, since DK didn't involve DNSSec. > >IIM protected the integrity of fetching the key record using TLS. DNSSec >was never deployed widely. So yes, by all means let's ignore that DK's >security for fetching the selector never materialized where IIM got it >right using TLS. Alice, Bob and Eve entered the chat. Depends on what your goals are. At least until Let's Encrypt came along, TLS certs were a lot harder to deploy than just publishing a key record in the DNS. People use DKIM to associate a domain with a message to develop reputations for mail filtering, not for stronger assertions or non-repudiation. For that purpose it's been a wild success, partly due to its relatively easy deployment. On the other hand, if you want high strength certificate signatures on your mail, S/MIME has always been there and is notable for its lack of use outside of some niche applications. I don't think I've ever seen the kind of attack that DNSSEC defends against in the wild, certainly not against DKIM records, so in practice it's secure enough. Perhaps by accident we made the right tradeoff. R's, John From enervatron at gmail.com Tue Aug 29 20:33:13 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 20:33:13 -0700 Subject: [ih] DKIM history, was IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <20230830030409.C74E31013E0C1@ary.qy> References: <20230830030409.C74E31013E0C1@ary.qy> Message-ID: <632f7f35-45b0-18ad-e7e1-8efb0163ae3c@gmail.com> On 8/29/23 8:04 PM, John Levine wrote: > It appears that Michael Thomas via Internet-history said: >>> I also have no idea what your reference to DNSSec and Domainkeys is >>> about, since DK didn't involve DNSSec. >> IIM protected the integrity of fetching the key record using TLS. DNSSec >> was never deployed widely. So yes, by all means let's ignore that DK's >> security for fetching the selector never materialized where IIM got it >> right using TLS. Alice, Bob and Eve entered the chat. > Depends on what your goals are. At least until Let's Encrypt came > along, TLS certs were a lot harder to deploy than just publishing a > key record in the DNS. People use DKIM to associate a domain with a > message to develop reputations for mail filtering, not for stronger > assertions or non-repudiation. For that purpose it's been a wild > success, partly due to its relatively easy deployment. > > On the other hand, if you want high strength certificate signatures on > your mail, S/MIME has always been there and is notable for its lack of > use outside of some niche applications. > > I don't think I've ever seen the kind of attack that DNSSEC defends > against in the wild, certainly not against DKIM records, so in > practice it's secure enough. Perhaps by accident we made the right > tradeoff. Email is relatively low value. I'd never trust some DANE implementation that wasn't protected by DNSSec for my bank, for example. But by 2004 getting a cert onto a web server was completely routine and the number of web sites using it was immense. It turns out that the overhead of http wasn't an issue in the long run as evidenced by DoH. Those of us who wrote code were worried about the overhead of per message RSA signatures were proven wrong with actual evidence. The same should have been done for http fetching of keys. It's sort of the point of the "running code" maxim that people far too often forget, especially by people who don't write code. So yes, it was a mistake. We could have a had a very secure solution with proven and widely deployed technology with a pattern that could be replicated in other solutions so that we did get complete messes like STIR/SHAKEN and its use of x.509 when simple naked public key use would have been completely sufficient. X.509 for TLS is legacy and we have no other choice. There are vanishingly few other things where it's needed and we shouldn't keep propagating it. We now know that we can't count on DNSSec deployment. It was an unfortunate tradeoff getting something out the door vs. security. That is the actual history. Mike From jklensin at gmail.com Tue Aug 29 20:42:33 2023 From: jklensin at gmail.com (John Klensin) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 23:42:33 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: Dave, Depending on how "originated" is defined and what hair-splitting one wants to do, I think that could probably be said of almost any protocol developed in the last 20 years or so, in any Area, and possibly even without the restriction to success. I can't imagine someone coming to the IESG today, saying "I see this problem and I think the IETF should form a WG and figure out a solution". I think they would be told to come back when they had some ideas, to take the problem to the IRTF and see what traction they got there, or maybe to see if they could organize a mailing list and get people to propose solutions and a WG charter. The result of any of those steps prior to serious IETF work starting in a WG would be work that did not originate in the IETF. Any protocol originating in an individual submission to the IETF would almost certainly have to be in a much more complete state before an AD would allow it to be put out for Last Call. I could see a refinement of an existing successful protocol coming much closer to "originating" in the IETF, but that is a bit of a different category too. Now, I think there might be a useful distinction between protocol work that is brought to the IETF that is thought to be complete and with the expectation that the IETF will approve it without making substantive changes and work that is more preliminary and where the IETF is expected (or at least encouraged) to do significant refinement and improvement. For better or worse, I think we have seen both. But neither of those cases involves work that originated in the IETF no matter how significant the changes might have been in the second case. So I think you are right but I don't believe it has much of anything to do with the things I'm concerned about. john On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 11:12?PM Dave Crocker wrote: > On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: > > Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to the > > IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and validation by > > the community > > I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an application > protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last 25 years, > that has seen widespread success. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social > > From enervatron at gmail.com Tue Aug 29 21:31:22 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 21:31:22 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <5f31e7ba-23e1-2374-67e0-5ee46ff0045e@gmail.com> On 8/29/23 8:42 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: > Dave, > Depending on how "originated" is defined and what hair-splitting one wants > to do, I think that could probably be said of almost any protocol developed > in the last 20 years or so, in any Area, and possibly even without the > restriction to success. I can't imagine someone coming to the IESG today, > saying "I see this problem and I think the IETF should form a WG and figure > out a solution". I think they would be told to come back when they had > some ideas, to take the problem to the IRTF and see what traction they got > there, or maybe to see if they could organize a mailing list and get people > to propose solutions and a WG charter. Anybody who knows anything about IETF process knows that there is a structural process against progress for people to insert themselves into the process for their own gain and aggrandizement (not calling you out, John, totally respect you). The best thing is to get all of your ducks in a row and expect that the standards potatoes who have their own agendas before you get to IETF. In the current case of DKIM on this list, there were several of those who have never written a line of code who know better than those of us who write code. They are who we have to deal with. They are the problem. They (and me) are why we don't want anything to do with IETF. You want to improve IETF? Devalue them. The creators vs. the clingers on. Mike From dhc at dcrocker.net Wed Aug 30 06:37:05 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 06:37:05 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <6153c91c-911a-7fd3-0c31-8a9a59d73089@dcrocker.net> On 8/29/2023 8:42 PM, John Klensin wrote: > Depending on how "originated" is defined and what hair-splitting one > wants to do, I meant a very simple distinction:? Coming to the IETF with an existing specification that already has a group constituency associated with it and supporting it -- and typically already has functional code -- versus starting an IETF discussion without a spec or with a variety of specs as proposals, and then producing a fresh specification. FTP, email, telnet, DNS were originated in an IETF-like mode. MIME was originated in the IETF.? HTTP/HTML were not. SPF, DKIM, DMARC, and ARC were not. These days, the IETF does refinement and community promotion, not spec origination. > I can't imagine someone coming to the IESG today, saying "I see this > problem and I think the IETF should form a WG and figure out a solution". And yet people regularly think they can do exactly that.? In spite of zero track record of success for that model in decades, certainly for applications, and I suspect more generally. > I could see a refinement of an existing successful protocol coming > much closer to "originating" in the IETF, but that is a bit of a > different category too. Starting over is not refinement.? That would be origination. Refinement is not origination. > Now, I think there might be a useful distinction between protocol work > that is brought to the IETF that is thought to be complete and with > the expectation that the IETF will approve it without making > substantive changes and work that is more preliminary and where the > IETF is expected (or at least encouraged) to do? significant > refinement and improvement. The very long-standing view on this is that the IETF does not rubber-stamp.? Meaningful technical work is required for getting IETF standards-track imprimatur. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From dhc at dcrocker.net Wed Aug 30 07:06:57 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 07:06:57 -0700 Subject: [ih] DKIM history, was IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <20230830030409.C74E31013E0C1@ary.qy> References: <20230830030409.C74E31013E0C1@ary.qy> Message-ID: <57f52931-5a06-576b-b539-b0749eaf7fa4@dcrocker.net> >> IIM protected the integrity of fetching the key record using TLS. ... > Depends on what your goals are. At least until Let's Encrypt came > along, TLS certs were a lot harder to deploy than just publishing a > key record in the DNS. People use DKIM to associate a domain with a > message to develop reputations for mail filtering, not for stronger > assertions or non-repudiation. For that purpose it's been a wild > success, partly due to its relatively easy deployment. > > On the other hand, if you want high strength certificate signatures on > your mail, S/MIME has always been there and is notable for its lack of > use outside of some niche applications. > > I don't think I've ever seen the kind of attack that DNSSEC defends > against in the wild, certainly not against DKIM records, so in > practice it's secure enough. Perhaps by accident we made the right > tradeoff. DKIM's job is to provide a reliable identifier for distinguishing an email transit stream.? A very modest goal that is nothing like providing long-term content authentication. Design is tradeoffs.? Cost vs. benefit.? It is common to focus too much on the presumed benefit, without much attention to cost. So, for example, very careful clarity about the purpose of a spec is essential, as is very careful consideration of the costs -- implementation, operation, use -- for alternative design choices. By way of example, layering some usage conventions on top of an existing global query service is /far/ less expensive and /far/ less risky than requiring development and deployment of a brand new global query service.? Possibly uglier.? But much cheaper and much lower barriers to adoption. Besides the DNS, there is no other global Internet query service that has integrated functional semantics.? The web might be mistakenly thought to be one, but it isn't.? It is a global mechanism for accessing a very large number of entirely independent query services.? Quite different from the nature and benefit of an integrated service like the DNS. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From johnl at iecc.com Wed Aug 30 07:09:05 2023 From: johnl at iecc.com (John R. Levine) Date: 30 Aug 2023 10:09:05 -0400 Subject: [ih] DNS turtles, DKIM history, was IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) Message-ID: <2688f105-2107-d7a5-90bc-28c4e5b37fa0@iecc.com> On Tue, 29 Aug 2023, Michael Thomas wrote: >> I don't think I've ever seen the kind of attack that DNSSEC defends >> against in the wild, certainly not against DKIM records, so in >> practice it's secure enough. Perhaps by accident we made the right >> tradeoff. ... > So yes, it was a mistake. We could have a had a very secure solution with > proven and widely deployed technology with a pattern that could be replicated > in other solutions so that we did get complete messes like STIR/SHAKEN and > its use of x.509 when simple naked public key use would have been completely > sufficient. ... I don't disagree that the performance would be OK, but the certs seem like security theatre. Before LE, the usual way to get a cert signed was that you paid someone $5 and they emailed a link to hostmaster@ that you clicked. With LE, either it's a token in a DNS record or on the web site's home page. If you're worried that hostile parties could fake the DKIM key record, they could as well fake the MX for the mail or TXT or A for the LE token. These days it's DNS turtles all the way down. It's certainly possible to have more secure models for cert signing but when's the last time you saw a green bar cert? R's, John From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Wed Aug 30 09:47:35 2023 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 12:47:35 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF - they become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC process, under the IETF aegis.? Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite (did the IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first printed?). Miles Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: >> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: >>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to the >>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and >>>> validation by >>>> the community >>> >>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an application >>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last 25 years, >>> that has seen widespread success. >>> >>> d/ >>> >> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. > > But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated about > 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office at CERN, > more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was wrong a few > days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). The WWW BOF > at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first deployed, to my > personal knowledge. > >> Is it not the >> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of things? > > In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded both rough > consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and still the > best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with the spec. > Third best is OSI. > > ??? Brian > -- 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 steve at shinkuro.com Wed Aug 30 09:57:14 2023 From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 12:57:14 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: Well... The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, FTP, et al -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG). The NWG evolved over the years into the IETF. The formal creation of the IETF was roughly mid-1980s. The process of formally declaring a protocol a proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. Depending on how precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case either way. From my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did indeed originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. Steve On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF - they > become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC process, under > the IETF aegis. Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite (did the > IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first printed?). > > Miles > > Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > > On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: > >> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > >>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: > >>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to the > >>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and > >>>> validation by > >>>> the community > >>> > >>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an application > >>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last 25 years, > >>> that has seen widespread success. > >>> > >>> d/ > >>> > >> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. > > > > But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated about > > 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office at CERN, > > more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was wrong a few > > days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). The WWW BOF > > at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first deployed, to my > > personal knowledge. > > > >> Is it not the > >> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of things? > > > > In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded both rough > > consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and still the > > best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with the spec. > > Third best is OSI. > > > > Brian > > > > > -- > 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 > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From vgcerf at gmail.com Wed Aug 30 10:10:39 2023 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 10:10:39 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: +1 v On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Well... > > The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, FTP, et al > -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG). The NWG evolved over > the years into the IETF. The formal creation of the IETF was roughly > mid-1980s. The process of formally declaring a protocol a > proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. Depending on how > precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the > formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case either way. From > my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did indeed > originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. > > Steve > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF - they > > become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC process, under > > the IETF aegis. Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite (did the > > IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first printed?). > > > > Miles > > > > Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > > > On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: > > >> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > > >>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: > > >>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to the > > >>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and > > >>>> validation by > > >>>> the community > > >>> > > >>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an application > > >>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last 25 > years, > > >>> that has seen widespread success. > > >>> > > >>> d/ > > >>> > > >> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. > > > > > > But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated about > > > 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office at CERN, > > > more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was wrong a > few > > > days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). The WWW > BOF > > > at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first deployed, to my > > > personal knowledge. > > > > > >> Is it not the > > >> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of things? > > > > > > In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded both rough > > > consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and still the > > > best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with the spec. > > > Third best is OSI. > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > -- > > 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 dave.taht at gmail.com Wed Aug 30 10:14:07 2023 From: dave.taht at gmail.com (Dave Taht) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 10:14:07 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <6153c91c-911a-7fd3-0c31-8a9a59d73089@dcrocker.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <6153c91c-911a-7fd3-0c31-8a9a59d73089@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: I tried in the early days of the bufferbloat effort to bring some focus in the ietf towards "Running code", over consensus. To this day, most there seem to think that complex standards, invented out of theory, can actually be made to work. The IETF is at its best, when proven algorithms and running code are brought to it. I shudder to think about all the handwaves that enter into the standardization process without running code to complement it. Quic benefited from 3 years of exhaustive testing in the field before it was brought to the ietf. eBPF, now entering the standards process there, after 6 years+ in the field, evolving, may well benefit. fq_codel - which took a weekend to write in 2012, took 6 years to standardize as RFC8290. Exhaustive specifications and wishful thinking that end up impossible to implement well (not just ipv6, but 3gpp and many other standards issued in the last two decades) saddle us all with a lot of wasted work if only the spec and implementation processes proceded more concurrently, or - code first, spec later. The coders, long ago, fled the room, screaming. I mostly check in and participate nowadays to see what the latest insanity is. I also really wish the ietf acted to revise or retract old standards that did not work out. One going around recently is the only partially implemented :0 ipv6 anycast feature which gives :0 networks a capability that is dubious at best, and leads to added configuration complexity: https://www.daryllswer.com/behavioural-differences-of-ipv6-subnet-router-anycast-address-implementations/ From darius.kazemi at gmail.com Wed Aug 30 10:17:09 2023 From: darius.kazemi at gmail.com (Darius Kazemi) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 10:17:09 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: Comparing the NWG (at least in the early days of NCP) and IETF seems to me like comparing a radical experiment in collaboration, experimentation, and flexibility to... a standards body. Very much apples to oranges? I was not even born when the NWG was doing its thing so please correct me if I'm out of line here but every bit of research I've done and every piece of correspondence I've read seems to indicate that even though there is lineage from one to other it seems like a category error to claim that the same kind of human social organization was occurring in both orgs. On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 10:11 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > +1 > v > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > Well... > > > > The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, FTP, et > al > > -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG). The NWG evolved > over > > the years into the IETF. The formal creation of the IETF was roughly > > mid-1980s. The process of formally declaring a protocol a > > proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. Depending on how > > precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the > > formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case either way. > From > > my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did indeed > > originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. > > > > Steve > > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history < > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > > Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF - they > > > become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC process, under > > > the IETF aegis. Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite (did the > > > IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first printed?). > > > > > > Miles > > > > > > Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > > > > On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: > > > >> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > > > >>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: > > > >>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to the > > > >>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and > > > >>>> validation by > > > >>>> the community > > > >>> > > > >>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an application > > > >>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last 25 > > years, > > > >>> that has seen widespread success. > > > >>> > > > >>> d/ > > > >>> > > > >> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. > > > > > > > > But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated about > > > > 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office at > CERN, > > > > more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was wrong a > > few > > > > days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). The WWW > > BOF > > > > at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first deployed, to my > > > > personal knowledge. > > > > > > > >> Is it not the > > > >> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of > things? > > > > > > > > In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded both > rough > > > > consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and still the > > > > best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with the spec. > > > > Third best is OSI. > > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > > > 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 mfidelman at meetinghouse.net Wed Aug 30 10:28:55 2023 From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 13:28:55 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: Well Vint might have a definitive voice on this. So... Vint, Would you consider TCP/IP to have been initiated by the NWG? What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that eventually became SMTP)?? As I recall, that was initially announced via a postal mail packet. Cheers, Miles vinton cerf wrote: > +1 > v > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history > > wrote: > > Well... > > The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, > FTP, et al > -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG).? The NWG > evolved over > the years into the IETF.? The formal creation of the IETF was roughly > mid-1980s.? The process of formally declaring a protocol a > proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. Depending > on how > precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the > formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case either > way.? From > my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did indeed > originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. > > Steve > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > wrote: > > > Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF - > they > > become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC > process, under > > the IETF aegis.? Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite > (did the > > IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first printed?). > > > > Miles > > > > Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > > > On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: > > >> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > > >>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: > > >>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to the > > >>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and > > >>>> validation by > > >>>> the community > > >>> > > >>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an application > > >>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last > 25 years, > > >>> that has seen widespread success. > > >>> > > >>> d/ > > >>> > > >> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. > > > > > > But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated > about > > > 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office > at CERN, > > > more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was > wrong a few > > > days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). > The WWW BOF > > > at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first > deployed, to my > > > personal knowledge. > > > > > >> Is it not the > > >> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of > things? > > > > > > In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded > both rough > > > consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and > still the > > > best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with > the spec. > > > Third best is OSI. > > > > > >? ? ?Brian > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > -- > > 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 > -- 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 ajs at crankycanuck.ca Wed Aug 30 10:34:36 2023 From: ajs at crankycanuck.ca (Andrew Sullivan) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 13:34:36 -0400 Subject: [ih] Who starts with standards? (was Re: IETF relevance) In-Reply-To: <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> References: <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: [ObDislcaimer: speaking only for myself and not the host of this list.] On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:47:35PM -0400, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: >Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF Without wishing to be cheeky, why would anyone start with a standard and try to work outwards from there? If you don't at least have a prototype or a scratch proposal, you will spend the first 8 years arguing about the size of the problem and the next 8 regretting that you didn't ship any products. I think this is true even when something goes through an entirely radical shift when being standardized. The most obvious example of this recently was SPDY, which begat QUIC in the IETF. There were probably things that shifted in QUIC that didn't need to, because some IETFer wanted to show just how high on the fence-post he (I use the pronoun advisedly) could hit; but on the whole, we got a broadly-useful protocol that has the potential to make positive contributions to the network. But its ancestor had already been deployed at some scale when it came to the IETF. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs at crankycanuck.ca From vgcerf at gmail.com Wed Aug 30 10:35:57 2023 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 10:35:57 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: I don't agree with that analysis, Darius. The NWG spawned the International Network Working Group (INWG). IETF emerged from the ICCB->IAB (various forms)-> IETF/IRTF. IETF is still as collaborative as the original NWG as I see it - more formality for sure but still essentially a collaborative enterprise. v On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:17?AM Darius Kazemi wrote: > Comparing the NWG (at least in the early days of NCP) and IETF seems to me > like comparing a radical experiment in collaboration, experimentation, and > flexibility to... a standards body. Very much apples to oranges? > > I was not even born when the NWG was doing its thing so please correct me > if I'm out of line here but every bit of research I've done and every piece > of correspondence I've read seems to indicate that even though there is > lineage from one to other it seems like a category error to claim that the > same kind of human social organization was occurring in both orgs. > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 10:11 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> +1 >> v >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >> > Well... >> > >> > The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, FTP, et >> al >> > -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG). The NWG evolved >> over >> > the years into the IETF. The formal creation of the IETF was roughly >> > mid-1980s. The process of formally declaring a protocol a >> > proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. Depending on how >> > precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the >> > formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case either way. >> From >> > my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did indeed >> > originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. >> > >> > Steve >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history < >> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> > >> > > Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF - they >> > > become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC process, >> under >> > > the IETF aegis. Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite (did >> the >> > > IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first printed?). >> > > >> > > Miles >> > > >> > > Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >> > > > On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: >> > > >> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >> > > >>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: >> > > >>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to the >> > > >>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and >> > > >>>> validation by >> > > >>>> the community >> > > >>> >> > > >>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an application >> > > >>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last 25 >> > years, >> > > >>> that has seen widespread success. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> d/ >> > > >>> >> > > >> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. >> > > > >> > > > But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated about >> > > > 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office at >> CERN, >> > > > more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was wrong a >> > few >> > > > days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). The WWW >> > BOF >> > > > at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first deployed, to >> my >> > > > personal knowledge. >> > > > >> > > >> Is it not the >> > > >> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of >> things? >> > > > >> > > > In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded both >> rough >> > > > consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and still >> the >> > > > best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with the >> spec. >> > > > Third best is OSI. >> > > > >> > > > Brian >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > 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 >> > > >> > > -- >> > > 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 vgcerf at gmail.com Wed Aug 30 10:39:41 2023 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 10:39:41 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: TCP/IP came out of work that Bob Kahn and I did along with my graduate students at Stanford. But the INWG (slightly more formal extension of NWG when it became IFIP WG 6.1) contributed in a highly collaborative fashion. So did UCL and BBN in early implementation phases of TCP and TCP/IP. I tend to associate NWG with Arpanet Host-Host Protocols (and application protocols) and IAB (later IETF) with TCP/IP and associated applications v On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:29?AM Miles Fidelman wrote: > Well Vint might have a definitive voice on this. > > So... Vint, > > Would you consider TCP/IP to have been initiated by the NWG? > > What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that eventually > became SMTP)? As I recall, that was initially announced via a postal mail > packet. > > Cheers, > > Miles > > vinton cerf wrote: > > +1 > v > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> Well... >> >> The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, FTP, et al >> -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG). The NWG evolved >> over >> the years into the IETF. The formal creation of the IETF was roughly >> mid-1980s. The process of formally declaring a protocol a >> proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. Depending on how >> precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the >> formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case either way. >> From >> my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did indeed >> originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. >> >> Steve >> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >> > Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF - they >> > become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC process, under >> > the IETF aegis. Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite (did the >> > IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first printed?). >> > >> > Miles >> > >> > Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >> > > On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: >> > >> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >> > >>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: >> > >>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to the >> > >>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and >> > >>>> validation by >> > >>>> the community >> > >>> >> > >>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an application >> > >>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last 25 >> years, >> > >>> that has seen widespread success. >> > >>> >> > >>> d/ >> > >>> >> > >> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. >> > > >> > > But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated about >> > > 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office at CERN, >> > > more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was wrong a >> few >> > > days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). The WWW >> BOF >> > > at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first deployed, to my >> > > personal knowledge. >> > > >> > >> Is it not the >> > >> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of things? >> > > >> > > In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded both rough >> > > consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and still the >> > > best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with the spec. >> > > Third best is OSI. >> > > >> > > Brian >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 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 >> > >> > -- >> > 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 >> > > > -- > 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 craig at tereschau.net Wed Aug 30 11:10:28 2023 From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 12:10:28 -0600 Subject: [ih] Who starts with standards? (was Re: IETF relevance) In-Reply-To: References: <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 11:35?AM Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > [ObDislcaimer: speaking only for myself and not the host of this list.] > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:47:35PM -0400, Miles Fidelman via > Internet-history wrote: > >Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF > > Without wishing to be cheeky, why would anyone start with a standard and > try to work outwards from there? If you don't at least have a prototype or > a scratch proposal, you will spend the first 8 years arguing about the size > of the problem and the next 8 regretting that you didn't ship any products. > Speaking from the perspective of IETF c. 1986, what happened then (for SNMP, for MIME, for CIDR, for TCP large windows, etc.) was: - A gap in the protocol suite was identified. E.g., we did not have a standard network management protocol -- and those protocols that did exist clearly did come close to scaling/meeting project Internet needs. For CIDR, we were using the address space inefficiently and would run out in a few years (aaggh!). For TCP LW, TCP performance was capped at a data rate that no longer made sense. - Time was short -- we had anywhere from 6 months to 2.5 years to solve the issue or some community was going to be chasing its tail all day, every day, patching the problem using people rather than protocols. - So we picked the best group of folks who could (based on expertise, availability, and, in some cases, how hard we could twist their arm), and sent them off with directions to come back with a standard ASAP or else. Now sometimes this provoked dissension and splinter groups with competing standards (see IP over ATM standards, or network management), but IETF quickly developed processes to deal with such situations. In those days, standards decisions were critical technology enablers -- aka the Internet in some cases might fail if we didn't have a standard in time and a prototype didn't exist. From that perspective, what I continue to find amazing is how many of the things we did in that era -- without time to prototype fully -- turned out right. Craig -- ***** Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. From dhc at dcrocker.net Wed Aug 30 11:32:07 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 11:32:07 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <9751f7fc-1885-4a57-35c0-89fae848a663@dcrocker.net> On 8/30/2023 9:47 AM, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: > Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF - they > become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC process, > under the IETF aegis.? Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite > (did the IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first > printed?). While the Arpanet and initial Internet did not have an IETF administrative and authority structure, it did have an authority structure and it had a collaboration model very similar to the formal IETF one.? Hence my phrasing for the initial set of applications. Referencing some later efforts, IPv6 originated in the IETF.? I believe the current BGP originated in the pre-IETF IETF-like environment.? SNMP arguably did not, as I recall. I believe SIP did. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From dhc at dcrocker.net Wed Aug 30 11:42:11 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 11:42:11 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <33464707-b6ae-86a0-e880-95e507f71ef9@dcrocker.net> On 8/30/2023 10:17 AM, Darius Kazemi via Internet-history wrote: > Comparing the NWG (at least in the early days of NCP) and IETF seems to me > like comparing a radical experiment in collaboration, experimentation, and > flexibility to... a standards body. Very much apples to oranges? I disagree. The real process today is bottom-up development of community interest in a topic.? Same as much of the original Arpanet work. (No, no all.? But much.)? Given enough interest, work proceeds. When and whether the formal IETF process come into play varies enormously.? And it should. The formal anointing of a working group is quite different in the IETF that it was in the Arpanet,? And yet... RFC733 came out of Arpa tasking a few of us with stabilizing email content formats.? The 'official' group of 4 of us had extensive and ongoing interactions with the community, eventually converging on what was published.? We asked Arpa to let the title include the word 'standard' as a way of signaling that this had 'official' support.? (There was some public outcry at our officiousness.? Still, it worked.) The process of producing RFC822, which adapted RFC733 to the Internet, was similar, albeit with only one editor. MIME and ESMTP came out of Vint's tasking one of his folk to get email to support International character sets. These work was done fully in the relatively new IETF. My point is that the spirit of the process for then and now is, for the most part and of course IMO, really quite similar.? And this shouldn't be surprising.? The culture of specification development that the Arpanet had was spectacularly successful and explicitly maintained into the formal IETF. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From dhc at dcrocker.net Wed Aug 30 11:45:19 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 11:45:19 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <36bee157-15b6-0430-337c-c05941d65123@dcrocker.net> On 8/30/2023 10:28 AM, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: > What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that > eventually became SMTP)?? As I recall, that was initially announced > via a postal mail packet. SMTP was rather more than a midnight hack.? E.g., note Jon's involvement in an earlier effort: datatracker.ietf.org RFC 786: Mail Transfer Protocol: ISI TOPS20 MTP-NIMAIL interface <#> Mail Transfer Protocol: ISI TOPS20 MTP-NIMAIL interface (RFC 786, July 1981) ? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc786 ?And it, too, had extended community discussion.? For example, I remember challenging Jon on the way addresses were used, since processing through an MTA did not strip the right-most part of the domain name.? (I did not yet understand global namespace vs. source route...) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From jeanjour at comcast.net Wed Aug 30 11:53:46 2023 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 14:53:46 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <6153c91c-911a-7fd3-0c31-8a9a59d73089@dcrocker.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <6153c91c-911a-7fd3-0c31-8a9a59d73089@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <1CB203A9-50F0-4A22-967E-00BE4AD9EB00@comcast.net> SNIP On Dave Crocker's comment: > > >> I can't imagine someone coming to the IESG today, saying "I see this problem and I think the IETF should form a WG and figure out a solution". > > And yet people regularly think they can do exactly that. In spite of zero track record of success for that model in decades, certainly for applications, and I suspect more generally. > This is because the uninitiate think that these groups are top-down like most organizations, rather than bottom up as they actually are. When that has happened to me, I have recommended that they go listen to Utah Phillip?s shaggy dog story: Moose Turd Pie, Then I tell them they get to cook. ;-) John From dhc at dcrocker.net Wed Aug 30 11:56:31 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 11:56:31 -0700 Subject: [ih] Who starts with standards? (was Re: IETF relevance) In-Reply-To: References: <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <2f0005a4-9bd7-c259-6a74-76a6e7f6483b@dcrocker.net> On 8/30/2023 10:34 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote: > why would anyone start with a standard and try to work outwards from > there?? If you don't at least have a prototype or a scratch proposal, > you will spend the first 8 years arguing about the size of the problem > and the next 8 regretting that you didn't ship any products. While I agree that the current IETF is not the place to start from scratch, it often worked well in that mode. I think that considering why -- in particular what the benefits of starting there were -- can be instructive. 1. Diverse community, sharing the need 2. Experienced, motivated engineers and operators, able to make the spec practical and useful, and motivated to do so. 3. Established structures and processes for managing such efforts. 4. ... I'll stop at 3. The problem now is that 2 often does not reach critical mass and 3 is often much too hands-off. On that latter point, we had a similar problem in the early 90s when the Internet scaled to mass-market.? Big influx of folk with no experience in these activities.? The IETF stressed inclusive participation, so chairs tended to let everyone drone on forever. I started the original Sunday Working Group Chairs Training specifically to try to deal with this.? Officially it was touted as an introduction to structure and process. But actually my goal was to get chairs to understand that they had two tasks, not just one.? Yes, everyone had to be heard, but the group also had to make forward progress.? And the skills for achieving that were, in my view, the real benefit of the training.? I indulge myself by thinking that I saw some improvement after that. But the part that can't be managed yet is essential and often missing these days is #2. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From jeanjour at comcast.net Wed Aug 30 11:56:10 2023 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 14:56:10 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <3CAEC8F9-53E6-49D6-B217-AFEBF946480C@comcast.net> The NWG was indeed special, where else do you get lines like, ?Look guys, our money is only bloody on one side!? attributed to John Melvin or ?Sometimes when changing oranges into apples, you get lemons.? - Mike Padlipsky. > On Aug 30, 2023, at 13:35, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: > > I don't agree with that analysis, Darius. The NWG spawned the International > Network Working Group (INWG). IETF emerged from the ICCB->IAB (various > forms)-> IETF/IRTF. > IETF is still as collaborative as the original NWG as I see it - more > formality for sure but still essentially a collaborative enterprise. > > v > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:17?AM Darius Kazemi > wrote: > >> Comparing the NWG (at least in the early days of NCP) and IETF seems to me >> like comparing a radical experiment in collaboration, experimentation, and >> flexibility to... a standards body. Very much apples to oranges? >> >> I was not even born when the NWG was doing its thing so please correct me >> if I'm out of line here but every bit of research I've done and every piece >> of correspondence I've read seems to indicate that even though there is >> lineage from one to other it seems like a category error to claim that the >> same kind of human social organization was occurring in both orgs. >> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 10:11 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> v >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history < >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Well... >>>> >>>> The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, FTP, et >>> al >>>> -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG). The NWG evolved >>> over >>>> the years into the IETF. The formal creation of the IETF was roughly >>>> mid-1980s. The process of formally declaring a protocol a >>>> proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. Depending on how >>>> precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the >>>> formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case either way. >>> From >>>> my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did indeed >>>> originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history < >>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF - they >>>>> become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC process, >>> under >>>>> the IETF aegis. Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite (did >>> the >>>>> IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first printed?). >>>>> >>>>> Miles >>>>> >>>>> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to the >>>>>>>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and >>>>>>>>> validation by >>>>>>>>> the community >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an application >>>>>>>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last 25 >>>> years, >>>>>>>> that has seen widespread success. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> d/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. >>>>>> >>>>>> But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated about >>>>>> 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office at >>> CERN, >>>>>> more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was wrong a >>>> few >>>>>> days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). The WWW >>>> BOF >>>>>> at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first deployed, to >>> my >>>>>> personal knowledge. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Is it not the >>>>>>> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of >>> things? >>>>>> >>>>>> In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded both >>> rough >>>>>> consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and still >>> the >>>>>> best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with the >>> spec. >>>>>> Third best is OSI. >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 From jack at 3kitty.org Wed Aug 30 12:40:59 2023 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 12:40:59 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <9751f7fc-1885-4a57-35c0-89fae848a663@dcrocker.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <9751f7fc-1885-4a57-35c0-89fae848a663@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <0aaf897c-5c9a-e766-032d-3e3f9da2baf2@3kitty.org> Interesting discussion.? My initial comment, way back in these threads, was expressing surprise that the IETF was a "standards body" now, and I was curious about the history of how that happened.?? I surmised that the IETF had become the ISO, but that was just my gut reaction.?? I remembered the ISO of the early 80s, where we often joked that the ISO produced stacks of paper while the Network Project produced piles of code, mostly undocumented but working. If I define a few terms...? IETF is the IETF as we now it now.?? NP is the "Network Project", which started out as the Arpanet with NWG and evolved into the IETF over time. In the early 80s, it seems that a transition started from the NP to the IETF.? NP was a research-oriented environment, where prototypes were created to test out ideas and sometimes scientific theories. It necessarily involved tight collaboration among the thinkers and the doers - rough consensus and running code.? The code was freely available and shared, largely thanks to the FTP capabilities of the Arpanet. Today, if I understand the comments in these threads, the IETF produces standards - documents.?? The documents may come from a variety of sources, some internal to the IETF but most external. Some "running code" may have been produced, but it's not always publicly available (at least I don't know where to find it...). So, for history's sake, ... how did the NP evolve into today's IETF, and what happened to the NP activities that didn't survive the transition? -------------- Now I'm just a lowly User, but imagine you're the CEO of a large corporation, or perhaps of a government, and you want to build a modern facility for your employees, or customers, or residents, or visitors, to interact using all the devices they all carry around. Perhaps electronic mail, websites providing useful information and services, maybe even a video conferencing capability? You can issue RFPs, but how do you know what acronyms are important to require??? TCPIPV6, DKIM, HTTP, QUIC, SMTP, MIME, ...?? There are hundreds or perhaps thousands to choose from.? Which ones will be needed for a reliable, secure, infrastructure quality service? When you get proposals, how do you verify that the vendor has correctly implemented the required alphabet soup? Now imagine you're just a developer, who's supposed to write code to implement some alphabet soup.? You can probably find the specifications somewhere in the IETF website, and you can write the code using that.?? How do you test your code to see that it actually works with others you'll encounter when it is on the 'net??? Is there some independent "certification" authority that will test your code and confirm that it has been properly implemented? All of these mechanisms existed in the days of the NP, especially around the time that TCP/IPV4 was declared a DoD Standard.?? (I never thought of the US Department of Defense as a "standards body" until just now!? But it was.) It's still not clear, to me, where we are today, and the larger picture that shows the IETF's role and relationships with things like W3C and others.?? But wherever we are today, how did we get from there (NP days) to here? Jack From steffen at sdaoden.eu Wed Aug 30 14:36:07 2023 From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 23:36:07 +0200 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <1CB203A9-50F0-4A22-967E-00BE4AD9EB00@comcast.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <6153c91c-911a-7fd3-0c31-8a9a59d73089@dcrocker.net> <1CB203A9-50F0-4A22-967E-00BE4AD9EB00@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20230830213607.pwLix%steffen@sdaoden.eu> John Day via Internet-history wrote in <1CB203A9-50F0-4A22-967E-00BE4AD9EB00 at comcast.net>: ... |On Dave Crocker's comment: |>> I can't imagine someone coming to the IESG today, saying "I see \ |>> this problem and I think the IETF should form a WG and figure out \ |>> a solution". |> |> And yet people regularly think they can do exactly that. In spite \ |> of zero track record of success for that model in decades, certainly \ |> for applications, and I suspect more generally. | |This is because the uninitiate think that these groups are top-down \ |like most organizations, rather than bottom up as they actually are. I do not know whether this is true for IETF from my shallow view. I think it also heavily depends on the working group. I think it can happen you do not even get proper responses. But one can only admire how Geoff Clare and Andrew Josey of the OpenGroup deal with people coming by in that way (for POSIX)! For example, thanks to them, the well-known C socket interface, that also entered IETF RFC(s; 2553), will continue to work (from a standard's point of view) regardless of possible problems that new(er) ISO C standards impose on alignment. (Aka "undefined behaviour".) So whereas here everything is tried to give people a hand, the IETF has protocols which leave you standing in the rain without any tools at hand you can use to get out of the situation. Take DKIM and mailing-lists. ... Steffen via X --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) From enervatron at gmail.com Wed Aug 30 15:03:05 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 15:03:05 -0700 Subject: [ih] DNS turtles, DKIM history, was IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <2688f105-2107-d7a5-90bc-28c4e5b37fa0@iecc.com> References: <2688f105-2107-d7a5-90bc-28c4e5b37fa0@iecc.com> Message-ID: <7b47e77c-e141-4319-b21d-1505d8f38aaa@gmail.com> On 8/30/23 7:09 AM, John R. Levine via Internet-history wrote: > On Tue, 29 Aug 2023, Michael Thomas wrote: >>> I don't think I've ever seen the kind of attack that DNSSEC defends >>> against in the wild, certainly not against DKIM records, so in >>> practice it's secure enough. Perhaps by accident we made the right >>> tradeoff. ... > >> So yes, it was a mistake. We could have a had a very secure solution >> with proven and widely deployed technology with a pattern that could >> be replicated in other solutions so that we did get complete messes >> like STIR/SHAKEN and its use of x.509 when simple naked public key >> use would have been completely sufficient. ... > > I don't disagree that the performance would be OK, but the certs seem > like security theatre.? Before LE, the usual way to get a cert signed > was that you paid someone $5 and they emailed a link to > hostmaster@ that you clicked.? With LE, either it's a token in > a DNS record or on the web site's home page.? If you're worried that > hostile parties could fake the DKIM key record, they could as well > fake the MX for the mail or TXT or A for the LE token.? These days > it's DNS turtles all the way down. > > It's certainly possible to have more secure models for cert signing > but when's the last time you saw a green bar cert? > We used naked public keys in IIM. There was no need for a key/name binding at all. With DK it was more or less fluff to bind a name to the public key with the selector, but it didn't hurt anything. By certs, I meant certs for the web server serving up the verification of the public key's provenance. That's just normal web stuff. For my part, I think that we should make new work prove to the security area that they actually need to use certs at all. They are archaic for conditions that just don't apply these days since everything is online now which wasn't the case when they were first developed 40 years ago. It's really unfortunate that the magical thinking about them still persists to this day. I wrote a post a while back about this: https://rip-van-webble.blogspot.com/2021/03/certificates-confuse-everything.html Mike From steffen at sdaoden.eu Wed Aug 30 15:10:38 2023 From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 00:10:38 +0200 Subject: [ih] DKIM history, was IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <632f7f35-45b0-18ad-e7e1-8efb0163ae3c@gmail.com> References: <20230830030409.C74E31013E0C1@ary.qy> <632f7f35-45b0-18ad-e7e1-8efb0163ae3c@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20230830221038.wylxa%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote in <632f7f35-45b0-18ad-e7e1-8efb0163ae3c at gmail.com>: |On 8/29/23 8:04 PM, John Levine wrote: |> It appears that Michael Thomas via Internet-history m> said: |>>> I also have no idea what your reference to DNSSec and Domainkeys is |>>> about, since DK didn't involve DNSSec. |>> IIM protected the integrity of fetching the key record using TLS. DNSSec |>> was never deployed widely. So yes, by all means let's ignore that DK's ... |Email is relatively low value. I'd never trust some DANE implementation The great thing about email is, in my opinion, that it can also have super high value at the same time. If you sign with S/MIME or OpenPGP, or even encrypt. DKIM could also be stronger as it is now, by itself. Unfortunately i never believed something like Let's Encrypt will work out for S/MIME, even though the IETF has produced a standard which could. (Having said that i would push all that onto DNS myself, so that CA pools in the end contain DNSSEC certificates of top level domains, and root servers (the diversity of which should be increased).) ... |that wasn't protected by DNSSec for my bank, for example. But by 2004 |getting a cert onto a web server was completely routine and the number |of web sites using it was immense. It turns out that the overhead of ... However, that was 20 years ago. Even the resolver of the small musl C library now (since last year, with bug fix later) supports TCP queries; EDNS mysteriously never seem to have made it into some automatic mode in that C stub resolvers use it if they can. That could have been pushed forward more massively by everyone. But even in 2009 RFC 5625 writes Research has found ([SAC035], [DOTSE]) that many commonly used broadband gateways (and similar devices) contain DNS proxies that are incompatible in various ways with current DNS standards. ... and gives advice. Also 14 years. In respect to this i think a re-evaluation might find that an elder protocol can be improved simply by taking into account the growing number of domains which use those features. For example "dig X rrsig" for FreeBSD.org and NetBSD.org gives good results, yet funnily ietf.org does not. (Unless i am mistaken.) ... |So yes, it was a mistake. We could have a had a very secure solution |with proven and widely deployed technology with a pattern that could be Having said that, i always _truly_ hated DNSSEC, especially TSIG. But shipping certificates via DNS i would have admired. SMIMEA, OPENPGPKEY. And a way to testify it, like we now see more and more, that people send PGP signed email like | TEXT | PGP KEY PGP SIGNATURE Ie where the signature covers its own key. That is brilliant! That easy it can be! Sometimes, you have to clean up. --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) From enervatron at gmail.com Wed Aug 30 15:20:17 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 15:20:17 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <20230830213607.pwLix%steffen@sdaoden.eu> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <6153c91c-911a-7fd3-0c31-8a9a59d73089@dcrocker.net> <1CB203A9-50F0-4A22-967E-00BE4AD9EB00@comcast.net> <20230830213607.pwLix%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Message-ID: On 8/30/23 2:36 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso via Internet-history wrote: > So whereas here everything is tried to give people a hand, the > IETF has protocols which leave you standing in the rain without > any tools at hand you can use to get out of the situation. Take > DKIM and mailing-lists. That's what happens when you have to graft security onto something that already exists and whose operational models makes it impossible. It's like all of the operational issues in SIP land of dealing with legacy PSTN signaling gateways. You are bound to have holes that are impossible to fill. But with DKIM vs mailing lists, that can be dealt with operationally if the goal is to have restrictive signing policy (ie, p=reject). Like make them use gmail for list traffic, or make them use a mailing list friendly subdomain or things like that. Or just don't use mailing lists at all and use something more modern like forum software. That's why ARC was bound to fail too. Speaking of history... clearly nobody paid attention to it. Mike From reed at reedmedia.net Wed Aug 30 15:28:57 2023 From: reed at reedmedia.net (Jeremy C. Reed) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 22:28:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] DKIM history, was IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <20230830221038.wylxa%steffen@sdaoden.eu> References: <20230830030409.C74E31013E0C1@ary.qy> <632f7f35-45b0-18ad-e7e1-8efb0163ae3c@gmail.com> <20230830221038.wylxa%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Message-ID: On Thu, 31 Aug 2023, Steffen Nurpmeso via Internet-history wrote: > and gives advice. Also 14 years. In respect to this i think > a re-evaluation might find that an elder protocol can be improved > simply by taking into account the growing number of domains which > use those features. > For example "dig X rrsig" for FreeBSD.org and NetBSD.org gives > good results, yet funnily ietf.org does not. (Unless i am > mistaken.) You will get inconsistent results when querying for RRSIG type. Even freebsd.org's nameservers give different results: RRSIGs for all covered types for that name or REFUSED And ietf.org's nameservers also give different results: - returns NOERROR with 0 answers - REFUSED At least one of their server's returns error (via EDNS): ; OPT=15: 00 15 52 52 53 49 47 20 71 75 65 72 69 65 73 20 6e 6f 74 20 73 75 70 70 6f 72 74 65 64 20 68 65 72 65 ("..RRSIG queries not supported here") Attempting to query for RRSIG anywhere is not expected behavior and will get varied results (and a resolver may return SERVFAIL when it fails). Use dig +dnssec or set the DO flag. From enervatron at gmail.com Wed Aug 30 15:49:35 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 15:49:35 -0700 Subject: [ih] DKIM history, was IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <20230830221038.wylxa%steffen@sdaoden.eu> References: <20230830030409.C74E31013E0C1@ary.qy> <632f7f35-45b0-18ad-e7e1-8efb0163ae3c@gmail.com> <20230830221038.wylxa%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Message-ID: <488194c0-15ba-0b6a-de00-ba280cfa2b1a@gmail.com> On 8/30/23 3:10 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso via Internet-history wrote: > > Unfortunately i never believed something like Let's Encrypt will > work out for S/MIME, even though the IETF has produced a standard > which could. > (Having said that i would push all that onto DNS myself, so that > CA pools in the end contain DNSSEC certificates of top level > domains, and root servers (the diversity of which should be > increased).) After all this time, what we can say absolutely is that certs don't scale to users/clients. If the premise of your protocol is that they do, you have written a dead letter. > ... > |So yes, it was a mistake. We could have a had a very secure solution > |with proven and widely deployed technology with a pattern that could be > > Having said that, i always _truly_ hated DNSSEC, especially TSIG. > But shipping certificates via DNS i would have admired. SMIMEA, > OPENPGPKEY. And a way to testify it, like we now see more and > more, that people send PGP signed email like > At the time we had to decide between the DK approach using DNS and the IIM approach using a web server, DNSSec was "just around the corner" as I recall. The history lesson with IETF should be to use the bird in hand. We should have pushed back more at the time but what we really didn't want was a long protracted fight. We got the things that we wanted integrated in and more or less flipped a coin on DNS/HTTP. Turns out the coin flip was wrong. Which is why it's so vile for some people to insinuate that IIM had no value. The fact that it was convergent evolution strengthened the case that we should standardize something as expeditiously as possible. The fact that Murray and I interoped a few days after the first cut of the merge was done shows how close the ideas aligned. Mike From enervatron at gmail.com Wed Aug 30 16:02:41 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 16:02:41 -0700 Subject: [ih] DKIM history, was IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <57f52931-5a06-576b-b539-b0749eaf7fa4@dcrocker.net> References: <20230830030409.C74E31013E0C1@ary.qy> <57f52931-5a06-576b-b539-b0749eaf7fa4@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <84511cce-84e2-df12-2402-5278bd37f019@gmail.com> On 8/30/23 7:06 AM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > > > Besides the DNS, there is no other global Internet query service that > has integrated functional semantics.? The web might be mistakenly > thought to be one, but it isn't.? It is a global mechanism for > accessing a very large number of entirely independent query services.? > Quite different from the nature and benefit of an integrated service > like the DNS. > Except for the part that DNSSec is largely not deployed and https is. DNS gets by unsecured largely by "trust but verify" where "verify" is largely TLS. When you are using it transfer keys, in this case, that's extremely dodgy. And a SRV record neatly creates that global service. Good thing they exist. Mike From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Wed Aug 30 16:38:16 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 11:38:16 +1200 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> Message-ID: <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> Vint, On 31-Aug-23 05:35, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: > I don't agree with that analysis, Darius. The NWG spawned the International > Network Working Group (INWG). IETF emerged from the ICCB->IAB (various > forms)-> IETF/IRTF. > IETF is still as collaborative as the original NWG as I see it - more > formality for sure but still essentially a collaborative enterprise. Isn't there one significant demographic difference, though: the modern IETF has a *much* higher fraction of participants employed by vendors than the INWG and the early IETF? Despite the rule that people participate as individuals, I suspect that this has a major impact on the way ideas flow and mingle. Brian > > v > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:17?AM Darius Kazemi > wrote: > >> Comparing the NWG (at least in the early days of NCP) and IETF seems to me >> like comparing a radical experiment in collaboration, experimentation, and >> flexibility to... a standards body. Very much apples to oranges? >> >> I was not even born when the NWG was doing its thing so please correct me >> if I'm out of line here but every bit of research I've done and every piece >> of correspondence I've read seems to indicate that even though there is >> lineage from one to other it seems like a category error to claim that the >> same kind of human social organization was occurring in both orgs. >> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 10:11 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> v >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history < >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Well... >>>> >>>> The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, FTP, et >>> al >>>> -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG). The NWG evolved >>> over >>>> the years into the IETF. The formal creation of the IETF was roughly >>>> mid-1980s. The process of formally declaring a protocol a >>>> proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. Depending on how >>>> precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the >>>> formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case either way. >>> From >>>> my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did indeed >>>> originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history < >>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF - they >>>>> become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC process, >>> under >>>>> the IETF aegis. Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite (did >>> the >>>>> IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first printed?). >>>>> >>>>> Miles >>>>> >>>>> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to the >>>>>>>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and >>>>>>>>> validation by >>>>>>>>> the community >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an application >>>>>>>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last 25 >>>> years, >>>>>>>> that has seen widespread success. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> d/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. >>>>>> >>>>>> But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated about >>>>>> 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office at >>> CERN, >>>>>> more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was wrong a >>>> few >>>>>> days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). The WWW >>>> BOF >>>>>> at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first deployed, to >>> my >>>>>> personal knowledge. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Is it not the >>>>>>> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of >>> things? >>>>>> >>>>>> In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded both >>> rough >>>>>> consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and still >>> the >>>>>> best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with the >>> spec. >>>>>> Third best is OSI. >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Wed Aug 30 16:45:30 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 11:45:30 +1200 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <0aaf897c-5c9a-e766-032d-3e3f9da2baf2@3kitty.org> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <9751f7fc-1885-4a57-35c0-89fae848a663@dcrocker.net> <0aaf897c-5c9a-e766-032d-3e3f9da2baf2@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <08aa0c43-d7c2-48be-e3f3-ddc4d1430e44@gmail.com> On 31-Aug-23 07:40, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > Interesting discussion.? My initial comment, way back in these threads, > was expressing surprise that the IETF was a "standards body" now, and I > was curious about the history of how that happened. Put it this way: at a generic standards meeting at the OECD in Paris in about 1996, I (as IAB Chair) explained that we were a group of individuals producing documents by rough consensus, but we weren't a formal SDO. I was told (by someone pretty senior from IEEE, I think) that I was being a bit disingenuous. I certainly realised then that the world had changed. Walks like an SDO, talks like an SDO... It was Vint who arranged formal liaison with ISO, via ISOC, and that might actually have been kilometre zero for the IETF as an SDO. Brian > I surmised that > the IETF had become the ISO, but that was just my gut reaction.?? I > remembered the ISO of the early 80s, where we often joked that the ISO > produced stacks of paper while the Network Project produced piles of > code, mostly undocumented but working. > > If I define a few terms...? IETF is the IETF as we now it now.?? NP is > the "Network Project", which started out as the Arpanet with NWG and > evolved into the IETF over time. > > In the early 80s, it seems that a transition started from the NP to the > IETF.? NP was a research-oriented environment, where prototypes were > created to test out ideas and sometimes scientific theories. It > necessarily involved tight collaboration among the thinkers and the > doers - rough consensus and running code.? The code was freely available > and shared, largely thanks to the FTP capabilities of the Arpanet. > > Today, if I understand the comments in these threads, the IETF produces > standards - documents.?? The documents may come from a variety of > sources, some internal to the IETF but most external. Some "running > code" may have been produced, but it's not always publicly available (at > least I don't know where to find it...). > > So, for history's sake, ... how did the NP evolve into today's IETF, and > what happened to the NP activities that didn't survive the transition? > > -------------- > > Now I'm just a lowly User, but imagine you're the CEO of a large > corporation, or perhaps of a government, and you want to build a modern > facility for your employees, or customers, or residents, or visitors, to > interact using all the devices they all carry around. Perhaps electronic > mail, websites providing useful information and services, maybe even a > video conferencing capability? > > You can issue RFPs, but how do you know what acronyms are important to > require??? TCPIPV6, DKIM, HTTP, QUIC, SMTP, MIME, ...?? There are > hundreds or perhaps thousands to choose from.? Which ones will be needed > for a reliable, secure, infrastructure quality service? When you get > proposals, how do you verify that the vendor has correctly implemented > the required alphabet soup? > > Now imagine you're just a developer, who's supposed to write code to > implement some alphabet soup.? You can probably find the specifications > somewhere in the IETF website, and you can write the code using that. > How do you test your code to see that it actually works with others > you'll encounter when it is on the 'net??? Is there some independent > "certification" authority that will test your code and confirm that it > has been properly implemented? > > All of these mechanisms existed in the days of the NP, especially around > the time that TCP/IPV4 was declared a DoD Standard.?? (I never thought > of the US Department of Defense as a "standards body" until just now! > But it was.) > > It's still not clear, to me, where we are today, and the larger picture > that shows the IETF's role and relationships with things like W3C and > others.?? But wherever we are today, how did we get from there (NP days) > to here? > > Jack > From jeanjour at comcast.net Wed Aug 30 16:46:46 2023 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 19:46:46 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> Message-ID: <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> Jumping in. INWG in the mid-70s was a different time. Without looking at the membership list, which I have, the only ?vendors? were phone companies that were vertically integrated. DEC and Xerox were there. Otherwise, it was researchers and academics. I would guess about half and half as far as who was at the meetings, not just on the mailing list. Who did I miss? Vint? > On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:38, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > > Vint, > On 31-Aug-23 05:35, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: >> I don't agree with that analysis, Darius. The NWG spawned the International >> Network Working Group (INWG). IETF emerged from the ICCB->IAB (various >> forms)-> IETF/IRTF. >> IETF is still as collaborative as the original NWG as I see it - more >> formality for sure but still essentially a collaborative enterprise. > > Isn't there one significant demographic difference, though: the modern > IETF has a *much* higher fraction of participants employed by vendors > than the INWG and the early IETF? Despite the rule that people participate > as individuals, I suspect that this has a major impact on the way ideas > flow and mingle. > > Brian > >> v >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:17?AM Darius Kazemi >> wrote: >>> Comparing the NWG (at least in the early days of NCP) and IETF seems to me >>> like comparing a radical experiment in collaboration, experimentation, and >>> flexibility to... a standards body. Very much apples to oranges? >>> >>> I was not even born when the NWG was doing its thing so please correct me >>> if I'm out of line here but every bit of research I've done and every piece >>> of correspondence I've read seems to indicate that even though there is >>> lineage from one to other it seems like a category error to claim that the >>> same kind of human social organization was occurring in both orgs. >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 10:11 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 >>>> v >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history < >>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Well... >>>>> >>>>> The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, FTP, et >>>> al >>>>> -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG). The NWG evolved >>>> over >>>>> the years into the IETF. The formal creation of the IETF was roughly >>>>> mid-1980s. The process of formally declaring a protocol a >>>>> proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. Depending on how >>>>> precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the >>>>> formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case either way. >>>> From >>>>> my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did indeed >>>>> originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. >>>>> >>>>> Steve >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history < >>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF - they >>>>>> become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC process, >>>> under >>>>>> the IETF aegis. Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite (did >>>> the >>>>>> IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first printed?). >>>>>> >>>>>> Miles >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>> On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to the >>>>>>>>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and >>>>>>>>>> validation by >>>>>>>>>> the community >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an application >>>>>>>>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last 25 >>>>> years, >>>>>>>>> that has seen widespread success. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> d/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated about >>>>>>> 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office at >>>> CERN, >>>>>>> more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was wrong a >>>>> few >>>>>>> days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). The WWW >>>>> BOF >>>>>>> at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first deployed, to >>>> my >>>>>>> personal knowledge. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is it not the >>>>>>>> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of >>>> things? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded both >>>> rough >>>>>>> consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and still >>>> the >>>>>>> best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with the >>>> spec. >>>>>>> Third best is OSI. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brian >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 From vint at google.com Wed Aug 30 16:56:30 2023 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 16:56:30 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> Message-ID: John is correct that INWG in its early period and even as IFIP WG 6.1 has a pretty strong academic character. IETF would have been similar in its early 1986 formation. There are probably available attendance statistics for the IETF of today and I would not be surprised to see a pretty healthy industry component. Nonetheless, with some notable exceptions, my impression is that IETF WGs are still pretty collaborative across corporate boundaries. v On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:47?PM John Day via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Jumping in. INWG in the mid-70s was a different time. Without looking at > the membership list, which I have, the only ?vendors? were phone companies > that were vertically integrated. DEC and Xerox were there. Otherwise, it > was researchers and academics. I would guess about half and half as far as > who was at the meetings, not just on the mailing list. Who did I miss? > > Vint? > > > On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:38, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > Vint, > > On 31-Aug-23 05:35, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: > >> I don't agree with that analysis, Darius. The NWG spawned the > International > >> Network Working Group (INWG). IETF emerged from the ICCB->IAB (various > >> forms)-> IETF/IRTF. > >> IETF is still as collaborative as the original NWG as I see it - more > >> formality for sure but still essentially a collaborative enterprise. > > > > Isn't there one significant demographic difference, though: the modern > > IETF has a *much* higher fraction of participants employed by vendors > > than the INWG and the early IETF? Despite the rule that people > participate > > as individuals, I suspect that this has a major impact on the way ideas > > flow and mingle. > > > > Brian > > > >> v > >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:17?AM Darius Kazemi > > >> wrote: > >>> Comparing the NWG (at least in the early days of NCP) and IETF seems > to me > >>> like comparing a radical experiment in collaboration, experimentation, > and > >>> flexibility to... a standards body. Very much apples to oranges? > >>> > >>> I was not even born when the NWG was doing its thing so please correct > me > >>> if I'm out of line here but every bit of research I've done and every > piece > >>> of correspondence I've read seems to indicate that even though there is > >>> lineage from one to other it seems like a category error to claim that > the > >>> same kind of human social organization was occurring in both orgs. > >>> > >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 10:11 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < > >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>> +1 > >>>> v > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history < > >>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Well... > >>>>> > >>>>> The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, FTP, > et > >>>> al > >>>>> -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG). The NWG > evolved > >>>> over > >>>>> the years into the IETF. The formal creation of the IETF was roughly > >>>>> mid-1980s. The process of formally declaring a protocol a > >>>>> proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. Depending on > how > >>>>> precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the > >>>>> formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case either way. > >>>> From > >>>>> my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did > indeed > >>>>> originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. > >>>>> > >>>>> Steve > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history > < > >>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF - > they > >>>>>> become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC process, > >>>> under > >>>>>> the IETF aegis. Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite (did > >>>> the > >>>>>> IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first printed?). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Miles > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > >>>>>>> On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: > >>>>>>>> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to the > >>>>>>>>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and > >>>>>>>>>> validation by > >>>>>>>>>> the community > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an application > >>>>>>>>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last 25 > >>>>> years, > >>>>>>>>> that has seen widespread success. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> d/ > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated > about > >>>>>>> 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office at > >>>> CERN, > >>>>>>> more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was wrong > a > >>>>> few > >>>>>>> days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). The > WWW > >>>>> BOF > >>>>>>> at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first deployed, to > >>>> my > >>>>>>> personal knowledge. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Is it not the > >>>>>>>> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of > >>>> things? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded both > >>>> rough > >>>>>>> consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and still > >>>> the > >>>>>>> best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with the > >>>> spec. > >>>>>>> Third best is OSI. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Brian > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> 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 > > -- > 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 Google, LLC 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor Reston, VA 20190 +1 (571) 213 1346 until further notice From jeanjour at comcast.net Wed Aug 30 17:01:03 2023 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 20:01:03 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> Message-ID: I was trying to think of companies that participated. There really weren?t any 'networking companies? yet that weren?t phone companies. Roland Bryant?s ACC was about as close as it came to a networking ;-) and he didn?t attend INWG. > On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:56, Vint Cerf wrote: > > John is correct that INWG in its early period and even as IFIP WG 6.1 has a pretty strong academic character. > IETF would have been similar in its early 1986 formation. There are probably available attendance statistics for the IETF of today and I would not be surprised to see a pretty healthy industry component. Nonetheless, with some notable exceptions, my impression is that IETF WGs are still pretty collaborative across corporate boundaries. > > v > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:47?PM John Day via Internet-history > wrote: >> Jumping in. INWG in the mid-70s was a different time. Without looking at the membership list, which I have, the only ?vendors? were phone companies that were vertically integrated. DEC and Xerox were there. Otherwise, it was researchers and academics. I would guess about half and half as far as who was at the meetings, not just on the mailing list. Who did I miss? >> >> Vint? >> >> > On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:38, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history > wrote: >> > >> > Vint, >> > On 31-Aug-23 05:35, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: >> >> I don't agree with that analysis, Darius. The NWG spawned the International >> >> Network Working Group (INWG). IETF emerged from the ICCB->IAB (various >> >> forms)-> IETF/IRTF. >> >> IETF is still as collaborative as the original NWG as I see it - more >> >> formality for sure but still essentially a collaborative enterprise. >> > >> > Isn't there one significant demographic difference, though: the modern >> > IETF has a *much* higher fraction of participants employed by vendors >> > than the INWG and the early IETF? Despite the rule that people participate >> > as individuals, I suspect that this has a major impact on the way ideas >> > flow and mingle. >> > >> > Brian >> > >> >> v >> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:17?AM Darius Kazemi > >> >> wrote: >> >>> Comparing the NWG (at least in the early days of NCP) and IETF seems to me >> >>> like comparing a radical experiment in collaboration, experimentation, and >> >>> flexibility to... a standards body. Very much apples to oranges? >> >>> >> >>> I was not even born when the NWG was doing its thing so please correct me >> >>> if I'm out of line here but every bit of research I've done and every piece >> >>> of correspondence I've read seems to indicate that even though there is >> >>> lineage from one to other it seems like a category error to claim that the >> >>> same kind of human social organization was occurring in both orgs. >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 10:11 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < >> >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org > wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> +1 >> >>>> v >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history < >> >>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org > wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Well... >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, FTP, et >> >>>> al >> >>>>> -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG). The NWG evolved >> >>>> over >> >>>>> the years into the IETF. The formal creation of the IETF was roughly >> >>>>> mid-1980s. The process of formally declaring a protocol a >> >>>>> proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. Depending on how >> >>>>> precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the >> >>>>> formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case either way. >> >>>> From >> >>>>> my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did indeed >> >>>>> originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Steve >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history < >> >>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org > wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF - they >> >>>>>> become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC process, >> >>>> under >> >>>>>> the IETF aegis. Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite (did >> >>>> the >> >>>>>> IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first printed?). >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Miles >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >> >>>>>>> On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: >> >>>>>>>> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to the >> >>>>>>>>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and >> >>>>>>>>>> validation by >> >>>>>>>>>> the community >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an application >> >>>>>>>>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last 25 >> >>>>> years, >> >>>>>>>>> that has seen widespread success. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> d/ >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated about >> >>>>>>> 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office at >> >>>> CERN, >> >>>>>>> more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was wrong a >> >>>>> few >> >>>>>>> days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). The WWW >> >>>>> BOF >> >>>>>>> at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first deployed, to >> >>>> my >> >>>>>>> personal knowledge. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Is it not the >> >>>>>>>> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of >> >>>> things? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded both >> >>>> rough >> >>>>>>> consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and still >> >>>> the >> >>>>>>> best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with the >> >>>> spec. >> >>>>>>> Third best is OSI. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Brian >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -- >> >>>>>> 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 >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -- >> >>>>>> 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 >> >> -- >> 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 > Google, LLC > 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > +1 (571) 213 1346 > > > until further notice > > > From craig at tereschau.net Wed Aug 30 17:02:24 2023 From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 18:02:24 -0600 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> Message-ID: The attendees at IETF #1 are known and the breakdown is: - five university reps (two from MIT [one as an IAB rep], one from UMICH, one from Stanford, one USC-ISI) - five vendors (BBN CC [which sold routers and IMPS], Proteon, M/A Com, Linkabit, and Ford Aerospace] - six from research labs (SRI, BBN Labs, MITRE) - two government people Craig On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 5:57?PM Vint Cerf via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > John is correct that INWG in its early period and even as IFIP WG 6.1 has a > pretty strong academic character. > IETF would have been similar in its early 1986 formation. There are > probably available attendance statistics for the IETF of today and I would > not be surprised to see a pretty healthy industry component. Nonetheless, > with some notable exceptions, my impression is that IETF WGs are still > pretty collaborative across corporate boundaries. > > v > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:47?PM John Day via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > Jumping in. INWG in the mid-70s was a different time. Without looking at > > the membership list, which I have, the only ?vendors? were phone > companies > > that were vertically integrated. DEC and Xerox were there. Otherwise, it > > was researchers and academics. I would guess about half and half as far > as > > who was at the meetings, not just on the mailing list. Who did I miss? > > > > Vint? > > > > > On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:38, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history < > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > > > > > Vint, > > > On 31-Aug-23 05:35, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: > > >> I don't agree with that analysis, Darius. The NWG spawned the > > International > > >> Network Working Group (INWG). IETF emerged from the ICCB->IAB (various > > >> forms)-> IETF/IRTF. > > >> IETF is still as collaborative as the original NWG as I see it - more > > >> formality for sure but still essentially a collaborative enterprise. > > > > > > Isn't there one significant demographic difference, though: the modern > > > IETF has a *much* higher fraction of participants employed by vendors > > > than the INWG and the early IETF? Despite the rule that people > > participate > > > as individuals, I suspect that this has a major impact on the way ideas > > > flow and mingle. > > > > > > Brian > > > > > >> v > > >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:17?AM Darius Kazemi < > darius.kazemi at gmail.com > > > > > >> wrote: > > >>> Comparing the NWG (at least in the early days of NCP) and IETF seems > > to me > > >>> like comparing a radical experiment in collaboration, > experimentation, > > and > > >>> flexibility to... a standards body. Very much apples to oranges? > > >>> > > >>> I was not even born when the NWG was doing its thing so please > correct > > me > > >>> if I'm out of line here but every bit of research I've done and every > > piece > > >>> of correspondence I've read seems to indicate that even though there > is > > >>> lineage from one to other it seems like a category error to claim > that > > the > > >>> same kind of human social organization was occurring in both orgs. > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 10:11 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < > > >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> +1 > > >>>> v > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history < > > >>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Well... > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, > FTP, > > et > > >>>> al > > >>>>> -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG). The NWG > > evolved > > >>>> over > > >>>>> the years into the IETF. The formal creation of the IETF was > roughly > > >>>>> mid-1980s. The process of formally declaring a protocol a > > >>>>> proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. Depending > on > > how > > >>>>> precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the > > >>>>> formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case either > way. > > >>>> From > > >>>>> my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did > > indeed > > >>>>> originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Steve > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via > Internet-history > > < > > >>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF - > > they > > >>>>>> become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC process, > > >>>> under > > >>>>>> the IETF aegis. Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite > (did > > >>>> the > > >>>>>> IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first > printed?). > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Miles > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > > >>>>>>> On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to > the > > >>>>>>>>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and > > >>>>>>>>>> validation by > > >>>>>>>>>> the community > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an > application > > >>>>>>>>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last 25 > > >>>>> years, > > >>>>>>>>> that has seen widespread success. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> d/ > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated > > about > > >>>>>>> 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office at > > >>>> CERN, > > >>>>>>> more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was > wrong > > a > > >>>>> few > > >>>>>>> days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). The > > WWW > > >>>>> BOF > > >>>>>>> at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first deployed, > to > > >>>> my > > >>>>>>> personal knowledge. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Is it not the > > >>>>>>>> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of > > >>>> things? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded both > > >>>> rough > > >>>>>>> consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and still > > >>>> the > > >>>>>>> best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with the > > >>>> spec. > > >>>>>>> Third best is OSI. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Brian > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> -- > > >>>>>> 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 > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> -- > > >>>>>> 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 > > > > -- > > 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 > Google, LLC > 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > +1 (571) 213 1346 > > > until further notice > -- > 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 enervatron at gmail.com Wed Aug 30 17:03:20 2023 From: enervatron at gmail.com (Michael Thomas) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 17:03:20 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <08aa0c43-d7c2-48be-e3f3-ddc4d1430e44@gmail.com> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <9751f7fc-1885-4a57-35c0-89fae848a663@dcrocker.net> <0aaf897c-5c9a-e766-032d-3e3f9da2baf2@3kitty.org> <08aa0c43-d7c2-48be-e3f3-ddc4d1430e44@gmail.com> Message-ID: <46800679-3006-95f7-7f7b-e244dd16215d@gmail.com> On 8/30/23 4:45 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > On 31-Aug-23 07:40, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: >> Interesting discussion.? My initial comment, way back in these threads, >> was expressing surprise that the IETF was a "standards body" now, and I >> was curious about the history of how that happened. > > Put it this way: at a generic standards meeting at the OECD in Paris > in about 1996, I (as IAB Chair) explained that we were a group of > individuals producing documents by rough consensus, but we weren't > a formal SDO. I was told (by someone pretty senior from IEEE, I think) > that I was being a bit disingenuous. I certainly realised then that > the world had changed. Walks like an SDO, talks like an SDO... > As much as I have a love hate relationship with IETF g*d help us if it were an actual SDO like ITU. People joke about ipv6's lack of deployment, but I'm not sure we'd even have something approximating TCP if it were a stuffy SDO driving it. From the outside, I nearly came up to ISI for an IETF meeting in the late 80's. The only investment on my part for my company would have been the gas I used coming up from Orange County. If it were the ITU or something like that it would never even have occurred to me that that's something I could consider. Closed bodies like W3C are the wrong model. Mike From dhc at dcrocker.net Wed Aug 30 17:14:47 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 17:14:47 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <08aa0c43-d7c2-48be-e3f3-ddc4d1430e44@gmail.com> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <9751f7fc-1885-4a57-35c0-89fae848a663@dcrocker.net> <0aaf897c-5c9a-e766-032d-3e3f9da2baf2@3kitty.org> <08aa0c43-d7c2-48be-e3f3-ddc4d1430e44@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2c531415-88b6-28ad-fae5-32b4666e9783@dcrocker.net> On 8/30/2023 4:45 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > Put it this way: at a generic standards meeting at the OECD in Paris > in about 1996, Somewhere in the range of 1990, I stood up at an IETF meeting and said something like "While we do engineering, we are a standards organization."? My understanding is that Vint received quite a few, quite vigorous complaints about my making such a statement. I didn't and don't much care about formal status.? As observed, if it walks like...? And it had been, for years. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From dhc at dcrocker.net Wed Aug 30 17:23:35 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 17:23:35 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> Message-ID: On 8/30/2023 4:46 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote: > Without looking at the membership list, which I have, the only ?vendors? were phone companies that were vertically integrated Until the late 1980s, vendors who participated were direct suppliers or contractors for gov't funded R&D participants. Stray, independent vendors were not allowed. I wound up being the participant who broke down down that barrier.? Although active from 1972-1982, I'd been away for several years.? Then I went to work for Ungermann-Bass and wound up managing its TCP/IP development effort, since this was clearly emerging as a meaningful commercial market.? We'd adapted some existing UB products (built original with a UB-specific variation of XNS) to use TCP/IP. I made the entirely uncreative observation that if we were going into this market and the specs were changing rapidly, gosh, we should be in the meetings. My request to participate caused quite a lot of controversy in the community.? I think it was Bob Braden who got the group to agree, by using what an entirely well-intentioned but, in my few, entirely inappropriate point:? Everyone knew me already.? So cronyism got me in, rather than a formal change in policy. However it established the precedent and for the IETF meeting after that, everything was open to the many new vendors wanting to attend. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From vgcerf at gmail.com Wed Aug 30 17:41:16 2023 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 17:41:16 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> Message-ID: the X.25 people from France (Transpac- France Telecom), England (PSS/EPSS British Telecom), Canada (Datapac) and Telenet did their work more or less concurrently with the development of TCP/IP. v On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 5:01?PM John Day via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > I was trying to think of companies that participated. There really weren?t > any 'networking companies? yet that weren?t phone companies. Roland > Bryant?s ACC was about as close as it came to a networking ;-) and he > didn?t attend INWG. > > > On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:56, Vint Cerf wrote: > > > > John is correct that INWG in its early period and even as IFIP WG 6.1 > has a pretty strong academic character. > > IETF would have been similar in its early 1986 formation. There are > probably available attendance statistics for the IETF of today and I would > not be surprised to see a pretty healthy industry component. Nonetheless, > with some notable exceptions, my impression is that IETF WGs are still > pretty collaborative across corporate boundaries. > > > > v > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:47?PM John Day via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > wrote: > >> Jumping in. INWG in the mid-70s was a different time. Without looking > at the membership list, which I have, the only ?vendors? were phone > companies that were vertically integrated. DEC and Xerox were there. > Otherwise, it was researchers and academics. I would guess about half and > half as far as who was at the meetings, not just on the mailing list. Who > did I miss? > >> > >> Vint? > >> > >> > On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:38, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org > > wrote: > >> > > >> > Vint, > >> > On 31-Aug-23 05:35, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: > >> >> I don't agree with that analysis, Darius. The NWG spawned the > International > >> >> Network Working Group (INWG). IETF emerged from the ICCB->IAB > (various > >> >> forms)-> IETF/IRTF. > >> >> IETF is still as collaborative as the original NWG as I see it - more > >> >> formality for sure but still essentially a collaborative enterprise. > >> > > >> > Isn't there one significant demographic difference, though: the modern > >> > IETF has a *much* higher fraction of participants employed by vendors > >> > than the INWG and the early IETF? Despite the rule that people > participate > >> > as individuals, I suspect that this has a major impact on the way > ideas > >> > flow and mingle. > >> > > >> > Brian > >> > > >> >> v > >> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:17?AM Darius Kazemi < > darius.kazemi at gmail.com > > >> >> wrote: > >> >>> Comparing the NWG (at least in the early days of NCP) and IETF > seems to me > >> >>> like comparing a radical experiment in collaboration, > experimentation, and > >> >>> flexibility to... a standards body. Very much apples to oranges? > >> >>> > >> >>> I was not even born when the NWG was doing its thing so please > correct me > >> >>> if I'm out of line here but every bit of research I've done and > every piece > >> >>> of correspondence I've read seems to indicate that even though > there is > >> >>> lineage from one to other it seems like a category error to claim > that the > >> >>> same kind of human social organization was occurring in both orgs. > >> >>> > >> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 10:11 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < > >> >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> +1 > >> >>>> v > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history > < > >> >>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> Well... > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, > FTP, et > >> >>>> al > >> >>>>> -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG). The NWG > evolved > >> >>>> over > >> >>>>> the years into the IETF. The formal creation of the IETF was > roughly > >> >>>>> mid-1980s. The process of formally declaring a protocol a > >> >>>>> proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. Depending > on how > >> >>>>> precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the > >> >>>>> formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case either > way. > >> >>>> From > >> >>>>> my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did > indeed > >> >>>>> originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Steve > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via > Internet-history < > >> >>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>>> Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF - > they > >> >>>>>> become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC process, > >> >>>> under > >> >>>>>> the IETF aegis. Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite > (did > >> >>>> the > >> >>>>>> IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first > printed?). > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Miles > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > >> >>>>>>> On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: > >> >>>>>>>> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: > >> >>>>>>>>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to > the > >> >>>>>>>>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and > >> >>>>>>>>>> validation by > >> >>>>>>>>>> the community > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an > application > >> >>>>>>>>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last > 25 > >> >>>>> years, > >> >>>>>>>>> that has seen widespread success. > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>>> d/ > >> >>>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated > about > >> >>>>>>> 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office at > >> >>>> CERN, > >> >>>>>>> more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was > wrong a > >> >>>>> few > >> >>>>>>> days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). > The WWW > >> >>>>> BOF > >> >>>>>>> at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first deployed, > to > >> >>>> my > >> >>>>>>> personal knowledge. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Is it not the > >> >>>>>>>> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of > >> >>>> things? > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded both > >> >>>> rough > >> >>>>>>> consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and > still > >> >>>> the > >> >>>>>>> best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with the > >> >>>> spec. > >> >>>>>>> Third best is OSI. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Brian > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> -- > >> >>>>>> 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 > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> -- > >> >>>>>> Internet-history mailing list > >> >>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> > >> >>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>> -- > >> >>>>> Internet-history mailing list > >> >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> > >> >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> -- > >> >>>> Internet-history mailing list > >> >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> > >> >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> > -- > >> > Internet-history mailing list > >> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> > >> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > >> > >> -- > >> Internet-history mailing list > >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> > >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > > > > > -- > > Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: > > Vint Cerf > > Google, LLC > > 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor > > Reston, VA 20190 > > +1 (571) 213 1346 > > > > > > until further notice > > > > > > > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From touch at strayalpha.com Wed Aug 30 17:45:38 2023 From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 17:45:38 -0700 Subject: [ih] A note about discussion tone Message-ID: Hi, all, Some recent posts to this list have verged into inappropriate tone, notably ad-hominem attacks. Parties posting such messages may have their posts moderated or be blocked from this list. Some already have. FYI. Joe (list owner and admin) ? Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist www.strayalpha.com From jeanjour at comcast.net Wed Aug 30 18:11:18 2023 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 21:11:18 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> Message-ID: <6E9627EE-3669-4195-A1D8-77B821CC7322@comcast.net> RIght, the phone companies. ;-) That were vertically integrated then. They made their own equipment. Yea, those were the only ones I could think of. I thought it was kind of amusing to think of ACC as an early networking company. ;-) The mainframe companies weren?t involved other than DEC and Xerox. Interesting. > On Aug 30, 2023, at 20:41, vinton cerf wrote: > > the X.25 people from France (Transpac- France Telecom), England (PSS/EPSS British Telecom), Canada (Datapac) and Telenet did their work more or less concurrently with the development of TCP/IP. > > v > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 5:01?PM John Day via Internet-history > wrote: >> I was trying to think of companies that participated. There really weren?t any 'networking companies? yet that weren?t phone companies. Roland Bryant?s ACC was about as close as it came to a networking ;-) and he didn?t attend INWG. >> >> > On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:56, Vint Cerf > wrote: >> > >> > John is correct that INWG in its early period and even as IFIP WG 6.1 has a pretty strong academic character. >> > IETF would have been similar in its early 1986 formation. There are probably available attendance statistics for the IETF of today and I would not be surprised to see a pretty healthy industry component. Nonetheless, with some notable exceptions, my impression is that IETF WGs are still pretty collaborative across corporate boundaries. >> > >> > v >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:47?PM John Day via Internet-history >> wrote: >> >> Jumping in. INWG in the mid-70s was a different time. Without looking at the membership list, which I have, the only ?vendors? were phone companies that were vertically integrated. DEC and Xerox were there. Otherwise, it was researchers and academics. I would guess about half and half as far as who was at the meetings, not just on the mailing list. Who did I miss? >> >> >> >> Vint? >> >> >> >> > On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:38, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Vint, >> >> > On 31-Aug-23 05:35, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: >> >> >> I don't agree with that analysis, Darius. The NWG spawned the International >> >> >> Network Working Group (INWG). IETF emerged from the ICCB->IAB (various >> >> >> forms)-> IETF/IRTF. >> >> >> IETF is still as collaborative as the original NWG as I see it - more >> >> >> formality for sure but still essentially a collaborative enterprise. >> >> > >> >> > Isn't there one significant demographic difference, though: the modern >> >> > IETF has a *much* higher fraction of participants employed by vendors >> >> > than the INWG and the early IETF? Despite the rule that people participate >> >> > as individuals, I suspect that this has a major impact on the way ideas >> >> > flow and mingle. >> >> > >> >> > Brian >> >> > >> >> >> v >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:17?AM Darius Kazemi >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> Comparing the NWG (at least in the early days of NCP) and IETF seems to me >> >> >>> like comparing a radical experiment in collaboration, experimentation, and >> >> >>> flexibility to... a standards body. Very much apples to oranges? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I was not even born when the NWG was doing its thing so please correct me >> >> >>> if I'm out of line here but every bit of research I've done and every piece >> >> >>> of correspondence I've read seems to indicate that even though there is >> >> >>> lineage from one to other it seems like a category error to claim that the >> >> >>> same kind of human social organization was occurring in both orgs. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 10:11 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < >> >> >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>>> +1 >> >> >>>> v >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history < >> >> >>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>> Well... >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, FTP, et >> >> >>>> al >> >> >>>>> -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG). The NWG evolved >> >> >>>> over >> >> >>>>> the years into the IETF. The formal creation of the IETF was roughly >> >> >>>>> mid-1980s. The process of formally declaring a protocol a >> >> >>>>> proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. Depending on how >> >> >>>>> precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the >> >> >>>>> formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case either way. >> >> >>>> From >> >> >>>>> my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did indeed >> >> >>>>> originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Steve >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history < >> >> >>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF - they >> >> >>>>>> become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC process, >> >> >>>> under >> >> >>>>>> the IETF aegis. Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite (did >> >> >>>> the >> >> >>>>>> IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first printed?). >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Miles >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >> >> >>>>>>> On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to the >> >> >>>>>>>>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and >> >> >>>>>>>>>> validation by >> >> >>>>>>>>>> the community >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an application >> >> >>>>>>>>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last 25 >> >> >>>>> years, >> >> >>>>>>>>> that has seen widespread success. >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> d/ >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated about >> >> >>>>>>> 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office at >> >> >>>> CERN, >> >> >>>>>>> more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was wrong a >> >> >>>>> few >> >> >>>>>>> days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). The WWW >> >> >>>>> BOF >> >> >>>>>>> at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first deployed, to >> >> >>>> my >> >> >>>>>>> personal knowledge. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Is it not the >> >> >>>>>>>> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of >> >> >>>> things? >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded both >> >> >>>> rough >> >> >>>>>>> consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and still >> >> >>>> the >> >> >>>>>>> best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with the >> >> >>>> spec. >> >> >>>>>>> Third best is OSI. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Brian >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> -- >> >> >>>>>> 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 >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> -- >> >> >>>>>> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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 >> > Google, LLC >> > 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor >> > Reston, VA 20190 >> > +1 (571) 213 1346 >> > >> > >> > until further notice >> > >> > >> > >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From vint at google.com Wed Aug 30 18:14:38 2023 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 18:14:38 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <6E9627EE-3669-4195-A1D8-77B821CC7322@comcast.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> <6E9627EE-3669-4195-A1D8-77B821CC7322@comcast.net> Message-ID: IBM research did TCP/IP as well as HP and DEC. v On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 6:11?PM John Day wrote: > RIght, the phone companies. ;-) That were vertically integrated then. > They made their own equipment. Yea, those were the only ones I could think > of. > I thought it was kind of amusing to think of ACC as an early networking > company. ;-) > > The mainframe companies weren?t involved other than DEC and Xerox. > Interesting. > > On Aug 30, 2023, at 20:41, vinton cerf wrote: > > the X.25 people from France (Transpac- France Telecom), England (PSS/EPSS > British Telecom), Canada (Datapac) and Telenet did their work more or less > concurrently with the development of TCP/IP. > > v > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 5:01?PM John Day via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> I was trying to think of companies that participated. There really >> weren?t any 'networking companies? yet that weren?t phone companies. Roland >> Bryant?s ACC was about as close as it came to a networking ;-) and he >> didn?t attend INWG. >> >> > On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:56, Vint Cerf wrote: >> > >> > John is correct that INWG in its early period and even as IFIP WG 6.1 >> has a pretty strong academic character. >> > IETF would have been similar in its early 1986 formation. There are >> probably available attendance statistics for the IETF of today and I would >> not be surprised to see a pretty healthy industry component. Nonetheless, >> with some notable exceptions, my impression is that IETF WGs are still >> pretty collaborative across corporate boundaries. >> > >> > v >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:47?PM John Day via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >> wrote: >> >> Jumping in. INWG in the mid-70s was a different time. Without looking >> at the membership list, which I have, the only ?vendors? were phone >> companies that were vertically integrated. DEC and Xerox were there. >> Otherwise, it was researchers and academics. I would guess about half and >> half as far as who was at the meetings, not just on the mailing list. Who >> did I miss? >> >> >> >> Vint? >> >> >> >> > On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:38, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Vint, >> >> > On 31-Aug-23 05:35, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: >> >> >> I don't agree with that analysis, Darius. The NWG spawned the >> International >> >> >> Network Working Group (INWG). IETF emerged from the ICCB->IAB >> (various >> >> >> forms)-> IETF/IRTF. >> >> >> IETF is still as collaborative as the original NWG as I see it - >> more >> >> >> formality for sure but still essentially a collaborative enterprise. >> >> > >> >> > Isn't there one significant demographic difference, though: the >> modern >> >> > IETF has a *much* higher fraction of participants employed by >> vendors >> >> > than the INWG and the early IETF? Despite the rule that people >> participate >> >> > as individuals, I suspect that this has a major impact on the way >> ideas >> >> > flow and mingle. >> >> > >> >> > Brian >> >> > >> >> >> v >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:17?AM Darius Kazemi < >> darius.kazemi at gmail.com > >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> Comparing the NWG (at least in the early days of NCP) and IETF >> seems to me >> >> >>> like comparing a radical experiment in collaboration, >> experimentation, and >> >> >>> flexibility to... a standards body. Very much apples to oranges? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I was not even born when the NWG was doing its thing so please >> correct me >> >> >>> if I'm out of line here but every bit of research I've done and >> every piece >> >> >>> of correspondence I've read seems to indicate that even though >> there is >> >> >>> lineage from one to other it seems like a category error to claim >> that the >> >> >>> same kind of human social organization was occurring in both orgs. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 10:11 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < >> >> >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org > internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>>> +1 >> >> >>>> v >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via >> Internet-history < >> >> >>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org > internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>> Well... >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, >> FTP, et >> >> >>>> al >> >> >>>>> -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG). The NWG >> evolved >> >> >>>> over >> >> >>>>> the years into the IETF. The formal creation of the IETF was >> roughly >> >> >>>>> mid-1980s. The process of formally declaring a protocol a >> >> >>>>> proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. >> Depending on how >> >> >>>>> precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the >> >> >>>>> formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case either >> way. >> >> >>>> From >> >> >>>>> my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did >> indeed >> >> >>>>> originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Steve >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via >> Internet-history < >> >> >>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org > internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF >> - they >> >> >>>>>> become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC >> process, >> >> >>>> under >> >> >>>>>> the IETF aegis. Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite >> (did >> >> >>>> the >> >> >>>>>> IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first >> printed?). >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Miles >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >> >> >>>>>>> On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history >> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to >> the >> >> >>>>>>>>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and >> >> >>>>>>>>>> validation by >> >> >>>>>>>>>> the community >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an >> application >> >> >>>>>>>>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last >> 25 >> >> >>>>> years, >> >> >>>>>>>>> that has seen widespread success. >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> d/ >> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated >> about >> >> >>>>>>> 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office >> at >> >> >>>> CERN, >> >> >>>>>>> more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was >> wrong a >> >> >>>>> few >> >> >>>>>>> days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). >> The WWW >> >> >>>>> BOF >> >> >>>>>>> at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first >> deployed, to >> >> >>>> my >> >> >>>>>>> personal knowledge. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Is it not the >> >> >>>>>>>> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of >> >> >>>> things? >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded >> both >> >> >>>> rough >> >> >>>>>>> consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and >> still >> >> >>>> the >> >> >>>>>>> best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with the >> >> >>>> spec. >> >> >>>>>>> Third best is OSI. >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Brian >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> -- >> >> >>>>>> 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 >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> -- >> >> >>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >> >> >>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >> >> >>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> -- >> >> >>>>> Internet-history mailing list >> >> >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >> >> >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>> -- >> >> >>>> Internet-history mailing list >> >> >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >> >> >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >> > -- >> >> > Internet-history mailing list >> >> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >> >> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Internet-history mailing list >> >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >> >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: >> > Vint Cerf >> > Google, LLC >> > 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor >> > Reston, VA 20190 >> > +1 (571) 213 1346 <(571)%20213-1346> >> > >> > >> > until further notice >> > >> > >> > >> >> -- >> 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 Google, LLC 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor Reston, VA 20190 +1 (571) 213 1346 until further notice From dhc at dcrocker.net Wed Aug 30 18:20:36 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 18:20:36 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> <6E9627EE-3669-4195-A1D8-77B821CC7322@comcast.net> Message-ID: <8cd659cb-a5d8-b15f-5a60-b75cbb398583@dcrocker.net> On 8/30/2023 6:14 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: > IBM research did TCP/IP as well as HP and DEC. Hmmm.? DEC came to TCP/IP only in the late 1980s and only in fits and starts, after fighting TCP/IP quite vigorously.? Note, for example, that Wollongong made a lot of money selling an aftermarket stack for VMS. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From vgcerf at gmail.com Wed Aug 30 18:38:12 2023 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 18:38:12 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <8cd659cb-a5d8-b15f-5a60-b75cbb398583@dcrocker.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> <6E9627EE-3669-4195-A1D8-77B821CC7322@comcast.net> <8cd659cb-a5d8-b15f-5a60-b75cbb398583@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: official DEC fought like hell but research DEC got TCP somehow for KL-10s/-20s. Don't know whether they used the TENEX version or made their own? VAX was probably a different story. v On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 6:20?PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > On 8/30/2023 6:14 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: > > IBM research did TCP/IP as well as HP and DEC. > > Hmmm. DEC came to TCP/IP only in the late 1980s and only in fits and > starts, after fighting TCP/IP quite vigorously. Note, for example, that > Wollongong made a lot of money selling an aftermarket stack for VMS. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > From dcrocker at bbiw.net Wed Aug 30 19:09:15 2023 From: dcrocker at bbiw.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 19:09:15 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> <6E9627EE-3669-4195-A1D8-77B821CC7322@comcast.net> <8cd659cb-a5d8-b15f-5a60-b75cbb398583@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <85a0a880-7939-f907-90a3-2c01847d4afb@bbiw.net> On 8/30/2023 6:38 PM, vinton cerf wrote: > official DEC fought like hell but research DEC got TCP somehow for > KL-10s/-20s. > Don't know whether they used the TENEX version or made their own? VAX > was probably a different Research DEC did all sorts of odd stuff.? They did a Unix mainframe that was way more powerful than the official top of the line and it was canceled because it didn't run VMS. When i joined, it was to do tech transfer to help DEC adopt TCP. Many project were delighted.? Others not so much. The Unix workstation my group had -- developed at DEC West, of course -- was oddly crippled in terms of peripherals.? Apparently stupid choices.? Turns out it was intentional, to make sure the East Coast did not notice it was now the most powerful computer DEC sold... It was awhile before DEC finally supported TCP natively on VMS. By then, really, DEC was in decline. There were other stories.? The Customer (Field) service folk had a small project to production the public SNMP management station. It was killed because it did not fit into strategic plans for the all singing all dancing management station being developed.? And so on... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From jeanjour at comcast.net Wed Aug 30 19:19:35 2023 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 22:19:35 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> <6E9627EE-3669-4195-A1D8-77B821CC7322@comcast.net> Message-ID: <9CE4FA0B-DC79-44DE-A15E-0C9D91049B0A@comcast.net> Yes, but they weren?t in INWG, were they? Nor was HP. I doubt that IBM had heard of TCP in 1976. > On Aug 30, 2023, at 21:14, Vint Cerf wrote: > > IBM research did TCP/IP as well as HP and DEC. > > v > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 6:11?PM John Day > wrote: >> RIght, the phone companies. ;-) That were vertically integrated then. They made their own equipment. Yea, those were the only ones I could think of. >> I thought it was kind of amusing to think of ACC as an early networking company. ;-) >> >> The mainframe companies weren?t involved other than DEC and Xerox. Interesting. >> >>> On Aug 30, 2023, at 20:41, vinton cerf > wrote: >>> >>> the X.25 people from France (Transpac- France Telecom), England (PSS/EPSS British Telecom), Canada (Datapac) and Telenet did their work more or less concurrently with the development of TCP/IP. >>> >>> v >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 5:01?PM John Day via Internet-history > wrote: >>>> I was trying to think of companies that participated. There really weren?t any 'networking companies? yet that weren?t phone companies. Roland Bryant?s ACC was about as close as it came to a networking ;-) and he didn?t attend INWG. >>>> >>>> > On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:56, Vint Cerf > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > John is correct that INWG in its early period and even as IFIP WG 6.1 has a pretty strong academic character. >>>> > IETF would have been similar in its early 1986 formation. There are probably available attendance statistics for the IETF of today and I would not be surprised to see a pretty healthy industry component. Nonetheless, with some notable exceptions, my impression is that IETF WGs are still pretty collaborative across corporate boundaries. >>>> > >>>> > v >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:47?PM John Day via Internet-history >> wrote: >>>> >> Jumping in. INWG in the mid-70s was a different time. Without looking at the membership list, which I have, the only ?vendors? were phone companies that were vertically integrated. DEC and Xerox were there. Otherwise, it was researchers and academics. I would guess about half and half as far as who was at the meetings, not just on the mailing list. Who did I miss? >>>> >> >>>> >> Vint? >>>> >> >>>> >> > On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:38, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history >> wrote: >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Vint, >>>> >> > On 31-Aug-23 05:35, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: >>>> >> >> I don't agree with that analysis, Darius. The NWG spawned the International >>>> >> >> Network Working Group (INWG). IETF emerged from the ICCB->IAB (various >>>> >> >> forms)-> IETF/IRTF. >>>> >> >> IETF is still as collaborative as the original NWG as I see it - more >>>> >> >> formality for sure but still essentially a collaborative enterprise. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Isn't there one significant demographic difference, though: the modern >>>> >> > IETF has a *much* higher fraction of participants employed by vendors >>>> >> > than the INWG and the early IETF? Despite the rule that people participate >>>> >> > as individuals, I suspect that this has a major impact on the way ideas >>>> >> > flow and mingle. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Brian >>>> >> > >>>> >> >> v >>>> >> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:17?AM Darius Kazemi >> >>>> >> >> wrote: >>>> >> >>> Comparing the NWG (at least in the early days of NCP) and IETF seems to me >>>> >> >>> like comparing a radical experiment in collaboration, experimentation, and >>>> >> >>> flexibility to... a standards body. Very much apples to oranges? >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> I was not even born when the NWG was doing its thing so please correct me >>>> >> >>> if I'm out of line here but every bit of research I've done and every piece >>>> >> >>> of correspondence I've read seems to indicate that even though there is >>>> >> >>> lineage from one to other it seems like a category error to claim that the >>>> >> >>> same kind of human social organization was occurring in both orgs. >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 10:11 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < >>>> >> >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> wrote: >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>>> +1 >>>> >> >>>> v >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history < >>>> >> >>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>>> Well... >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, FTP, et >>>> >> >>>> al >>>> >> >>>>> -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG). The NWG evolved >>>> >> >>>> over >>>> >> >>>>> the years into the IETF. The formal creation of the IETF was roughly >>>> >> >>>>> mid-1980s. The process of formally declaring a protocol a >>>> >> >>>>> proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. Depending on how >>>> >> >>>>> precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the >>>> >> >>>>> formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case either way. >>>> >> >>>> From >>>> >> >>>>> my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did indeed >>>> >> >>>>> originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> Steve >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history < >>>> >> >>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> wrote: >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>> Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF - they >>>> >> >>>>>> become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC process, >>>> >> >>>> under >>>> >> >>>>>> the IETF aegis. Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite (did >>>> >> >>>> the >>>> >> >>>>>> IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first printed?). >>>> >> >>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>> Miles >>>> >> >>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >>>> >> >>>>>>> On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: >>>> >> >>>>>>>> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: >>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to the >>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and >>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> validation by >>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> the community >>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an application >>>> >> >>>>>>>>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last 25 >>>> >> >>>>> years, >>>> >> >>>>>>>>> that has seen widespread success. >>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>>>>> d/ >>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. >>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>>> But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated about >>>> >> >>>>>>> 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office at >>>> >> >>>> CERN, >>>> >> >>>>>>> more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was wrong a >>>> >> >>>>> few >>>> >> >>>>>>> days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). The WWW >>>> >> >>>>> BOF >>>> >> >>>>>>> at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first deployed, to >>>> >> >>>> my >>>> >> >>>>>>> personal knowledge. >>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> Is it not the >>>> >> >>>>>>>> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of >>>> >> >>>> things? >>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>>> In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded both >>>> >> >>>> rough >>>> >> >>>>>>> consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and still >>>> >> >>>> the >>>> >> >>>>>>> best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with the >>>> >> >>>> spec. >>>> >> >>>>>>> Third best is OSI. >>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>>> Brian >>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>> -- >>>> >> >>>>>> 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 >>>> >> >>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>> -- >>>> >> >>>>>> 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 >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> 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 >>>> > Google, LLC >>>> > 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor >>>> > Reston, VA 20190 >>>> > +1 (571) 213 1346 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > until further notice >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 > Google, LLC > 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > +1 (571) 213 1346 > > > until further notice > > > From jeanjour at comcast.net Wed Aug 30 19:21:51 2023 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 22:21:51 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> <6E9627EE-3669-4195-A1D8-77B821CC7322@comcast.net> <8cd659cb-a5d8-b15f-5a60-b75cbb398583@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: yea, I was going to say . . . DEC was always pretty wired in to the ARPANET and beyond. > On Aug 30, 2023, at 21:38, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: > > official DEC fought like hell but research DEC got TCP somehow for > KL-10s/-20s. > Don't know whether they used the TENEX version or made their own? VAX was > probably a different story. > > v > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 6:20?PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> On 8/30/2023 6:14 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: >>> IBM research did TCP/IP as well as HP and DEC. >> >> Hmmm. DEC came to TCP/IP only in the late 1980s and only in fits and >> starts, after fighting TCP/IP quite vigorously. Note, for example, that >> Wollongong made a lot of money selling an aftermarket stack for VMS. >> >> d/ >> >> -- >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net >> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From jeanjour at comcast.net Wed Aug 30 19:21:02 2023 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 22:21:02 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> <6E9627EE-3669-4195-A1D8-77B821CC7322@comcast.net> <8cd659cb-a5d8-b15f-5a60-b75cbb398583@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: yea, I was going to say . . . DEC was always pretty wired in to the ARPANET and beyond. > On Aug 30, 2023, at 21:38, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: > > official DEC fought like hell but research DEC got TCP somehow for > KL-10s/-20s. > Don't know whether they used the TENEX version or made their own? VAX was > probably a different story. > > v > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 6:20?PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> On 8/30/2023 6:14 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: >>> IBM research did TCP/IP as well as HP and DEC. >> >> Hmmm. DEC came to TCP/IP only in the late 1980s and only in fits and >> starts, after fighting TCP/IP quite vigorously. Note, for example, that >> Wollongong made a lot of money selling an aftermarket stack for VMS. >> >> d/ >> >> -- >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net >> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social >> >> -- >> 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 vgcerf at gmail.com Wed Aug 30 19:30:17 2023 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 19:30:17 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <9CE4FA0B-DC79-44DE-A15E-0C9D91049B0A@comcast.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> <6E9627EE-3669-4195-A1D8-77B821CC7322@comcast.net> <9CE4FA0B-DC79-44DE-A15E-0C9D91049B0A@comcast.net> Message-ID: actually I thought Tony at DEC was involved in INWG. and could IBM Almaden have gotten involved in TCP? v On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 7:20?PM John Day wrote: > Yes, but they weren?t in INWG, were they? Nor was HP. > > I doubt that IBM had heard of TCP in 1976. > > On Aug 30, 2023, at 21:14, Vint Cerf wrote: > > IBM research did TCP/IP as well as HP and DEC. > > v > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 6:11?PM John Day wrote: > >> RIght, the phone companies. ;-) That were vertically integrated then. >> They made their own equipment. Yea, those were the only ones I could think >> of. >> I thought it was kind of amusing to think of ACC as an early networking >> company. ;-) >> >> The mainframe companies weren?t involved other than DEC and Xerox. >> Interesting. >> >> On Aug 30, 2023, at 20:41, vinton cerf wrote: >> >> the X.25 people from France (Transpac- France Telecom), England (PSS/EPSS >> British Telecom), Canada (Datapac) and Telenet did their work more or less >> concurrently with the development of TCP/IP. >> >> v >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 5:01?PM John Day via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >>> I was trying to think of companies that participated. There really >>> weren?t any 'networking companies? yet that weren?t phone companies. Roland >>> Bryant?s ACC was about as close as it came to a networking ;-) and he >>> didn?t attend INWG. >>> >>> > On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:56, Vint Cerf wrote: >>> > >>> > John is correct that INWG in its early period and even as IFIP WG 6.1 >>> has a pretty strong academic character. >>> > IETF would have been similar in its early 1986 formation. There are >>> probably available attendance statistics for the IETF of today and I would >>> not be surprised to see a pretty healthy industry component. Nonetheless, >>> with some notable exceptions, my impression is that IETF WGs are still >>> pretty collaborative across corporate boundaries. >>> > >>> > v >>> > >>> > >>> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:47?PM John Day via Internet-history < >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>> >> Jumping in. INWG in the mid-70s was a different time. Without looking >>> at the membership list, which I have, the only ?vendors? were phone >>> companies that were vertically integrated. DEC and Xerox were there. >>> Otherwise, it was researchers and academics. I would guess about half and >>> half as far as who was at the meetings, not just on the mailing list. Who >>> did I miss? >>> >> >>> >> Vint? >>> >> >>> >> > On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:38, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history < >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > Vint, >>> >> > On 31-Aug-23 05:35, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: >>> >> >> I don't agree with that analysis, Darius. The NWG spawned the >>> International >>> >> >> Network Working Group (INWG). IETF emerged from the ICCB->IAB >>> (various >>> >> >> forms)-> IETF/IRTF. >>> >> >> IETF is still as collaborative as the original NWG as I see it - >>> more >>> >> >> formality for sure but still essentially a collaborative >>> enterprise. >>> >> > >>> >> > Isn't there one significant demographic difference, though: the >>> modern >>> >> > IETF has a *much* higher fraction of participants employed by >>> vendors >>> >> > than the INWG and the early IETF? Despite the rule that people >>> participate >>> >> > as individuals, I suspect that this has a major impact on the way >>> ideas >>> >> > flow and mingle. >>> >> > >>> >> > Brian >>> >> > >>> >> >> v >>> >> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:17?AM Darius Kazemi < >>> darius.kazemi at gmail.com > >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> Comparing the NWG (at least in the early days of NCP) and IETF >>> seems to me >>> >> >>> like comparing a radical experiment in collaboration, >>> experimentation, and >>> >> >>> flexibility to... a standards body. Very much apples to oranges? >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> I was not even born when the NWG was doing its thing so please >>> correct me >>> >> >>> if I'm out of line here but every bit of research I've done and >>> every piece >>> >> >>> of correspondence I've read seems to indicate that even though >>> there is >>> >> >>> lineage from one to other it seems like a category error to claim >>> that the >>> >> >>> same kind of human social organization was occurring in both orgs. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 10:11 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < >>> >> >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>>> +1 >>> >> >>>> v >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via >>> Internet-history < >>> >> >>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>>> Well... >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, >>> FTP, et >>> >> >>>> al >>> >> >>>>> -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG). The NWG >>> evolved >>> >> >>>> over >>> >> >>>>> the years into the IETF. The formal creation of the IETF was >>> roughly >>> >> >>>>> mid-1980s. The process of formally declaring a protocol a >>> >> >>>>> proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. >>> Depending on how >>> >> >>>>> precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the >>> >> >>>>> formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case >>> either way. >>> >> >>>> From >>> >> >>>>> my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did >>> indeed >>> >> >>>>> originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> Steve >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via >>> Internet-history < >>> >> >>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF >>> - they >>> >> >>>>>> become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC >>> process, >>> >> >>>> under >>> >> >>>>>> the IETF aegis. Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite >>> (did >>> >> >>>> the >>> >> >>>>>> IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first >>> printed?). >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> Miles >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >>> >> >>>>>>> On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: >>> >> >>>>>>>> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >>> >> >>>>>>>>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history >>> wrote: >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come >>> to the >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> validation by >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> the community >>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an >>> application >>> >> >>>>>>>>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the >>> last 25 >>> >> >>>>> years, >>> >> >>>>>>>>> that has seen widespread success. >>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> d/ >>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually >>> originated about >>> >> >>>>>>> 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office >>> at >>> >> >>>> CERN, >>> >> >>>>>>> more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was >>> wrong a >>> >> >>>>> few >>> >> >>>>>>> days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). >>> The WWW >>> >> >>>>> BOF >>> >> >>>>>>> at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first >>> deployed, to >>> >> >>>> my >>> >> >>>>>>> personal knowledge. >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Is it not the >>> >> >>>>>>>> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of >>> >> >>>> things? >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded >>> both >>> >> >>>> rough >>> >> >>>>>>> consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and >>> still >>> >> >>>> the >>> >> >>>>>>> best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with >>> the >>> >> >>>> spec. >>> >> >>>>>>> Third best is OSI. >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> Brian >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> -- >>> >> >>>>>> 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 >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> -- >>> >> >>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>> >> >>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>> >> >>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>> -- >>> >> >>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>> >> >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>> >> >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>> -- >>> >> >>>> Internet-history mailing list >>> >> >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>> >> >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> > -- >>> >> > Internet-history mailing list >>> >> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>> >> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Internet-history mailing list >>> >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>> >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: >>> > Vint Cerf >>> > Google, LLC >>> > 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor >>> > Reston, VA 20190 >>> > +1 (571) 213 1346 <(571)%20213-1346> >>> > >>> > >>> > until further notice >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> 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 > Google, LLC > 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > +1 (571) 213 1346 > > > until further notice > > > > > From steve at shinkuro.com Wed Aug 30 19:36:27 2023 From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 22:36:27 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <15D93387-1931-4670-A697-8C168408FBF2@shinkuro.com> IBM made a tentative attempt to get involved in the Arpanet sometime around 1972 or 1973. IIRC, Doug McKay visited the office and said he had a proposal but he couldn?t show it to us. Nothing came of it, but they were clearly trying to find a way in. I think this was from Yorktown Research, but I may be remembering incorrectly. Steve Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 30, 2023, at 10:30 PM, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: > > ?actually I thought Tony > at DEC was involved in INWG. > > and could IBM Almaden have gotten involved in TCP? > > v > > > >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 7:20?PM John Day wrote: >> >> Yes, but they weren?t in INWG, were they? Nor was HP. >> >> I doubt that IBM had heard of TCP in 1976. >> >> On Aug 30, 2023, at 21:14, Vint Cerf wrote: >> >> IBM research did TCP/IP as well as HP and DEC. >> >> v >> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 6:11?PM John Day wrote: >>> >>> RIght, the phone companies. ;-) That were vertically integrated then. >>> They made their own equipment. Yea, those were the only ones I could think >>> of. >>> I thought it was kind of amusing to think of ACC as an early networking >>> company. ;-) >>> >>> The mainframe companies weren?t involved other than DEC and Xerox. >>> Interesting. >>> >>>> On Aug 30, 2023, at 20:41, vinton cerf wrote: >>> >>> the X.25 people from France (Transpac- France Telecom), England (PSS/EPSS >>> British Telecom), Canada (Datapac) and Telenet did their work more or less >>> concurrently with the development of TCP/IP. >>> >>> v >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 5:01?PM John Day via Internet-history < >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I was trying to think of companies that participated. There really >>>> weren?t any 'networking companies? yet that weren?t phone companies. Roland >>>> Bryant?s ACC was about as close as it came to a networking ;-) and he >>>> didn?t attend INWG. >>>> >>>>> On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:56, Vint Cerf wrote: >>>>> >>>>> John is correct that INWG in its early period and even as IFIP WG 6.1 >>>> has a pretty strong academic character. >>>>> IETF would have been similar in its early 1986 formation. There are >>>> probably available attendance statistics for the IETF of today and I would >>>> not be surprised to see a pretty healthy industry component. Nonetheless, >>>> with some notable exceptions, my impression is that IETF WGs are still >>>> pretty collaborative across corporate boundaries. >>>>> >>>>> v >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:47?PM John Day via Internet-history < >>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>>>>> Jumping in. INWG in the mid-70s was a different time. Without looking >>>> at the membership list, which I have, the only ?vendors? were phone >>>> companies that were vertically integrated. DEC and Xerox were there. >>>> Otherwise, it was researchers and academics. I would guess about half and >>>> half as far as who was at the meetings, not just on the mailing list. Who >>>> did I miss? >>>>>> >>>>>> Vint? >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:38, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history < >>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Vint, >>>>>>> On 31-Aug-23 05:35, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>> I don't agree with that analysis, Darius. The NWG spawned the >>>> International >>>>>>>> Network Working Group (INWG). IETF emerged from the ICCB->IAB >>>> (various >>>>>>>> forms)-> IETF/IRTF. >>>>>>>> IETF is still as collaborative as the original NWG as I see it - >>>> more >>>>>>>> formality for sure but still essentially a collaborative >>>> enterprise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Isn't there one significant demographic difference, though: the >>>> modern >>>>>>> IETF has a *much* higher fraction of participants employed by >>>> vendors >>>>>>> than the INWG and the early IETF? Despite the rule that people >>>> participate >>>>>>> as individuals, I suspect that this has a major impact on the way >>>> ideas >>>>>>> flow and mingle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Brian >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> v >>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:17?AM Darius Kazemi < >>>> darius.kazemi at gmail.com > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Comparing the NWG (at least in the early days of NCP) and IETF >>>> seems to me >>>>>>>>> like comparing a radical experiment in collaboration, >>>> experimentation, and >>>>>>>>> flexibility to... a standards body. Very much apples to oranges? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I was not even born when the NWG was doing its thing so please >>>> correct me >>>>>>>>> if I'm out of line here but every bit of research I've done and >>>> every piece >>>>>>>>> of correspondence I've read seems to indicate that even though >>>> there is >>>>>>>>> lineage from one to other it seems like a category error to claim >>>> that the >>>>>>>>> same kind of human social organization was occurring in both orgs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 10:11 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < >>>>>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>>> v >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via >>>> Internet-history < >>>>>>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Well... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, >>>> FTP, et >>>>>>>>>> al >>>>>>>>>>> -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG). The NWG >>>> evolved >>>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>>>> the years into the IETF. The formal creation of the IETF was >>>> roughly >>>>>>>>>>> mid-1980s. The process of formally declaring a protocol a >>>>>>>>>>> proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. >>>> Depending on how >>>>>>>>>>> precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the >>>>>>>>>>> formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case >>>> either way. >>>>>>>>>> From >>>>>>>>>>> my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did >>>> indeed >>>>>>>>>>> originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Steve >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via >>>> Internet-history < >>>>>>>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF >>>> - they >>>>>>>>>>>> become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC >>>> process, >>>>>>>>>> under >>>>>>>>>>>> the IETF aegis. Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite >>>> (did >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first >>>> printed?). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Miles >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come >>>> to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the community >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an >>>> application >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the >>>> last 25 >>>>>>>>>>> years, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has seen widespread success. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually >>>> originated about >>>>>>>>>>>>> 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office >>>> at >>>>>>>>>> CERN, >>>>>>>>>>>>> more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was >>>> wrong a >>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>> days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). >>>> The WWW >>>>>>>>>>> BOF >>>>>>>>>>>>> at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first >>>> deployed, to >>>>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>>>>>>> personal knowledge. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it not the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of >>>>>>>>>> things? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded >>>> both >>>>>>>>>> rough >>>>>>>>>>>>> consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and >>>> still >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with >>>> the >>>>>>>>>> spec. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Third best is OSI. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Brian >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>>>>>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>>>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>>>>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: >>>>> Vint Cerf >>>>> Google, LLC >>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor >>>>> Reston, VA 20190 >>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346 <(571)%20213-1346> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> until further notice >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >> Google, LLC >> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor >> Reston, VA 20190 >> +1 (571) 213 1346 >> >> >> until further notice >> >> >> >> >> > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From vint at google.com Wed Aug 30 19:37:14 2023 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 19:37:14 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <9CE4FA0B-DC79-44DE-A15E-0C9D91049B0A@comcast.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> <6E9627EE-3669-4195-A1D8-77B821CC7322@comcast.net> <9CE4FA0B-DC79-44DE-A15E-0C9D91049B0A@comcast.net> Message-ID: well, Braden did TCP/IP for the 360/91 at UCLA and UCSB did it for 360/75 (possibly with Braden's help? or was it the other way around). I had thought that IBM Almaden might have gotten involved at some point but perhaps that's just a made up memory. v On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 7:20?PM John Day wrote: > Yes, but they weren?t in INWG, were they? Nor was HP. > > I doubt that IBM had heard of TCP in 1976. > > On Aug 30, 2023, at 21:14, Vint Cerf wrote: > > IBM research did TCP/IP as well as HP and DEC. > > v > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 6:11?PM John Day wrote: > >> RIght, the phone companies. ;-) That were vertically integrated then. >> They made their own equipment. Yea, those were the only ones I could think >> of. >> I thought it was kind of amusing to think of ACC as an early networking >> company. ;-) >> >> The mainframe companies weren?t involved other than DEC and Xerox. >> Interesting. >> >> On Aug 30, 2023, at 20:41, vinton cerf wrote: >> >> the X.25 people from France (Transpac- France Telecom), England (PSS/EPSS >> British Telecom), Canada (Datapac) and Telenet did their work more or less >> concurrently with the development of TCP/IP. >> >> v >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 5:01?PM John Day via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >>> I was trying to think of companies that participated. There really >>> weren?t any 'networking companies? yet that weren?t phone companies. Roland >>> Bryant?s ACC was about as close as it came to a networking ;-) and he >>> didn?t attend INWG. >>> >>> > On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:56, Vint Cerf wrote: >>> > >>> > John is correct that INWG in its early period and even as IFIP WG 6.1 >>> has a pretty strong academic character. >>> > IETF would have been similar in its early 1986 formation. There are >>> probably available attendance statistics for the IETF of today and I would >>> not be surprised to see a pretty healthy industry component. Nonetheless, >>> with some notable exceptions, my impression is that IETF WGs are still >>> pretty collaborative across corporate boundaries. >>> > >>> > v >>> > >>> > >>> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:47?PM John Day via Internet-history < >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>> >> Jumping in. INWG in the mid-70s was a different time. Without looking >>> at the membership list, which I have, the only ?vendors? were phone >>> companies that were vertically integrated. DEC and Xerox were there. >>> Otherwise, it was researchers and academics. I would guess about half and >>> half as far as who was at the meetings, not just on the mailing list. Who >>> did I miss? >>> >> >>> >> Vint? >>> >> >>> >> > On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:38, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history < >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > Vint, >>> >> > On 31-Aug-23 05:35, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: >>> >> >> I don't agree with that analysis, Darius. The NWG spawned the >>> International >>> >> >> Network Working Group (INWG). IETF emerged from the ICCB->IAB >>> (various >>> >> >> forms)-> IETF/IRTF. >>> >> >> IETF is still as collaborative as the original NWG as I see it - >>> more >>> >> >> formality for sure but still essentially a collaborative >>> enterprise. >>> >> > >>> >> > Isn't there one significant demographic difference, though: the >>> modern >>> >> > IETF has a *much* higher fraction of participants employed by >>> vendors >>> >> > than the INWG and the early IETF? Despite the rule that people >>> participate >>> >> > as individuals, I suspect that this has a major impact on the way >>> ideas >>> >> > flow and mingle. >>> >> > >>> >> > Brian >>> >> > >>> >> >> v >>> >> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:17?AM Darius Kazemi < >>> darius.kazemi at gmail.com > >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> Comparing the NWG (at least in the early days of NCP) and IETF >>> seems to me >>> >> >>> like comparing a radical experiment in collaboration, >>> experimentation, and >>> >> >>> flexibility to... a standards body. Very much apples to oranges? >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> I was not even born when the NWG was doing its thing so please >>> correct me >>> >> >>> if I'm out of line here but every bit of research I've done and >>> every piece >>> >> >>> of correspondence I've read seems to indicate that even though >>> there is >>> >> >>> lineage from one to other it seems like a category error to claim >>> that the >>> >> >>> same kind of human social organization was occurring in both orgs. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 10:11 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < >>> >> >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>>> +1 >>> >> >>>> v >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via >>> Internet-history < >>> >> >>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>>> Well... >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, >>> FTP, et >>> >> >>>> al >>> >> >>>>> -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG). The NWG >>> evolved >>> >> >>>> over >>> >> >>>>> the years into the IETF. The formal creation of the IETF was >>> roughly >>> >> >>>>> mid-1980s. The process of formally declaring a protocol a >>> >> >>>>> proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. >>> Depending on how >>> >> >>>>> precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the >>> >> >>>>> formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case >>> either way. >>> >> >>>> From >>> >> >>>>> my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did >>> indeed >>> >> >>>>> originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> Steve >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via >>> Internet-history < >>> >> >>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF >>> - they >>> >> >>>>>> become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC >>> process, >>> >> >>>> under >>> >> >>>>>> the IETF aegis. Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite >>> (did >>> >> >>>> the >>> >> >>>>>> IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first >>> printed?). >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> Miles >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >>> >> >>>>>>> On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: >>> >> >>>>>>>> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >>> >> >>>>>>>>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history >>> wrote: >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come >>> to the >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> validation by >>> >> >>>>>>>>>> the community >>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an >>> application >>> >> >>>>>>>>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the >>> last 25 >>> >> >>>>> years, >>> >> >>>>>>>>> that has seen widespread success. >>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>>> d/ >>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually >>> originated about >>> >> >>>>>>> 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office >>> at >>> >> >>>> CERN, >>> >> >>>>>>> more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was >>> wrong a >>> >> >>>>> few >>> >> >>>>>>> days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). >>> The WWW >>> >> >>>>> BOF >>> >> >>>>>>> at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first >>> deployed, to >>> >> >>>> my >>> >> >>>>>>> personal knowledge. >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>>> Is it not the >>> >> >>>>>>>> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of >>> >> >>>> things? >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded >>> both >>> >> >>>> rough >>> >> >>>>>>> consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and >>> still >>> >> >>>> the >>> >> >>>>>>> best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with >>> the >>> >> >>>> spec. >>> >> >>>>>>> Third best is OSI. >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> Brian >>> >> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> -- >>> >> >>>>>> 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 >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>> -- >>> >> >>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>> >> >>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>> >> >>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> >>>>>> >>> >> >>>>> -- >>> >> >>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>> >> >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>> >> >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> >>>>> >>> >> >>>> -- >>> >> >>>> Internet-history mailing list >>> >> >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>> >> >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> > -- >>> >> > Internet-history mailing list >>> >> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>> >> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Internet-history mailing list >>> >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>> >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: >>> > Vint Cerf >>> > Google, LLC >>> > 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor >>> > Reston, VA 20190 >>> > +1 (571) 213 1346 <(571)%20213-1346> >>> > >>> > >>> > until further notice >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> 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 > Google, LLC > 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > +1 (571) 213 1346 <(571)%20213-1346> > > > until further notice > > > > > -- Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: Vint Cerf Google, LLC 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor Reston, VA 20190 +1 (571) 213 1346 until further notice From dhc at dcrocker.net Wed Aug 30 19:45:57 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 19:45:57 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> <6E9627EE-3669-4195-A1D8-77B821CC7322@comcast.net> <9CE4FA0B-DC79-44DE-A15E-0C9D91049B0A@comcast.net> Message-ID: <3d6adddf-c611-9405-3236-6c3928c05a99@dcrocker.net> On 8/30/2023 7:37 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: > well, Braden did TCP/IP for the 360/91 at UCLA and UCSB did it for 360/75 > (possibly with Braden's help? or was it the other way around). you have the machines right.? Jim White did the UCSB one.? (He was also technical lead for X.400 and X.500.) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From sauer at technologists.com Wed Aug 30 20:32:19 2023 From: sauer at technologists.com (Charles H. Sauer) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 22:32:19 -0500 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <15D93387-1931-4670-A697-8C168408FBF2@shinkuro.com> References: <15D93387-1931-4670-A697-8C168408FBF2@shinkuro.com> Message-ID: I joined IBM Research at Yorktown in March 1975, in a group that focused on analyzing network performance. I inquired about Arpanet access and was strongly discouraged. IBM Almaden Research Almaden was established in the 1980s, IIRC, but it is plausible that people at the predecessor IBM Research facility in San Jose would have gotten involved in TCP. > On Aug 30, 2023, at 9:36 PM, Steve Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > > IBM made a tentative attempt to get involved in the Arpanet sometime around 1972 or 1973. IIRC, Doug McKay visited the office and said he had a proposal but he couldn?t show it to us. Nothing came of it, but they were clearly trying to find a way in. I think this was from Yorktown Research, but I may be remembering incorrectly. > > Steve > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Aug 30, 2023, at 10:30 PM, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: >> >> ?actually I thought Tony >> at DEC was involved in INWG. >> >> and could IBM Almaden have gotten involved in TCP? >> >> v >> rg/mailman/listinfo/internet-history -- voice: +1.512.784.7526 e-mail: sauer at technologists.com fax: +1.512.346.5240 web: https://technologists.com/sauer/ Facebook/Google/LinkedIn/Twitter: CharlesHSauer From gregskinner0 at icloud.com Wed Aug 30 22:47:43 2023 From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 22:47:43 -0700 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <15D93387-1931-4670-A697-8C168408FBF2@shinkuro.com> Message-ID: <132F61A0-1E1B-4103-862A-B57DB6B3EB7F@icloud.com> I found an email exchange over IBM?s VNET indirectly via Anne & Lynn Wheeler?s collection between several IBM staff (including Jim Gray and Edson Hendricks ) and Jerry Saltzer that took place from 1980-1981. The exchange refers to events that took place a few years earlier that indicate they had knowledge of the ARPAnet. They knew about the Internet, such as it was, at the time of the exchange, but I?m not sure if they were privy to any INWG discussions. ?gregbo > On Aug 30, 2023, at 8:32 PM, Charles H. Sauer via Internet-history wrote: > > I joined IBM Research at Yorktown in March 1975, in a group that focused on analyzing network performance. I inquired about Arpanet access and was strongly discouraged. IBM Almaden Research Almaden was established in the 1980s, IIRC, but it is plausible that people at the predecessor IBM Research facility in San Jose would have gotten involved in TCP. > >> On Aug 30, 2023, at 9:36 PM, Steve Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >> >> IBM made a tentative attempt to get involved in the Arpanet sometime around 1972 or 1973. IIRC, Doug McKay visited the office and said he had a proposal but he couldn?t show it to us. Nothing came of it, but they were clearly trying to find a way in. I think this was from Yorktown Research, but I may be remembering incorrectly. >> >> Steve >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Aug 30, 2023, at 10:30 PM, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: >>> >>> ?actually I thought Tony >>> at DEC was involved in INWG. >>> >>> and could IBM Almaden have gotten involved in TCP? >>> >>> v >>> rg/mailman/listinfo/internet-history > > -- > voice: +1.512.784.7526 e-mail: sauer at technologists.com > fax: +1.512.346.5240 web: https://technologists.com/sauer/ > Facebook/Google/LinkedIn/Twitter: CharlesHSauer > > -- > 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 Wed Aug 30 22:53:05 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 17:53:05 +1200 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> <6E9627EE-3669-4195-A1D8-77B821CC7322@comcast.net> <8cd659cb-a5d8-b15f-5a60-b75cbb398583@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: On 31-Aug-23 13:38, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: > official DEC fought like hell but research DEC got TCP somehow for > KL-10s/-20s. > Don't know whether they used the TENEX version or made their own? VAX was > probably a different story. Wollongong was the only game in town for VAX/VMS TCP/IP for many years. Ultrix of course had native TCP/IP - so Ultrix vs VMS really confused the market. But then they dveloped the Alpha RISC CPU and Wikipedia tells the tale: "Operating systems that support Alpha included OpenVMS (formerly named OpenVMS AXP), Tru64 UNIX (formerly named DEC OSF/1 AXP and Digital UNIX), Windows NT (discontinued after NT 4.0; and prerelease Windows 2000 RC2), Linux (Debian, SUSE,[3] Gentoo and Red Hat), BSD UNIX (NetBSD, OpenBSD and FreeBSD up to 6.x), Plan 9 from Bell Labs, and the L4Ka::Pistachio kernel. A port of Ultrix to Alpha was carried out during the initial development of the Alpha architecture, but was never released as a product." which confused the market so much that the customer base vanished. Sad story. Brian > > v > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 6:20?PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> On 8/30/2023 6:14 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: >>> IBM research did TCP/IP as well as HP and DEC. >> >> Hmmm. DEC came to TCP/IP only in the late 1980s and only in fits and >> starts, after fighting TCP/IP quite vigorously. Note, for example, that >> Wollongong made a lot of money selling an aftermarket stack for VMS. >> >> d/ >> >> -- >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net >> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> From gregskinner0 at icloud.com Wed Aug 30 23:07:18 2023 From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 23:07:18 -0700 Subject: [ih] Fwd: IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) References: <810830944.2990825.1693461198603@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Forwarded from Barbara Denny. BTW, Don Provan?s TCPSER.MAC code is available on the saildart.org site. ?gregbo > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Barbara Denny > Subject: Fw: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) > Date: August 30, 2023 at 10:53:18 PM PDT > To: Greg Skinner > > Unfortunately we can no longer check with Don Provan to see what he else he remembers. In the past, I sent email to this list mentioning Don wrote the TOPS-10 TCP/IP code for the cut over. This was when he worked as a DEC contractor at Wright Paterson Air Force Base for AFWAL (Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratory). He did distribute the code to others. At the time he also sent me more messages. One of those messages included this snippet. I am including it now in case people are interested. BTW, he was able to get a copy of his code after this email exchange with Johnny Eriksson. > > barbara > > Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 00:18:13 GMT > From: bygg at sunic.sunet.se (Johnny Eriksson) > To: comp.protocols.tcp-ip > Subject: Re: TCP/IP for Tops-10 > > In article <1993Jan8.195139.27625 at novell.com> donp at novell.com (don provan) writes: > >Gee, if i'd known there'd be this much interest, i would have posted the > >answer instead of just sending it directly. I implemented TCP/IP on > >TOPS-10. There's no relation between the TOPS-10 implementation and the > >TENEX/TOPS-20 implementation. On the other hand, a derivitive of the > >TOPS-10 code ran on WAITS, just in case anyone thought this conversation > >wasn't obscure enough yet. To my knowledge, there is no copy of the > >code on the face of the earth, though i'd be happy to hear someone tell > >me i'm wrong, particularly if they could send me a copy. > > See below. > > >And, although i can't imagine anyone really cares, it ran on 6.02 and > >6.03a. After that i'm a little vague, but i think i got it to run on > >7.00, but not 7.01. Something about radical changes to the IO system > >in 7.01, but, gee, that was many years ago so i don't remember the details. > > It has been running on 7.02, talking IP-on-top-of-DDCMP to a VAX running > BSD 4.2, thru an ANF-10 front end sync port instead of using an IMP. > This required some slight changes... > > Beginning if TCPSER.MAC follows, to prove I'm not lying: > > title TCPSer > subttl provan > > search f,s > search NetDef ; network definitions > search MacTen ; search only if symbol not found in NetDef > > sall > > $reloc > $high > > XP VTCPSr,7 ; TCP version > > comment \ > > this module contains the support routines for the transmission > control protocol as defined in RFC-793 > > \ > > ... > [He lists some of the code which won't interest you, but then he continues to post one of the pieces of of my code I'm most proud of -don] > > > > ;; Let's skip to an interesting routine: > > > > subttl SecChk > > ;++ > ; Functional description: > ; > ; Classified. > ; > ; > ; Calling sequence: > ; > ; Classified. > ; > ; Input parameters: > ; > ; Classified. > ; > ; Output parameters: > ; > ; Classified. > ; > ; Implicit inputs: > ; > ; Classified. > ; > ; Implicit outputs: > ; > ; Classified. > ; > ; Routine value: > ; > ; Classified. > ; > ; Side effects: > ; > ; Classified. > ; > ;-- > > > > SecChk: pjrst cpopj1## ; security looks good. > > > don provan > > donp at novell.com > > --Johnny > > ?When in doubt -- hesitate!? > > > > > From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Wed Aug 30 23:09:46 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 18:09:46 +1200 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> Message-ID: On 31-Aug-23 12:41, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: > the X.25 people from France (Transpac- France Telecom), England (PSS/EPSS > British Telecom), Canada (Datapac) and Telenet did their work more or less > concurrently with the development of TCP/IP. There beginneth the sad story of Kiwinet. In 1974/76 I was at Massey University in NZ, and together with Victoria University of Wellington we started the Kiwinet project, initially to interconnect the Burroughs B6700s at the two site. First decision: layer 3 protocol. The NZ GPO then basically copied whatever the British GPO did (BT split off in 1981). So we had to choose between "copy ARPANET" and get zero help and probable obstruction from the NZ GPO, or "copy EPSS" and get GPO assistance, even though X.25 was still in draft. It didn't end well. None of the reports seem to be on line (there is no connection with kiwinet.org.nz). Brian > > v > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 5:01?PM John Day via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> I was trying to think of companies that participated. There really weren?t >> any 'networking companies? yet that weren?t phone companies. Roland >> Bryant?s ACC was about as close as it came to a networking ;-) and he >> didn?t attend INWG. >> >>> On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:56, Vint Cerf wrote: >>> >>> John is correct that INWG in its early period and even as IFIP WG 6.1 >> has a pretty strong academic character. >>> IETF would have been similar in its early 1986 formation. There are >> probably available attendance statistics for the IETF of today and I would >> not be surprised to see a pretty healthy industry component. Nonetheless, >> with some notable exceptions, my impression is that IETF WGs are still >> pretty collaborative across corporate boundaries. >>> >>> v >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:47?PM John Day via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >> wrote: >>>> Jumping in. INWG in the mid-70s was a different time. Without looking >> at the membership list, which I have, the only ?vendors? were phone >> companies that were vertically integrated. DEC and Xerox were there. >> Otherwise, it was researchers and academics. I would guess about half and >> half as far as who was at the meetings, not just on the mailing list. Who >> did I miss? >>>> >>>> Vint? >>>> >>>>> On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:38, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Vint, >>>>> On 31-Aug-23 05:35, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> I don't agree with that analysis, Darius. The NWG spawned the >> International >>>>>> Network Working Group (INWG). IETF emerged from the ICCB->IAB >> (various >>>>>> forms)-> IETF/IRTF. >>>>>> IETF is still as collaborative as the original NWG as I see it - more >>>>>> formality for sure but still essentially a collaborative enterprise. >>>>> >>>>> Isn't there one significant demographic difference, though: the modern >>>>> IETF has a *much* higher fraction of participants employed by vendors >>>>> than the INWG and the early IETF? Despite the rule that people >> participate >>>>> as individuals, I suspect that this has a major impact on the way >> ideas >>>>> flow and mingle. >>>>> >>>>> Brian >>>>> >>>>>> v >>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:17?AM Darius Kazemi < >> darius.kazemi at gmail.com > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Comparing the NWG (at least in the early days of NCP) and IETF >> seems to me >>>>>>> like comparing a radical experiment in collaboration, >> experimentation, and >>>>>>> flexibility to... a standards body. Very much apples to oranges? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was not even born when the NWG was doing its thing so please >> correct me >>>>>>> if I'm out of line here but every bit of research I've done and >> every piece >>>>>>> of correspondence I've read seems to indicate that even though >> there is >>>>>>> lineage from one to other it seems like a category error to claim >> that the >>>>>>> same kind of human social organization was occurring in both orgs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 10:11 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < >>>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org > internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>> v >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history >> < >>>>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org > internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, >> FTP, et >>>>>>>> al >>>>>>>>> -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG). The NWG >> evolved >>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>> the years into the IETF. The formal creation of the IETF was >> roughly >>>>>>>>> mid-1980s. The process of formally declaring a protocol a >>>>>>>>> proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. Depending >> on how >>>>>>>>> precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the >>>>>>>>> formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case either >> way. >>>>>>>> From >>>>>>>>> my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did >> indeed >>>>>>>>> originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Steve >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via >> Internet-history < >>>>>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org > internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF - >> they >>>>>>>>>> become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC process, >>>>>>>> under >>>>>>>>>> the IETF aegis. Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite >> (did >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first >> printed?). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Miles >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to >> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the community >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an >> application >>>>>>>>>>>>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last >> 25 >>>>>>>>> years, >>>>>>>>>>>>> that has seen widespread success. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> d/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated >> about >>>>>>>>>>> 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office at >>>>>>>> CERN, >>>>>>>>>>> more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was >> wrong a >>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>> days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). >> The WWW >>>>>>>>> BOF >>>>>>>>>>> at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first deployed, >> to >>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>>>>> personal knowledge. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is it not the >>>>>>>>>>>> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of >>>>>>>> things? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded both >>>>>>>> rough >>>>>>>>>>> consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and >> still >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with the >>>>>>>> spec. >>>>>>>>>>> Third best is OSI. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Brian >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>>>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>>>>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>>>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: >>> Vint Cerf >>> Google, LLC >>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor >>> Reston, VA 20190 >>> +1 (571) 213 1346 >>> >>> >>> until further notice >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> From ocl at gih.com Thu Aug 31 02:00:06 2023 From: ocl at gih.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=c3=a9pin-Leblond?=) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 10:00:06 +0100 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <8cd659cb-a5d8-b15f-5a60-b75cbb398583@dcrocker.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> <6E9627EE-3669-4195-A1D8-77B821CC7322@comcast.net> <8cd659cb-a5d8-b15f-5a60-b75cbb398583@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <3f98276c-3d5b-bd79-f5a3-6214b9b52908@gih.com> On 31/08/2023 02:20, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > On 8/30/2023 6:14 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: >> IBM research did TCP/IP as well as HP and DEC. > > Hmmm.? DEC came to TCP/IP only in the late 1980s and only in fits and > starts, after fighting TCP/IP quite vigorously.? Note, for example, > that Wollongong made a lot of money selling an aftermarket stack for VMS. > > d/ > Vague memories from University, I recall that TCP-IP stack on Ultrix arrived before the DEC-released VMS stack. I cannot remember the date... 1987? 1986? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrix Kindest regards, Olivier From nigel at channelisles.net Thu Aug 31 05:17:19 2023 From: nigel at channelisles.net (Nigel Roberts) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 13:17:19 +0100 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> Message-ID: On 8/31/23 01:41, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: > the X.25 people from France (Transpac- France Telecom), England (PSS/EPSS > British Telecom), Canada (Datapac) and Telenet did their work more or less > concurrently with the development of TCP/IP. > I remember EPSS as if it were yesterday. Essex was part of the EPPSS trial There was a strong connection between the BT research place at Martlesham Heath (and whom I worked for. much later). It was an EPSS link to UCL that got us on to the ARPAnet in early 1978; from UCL (which was on both) I was able to login to MIT-DM (host 70). I believe DM stood for Data Modelling, but I always think of as Dungeon Master!! The work of Lebling et al on ZORK inspired us (Bartle, Trubshaw, myself) to create MUD in late 1978, proving multi-user games were possible. (We played ZORK incessantly as undergrads, having completely finished off ADVENTure -- even the last 1 remaining score point). What I think this indicates is that "sequences of event" are not just the usual broute to disasters, but can also lead to fortunate occurrences (i.e. serendipity), and that the strength is in the network (something our local Island airline would do well to remember). Nigel -- Nigel Roberts, Maison du Cotil. Alderney GY9 3YZ nigel at roberts.co.uk +44 20 7100 4319 On 8/31/23 01:41, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: > the X.25 people from France (Transpac- France Telecom), England (PSS/EPSS > British Telecom), Canada (Datapac) and Telenet did their work more or less > concurrently with the development of TCP/IP. > > v > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 5:01?PM John Day via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> I was trying to think of companies that participated. There really weren?t >> any 'networking companies? yet that weren?t phone companies. Roland >> Bryant?s ACC was about as close as it came to a networking ;-) and he >> didn?t attend INWG. >> >>> On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:56, Vint Cerf wrote: >>> >>> John is correct that INWG in its early period and even as IFIP WG 6.1 >> has a pretty strong academic character. >>> IETF would have been similar in its early 1986 formation. There are >> probably available attendance statistics for the IETF of today and I would >> not be surprised to see a pretty healthy industry component. Nonetheless, >> with some notable exceptions, my impression is that IETF WGs are still >> pretty collaborative across corporate boundaries. >>> >>> v >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:47?PM John Day via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >> wrote: >>>> Jumping in. INWG in the mid-70s was a different time. Without looking >> at the membership list, which I have, the only ?vendors? were phone >> companies that were vertically integrated. DEC and Xerox were there. >> Otherwise, it was researchers and academics. I would guess about half and >> half as far as who was at the meetings, not just on the mailing list. Who >> did I miss? >>>> >>>> Vint? >>>> >>>>> On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:38, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Vint, >>>>> On 31-Aug-23 05:35, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> I don't agree with that analysis, Darius. The NWG spawned the >> International >>>>>> Network Working Group (INWG). IETF emerged from the ICCB->IAB >> (various >>>>>> forms)-> IETF/IRTF. >>>>>> IETF is still as collaborative as the original NWG as I see it - more >>>>>> formality for sure but still essentially a collaborative enterprise. >>>>> >>>>> Isn't there one significant demographic difference, though: the modern >>>>> IETF has a *much* higher fraction of participants employed by vendors >>>>> than the INWG and the early IETF? Despite the rule that people >> participate >>>>> as individuals, I suspect that this has a major impact on the way >> ideas >>>>> flow and mingle. >>>>> >>>>> Brian >>>>> >>>>>> v >>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:17?AM Darius Kazemi < >> darius.kazemi at gmail.com > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Comparing the NWG (at least in the early days of NCP) and IETF >> seems to me >>>>>>> like comparing a radical experiment in collaboration, >> experimentation, and >>>>>>> flexibility to... a standards body. Very much apples to oranges? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was not even born when the NWG was doing its thing so please >> correct me >>>>>>> if I'm out of line here but every bit of research I've done and >> every piece >>>>>>> of correspondence I've read seems to indicate that even though >> there is >>>>>>> lineage from one to other it seems like a category error to claim >> that the >>>>>>> same kind of human social organization was occurring in both orgs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 10:11 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < >>>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org > internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>> v >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history >> < >>>>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org > internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, >> FTP, et >>>>>>>> al >>>>>>>>> -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG). The NWG >> evolved >>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>> the years into the IETF. The formal creation of the IETF was >> roughly >>>>>>>>> mid-1980s. The process of formally declaring a protocol a >>>>>>>>> proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. Depending >> on how >>>>>>>>> precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the >>>>>>>>> formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case either >> way. >>>>>>>> From >>>>>>>>> my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did >> indeed >>>>>>>>> originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Steve >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via >> Internet-history < >>>>>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org > internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF - >> they >>>>>>>>>> become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC process, >>>>>>>> under >>>>>>>>>> the IETF aegis. Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite >> (did >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first >> printed?). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Miles >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to >> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the community >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an >> application >>>>>>>>>>>>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last >> 25 >>>>>>>>> years, >>>>>>>>>>>>> that has seen widespread success. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> d/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated >> about >>>>>>>>>>> 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office at >>>>>>>> CERN, >>>>>>>>>>> more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was >> wrong a >>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>> days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). >> The WWW >>>>>>>>> BOF >>>>>>>>>>> at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first deployed, >> to >>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>>>>> personal knowledge. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is it not the >>>>>>>>>>>> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of >>>>>>>> things? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded both >>>>>>>> rough >>>>>>>>>>> consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and >> still >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with the >>>>>>>> spec. >>>>>>>>>>> Third best is OSI. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Brian >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>>>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>>>>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>>>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: >>> Vint Cerf >>> Google, LLC >>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor >>> Reston, VA 20190 >>> +1 (571) 213 1346 >>> >>> >>> until further notice >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Internet-history mailing list >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >> From cdel at firsthand.net Thu Aug 31 05:24:56 2023 From: cdel at firsthand.net (christian de larrinaga) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 13:24:56 +0100 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> Message-ID: <87jztb1jju.fsf@firsthand.net> That's a lovely post. I agree Networking in the broader sense as a creative generator is really the point that too often gets squandered. BTW You'd be most welcome participating in the UK ISOC chapter. https://www.isoc-e.org best Christian Christian de Larrinaga FBCS CITP 07989 386778 Nigel Roberts via Internet-history writes: > On 8/31/23 01:41, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: >> the X.25 people from France (Transpac- France Telecom), England (PSS/EPSS >> British Telecom), Canada (Datapac) and Telenet did their work more > or less >> concurrently with the development of TCP/IP. >> > > I remember EPSS as if it were yesterday. > > Essex was part of the EPPSS trial There was a strong connection > between the BT research place at Martlesham Heath (and whom I worked > for. much later). > > It was an EPSS link to UCL that got us on to the ARPAnet in early > 1978; from UCL (which was on both) I was able to login to MIT-DM > (host 70). > > I believe DM stood for Data Modelling, but I always think of as > Dungeon Master!! The work of Lebling et al on ZORK inspired us > (Bartle, Trubshaw, myself) to create MUD in late 1978, proving > multi-user games were possible. (We played ZORK incessantly as > undergrads, having completely finished off ADVENTure -- even the last > 1 remaining score point). > > > What I think this indicates is that "sequences of event" are not just > the usual broute to disasters, but can also lead to fortunate > occurrences (i.e. serendipity), and that the strength is in the > network (something our local Island airline would do well to > remember). > > > > Nigel > -- > Nigel Roberts, Maison du Cotil. Alderney GY9 3YZ > nigel at roberts.co.uk +44 20 7100 4319 > > > > On 8/31/23 01:41, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: >> the X.25 people from France (Transpac- France Telecom), England (PSS/EPSS >> British Telecom), Canada (Datapac) and Telenet did their work more or less >> concurrently with the development of TCP/IP. >> v >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 5:01?PM John Day via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >> >>> I was trying to think of companies that participated. There really weren?t >>> any 'networking companies? yet that weren?t phone companies. Roland >>> Bryant?s ACC was about as close as it came to a networking ;-) and he >>> didn?t attend INWG. >>> >>>> On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:56, Vint Cerf wrote: >>>> >>>> John is correct that INWG in its early period and even as IFIP WG 6.1 >>> has a pretty strong academic character. >>>> IETF would have been similar in its early 1986 formation. There are >>> probably available attendance statistics for the IETF of today and I would >>> not be surprised to see a pretty healthy industry component. Nonetheless, >>> with some notable exceptions, my impression is that IETF WGs are still >>> pretty collaborative across corporate boundaries. >>>> >>>> v >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:47?PM John Day via Internet-history < >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >>> wrote: >>>>> Jumping in. INWG in the mid-70s was a different time. Without looking >>> at the membership list, which I have, the only ?vendors? were phone >>> companies that were vertically integrated. DEC and Xerox were there. >>> Otherwise, it was researchers and academics. I would guess about half and >>> half as far as who was at the meetings, not just on the mailing list. Who >>> did I miss? >>>>> >>>>> Vint? >>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:38, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history < >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org > >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Vint, >>>>>> On 31-Aug-23 05:35, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>> I don't agree with that analysis, Darius. The NWG spawned the >>> International >>>>>>> Network Working Group (INWG). IETF emerged from the ICCB->IAB >>> (various >>>>>>> forms)-> IETF/IRTF. >>>>>>> IETF is still as collaborative as the original NWG as I see it - more >>>>>>> formality for sure but still essentially a collaborative enterprise. >>>>>> >>>>>> Isn't there one significant demographic difference, though: the modern >>>>>> IETF has a *much* higher fraction of participants employed by vendors >>>>>> than the INWG and the early IETF? Despite the rule that people >>> participate >>>>>> as individuals, I suspect that this has a major impact on the way >>> ideas >>>>>> flow and mingle. >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian >>>>>> >>>>>>> v >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:17?AM Darius Kazemi < >>> darius.kazemi at gmail.com > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Comparing the NWG (at least in the early days of NCP) and IETF >>> seems to me >>>>>>>> like comparing a radical experiment in collaboration, >>> experimentation, and >>>>>>>> flexibility to... a standards body. Very much apples to oranges? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was not even born when the NWG was doing its thing so please >>> correct me >>>>>>>> if I'm out of line here but every bit of research I've done and >>> every piece >>>>>>>> of correspondence I've read seems to indicate that even though >>> there is >>>>>>>> lineage from one to other it seems like a category error to claim >>> that the >>>>>>>> same kind of human social organization was occurring in both orgs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 10:11 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < >>>>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>> v >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history >>> < >>>>>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, >>> FTP, et >>>>>>>>> al >>>>>>>>>> -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG). The NWG >>> evolved >>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>>> the years into the IETF. The formal creation of the IETF was >>> roughly >>>>>>>>>> mid-1980s. The process of formally declaring a protocol a >>>>>>>>>> proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. Depending >>> on how >>>>>>>>>> precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the >>>>>>>>>> formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case either >>> way. >>>>>>>>> From >>>>>>>>>> my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did >>> indeed >>>>>>>>>> originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Steve >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via >>> Internet-history < >>>>>>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF - >>> they >>>>>>>>>>> become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC process, >>>>>>>>> under >>>>>>>>>>> the IETF aegis. Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite >>> (did >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first >>> printed?). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Miles >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to >>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the community >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an >>> application >>>>>>>>>>>>>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last >>> 25 >>>>>>>>>> years, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has seen widespread success. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> d/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated >>> about >>>>>>>>>>>> 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office at >>>>>>>>> CERN, >>>>>>>>>>>> more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was >>> wrong a >>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>> days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). >>> The WWW >>>>>>>>>> BOF >>>>>>>>>>>> at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first deployed, >>> to >>>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>>>>>> personal knowledge. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it not the >>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of >>>>>>>>> things? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded both >>>>>>>>> rough >>>>>>>>>>>> consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and >>> still >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with the >>>>>>>>> spec. >>>>>>>>>>>> Third best is OSI. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Brian >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>>>>>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>>>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>>>>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>>>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Internet-history mailing list >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: >>>> Vint Cerf >>>> Google, LLC >>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor >>>> Reston, VA 20190 >>>> +1 (571) 213 1346 >>>> >>>> >>>> until further notice >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Internet-history mailing list >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history >>> -- christian de larrinaga https://firsthand.net From jeanjour at comcast.net Thu Aug 31 05:55:13 2023 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 08:55:13 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> <6E9627EE-3669-4195-A1D8-77B821CC7322@comcast.net> <9CE4FA0B-DC79-44DE-A15E-0C9D91049B0A@comcast.net> Message-ID: Braden was the IBM guy in those days. ;-) The only one who showed up at NWG meetings in a coat and tie. ;-) Yea, I know that changed later. I know who you mean at DEC, but can?t think of his last name either. It will come to me. > On Aug 30, 2023, at 22:37, Vint Cerf wrote: > > well, Braden did TCP/IP for the 360/91 at UCLA and UCSB did it for 360/75 > (possibly with Braden's help? or was it the other way around). I had thought that IBM Almaden might have gotten involved at some point but perhaps that's just a made up memory. > > v > > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 7:20?PM John Day > wrote: >> Yes, but they weren?t in INWG, were they? Nor was HP. >> >> I doubt that IBM had heard of TCP in 1976. >> >>> On Aug 30, 2023, at 21:14, Vint Cerf > wrote: >>> >>> IBM research did TCP/IP as well as HP and DEC. >>> >>> v >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 6:11?PM John Day > wrote: >>>> RIght, the phone companies. ;-) That were vertically integrated then. They made their own equipment. Yea, those were the only ones I could think of. >>>> I thought it was kind of amusing to think of ACC as an early networking company. ;-) >>>> >>>> The mainframe companies weren?t involved other than DEC and Xerox. Interesting. >>>> >>>>> On Aug 30, 2023, at 20:41, vinton cerf > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> the X.25 people from France (Transpac- France Telecom), England (PSS/EPSS British Telecom), Canada (Datapac) and Telenet did their work more or less concurrently with the development of TCP/IP. >>>>> >>>>> v >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 5:01?PM John Day via Internet-history > wrote: >>>>>> I was trying to think of companies that participated. There really weren?t any 'networking companies? yet that weren?t phone companies. Roland Bryant?s ACC was about as close as it came to a networking ;-) and he didn?t attend INWG. >>>>>> >>>>>> > On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:56, Vint Cerf > wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > John is correct that INWG in its early period and even as IFIP WG 6.1 has a pretty strong academic character. >>>>>> > IETF would have been similar in its early 1986 formation. There are probably available attendance statistics for the IETF of today and I would not be surprised to see a pretty healthy industry component. Nonetheless, with some notable exceptions, my impression is that IETF WGs are still pretty collaborative across corporate boundaries. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > v >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:47?PM John Day via Internet-history >> wrote: >>>>>> >> Jumping in. INWG in the mid-70s was a different time. Without looking at the membership list, which I have, the only ?vendors? were phone companies that were vertically integrated. DEC and Xerox were there. Otherwise, it was researchers and academics. I would guess about half and half as far as who was at the meetings, not just on the mailing list. Who did I miss? >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Vint? >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> > On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:38, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history >> wrote: >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > Vint, >>>>>> >> > On 31-Aug-23 05:35, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> >> >> I don't agree with that analysis, Darius. The NWG spawned the International >>>>>> >> >> Network Working Group (INWG). IETF emerged from the ICCB->IAB (various >>>>>> >> >> forms)-> IETF/IRTF. >>>>>> >> >> IETF is still as collaborative as the original NWG as I see it - more >>>>>> >> >> formality for sure but still essentially a collaborative enterprise. >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > Isn't there one significant demographic difference, though: the modern >>>>>> >> > IETF has a *much* higher fraction of participants employed by vendors >>>>>> >> > than the INWG and the early IETF? Despite the rule that people participate >>>>>> >> > as individuals, I suspect that this has a major impact on the way ideas >>>>>> >> > flow and mingle. >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> > Brian >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> >> v >>>>>> >> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:17?AM Darius Kazemi >> >>>>>> >> >> wrote: >>>>>> >> >>> Comparing the NWG (at least in the early days of NCP) and IETF seems to me >>>>>> >> >>> like comparing a radical experiment in collaboration, experimentation, and >>>>>> >> >>> flexibility to... a standards body. Very much apples to oranges? >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> I was not even born when the NWG was doing its thing so please correct me >>>>>> >> >>> if I'm out of line here but every bit of research I've done and every piece >>>>>> >> >>> of correspondence I've read seems to indicate that even though there is >>>>>> >> >>> lineage from one to other it seems like a category error to claim that the >>>>>> >> >>> same kind of human social organization was occurring in both orgs. >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 10:11 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < >>>>>> >> >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> wrote: >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>>> +1 >>>>>> >> >>>> v >>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history < >>>>>> >> >>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>> Well... >>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>> The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, FTP, et >>>>>> >> >>>> al >>>>>> >> >>>>> -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG). The NWG evolved >>>>>> >> >>>> over >>>>>> >> >>>>> the years into the IETF. The formal creation of the IETF was roughly >>>>>> >> >>>>> mid-1980s. The process of formally declaring a protocol a >>>>>> >> >>>>> proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. Depending on how >>>>>> >> >>>>> precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the >>>>>> >> >>>>> formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case either way. >>>>>> >> >>>> From >>>>>> >> >>>>> my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did indeed >>>>>> >> >>>>> originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. >>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>> Steve >>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history < >>>>>> >> >>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF - they >>>>>> >> >>>>>> become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC process, >>>>>> >> >>>> under >>>>>> >> >>>>>> the IETF aegis. Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite (did >>>>>> >> >>>> the >>>>>> >> >>>>>> IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first printed?). >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Miles >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to the >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> validation by >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> the community >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an application >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last 25 >>>>>> >> >>>>> years, >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> that has seen widespread success. >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> d/ >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated about >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office at >>>>>> >> >>>> CERN, >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was wrong a >>>>>> >> >>>>> few >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). The WWW >>>>>> >> >>>>> BOF >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first deployed, to >>>>>> >> >>>> my >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> personal knowledge. >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Is it not the >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of >>>>>> >> >>>> things? >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded both >>>>>> >> >>>> rough >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and still >>>>>> >> >>>> the >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with the >>>>>> >> >>>> spec. >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Third best is OSI. >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Brian >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> -- >>>>>> >> 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 >>>>>> > Google, LLC >>>>>> > 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor >>>>>> > Reston, VA 20190 >>>>>> > +1 (571) 213 1346 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > until further notice >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>> Google, LLC >>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor >>> Reston, VA 20190 >>> +1 (571) 213 1346 >>> >>> >>> until further notice >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: > Vint Cerf > Google, LLC > 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor > Reston, VA 20190 > +1 (571) 213 1346 > > > until further notice > > > From jeanjour at comcast.net Thu Aug 31 06:30:57 2023 From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 09:30:57 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> <6E9627EE-3669-4195-A1D8-77B821CC7322@comcast.net> <9CE4FA0B-DC79-44DE-A15E-0C9D91049B0A@comcast.net> Message-ID: <2691E7D1-58A5-49F9-B107-A5051D1F0CCD@comcast.net> The DEC person was Tony Lauk. ;-) > On Aug 31, 2023, at 08:55, John Day via Internet-history wrote: > > Braden was the IBM guy in those days. ;-) The only one who showed up at NWG meetings in a coat and tie. ;-) > > Yea, I know that changed later. > > I know who you mean at DEC, but can?t think of his last name either. It will come to me. > >> On Aug 30, 2023, at 22:37, Vint Cerf wrote: >> >> well, Braden did TCP/IP for the 360/91 at UCLA and UCSB did it for 360/75 >> (possibly with Braden's help? or was it the other way around). I had thought that IBM Almaden might have gotten involved at some point but perhaps that's just a made up memory. >> >> v >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 7:20?PM John Day > wrote: >>> Yes, but they weren?t in INWG, were they? Nor was HP. >>> >>> I doubt that IBM had heard of TCP in 1976. >>> >>>> On Aug 30, 2023, at 21:14, Vint Cerf > wrote: >>>> >>>> IBM research did TCP/IP as well as HP and DEC. >>>> >>>> v >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 6:11?PM John Day > wrote: >>>>> RIght, the phone companies. ;-) That were vertically integrated then. They made their own equipment. Yea, those were the only ones I could think of. >>>>> I thought it was kind of amusing to think of ACC as an early networking company. ;-) >>>>> >>>>> The mainframe companies weren?t involved other than DEC and Xerox. Interesting. >>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 30, 2023, at 20:41, vinton cerf > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> the X.25 people from France (Transpac- France Telecom), England (PSS/EPSS British Telecom), Canada (Datapac) and Telenet did their work more or less concurrently with the development of TCP/IP. >>>>>> >>>>>> v >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 5:01?PM John Day via Internet-history > wrote: >>>>>>> I was trying to think of companies that participated. There really weren?t any 'networking companies? yet that weren?t phone companies. Roland Bryant?s ACC was about as close as it came to a networking ;-) and he didn?t attend INWG. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:56, Vint Cerf > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John is correct that INWG in its early period and even as IFIP WG 6.1 has a pretty strong academic character. >>>>>>>> IETF would have been similar in its early 1986 formation. There are probably available attendance statistics for the IETF of today and I would not be surprised to see a pretty healthy industry component. Nonetheless, with some notable exceptions, my impression is that IETF WGs are still pretty collaborative across corporate boundaries. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> v >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:47?PM John Day via Internet-history >> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Jumping in. INWG in the mid-70s was a different time. Without looking at the membership list, which I have, the only ?vendors? were phone companies that were vertically integrated. DEC and Xerox were there. Otherwise, it was researchers and academics. I would guess about half and half as far as who was at the meetings, not just on the mailing list. Who did I miss? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Vint? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:38, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history >> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Vint, >>>>>>>>>> On 31-Aug-23 05:35, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I don't agree with that analysis, Darius. The NWG spawned the International >>>>>>>>>>> Network Working Group (INWG). IETF emerged from the ICCB->IAB (various >>>>>>>>>>> forms)-> IETF/IRTF. >>>>>>>>>>> IETF is still as collaborative as the original NWG as I see it - more >>>>>>>>>>> formality for sure but still essentially a collaborative enterprise. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Isn't there one significant demographic difference, though: the modern >>>>>>>>>> IETF has a *much* higher fraction of participants employed by vendors >>>>>>>>>> than the INWG and the early IETF? Despite the rule that people participate >>>>>>>>>> as individuals, I suspect that this has a major impact on the way ideas >>>>>>>>>> flow and mingle. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Brian >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> v >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:17?AM Darius Kazemi >> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Comparing the NWG (at least in the early days of NCP) and IETF seems to me >>>>>>>>>>>> like comparing a radical experiment in collaboration, experimentation, and >>>>>>>>>>>> flexibility to... a standards body. Very much apples to oranges? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I was not even born when the NWG was doing its thing so please correct me >>>>>>>>>>>> if I'm out of line here but every bit of research I've done and every piece >>>>>>>>>>>> of correspondence I've read seems to indicate that even though there is >>>>>>>>>>>> lineage from one to other it seems like a category error to claim that the >>>>>>>>>>>> same kind of human social organization was occurring in both orgs. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 10:11 AM vinton cerf via Internet-history < >>>>>>>>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>>>>>> v >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history < >>>>>>>>>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The original suite of protocols for the Arpanet -- NCP, Telnet, FTP, et >>>>>>>>>>>>> al >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- were developed by the Network Working Group (NWG). The NWG evolved >>>>>>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the years into the IETF. The formal creation of the IETF was roughly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mid-1980s. The process of formally declaring a protocol a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposed/draft/(full) standard evolved over the years. Depending on how >>>>>>>>>>>>>> precise you want to be about the existence of the IETF and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> formalization of protocols, I think you can make the case either way. >>>>>>>>>>>>> From >>>>>>>>>>>>>> my perspective, I would say the original suite of protocols did indeed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> originate in the (predecessor of) the IETF. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steve >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:48?PM Miles Fidelman via Internet-history < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org >> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Traditionally, protocols have never "originated" with the IETF - they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become standardized, and maybe standards through the RFC process, >>>>>>>>>>>>> under >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the IETF aegis. Right back to the original DoD Protocol Suite (did >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IETF even exist when the DDN Protocol Handbook was first printed?). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Miles >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29-Aug-23 05:52, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/24/2023 4:07 PM, John Klensin via Internet-history wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably a larger fraction of applications work has come to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IETF already half-developed and in search of refinement and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the community >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure there are examples, but I can't think of an application >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> protocol that was originated in the IETF over, say, the last 25 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> years, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that has seen widespread success. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Seems to me that HTTP remains under the IETF umbrella. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it did *not* originate in the IETF. It actually originated about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20 metres horizontally and 3 metres vertically from my office at >>>>>>>>>>>>> CERN, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than a year before TimBL presented it at IETF 23 (I was wrong a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> days ago to assert that IETF 26 was Tim's first attendance). The WWW >>>>>>>>>>>>>> BOF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at IETF 26 was more than 2 years after HTTP was first deployed, to >>>>>>>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal knowledge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it not the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> RFC process, and IANA, that actually matter, in the scheme of >>>>>>>>>>>>> things? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of HTTP, it was running code that long preceded both >>>>>>>>>>>>> rough >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consensus and an RFC. I think this is completely normal and still >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> best method. Second best is code developed in parallel with the >>>>>>>>>>>>> spec. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Third best is OSI. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> Google, LLC >>>>>>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor >>>>>>>> Reston, VA 20190 >>>>>>>> +1 (571) 213 1346 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> until further notice >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 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 >>>> Google, LLC >>>> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor >>>> Reston, VA 20190 >>>> +1 (571) 213 1346 >>>> >>>> >>>> until further notice >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: >> Vint Cerf >> Google, LLC >> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor >> Reston, VA 20190 >> +1 (571) 213 1346 >> >> >> until further notice >> >> >> > > -- > Internet-history mailing list > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history From scott.brim at gmail.com Thu Aug 31 09:28:24 2023 From: scott.brim at gmail.com (Scott Brim) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 12:28:24 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <2691E7D1-58A5-49F9-B107-A5051D1F0CCD@comcast.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com> <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com> <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com> <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> <6E9627EE-3669-4195-A1D8-77B821CC7322@comcast.net> <9CE4FA0B-DC79-44DE-A15E-0C9D91049B0A@comcast.net> <2691E7D1-58A5-49F9-B107-A5051D1F0CCD@comcast.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 9:31?AM John Day via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > The DEC person was Tony Lauk. ;-) > FYI I believe Tony is still living in Vermont flying sailplanes. From johnl at iecc.com Thu Aug 31 11:34:15 2023 From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine) Date: 31 Aug 2023 14:34:15 -0400 Subject: [ih] DNS turtles, DKIM history, was IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <7b47e77c-e141-4319-b21d-1505d8f38aaa@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20230831183415.DB083101518C2@ary.qy> It appears that Michael Thomas via Internet-history said: >For my part, I think that we should make new work prove to the security >area that they actually need to use certs at all. They are archaic for >conditions that just don't apply these days since everything is online >now which wasn't the case when they were first developed 40 years ago. >It's really unfortunate that the magical thinking about them still >persists to this day. We definitely agree there. Let's Encrypt and the turtles tell us that in practice everyone else agrees, too, even beyond the question of how much you care about the name. I suppose they still make sense in private environments where you have one root signer which has a real relationship to the entities whose certs they sign and know the entities' names, but that's pretty niche these days. R's, John From dhc at dcrocker.net Thu Aug 31 11:45:19 2023 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 11:45:19 -0700 Subject: [ih] DKIM history, was IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <84511cce-84e2-df12-2402-5278bd37f019@gmail.com> References: <20230830030409.C74E31013E0C1@ary.qy> <57f52931-5a06-576b-b539-b0749eaf7fa4@dcrocker.net> <84511cce-84e2-df12-2402-5278bd37f019@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 8/30/2023 4:02 PM, Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote: > On 8/30/23 7:06 AM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >> Besides the DNS, there is no other global Internet query service that >> has integrated functional semantics.? The web might be mistakenly >> thought to be one, but it isn't.? It is a global mechanism for >> accessing a very large number of entirely independent query >> services.? Quite different from the nature and benefit of an >> integrated service like the DNS. >> > Except for the part that DNSSec is largely not deployed and https is. > DNS gets by unsecured largely by "trust but verify" where "verify" is > largely TLS. When you are using it transfer keys, in this case, that's > extremely dodgy. And a SRV record neatly creates that global service. > Good thing they exist. > The question of DNS security was, of course, given attention during DKIM design.? The view that dominated was that DNS security was quite important.? So important that its scope was far beyond DKIM and needed to be handled separately from DKIM. That is, if attacks on the DNS became a factor, the DNS community needed to deal with it, not the DKIM community. To date this has proved an effective simplification for DKIM. Attacks on DNS-based DKIM information have not been an issue, to my knowledge. Best is that the DNS community's approach to the topic has been varied, rather than just latching on the high-burden DNSSec as the sole approach. As for not using the DNS, the alternative approach of doing web-based queries carries a substantial cost of establishing consistent, reliable, efficient service where one did not necessarily already exist.? A small example is that use of DNS already means sever redundancy. There are likely other concerns with having to fire up a web server instance for every DKIM key query... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social From steffen at sdaoden.eu Thu Aug 31 13:15:23 2023 From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 22:15:23 +0200 Subject: [ih] DKIM history, was IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <20230830030409.C74E31013E0C1@ary.qy> <632f7f35-45b0-18ad-e7e1-8efb0163ae3c@gmail.com> <20230830221038.wylxa%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Message-ID: <20230831201523.a0vGd%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Jeremy C. Reed via Internet-history wrote in : |On Thu, 31 Aug 2023, Steffen Nurpmeso via Internet-history wrote: ... |> For example "dig X rrsig" for FreeBSD.org and NetBSD.org gives |> good results, yet funnily ietf.org does not. (Unless i am |> mistaken.) | |You will get inconsistent results when querying for RRSIG type. |Even freebsd.org's nameservers give different results: | |RRSIGs for all covered types for that name | |or | |REFUSED | |And ietf.org's nameservers also give different results: | | - returns NOERROR with 0 answers | | - REFUSED | |At least one of their server's returns error (via EDNS): | |; OPT=15: 00 15 52 52 53 49 47 20 71 75 65 72 69 65 73 20 6e 6f 74 20 73 |75 70 70 6f 72 74 65 64 20 68 65 72 65 ("..RRSIG queries not supported |here") | |Attempting to query for RRSIG anywhere is not expected behavior and will |get varied results (and a resolver may return SERVFAIL when it fails). | |Use dig +dnssec or set the DO flag. Yes. And +edns. Thanks. --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) From steffen at sdaoden.eu Thu Aug 31 13:37:42 2023 From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 22:37:42 +0200 Subject: [ih] DKIM history, was IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <488194c0-15ba-0b6a-de00-ba280cfa2b1a@gmail.com> References: <20230830030409.C74E31013E0C1@ary.qy> <632f7f35-45b0-18ad-e7e1-8efb0163ae3c@gmail.com> <20230830221038.wylxa%steffen@sdaoden.eu> <488194c0-15ba-0b6a-de00-ba280cfa2b1a@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20230831203742.yseRh%steffen@sdaoden.eu> Michael Thomas via Internet-history wrote in <488194c0-15ba-0b6a-de00-ba280cfa2b1a at gmail.com>: |On 8/30/23 3:10 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso via Internet-history wrote: |> |> Unfortunately i never believed something like Let's Encrypt will |> work out for S/MIME, even though the IETF has produced a standard |> which could. |> (Having said that i would push all that onto DNS myself, so that |> CA pools in the end contain DNSSEC certificates of top level |> domains, and root servers (the diversity of which should be |> increased).) | |After all this time, what we can say absolutely is that certs don't |scale to users/clients. If the premise of your protocol is that they do, |you have written a dead letter. That i do not understand. Where is the difference to today regarding "scale"? Whether you have a totally detached (commercial, only very, very few governments (left)) CA pool and per-(sub(-sub(...))-)domain certificates signed by a pool member, or a CA pool with root server and some top level domains? The latter can even be automatically, and partially, refreshed. I am not a network expert and not deeply within the RFCs, but the IPSec infrastructure and (its) P(ublic)K(ey)I(nfrastructure), as well as the DNSSEC infrastructure do this? (Certification Authority (CA) Key Rollover in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), RFC 6489. DNSSEC Operational Practices, Version 2, RFC 6781.) |> ... |>|So yes, it was a mistake. We could have a had a very secure solution |>|with proven and widely deployed technology with a pattern that could be |> |> Having said that, i always _truly_ hated DNSSEC, especially TSIG. |> But shipping certificates via DNS i would have admired. SMIMEA, |> OPENPGPKEY. And a way to testify it, like we now see more and |> more, that people send PGP signed email like |> |At the time we had to decide between the DK approach using DNS and the |IIM approach using a web server, DNSSec was "just around the corner" as |I recall. The history lesson with IETF should be to use the bird in |hand. We should have pushed back more at the time but what we really |didn't want was a long protracted fight. We got the things that we |wanted integrated in and more or less flipped a coin on DNS/HTTP. Turns |out the coin flip was wrong. | |Which is why it's so vile for some people to insinuate that IIM had no |value. The fact that it was convergent evolution strengthened the case |that we should standardize something as expeditiously as possible. The |fact that Murray and I interoped a few days after the first cut of the |merge was done shows how close the ideas aligned. Oh, i cannot comment on this DK / IIM issue. All i would hope for is that mailing-lists and others which need or want to adjust messages on the fly would finally be enabled to do so again, when they take part in DKIM (alone, besides ARC or DMARC that many do not use, and surely would love staying away from also in the future), as on ietf-dkim. --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) From wayne at playaholic.com Thu Aug 31 15:18:39 2023 From: wayne at playaholic.com (Wayne Hathaway) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 18:18:39 -0400 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: <3d6adddf-c611-9405-3236-6c3928c05a99@dcrocker.net> References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com> <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> <6E9627EE-3669-4195-A1D8-77B821CC7322@comcast.net> <9CE4FA0B-DC79-44DE-A15E-0C9D91049B0A@comcast.net> <3d6adddf-c611-9405-3236-6c3928c05a99@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <1693520319.dpq315jjkso8wco0@hostingemail.digitalspace.net> A quick jump in here, when I was at NASA Ames I did TCP for the IBM 360 Model 67 (their first virtual memory machine) running the TSS/360 Operating System, and there were several other sites who also ran TSS, like Watson Research, NASA Lewis, General Motors Research, etc. Not sure where they got their TSS implementations, but I definitely know where Ames got theirs! :-) Wayne Hathaway wayne at playaholic.com On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 19:45:57 -0700, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >> On 8/30/2023 7:37 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote: >> > well, Braden did TCP/IP for the 360/91 at UCLA and UCSB did it for 360/75 >> > (possibly with Braden's help? or was it the other way around). >> >> you have the machines right. Jim White did the UCSB one.? (He was also >> technical lead for X.400 and X.500.) >> >> d/ >> >> -- >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net >> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social >> >> -- >> 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 Thu Aug 31 16:00:03 2023 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 11:00:03 +1200 Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?) In-Reply-To: References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net> <7503910f-f8ef-c028-6656-0074622b71eb@gmail.com> <74D80335-91EA-456F-82C7-644BD6659DEF@comcast.net> <6E9627EE-3669-4195-A1D8-77B821CC7322@comcast.net> <9CE4FA0B-DC79-44DE-A15E-0C9D91049B0A@comcast.net> <2691E7D1-58A5-49F9-B107-A5051D1F0CCD@comcast.net> Message-ID: <702b5250-c522-cf17-3a7f-469c797b19ef@gmail.com> On 01-Sep-23 04:28, Scott Brim via Internet-history wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 9:31?AM John Day via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> The DEC person was Tony Lauk. ;-) >> > > FYI I believe Tony is still living in Vermont flying sailplanes. Except that he's spelt Tony Lauck. I dealt with him; I seem to think it was over FDDI support rather than TCP/IP. And also possibly re DECnet Phase IV to Phase V transition. He was one of CERN's senior contacts with DEC Littleton, along with Al Kirby and Bill Hawe iirc. Ross Callon could probably say more. He was an IAB member from 1990 through March 1994, so clearly regarded as "one of us". Brian