[ih] 'internet' and "Internet"

[Lyman Chapin]

> On Aug 8, 2023, at 10:32 AM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>> From: "John Levine" <johnl at iecc.com>
> 
>> 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