[ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)

[vinton cerf]

+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
>