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

[vinton cerf]

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 <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
>>
>