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

[vinton cerf]

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 <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
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
>
>