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

[Brian E Carpenter]

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
>>>
>>