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

[John Day]

Jumping in. INWG in the mid-70s was a different time. Without looking at the membership list, which I have, the only ‘vendors’ were phone companies that were vertically integrated. DEC and Xerox were there. Otherwise, it was researchers and academics. I would guess about half and half as far as who was at the meetings, not just on the mailing list. Who did I miss?

Vint?

> On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:38, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> 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
>>>> 
>>> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history