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

Wed Aug 30 16:56:30 PDT 2023

John is correct that INWG in its early period and even as IFIP WG 6.1 has a
pretty strong academic character.
IETF would have been similar in its early 1986 formation. There are
probably available attendance statistics for the IETF of today and I would
not be surprised to see a pretty healthy industry component. Nonetheless,
with some notable exceptions, my impression is that IETF WGs are still
pretty collaborative across corporate boundaries.

v

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:47 PM John Day via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> 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
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>

-- 
Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
Vint Cerf
Google, LLC
1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
Reston, VA 20190
+1 (571) 213 1346

until further notice