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

Wed Aug 30 17:01:03 PDT 2023

I was trying to think of companies that participated. There really weren’t any 'networking companies’ yet that weren’t phone companies. Roland Bryant’s ACC was about as close as it came to a networking ;-) and he didn’t attend INWG.

> On Aug 30, 2023, at 19:56, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>> >>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> >>>>>> 
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>> >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>> >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> >>>>> 
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Internet-history mailing list
>> >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>> >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> >>>> 
>> >>> 
>> > -- 
>> > Internet-history mailing list
>> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> 
>> -- 
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto: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
> 
> 
> 