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

[Vint Cerf]

IBM research did TCP/IP as well as HP and DEC.

v


On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 6:11 PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:

> RIght, the phone companies. ;-)  That were vertically integrated then.
> They made their own equipment. Yea, those were the only ones I could think
> of.
> I thought it was kind of amusing to think of ACC as an early networking
> company. ;-)
>
> The mainframe companies weren’t involved other than DEC and Xerox.
> Interesting.
>
> On Aug 30, 2023, at 20:41, vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> the X.25 people from France (Transpac- France Telecom), England (PSS/EPSS
> British Telecom), Canada (Datapac) and Telenet did their work more or less
> concurrently with the development of TCP/IP.
>
> v
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 5:01 PM John Day via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>> 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 <(571)%20213-1346>
>> >
>> >
>> > until further notice
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> 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