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

[Vint Cerf]

well, Braden did TCP/IP for the 360/91 at UCLA and UCSB did it for 360/75
(possibly with Braden's help? or was it the other way around). I had
thought that IBM Almaden might have gotten involved at some point but
perhaps that's just a made up memory.

v


On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 7:20 PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:

> Yes, but they weren’t in INWG, were they?  Nor was HP.
>
> I doubt that IBM had heard of TCP in 1976.
>
> On Aug 30, 2023, at 21:14, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
>
> 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 <(571)%20213-1346>
>
>
> until further notice
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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