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

Wed Aug 30 23:09:46 PDT 2023

On 31-Aug-23 12:41, vinton cerf via Internet-history 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.

There beginneth the sad story of Kiwinet. In 1974/76 I was at Massey University
in NZ, and together with Victoria University of Wellington we started the Kiwinet
project, initially to interconnect the Burroughs B6700s at the two site. First
decision: layer 3 protocol. The NZ GPO then basically copied whatever the British
GPO did (BT split off in 1981). So we had to choose between "copy ARPANET" and get
zero help and probable obstruction from the NZ GPO, or "copy EPSS" and get GPO
assistance, even though X.25 was still in draft.

It didn't end well. None of the reports seem to be on line (there is no connection
with kiwinet.org.nz).

    Brian

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