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

John Day jeanjour at comcast.net
Thu Aug 31 06:30:57 PDT 2023 

The DEC person was Tony Lauk.  ;-)

> On Aug 31, 2023, at 08:55, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Braden was the IBM guy in those days. ;-)  The only one who showed up at NWG meetings in a coat and tie. ;-)
> 
> Yea, I know that changed later.
> 
> I know who you mean at DEC, but can’t think of his last name either. It will come to me.
> 
>> On Aug 30, 2023, at 22:37, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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 <tel:(571)%20213-1346>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> until further notice
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> 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 <tel:(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
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

More information about the Internet-history mailing list