From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net  Fri Sep  1 11:12:57 2023
From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman)
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 14:12:57 -0400
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com>
 <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com>
 <c138e539-26f5-7501-1b51-d7f3e2478133@3kitty.org>
 <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com>
 <CAC-QkADCYoTnZuEmi2GjWDwC3EZybzg3L3wx8HA6atb++aC8Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e9ba30e5-c8a4-2ad4-aecf-2ddd525229b5@3kitty.org>
 <CAC-QkADQjHZfGGod3pCvpfXo4H4M11ZbpEkozktqx4_hqP7BDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>

Thanks Vint!

To follow up, if I might - since you were there from the beginning (I 
landed at MIT in 1971, just before Ray's first email, and saw how MIT 
adopted ARPANET technology, then got to BBN in 1985, just in time to 
help split off the DDN - the period leading up to the Flag Day is mostly 
anecdotal history for me)...

I've long used the Internet as a model for how communities can approach 
infrastructure master planning - serving as the basis for our work at 
the Center for Civic Networking, running a growth planning exercise for 
Cambridge, and later, in our work with communities around municipal 
broadband.

Now, I'm gearing up a new effort, focused on community-level 
crowdsourcing for major infrastructure overhaul (as is started to be 
mandated by electrification ordinances).? The simple notion being that 
of forming local working groups, to run grand-challenge like exercises, 
design charettes, crowd funding for projects like a complete 
infrastructure rebuild for a condo complex (like the one I'm living in, 
and serving on the board of).? How to pull such groups together remains 
a black art - and insights from the original model are always helpful.

In that context, might you share some pithy observations of significant 
events in the early life of the ARPANET & Internet - how various working 
groups came together in the days following Lick's initial posting to 
ARPA/IPTO.? Who did what, to whom, leading to a bunch of folks coming 
together into ad hoc & ongoing working groups of various sorts?? And, in 
particular, what conditions/events provided impetus, urgency, and built 
momentum?

Thanks Very Much,

Miles



vinton cerf wrote:
> TCP/IP came out of work that Bob Kahn and I did along with my graduate 
> students at Stanford. But the INWG (slightly more formal extension of 
> NWG when it became IFIP WG 6.1) contributed in a highly collaborative 
> fashion. So did UCL and BBN in early implementation phases of TCP and 
> TCP/IP.
>
> I tend to associate NWG with Arpanet Host-Host Protocols (and 
> application protocols)
> and IAB (later IETF) with TCP/IP and associated applications
>
> v
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:29?AM Miles Fidelman 
> <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>> wrote:
>
>     Well Vint might have a definitive voice on this.
>
>     So... Vint,
>
>     Would you consider TCP/IP to have been initiated by the NWG?
>
>     What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that
>     eventually became SMTP)?? As I recall, that was initially
>     announced via a postal mail packet.
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Miles
>
>     vinton cerf 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
>>
>
>
>     -- 
>     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
>


-- 
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



From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Fri Sep  1 14:51:51 2023
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 14:51:51 -0700
Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day?
In-Reply-To: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
Message-ID: <A862C9A4-66C5-42E2-9632-325F12D20ABE@icloud.com>

I found a couple more nuggets <https://garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#18> from Anne & Lynn Wheeler?s collection ? an announcement from a CSNET staffer about the upcoming transition, and a followup about a month later giving some opinions about how it went.

BTW, what immediately follows the transition announcement on that page is the first issue of Geoff Goodfellow?s Internet Crucible.  It may provide some perspectives, at least, regarding Jack?s questions about how the management framework during the time of the flag day faded away, etc.

?gregbo 

> On Aug 6, 2023, at 4:34 AM, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> Does anybody have some memories of the TCP/IP Flag Day they can share? [?]
> 
> Thanks Very Much,
> 
> Miles Fidelman
> 
> -- 
> 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
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From dhc at dcrocker.net  Fri Sep  1 15:07:15 2023
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 15:07:15 -0700
Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day?
In-Reply-To: <A862C9A4-66C5-42E2-9632-325F12D20ABE@icloud.com>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <A862C9A4-66C5-42E2-9632-325F12D20ABE@icloud.com>
Message-ID: <a064fba7-7256-8bcb-0830-780505f13be1@dcrocker.net>

On 9/1/2023 2:51 PM, Greg Skinner via Internet-history wrote:
> an announcement from a CSNET staffer

Nevermind the substance of the note, I'm fascinated by the handling 
sequence:

> Date: *30 Dec 1982 14:45:34 EST (Thursday)*
> From: Nancy Mimno <mimno at Bbn-Unix>
> Subject: Notice of TCP/IP Transition on ARPANET
> To: csnet-liaisons at Udel-Relay
> Cc: mimno at Bbn-Unix
> Via: Bbn-Unix; 30 Dec 82 16:07-EST
> Via: Udel-Relay; 30 Dec 82 13:15-PDT
> Via: Rand-Relay; 30 Dec 82 16:30-EST 

The two Relays were set up as parallel gateways between CSNet and The 
Arpanet. My recollection is that I gave them identical gateway routing 
tables.? So I don't understand why the mail went from Udel to Rand.

This note was sent only days after I left the CSNet project.? So I don't 
think it likely anyone reconfigured anything by the time of this message.

And I don't remember configuring anything that would have produced this.

But then, there's lots I don't remember...

I think Mike O'Brien is on this list.? He was the Rand admin for this.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From geoff at iconia.com  Fri Sep  1 18:51:32 2023
From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow)
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 18:51:32 -0700
Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day?
In-Reply-To: <A862C9A4-66C5-42E2-9632-325F12D20ABE@icloud.com>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <A862C9A4-66C5-42E2-9632-325F12D20ABE@icloud.com>
Message-ID: <CAEf-zrhxmd=qev+Wb+51zfHWT0UsieUnjZRGPXy5KPnogUJjrA@mail.gmail.com>

vis-a-vis On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:52?PM Greg Skinner via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
*>BTW, what immediately follows the transition announcement on that page is
the first issue of Geoff >Goodfellow?s Internet Crucible.  It may provide
some perspectives, at least, regarding Jack?s questions about >how the
management framework during the time of the flag day faded away, etc.*

for anyone interested in THE INTERNET CRUCIBLE history of the Internet, The
Archive of all issues is located at: https://iconia.com/ic/

(and if anyone knows or has any pull as to how yours truly could possibly
get the fernwood.mpk.ca.us domain re-registered, it would be much
appreciated -- as yours truly's entretries to/with Neustar .US Support in
the past were not fruitful)

thanks,
geoff

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:52?PM Greg Skinner via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> I found a couple more nuggets <https://garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#18>
> from Anne & Lynn Wheeler?s collection ? an announcement from a CSNET
> staffer about the upcoming transition, and a followup about a month later
> giving some opinions about how it went.
>
> BTW, what immediately follows the transition announcement on that page is
> the first issue of Geoff Goodfellow?s Internet Crucible.  It may provide
> some perspectives, at least, regarding Jack?s questions about how the
> management framework during the time of the flag day faded away, etc.
>
> ?gregbo
>
> > On Aug 6, 2023, at 4:34 AM, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > Does anybody have some memories of the TCP/IP Flag Day they can share?
> [?]
> >
> > Thanks Very Much,
> >
> > Miles Fidelman
> >
> > --
> > 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
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
>

-- 
Geoff.Goodfellow at iconia.com
living as The Truth is True


From vgcerf at gmail.com  Fri Sep  1 19:00:17 2023
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 22:00:17 -0400
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com>
 <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com>
 <c138e539-26f5-7501-1b51-d7f3e2478133@3kitty.org>
 <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com>
 <CAC-QkADCYoTnZuEmi2GjWDwC3EZybzg3L3wx8HA6atb++aC8Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e9ba30e5-c8a4-2ad4-aecf-2ddd525229b5@3kitty.org>
 <CAC-QkADQjHZfGGod3pCvpfXo4H4M11ZbpEkozktqx4_hqP7BDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_WnVkzoBq3EO1YvS27UrqN1jBu6iNmCaD_qSVE9kZ-DmQ@mail.gmail.com>

I hope others on the list will try to respond also.
v


On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:14?PM Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
wrote:

> Thanks Vint!
>
> To follow up, if I might - since you were there from the beginning (I
> landed at MIT in 1971, just before Ray's first email, and saw how MIT
> adopted ARPANET technology, then got to BBN in 1985, just in time to help
> split off the DDN - the period leading up to the Flag Day is mostly
> anecdotal history for me)...
>
> I've long used the Internet as a model for how communities can approach
> infrastructure master planning - serving as the basis for our work at the
> Center for Civic Networking, running a growth planning exercise for
> Cambridge, and later, in our work with communities around municipal
> broadband.
>
> Now, I'm gearing up a new effort, focused on community-level crowdsourcing
> for major infrastructure overhaul (as is started to be mandated by
> electrification ordinances).  The simple notion being that of forming local
> working groups, to run grand-challenge like exercises, design charettes,
> crowd funding for projects like a complete infrastructure rebuild for a
> condo complex (like the one I'm living in, and serving on the board of).
> How to pull such groups together remains a black art - and insights from
> the original model are always helpful.
>
> In that context, might you share some pithy observations of significant
> events in the early life of the ARPANET & Internet - how various working
> groups came together in the days following Lick's initial posting to
> ARPA/IPTO.  Who did what, to whom, leading to a bunch of folks coming
> together into ad hoc & ongoing working groups of various sorts?  And, in
> particular, what conditions/events provided impetus, urgency, and built
> momentum?
>
> Thanks Very Much,
>
> Miles
>
>
>
> vinton cerf wrote:
>
> TCP/IP came out of work that Bob Kahn and I did along with my graduate
> students at Stanford. But the INWG (slightly more formal extension of NWG
> when it became IFIP WG 6.1) contributed in a highly collaborative fashion.
> So did UCL and BBN in early implementation phases of TCP and TCP/IP.
>
> I tend to associate NWG with Arpanet Host-Host Protocols (and application
> protocols)
> and IAB (later IETF) with TCP/IP and associated applications
>
> v
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:29?AM Miles Fidelman <
> mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
>
>> Well Vint might have a definitive voice on this.
>>
>> So... Vint,
>>
>> Would you consider TCP/IP to have been initiated by the NWG?
>>
>> What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that eventually
>> became SMTP)?  As I recall, that was initially announced via a postal mail
>> packet.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Miles
>>
>> vinton cerf wrote:
>>
>> +1
>> v
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history <
>> 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> 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
>>> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>> >
>>> --
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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
>
>


From vgcerf at gmail.com  Sat Sep  2 02:19:36 2023
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2023 05:19:36 -0400
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com>
 <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com>
 <c138e539-26f5-7501-1b51-d7f3e2478133@3kitty.org>
 <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com>
 <CAC-QkADCYoTnZuEmi2GjWDwC3EZybzg3L3wx8HA6atb++aC8Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e9ba30e5-c8a4-2ad4-aecf-2ddd525229b5@3kitty.org>
 <CAC-QkADQjHZfGGod3pCvpfXo4H4M11ZbpEkozktqx4_hqP7BDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>

I have only a brief moment to respond. The Arpanet, PRNET, SATNET, Internet
sequence gets its primary stability from the sole source funding of ARPA,
initially, and the pooling of resources from other DoD components using
Arpanet. Arpanet was managed by BBN initially (later under contract to DCA
vs ARPA). It really helped that the Internet development funding came from
a single source. Decision making was largely in the hands of the ARPA
program managers, well-informed by the people doing the work. In the
mid-1980s, ARPA, NSF, DOE and NASA collaborated through the Federal
Research Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC) made up of program
managers from each agency. ESNET, NSINET and NSFNET joined Arpanet as
backbones of the Internet. Again, common purpose welded the effort into a
coherent whole. MERIT played a major role in the NSFNET development which
really elaborated on the multi-network aspect of Internet. MERIT had to
deal with scaling of the Internet to a dozen or more intermediate level
networks linked together through the NSFNET backbone. BGP came out of that
work and has scaled well - now needing more security from abuse/mistakes.

I think there was a common thread in all of this work: people who were
working on different aspects of the Internet and its constituent networks
really wanted this system to work. The goal was interoperability linking so
many different packet switched networks together. Even the Xerox PARC team,
whose work on PUP and later XNS was proprietary, did their best to give
hints to the Stanford development team (mostly me and my graduate students
during the 1974 campaign to specify TCP).

It also helped that commonality and interoperability were key desirable
properties of the Internet system. These were the metrics by which success
was measured.

That's all I have time for now - not sure this addresses your questions
squarely.

v


On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:14?PM Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
wrote:

> Thanks Vint!
>
> To follow up, if I might - since you were there from the beginning (I
> landed at MIT in 1971, just before Ray's first email, and saw how MIT
> adopted ARPANET technology, then got to BBN in 1985, just in time to help
> split off the DDN - the period leading up to the Flag Day is mostly
> anecdotal history for me)...
>
> I've long used the Internet as a model for how communities can approach
> infrastructure master planning - serving as the basis for our work at the
> Center for Civic Networking, running a growth planning exercise for
> Cambridge, and later, in our work with communities around municipal
> broadband.
>
> Now, I'm gearing up a new effort, focused on community-level crowdsourcing
> for major infrastructure overhaul (as is started to be mandated by
> electrification ordinances).  The simple notion being that of forming local
> working groups, to run grand-challenge like exercises, design charettes,
> crowd funding for projects like a complete infrastructure rebuild for a
> condo complex (like the one I'm living in, and serving on the board of).
> How to pull such groups together remains a black art - and insights from
> the original model are always helpful.
>
> In that context, might you share some pithy observations of significant
> events in the early life of the ARPANET & Internet - how various working
> groups came together in the days following Lick's initial posting to
> ARPA/IPTO.  Who did what, to whom, leading to a bunch of folks coming
> together into ad hoc & ongoing working groups of various sorts?  And, in
> particular, what conditions/events provided impetus, urgency, and built
> momentum?
>
> Thanks Very Much,
>
> Miles
>
>
>
> vinton cerf wrote:
>
> TCP/IP came out of work that Bob Kahn and I did along with my graduate
> students at Stanford. But the INWG (slightly more formal extension of NWG
> when it became IFIP WG 6.1) contributed in a highly collaborative fashion.
> So did UCL and BBN in early implementation phases of TCP and TCP/IP.
>
> I tend to associate NWG with Arpanet Host-Host Protocols (and application
> protocols)
> and IAB (later IETF) with TCP/IP and associated applications
>
> v
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:29?AM Miles Fidelman <
> mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
>
>> Well Vint might have a definitive voice on this.
>>
>> So... Vint,
>>
>> Would you consider TCP/IP to have been initiated by the NWG?
>>
>> What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that eventually
>> became SMTP)?  As I recall, that was initially announced via a postal mail
>> packet.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Miles
>>
>> vinton cerf wrote:
>>
>> +1
>> v
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history <
>> 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> 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
>>> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>> >
>>> --
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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
>
>


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sat Sep  2 05:17:54 2023
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2023 05:17:54 -0700
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com>
 <c138e539-26f5-7501-1b51-d7f3e2478133@3kitty.org>
 <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com>
 <CAC-QkADCYoTnZuEmi2GjWDwC3EZybzg3L3wx8HA6atb++aC8Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e9ba30e5-c8a4-2ad4-aecf-2ddd525229b5@3kitty.org>
 <CAC-QkADQjHZfGGod3pCvpfXo4H4M11ZbpEkozktqx4_hqP7BDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bfc1c16f-e7e5-c182-48c7-88161007d757@dcrocker.net>

On 9/2/2023 2:19 AM, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> I think there was a common thread in all of this work: people who were
> working on different aspects of the Internet and its constituent networks
> really wanted this system to work.

An aspect to this that seems to have distinguished it from some/many 
other technical specification bodies is that the desire was for the 
system to work /soon/.? Yesterday would have been nice, but tomorrow was 
acceptable.? Next year was not.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social



From dave.taht at gmail.com  Sat Sep  2 18:45:39 2023
From: dave.taht at gmail.com (Dave Taht)
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2023 18:45:39 -0700
Subject: [ih] CLNP
Message-ID: <CAA93jw4EBd5aSXZJOqXR3evYT7_++E1xup4C5Rxz7X3uEXWBMQ@mail.gmail.com>

Radia Perlman gave a good talk at sharkfest earlier this year, about
her view of CLNP?s development vs a vs IP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek7SfLuv8PI


-- 
Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
Dave T?ht CSO, LibreQos


From jack at 3kitty.org  Mon Sep  4 10:22:47 2023
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 10:22:47 -0700
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com>
 <c138e539-26f5-7501-1b51-d7f3e2478133@3kitty.org>
 <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com>
 <CAC-QkADCYoTnZuEmi2GjWDwC3EZybzg3L3wx8HA6atb++aC8Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e9ba30e5-c8a4-2ad4-aecf-2ddd525229b5@3kitty.org>
 <CAC-QkADQjHZfGGod3pCvpfXo4H4M11ZbpEkozktqx4_hqP7BDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>

Two excellent observations about the early days!? 1) Someone was in 
charge and in control.? 2) The goal was to make the system work and be 
actually used.

Back in late 1981, you (Vint) asked me to take on the Gateway Project at 
BBN, explicitly to make the Internet operate as a 24x7 reliable service, 
following the lead that the Arpanet had developed over more than a 
decade of operation as an infrastructure.?? More about that here for the 
curious: 
https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-November/005595.html

That task could have been a research effort, producing protocols, 
algorithms, and mechanisms documented in RFCs for anyone to use. But 
there wasn't time to wait, so instead we just copied the mechanisms of 
the Arpanet, translating them into the world of TCP/IP.?? Much of the 
Arpanet "management" technology wasn't well known or documented, but by 
locating the "Gateway Group" physically near the Arpanet control center 
(NOC), and recruiting some people from that world, it was possible to do 
"technology transfer" (a buzzword at the time).?? The Internet acquired 
"operations" tools by plagiarizing what had been working for years in 
the Arpanet.?? That was the fastest way to "make it work".

Separately, there were efforts, initiated by someone, to orchestrate the 
"Flag Day" on the Arpanet, to declare TCP/IP a DoD Standard, to define 
and implement a formal certification program for new TCP 
implementations, and probably other efforts I never knew about.

Someone was in charge, and someone was doing lots of things to "make it 
work".

It wasn't perfect.?? Actually it was a bit chaotic IIRC.

For example... Jon Postel took on the task of documenting TCP/IPV4 so it 
could be referenced as a Standard.? RFCs were released.?? DoD declared 
them mandatory for all military systems that involved communicating 
computers.

A bit later, at BBN we were assisting various pieces of the government 
in getting their computer systems up and running with their vendor's 
brand-new, certified, standard TCPIPV4s.? It was a big surprise to 
discover that, although TCP/IP was there, none of the other "tools" we 
had been using for years had been implemented on those machines.

Much of that missing functionality was called "ICMP", well documented in 
RFC 792.? But only TCP/IP had been declared a DoD Standard.?? Government 
contractors, who had not been involved in the research community, had to 
implement the Standard.?? But the Standard didn't include ICMP.? So they 
didn't implement it.

That made it much more difficult to "make it work".? For example, 
without ICMP as the Internet's Swiss Army Knife, you couldn't even 
"ping" a DoD Standard computer.?? I remember we raised quite a fuss 
about that, and implementations started to appear.? I'm not sure if the 
Standard was ever modified to require ICMP.

Other things, like SNMP, were useful but also missing.? Many people 
apparently didn't consider ICMP and its cohorts to be part of TCP/IP.?? 
We considered such technology essential to be able to "make it work".

-----

Looking back from 2023...

IMHO, one of the inflection points occurred when the culture shifted 
from "make it work" to "make money from the Internet". Interoperability 
(everyone can interact with everyone else) is part of "make it work", 
and conformance to Metcalfe's Law (google it...).?? Silos (everyone can 
interact, as long as you stay in *our* silo) are (thought to be) 
preferable for "make money".

I wasn't very involved in the Internet growth as NSF joined and later as 
the first ISPs spun off to become commercial services. Perhaps someone 
remembers if they had any kind of "standards" or "certification" 
involved as the culture shifted.? E.g., was there a "FRICC Standard" for 
computers joining their 'nets?? I recall there were AUPs (Acceptable Use 
Policies), at least at first.?? Did these "fade away" and turn into "pay 
us to get on the Internet and you can do whatever you want"?

It's still puzzling (to me) that the Internet has become a global 
infrastructure, and hasn't been surrounded by the web of regulations, 
laws, codes, agencies, treaties, and such non-technical mechanisms that 
have developed around other infrastructures.? Roads and vehicles, 
electric power, marine activities, air transport, railroads, finance, 
water, and even the air we breathe all have such mechanisms.

Is the Internet different?? Or just still too young to have accreted 
such "management" mechanisms?

Jack Haverty

On 9/2/23 02:19, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> I have only a brief moment to respond. The Arpanet, PRNET, SATNET, Internet
> sequence gets its primary stability from the sole source funding of ARPA,
> initially, and the pooling of resources from other DoD components using
> Arpanet. Arpanet was managed by BBN initially (later under contract to DCA
> vs ARPA). It really helped that the Internet development funding came from
> a single source. Decision making was largely in the hands of the ARPA
> program managers, well-informed by the people doing the work. In the
> mid-1980s, ARPA, NSF, DOE and NASA collaborated through the Federal
> Research Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC) made up of program
> managers from each agency. ESNET, NSINET and NSFNET joined Arpanet as
> backbones of the Internet. Again, common purpose welded the effort into a
> coherent whole. MERIT played a major role in the NSFNET development which
> really elaborated on the multi-network aspect of Internet. MERIT had to
> deal with scaling of the Internet to a dozen or more intermediate level
> networks linked together through the NSFNET backbone. BGP came out of that
> work and has scaled well - now needing more security from abuse/mistakes.
>
> I think there was a common thread in all of this work: people who were
> working on different aspects of the Internet and its constituent networks
> really wanted this system to work. The goal was interoperability linking so
> many different packet switched networks together. Even the Xerox PARC team,
> whose work on PUP and later XNS was proprietary, did their best to give
> hints to the Stanford development team (mostly me and my graduate students
> during the 1974 campaign to specify TCP).
>
> It also helped that commonality and interoperability were key desirable
> properties of the Internet system. These were the metrics by which success
> was measured.
>
> That's all I have time for now - not sure this addresses your questions
> squarely.
>
> v
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:14?PM Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Vint!
>>
>> To follow up, if I might - since you were there from the beginning (I
>> landed at MIT in 1971, just before Ray's first email, and saw how MIT
>> adopted ARPANET technology, then got to BBN in 1985, just in time to help
>> split off the DDN - the period leading up to the Flag Day is mostly
>> anecdotal history for me)...
>>
>> I've long used the Internet as a model for how communities can approach
>> infrastructure master planning - serving as the basis for our work at the
>> Center for Civic Networking, running a growth planning exercise for
>> Cambridge, and later, in our work with communities around municipal
>> broadband.
>>
>> Now, I'm gearing up a new effort, focused on community-level crowdsourcing
>> for major infrastructure overhaul (as is started to be mandated by
>> electrification ordinances).  The simple notion being that of forming local
>> working groups, to run grand-challenge like exercises, design charettes,
>> crowd funding for projects like a complete infrastructure rebuild for a
>> condo complex (like the one I'm living in, and serving on the board of).
>> How to pull such groups together remains a black art - and insights from
>> the original model are always helpful.
>>
>> In that context, might you share some pithy observations of significant
>> events in the early life of the ARPANET & Internet - how various working
>> groups came together in the days following Lick's initial posting to
>> ARPA/IPTO.  Who did what, to whom, leading to a bunch of folks coming
>> together into ad hoc & ongoing working groups of various sorts?  And, in
>> particular, what conditions/events provided impetus, urgency, and built
>> momentum?
>>
>> Thanks Very Much,
>>
>> Miles
>>
>>
>>
>> vinton cerf wrote:
>>
>> TCP/IP came out of work that Bob Kahn and I did along with my graduate
>> students at Stanford. But the INWG (slightly more formal extension of NWG
>> when it became IFIP WG 6.1) contributed in a highly collaborative fashion.
>> So did UCL and BBN in early implementation phases of TCP and TCP/IP.
>>
>> I tend to associate NWG with Arpanet Host-Host Protocols (and application
>> protocols)
>> and IAB (later IETF) with TCP/IP and associated applications
>>
>> v
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:29?AM Miles Fidelman <
>> mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Well Vint might have a definitive voice on this.
>>>
>>> So... Vint,
>>>
>>> Would you consider TCP/IP to have been initiated by the NWG?
>>>
>>> What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that eventually
>>> became SMTP)?  As I recall, that was initially announced via a postal mail
>>> packet.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Miles
>>>
>>> vinton cerf wrote:
>>>
>>> +1
>>> v
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history <
>>> 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> 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
>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>



From vint at google.com  Mon Sep  4 10:32:21 2023
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 13:32:21 -0400
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com>
 <c138e539-26f5-7501-1b51-d7f3e2478133@3kitty.org>
 <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com>
 <CAC-QkADCYoTnZuEmi2GjWDwC3EZybzg3L3wx8HA6atb++aC8Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e9ba30e5-c8a4-2ad4-aecf-2ddd525229b5@3kitty.org>
 <CAC-QkADQjHZfGGod3pCvpfXo4H4M11ZbpEkozktqx4_hqP7BDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggewNqT2nszszH+-u_dsXbFy0VOiiaMtDmTf-O=a6JgSmQ@mail.gmail.com>

many regulations are in place or in development - the Internet has not
escaped. There is a major cybercrime treaty in negotiation for example. The
UN Global Digital Compact is in development. The Europeans are imposing
major rules that will like escape Europe and be adopted or emulated
elsewhere. Think of the GDPR, NIS 2, DMA, DSA, .....


v

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 1:23?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Two excellent observations about the early days!  1) Someone was in
> charge and in control.  2) The goal was to make the system work and be
> actually used.
>
> Back in late 1981, you (Vint) asked me to take on the Gateway Project at
> BBN, explicitly to make the Internet operate as a 24x7 reliable service,
> following the lead that the Arpanet had developed over more than a
> decade of operation as an infrastructure.   More about that here for the
> curious:
>
> https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-November/005595.html
>
> That task could have been a research effort, producing protocols,
> algorithms, and mechanisms documented in RFCs for anyone to use. But
> there wasn't time to wait, so instead we just copied the mechanisms of
> the Arpanet, translating them into the world of TCP/IP.   Much of the
> Arpanet "management" technology wasn't well known or documented, but by
> locating the "Gateway Group" physically near the Arpanet control center
> (NOC), and recruiting some people from that world, it was possible to do
> "technology transfer" (a buzzword at the time).   The Internet acquired
> "operations" tools by plagiarizing what had been working for years in
> the Arpanet.   That was the fastest way to "make it work".
>
> Separately, there were efforts, initiated by someone, to orchestrate the
> "Flag Day" on the Arpanet, to declare TCP/IP a DoD Standard, to define
> and implement a formal certification program for new TCP
> implementations, and probably other efforts I never knew about.
>
> Someone was in charge, and someone was doing lots of things to "make it
> work".
>
> It wasn't perfect.   Actually it was a bit chaotic IIRC.
>
> For example... Jon Postel took on the task of documenting TCP/IPV4 so it
> could be referenced as a Standard.  RFCs were released.   DoD declared
> them mandatory for all military systems that involved communicating
> computers.
>
> A bit later, at BBN we were assisting various pieces of the government
> in getting their computer systems up and running with their vendor's
> brand-new, certified, standard TCPIPV4s.  It was a big surprise to
> discover that, although TCP/IP was there, none of the other "tools" we
> had been using for years had been implemented on those machines.
>
> Much of that missing functionality was called "ICMP", well documented in
> RFC 792.  But only TCP/IP had been declared a DoD Standard.   Government
> contractors, who had not been involved in the research community, had to
> implement the Standard.   But the Standard didn't include ICMP.  So they
> didn't implement it.
>
> That made it much more difficult to "make it work".  For example,
> without ICMP as the Internet's Swiss Army Knife, you couldn't even
> "ping" a DoD Standard computer.   I remember we raised quite a fuss
> about that, and implementations started to appear.  I'm not sure if the
> Standard was ever modified to require ICMP.
>
> Other things, like SNMP, were useful but also missing.  Many people
> apparently didn't consider ICMP and its cohorts to be part of TCP/IP.
> We considered such technology essential to be able to "make it work".
>
> -----
>
> Looking back from 2023...
>
> IMHO, one of the inflection points occurred when the culture shifted
> from "make it work" to "make money from the Internet". Interoperability
> (everyone can interact with everyone else) is part of "make it work",
> and conformance to Metcalfe's Law (google it...).   Silos (everyone can
> interact, as long as you stay in *our* silo) are (thought to be)
> preferable for "make money".
>
> I wasn't very involved in the Internet growth as NSF joined and later as
> the first ISPs spun off to become commercial services. Perhaps someone
> remembers if they had any kind of "standards" or "certification"
> involved as the culture shifted.  E.g., was there a "FRICC Standard" for
> computers joining their 'nets?  I recall there were AUPs (Acceptable Use
> Policies), at least at first.   Did these "fade away" and turn into "pay
> us to get on the Internet and you can do whatever you want"?
>
> It's still puzzling (to me) that the Internet has become a global
> infrastructure, and hasn't been surrounded by the web of regulations,
> laws, codes, agencies, treaties, and such non-technical mechanisms that
> have developed around other infrastructures.  Roads and vehicles,
> electric power, marine activities, air transport, railroads, finance,
> water, and even the air we breathe all have such mechanisms.
>
> Is the Internet different?  Or just still too young to have accreted
> such "management" mechanisms?
>
> Jack Haverty
>
> On 9/2/23 02:19, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> > I have only a brief moment to respond. The Arpanet, PRNET, SATNET,
> Internet
> > sequence gets its primary stability from the sole source funding of ARPA,
> > initially, and the pooling of resources from other DoD components using
> > Arpanet. Arpanet was managed by BBN initially (later under contract to
> DCA
> > vs ARPA). It really helped that the Internet development funding came
> from
> > a single source. Decision making was largely in the hands of the ARPA
> > program managers, well-informed by the people doing the work. In the
> > mid-1980s, ARPA, NSF, DOE and NASA collaborated through the Federal
> > Research Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC) made up of program
> > managers from each agency. ESNET, NSINET and NSFNET joined Arpanet as
> > backbones of the Internet. Again, common purpose welded the effort into a
> > coherent whole. MERIT played a major role in the NSFNET development which
> > really elaborated on the multi-network aspect of Internet. MERIT had to
> > deal with scaling of the Internet to a dozen or more intermediate level
> > networks linked together through the NSFNET backbone. BGP came out of
> that
> > work and has scaled well - now needing more security from abuse/mistakes.
> >
> > I think there was a common thread in all of this work: people who were
> > working on different aspects of the Internet and its constituent networks
> > really wanted this system to work. The goal was interoperability linking
> so
> > many different packet switched networks together. Even the Xerox PARC
> team,
> > whose work on PUP and later XNS was proprietary, did their best to give
> > hints to the Stanford development team (mostly me and my graduate
> students
> > during the 1974 campaign to specify TCP).
> >
> > It also helped that commonality and interoperability were key desirable
> > properties of the Internet system. These were the metrics by which
> success
> > was measured.
> >
> > That's all I have time for now - not sure this addresses your questions
> > squarely.
> >
> > v
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:14?PM Miles Fidelman <
> mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks Vint!
> >>
> >> To follow up, if I might - since you were there from the beginning (I
> >> landed at MIT in 1971, just before Ray's first email, and saw how MIT
> >> adopted ARPANET technology, then got to BBN in 1985, just in time to
> help
> >> split off the DDN - the period leading up to the Flag Day is mostly
> >> anecdotal history for me)...
> >>
> >> I've long used the Internet as a model for how communities can approach
> >> infrastructure master planning - serving as the basis for our work at
> the
> >> Center for Civic Networking, running a growth planning exercise for
> >> Cambridge, and later, in our work with communities around municipal
> >> broadband.
> >>
> >> Now, I'm gearing up a new effort, focused on community-level
> crowdsourcing
> >> for major infrastructure overhaul (as is started to be mandated by
> >> electrification ordinances).  The simple notion being that of forming
> local
> >> working groups, to run grand-challenge like exercises, design charettes,
> >> crowd funding for projects like a complete infrastructure rebuild for a
> >> condo complex (like the one I'm living in, and serving on the board of).
> >> How to pull such groups together remains a black art - and insights from
> >> the original model are always helpful.
> >>
> >> In that context, might you share some pithy observations of significant
> >> events in the early life of the ARPANET & Internet - how various working
> >> groups came together in the days following Lick's initial posting to
> >> ARPA/IPTO.  Who did what, to whom, leading to a bunch of folks coming
> >> together into ad hoc & ongoing working groups of various sorts?  And, in
> >> particular, what conditions/events provided impetus, urgency, and built
> >> momentum?
> >>
> >> Thanks Very Much,
> >>
> >> Miles
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> vinton cerf wrote:
> >>
> >> TCP/IP came out of work that Bob Kahn and I did along with my graduate
> >> students at Stanford. But the INWG (slightly more formal extension of
> NWG
> >> when it became IFIP WG 6.1) contributed in a highly collaborative
> fashion.
> >> So did UCL and BBN in early implementation phases of TCP and TCP/IP.
> >>
> >> I tend to associate NWG with Arpanet Host-Host Protocols (and
> application
> >> protocols)
> >> and IAB (later IETF) with TCP/IP and associated applications
> >>
> >> v
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:29?AM Miles Fidelman <
> >> mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Well Vint might have a definitive voice on this.
> >>>
> >>> So... Vint,
> >>>
> >>> Would you consider TCP/IP to have been initiated by the NWG?
> >>>
> >>> What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that
> eventually
> >>> became SMTP)?  As I recall, that was initially announced via a postal
> mail
> >>> packet.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> Miles
> >>>
> >>> vinton cerf wrote:
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>> v
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history <
> >>> 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> 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
> >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Internet-history mailing list
> >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> 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
> 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

From dan at lynch.com  Mon Sep  4 11:09:48 2023
From: dan at lynch.com (Dan Lynch)
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 11:09:48 -0700
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
References: <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <47B55FB9-BDA2-4816-90E4-5E967AD1983A@lynch.com>

I was at ISI from 80-83 in charge of the (then) huge data center serving the researchers at ISI and running the email server for much of the outside world. Vint and Bob told me to coordinate all the software that needed to be changed and tested for not just at ISI, but all over the Arpanet. I guess that the kids ( we were all kids then) just pitched in and got their site specific software to run TCP/IP and we had a few internal ?flag days ? of testing in 82. Of course I had Jon Postel just down the hall as my tech support!  

Fun times?

Dan

Cell 650-776-7313

> On Sep 4, 2023, at 10:23 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> ?Two excellent observations about the early days!  1) Someone was in charge and in control.  2) The goal was to make the system work and be actually used. 
> D
> Back in late 1981, you (Vint) asked me to take on the Gateway Project at BBN, explicitly to make the Inoperate as a 24x7 reliable service, following the lead that the Arpanet had developed over more than a decade of operation as an infrastructure.   More about that here for the curious: https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-November/005595.html
> 
> That task could have been a research effort, producing protocols, algorithms, and mechanisms documented in RFCs for anyone to use. But there wasn't time to wait, so instead we just copied the mechanisms of the Arpanet, translating them into the world of TCP/IP.   Much of the Arpanet "management" technology wasn't well known or documented, but by locating the "Gateway Group" physically near the Arpanet control center (NOC), and recruiting some people from that world, it was possible to do "technology transfer" (a buzzword at the time).   The Internet acquired "operations" tools by plagiarizing what had been working for years in the Arpanet.   That was the fastest way to "make it work".
> 
> Separately, there were efforts, initiated by someone, to orchestrate the "Flag Day" on the Arpanet, to declare TCP/IP a DoD Standard, to define and implement a formal certification program for new TCP implementations, and probably other efforts I never knew about.
> 
> Someone was in charge, and someone was doing lots of things to "make it work".
> 
> It wasn't perfect.   Actually it was a bit chaotic IIRC.
> 
> For example... Jon Postel took on the task of documenting TCP/IPV4 so it could be referenced as a Standard.  RFCs were released.   DoD declared them mandatory for all military systems that involved communicating computers.
> 
> A bit later, at BBN we were assisting various pieces of the government in getting their computer systems up and running with their vendor's brand-new, certified, standard TCPIPV4s.  It was a big surprise to discover that, although TCP/IP was there, none of the other "tools" we had been using for years had been implemented on those machines.
> 
> Much of that missing functionality was called "ICMP", well documented in RFC 792.  But only TCP/IP had been declared a DoD Standard.   Government contractors, who had not been involved in the research community, had to implement the Standard.   But the Standard didn't include ICMP.  So they didn't implement it.
> 
> That made it much more difficult to "make it work".  For example, without ICMP as the Internet's Swiss Army Knife, you couldn't even "ping" a DoD Standard computer.   I remember we raised quite a fuss about that, and implementations started to appear.  I'm not sure if the Standard was ever modified to require ICMP.
> 
> Other things, like SNMP, were useful but also missing.  Many people apparently didn't consider ICMP and its cohorts to be part of TCP/IP.   We considered such technology essential to be able to "make it work".
> 
> -----
> 
> Looking back from 2023...
> 
> IMHO, one of the inflection points occurred when the culture shifted from "make it work" to "make money from the Internet". Interoperability (everyone can interact with everyone else) is part of "make it work", and conformance to Metcalfe's Law (google it...).   Silos (everyone can interact, as long as you stay in *our* silo) are (thought to be) preferable for "make money".
> 
> I wasn't very involved in the Internet growth as NSF joined and later as the first ISPs spun off to become commercial services. Perhaps someone remembers if they had any kind of "standards" or "certification" involved as the culture shifted.  E.g., was there a "FRICC Standard" for computers joining their 'nets?  I recall there were AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies), at least at first.   Did these "fade away" and turn into "pay us to get on the Internet and you can do whatever you want"?
> 
> It's still puzzling (to me) that the Internet has become a global infrastructure, and hasn't been surrounded by the web of regulations, laws, codes, agencies, treaties, and such non-technical mechanisms that have developed around other infrastructures.  Roads and vehicles, electric power, marine activities, air transport, railroads, finance, water, and even the air we breathe all have such mechanisms.
> 
> Is the Internet different?  Or just still too young to have accreted such "management" mechanisms?
> 
> Jack Haverty
> 
>> On 9/2/23 02:19, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
>> I have only a brief moment to respond. The Arpanet, PRNET, SATNET, Internet
>> sequence gets its primary stability from the sole source funding of ARPA,
>> initially, and the pooling of resources from other DoD components using
>> Arpanet. Arpanet was managed by BBN initially (later under contract to DCA
>> vs ARPA). It really helped that the Internet development funding came from
>> a single source. Decision making was largely in the hands of the ARPA
>> program managers, well-informed by the people doing the work. In the
>> mid-1980s, ARPA, NSF, DOE and NASA collaborated through the Federal
>> Research Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC) made up of program
>> managers from each agency. ESNET, NSINET and NSFNET joined Arpanet as
>> backbones of the Internet. Again, common purpose welded the effort into a
>> coherent whole. MERIT played a major role in the NSFNET development which
>> really elaborated on the multi-network aspect of Internet. MERIT had to
>> deal with scaling of the Internet to a dozen or more intermediate level
>> networks linked together through the NSFNET backbone. BGP came out of that
>> work and has scaled well - now needing more security from abuse/mistakes.
>> 
>> I think there was a common thread in all of this work: people who were
>> working on different aspects of the Internet and its constituent networks
>> really wanted this system to work. The goal was interoperability linking so
>> many different packet switched networks together. Even the Xerox PARC team,
>> whose work on PUP and later XNS was proprietary, did their best to give
>> hints to the Stanford development team (mostly me and my graduate students
>> during the 1974 campaign to specify TCP).
>> 
>> It also helped that commonality and interoperability were key desirable
>> properties of the Internet system. These were the metrics by which success
>> was measured.
>> 
>> That's all I have time for now - not sure this addresses your questions
>> squarely.
>> 
>> v
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:14?PM Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks Vint!
>>> 
>>> To follow up, if I might - since you were there from the beginning (I
>>> landed at MIT in 1971, just before Ray's first email, and saw how MIT
>>> adopted ARPANET technology, then got to BBN in 1985, just in time to help
>>> split off the DDN - the period leading up to the Flag Day is mostly
>>> anecdotal history for me)...
>>> 
>>> I've long used the Internet as a model for how communities can approach
>>> infrastructure master planning - serving as the basis for our work at the
>>> Center for Civic Networking, running a growth planning exercise for
>>> Cambridge, and later, in our work with communities around municipal
>>> broadband.
>>> 
>>> Now, I'm gearing up a new effort, focused on community-level crowdsourcing
>>> for major infrastructure overhaul (as is started to be mandated by
>>> electrification ordinances).  The simple notion being that of forming local
>>> working groups, to run grand-challenge like exercises, design charettes,
>>> crowd funding for projects like a complete infrastructure rebuild for a
>>> condo complex (like the one I'm living in, and serving on the board of).
>>> How to pull such groups together remains a black art - and insights from
>>> the original model are always helpful.
>>> 
>>> In that context, might you share some pithy observations of significant
>>> events in the early life of the ARPANET & Internet - how various working
>>> groups came together in the days following Lick's initial posting to
>>> ARPA/IPTO.  Who did what, to whom, leading to a bunch of folks coming
>>> together into ad hoc & ongoing working groups of various sorts?  And, in
>>> particular, what conditions/events provided impetus, urgency, and built
>>> momentum?
>>> 
>>> Thanks Very Much,
>>> 
>>> Miles
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> vinton cerf wrote:
>>> 
>>> TCP/IP came out of work that Bob Kahn and I did along with my graduate
>>> students at Stanford. But the INWG (slightly more formal extension of NWG
>>> when it became IFIP WG 6.1) contributed in a highly collaborative fashion.
>>> So did UCL and BBN in early implementation phases of TCP and TCP/IP.
>>> 
>>> I tend to associate NWG with Arpanet Host-Host Protocols (and application
>>> protocols)
>>> and IAB (later IETF) with TCP/IP and associated applications
>>> 
>>> v
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:29?AM Miles Fidelman <
>>> mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Well Vint might have a definitive voice on this.
>>>> 
>>>> So... Vint,
>>>> 
>>>> Would you consider TCP/IP to have been initiated by the NWG?
>>>> 
>>>> What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that eventually
>>>> became SMTP)?  As I recall, that was initially announced via a postal mail
>>>> packet.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 
>>>> Miles
>>>> 
>>>> vinton cerf wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> +1
>>>> v
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history <
>>>> 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> 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
>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> --
>>> 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
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From b_a_denny at yahoo.com  Mon Sep  4 13:37:31 2023
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 20:37:31 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <47B55FB9-BDA2-4816-90E4-5E967AD1983A@lynch.com>
References: <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <47B55FB9-BDA2-4816-90E4-5E967AD1983A@lynch.com>
Message-ID: <336246059.4782995.1693859851328@mail.yahoo.com>

 Does anyone have their red button?? I think it said "I survived the tcp transition".? Dan Chernikoff, who worked in our group at SRI at the time, gave me his before he left SRI.? I remember he said something like you deserve it more; even though? I don't? think I had anything to do with the cutover. I don't know who made those or gave them out.? Can anyone fill me in? I looked for my button several years ago and I couldn't locate it where it should have? been. I hope it is somewhere waiting to be unearthed.
barbara
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:10:13 AM PDT, Dan Lynch via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:  
 
 I was at ISI from 80-83 in charge of the (then) huge data center serving the researchers at ISI and running the email server for much of the outside world. Vint and Bob told me to coordinate all the software that needed to be changed and tested for not just at ISI, but all over the Arpanet. I guess that the kids ( we were all kids then) just pitched in and got their site specific software to run TCP/IP and we had a few internal ?flag days ? of testing in 82. Of course I had Jon Postel just down the hall as my tech support!? 

Fun times?

Dan

Cell 650-776-7313

> On Sep 4, 2023, at 10:23 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> ?Two excellent observations about the early days!? 1) Someone was in charge and in control.? 2) The goal was to make the system work and be actually used. 
> D
> Back in late 1981, you (Vint) asked me to take on the Gateway Project at BBN, explicitly to make the Inoperate as a 24x7 reliable service, following the lead that the Arpanet had developed over more than a decade of operation as an infrastructure.? More about that here for the curious: https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-November/005595.html
> 
> That task could have been a research effort, producing protocols, algorithms, and mechanisms documented in RFCs for anyone to use. But there wasn't time to wait, so instead we just copied the mechanisms of the Arpanet, translating them into the world of TCP/IP.? Much of the Arpanet "management" technology wasn't well known or documented, but by locating the "Gateway Group" physically near the Arpanet control center (NOC), and recruiting some people from that world, it was possible to do "technology transfer" (a buzzword at the time).? The Internet acquired "operations" tools by plagiarizing what had been working for years in the Arpanet.? That was the fastest way to "make it work".
> 
> Separately, there were efforts, initiated by someone, to orchestrate the "Flag Day" on the Arpanet, to declare TCP/IP a DoD Standard, to define and implement a formal certification program for new TCP implementations, and probably other efforts I never knew about.
> 
> Someone was in charge, and someone was doing lots of things to "make it work".
> 
> It wasn't perfect.? Actually it was a bit chaotic IIRC.
> 
> For example... Jon Postel took on the task of documenting TCP/IPV4 so it could be referenced as a Standard.? RFCs were released.? DoD declared them mandatory for all military systems that involved communicating computers.
> 
> A bit later, at BBN we were assisting various pieces of the government in getting their computer systems up and running with their vendor's brand-new, certified, standard TCPIPV4s.? It was a big surprise to discover that, although TCP/IP was there, none of the other "tools" we had been using for years had been implemented on those machines.
> 
> Much of that missing functionality was called "ICMP", well documented in RFC 792.? But only TCP/IP had been declared a DoD Standard.? Government contractors, who had not been involved in the research community, had to implement the Standard.? But the Standard didn't include ICMP.? So they didn't implement it.
> 
> That made it much more difficult to "make it work".? For example, without ICMP as the Internet's Swiss Army Knife, you couldn't even "ping" a DoD Standard computer.? I remember we raised quite a fuss about that, and implementations started to appear.? I'm not sure if the Standard was ever modified to require ICMP.
> 
> Other things, like SNMP, were useful but also missing.? Many people apparently didn't consider ICMP and its cohorts to be part of TCP/IP.? We considered such technology essential to be able to "make it work".
> 
> -----
> 
> Looking back from 2023...
> 
> IMHO, one of the inflection points occurred when the culture shifted from "make it work" to "make money from the Internet". Interoperability (everyone can interact with everyone else) is part of "make it work", and conformance to Metcalfe's Law (google it...).? Silos (everyone can interact, as long as you stay in *our* silo) are (thought to be) preferable for "make money".
> 
> I wasn't very involved in the Internet growth as NSF joined and later as the first ISPs spun off to become commercial services. Perhaps someone remembers if they had any kind of "standards" or "certification" involved as the culture shifted.? E.g., was there a "FRICC Standard" for computers joining their 'nets?? I recall there were AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies), at least at first.? Did these "fade away" and turn into "pay us to get on the Internet and you can do whatever you want"?
> 
> It's still puzzling (to me) that the Internet has become a global infrastructure, and hasn't been surrounded by the web of regulations, laws, codes, agencies, treaties, and such non-technical mechanisms that have developed around other infrastructures.? Roads and vehicles, electric power, marine activities, air transport, railroads, finance, water, and even the air we breathe all have such mechanisms.
> 
> Is the Internet different?? Or just still too young to have accreted such "management" mechanisms?
> 
> Jack Haverty
> 
>> On 9/2/23 02:19, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
>> I have only a brief moment to respond. The Arpanet, PRNET, SATNET, Internet
>> sequence gets its primary stability from the sole source funding of ARPA,
>> initially, and the pooling of resources from other DoD components using
>> Arpanet. Arpanet was managed by BBN initially (later under contract to DCA
>> vs ARPA). It really helped that the Internet development funding came from
>> a single source. Decision making was largely in the hands of the ARPA
>> program managers, well-informed by the people doing the work. In the
>> mid-1980s, ARPA, NSF, DOE and NASA collaborated through the Federal
>> Research Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC) made up of program
>> managers from each agency. ESNET, NSINET and NSFNET joined Arpanet as
>> backbones of the Internet. Again, common purpose welded the effort into a
>> coherent whole. MERIT played a major role in the NSFNET development which
>> really elaborated on the multi-network aspect of Internet. MERIT had to
>> deal with scaling of the Internet to a dozen or more intermediate level
>> networks linked together through the NSFNET backbone. BGP came out of that
>> work and has scaled well - now needing more security from abuse/mistakes.
>> 
>> I think there was a common thread in all of this work: people who were
>> working on different aspects of the Internet and its constituent networks
>> really wanted this system to work. The goal was interoperability linking so
>> many different packet switched networks together. Even the Xerox PARC team,
>> whose work on PUP and later XNS was proprietary, did their best to give
>> hints to the Stanford development team (mostly me and my graduate students
>> during the 1974 campaign to specify TCP).
>> 
>> It also helped that commonality and interoperability were key desirable
>> properties of the Internet system. These were the metrics by which success
>> was measured.
>> 
>> That's all I have time for now - not sure this addresses your questions
>> squarely.
>> 
>> v
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:14?PM Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks Vint!
>>> 
>>> To follow up, if I might - since you were there from the beginning (I
>>> landed at MIT in 1971, just before Ray's first email, and saw how MIT
>>> adopted ARPANET technology, then got to BBN in 1985, just in time to help
>>> split off the DDN - the period leading up to the Flag Day is mostly
>>> anecdotal history for me)...
>>> 
>>> I've long used the Internet as a model for how communities can approach
>>> infrastructure master planning - serving as the basis for our work at the
>>> Center for Civic Networking, running a growth planning exercise for
>>> Cambridge, and later, in our work with communities around municipal
>>> broadband.
>>> 
>>> Now, I'm gearing up a new effort, focused on community-level crowdsourcing
>>> for major infrastructure overhaul (as is started to be mandated by
>>> electrification ordinances).? The simple notion being that of forming local
>>> working groups, to run grand-challenge like exercises, design charettes,
>>> crowd funding for projects like a complete infrastructure rebuild for a
>>> condo complex (like the one I'm living in, and serving on the board of).
>>> How to pull such groups together remains a black art - and insights from
>>> the original model are always helpful.
>>> 
>>> In that context, might you share some pithy observations of significant
>>> events in the early life of the ARPANET & Internet - how various working
>>> groups came together in the days following Lick's initial posting to
>>> ARPA/IPTO.? Who did what, to whom, leading to a bunch of folks coming
>>> together into ad hoc & ongoing working groups of various sorts?? And, in
>>> particular, what conditions/events provided impetus, urgency, and built
>>> momentum?
>>> 
>>> Thanks Very Much,
>>> 
>>> Miles
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> vinton cerf wrote:
>>> 
>>> TCP/IP came out of work that Bob Kahn and I did along with my graduate
>>> students at Stanford. But the INWG (slightly more formal extension of NWG
>>> when it became IFIP WG 6.1) contributed in a highly collaborative fashion.
>>> So did UCL and BBN in early implementation phases of TCP and TCP/IP.
>>> 
>>> I tend to associate NWG with Arpanet Host-Host Protocols (and application
>>> protocols)
>>> and IAB (later IETF) with TCP/IP and associated applications
>>> 
>>> v
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:29?AM Miles Fidelman <
>>> mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Well Vint might have a definitive voice on this.
>>>> 
>>>> So... Vint,
>>>> 
>>>> Would you consider TCP/IP to have been initiated by the NWG?
>>>> 
>>>> What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that eventually
>>>> became SMTP)?? As I recall, that was initially announced via a postal mail
>>>> packet.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 
>>>> Miles
>>>> 
>>>> vinton cerf wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> +1
>>>> v
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history <
>>>> 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> 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
>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> --
>>> 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
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

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

From dan at lynch.com  Mon Sep  4 14:23:15 2023
From: dan at lynch.com (Dan Lynch)
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 14:23:15 -0700
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <336246059.4782995.1693859851328@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <336246059.4782995.1693859851328@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <A8B041B3-9F0E-478D-9BDF-DC0EAC065454@lynch.com>

You asked the right person!  I made 500 of those buttons and gave them away to participants in that wild cutover event. 

Dan

Cell 650-776-7313

> On Sep 4, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Barbara Denny via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> ? Does anyone have their red button?  I think it said "I survived the tcp transition".  Dan Chernikoff, who worked in our group at SRI at the time, gave me his before he left SRI.  I remember he said something like you deserve it more; even though  I don't  think I had anything to do with the cutover. I don't know who made those or gave them out.  Can anyone fill me in? I looked for my button several years ago and I couldn't locate it where it should have  been. I hope it is somewhere waiting to be unearthed.
> barbara
>    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:10:13 AM PDT, Dan Lynch via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:  
> 
> I was at ISI from 80-83 in charge of the (then) huge data center serving the researchers at ISI and running the email server for much of the outside world. Vint and Bob told me to coordinate all the software that needed to be changed and tested for not just at ISI, but all over the Arpanet. I guess that the kids ( we were all kids then) just pitched in and got their site specific software to run TCP/IP and we had a few internal ?flag days ? of testing in 82. Of course I had Jon Postel just down the hall as my tech support!  
> 
> Fun times?
> 
> Dan
> 
> Cell 650-776-7313
> 
>> On Sep 4, 2023, at 10:23 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>> ?Two excellent observations about the early days!  1) Someone was in charge and in control.  2) The goal was to make the system work and be actually used. 
>> D
>> Back in late 1981, you (Vint) asked me to take on the Gateway Project at BBN, explicitly to make the Inoperate as a 24x7 reliable service, following the lead that the Arpanet had developed over more than a decade of operation as an infrastructure.  More about that here for the curious: https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-November/005595.html
>> 
>> That task could have been a research effort, producing protocols, algorithms, and mechanisms documented in RFCs for anyone to use. But there wasn't time to wait, so instead we just copied the mechanisms of the Arpanet, translating them into the world of TCP/IP.  Much of the Arpanet "management" technology wasn't well known or documented, but by locating the "Gateway Group" physically near the Arpanet control center (NOC), and recruiting some people from that world, it was possible to do "technology transfer" (a buzzword at the time).  The Internet acquired "operations" tools by plagiarizing what had been working for years in the Arpanet.  That was the fastest way to "make it work".
>> 
>> Separately, there were efforts, initiated by someone, to orchestrate the "Flag Day" on the Arpanet, to declare TCP/IP a DoD Standard, to define and implement a formal certification program for new TCP implementations, and probably other efforts I never knew about.
>> 
>> Someone was in charge, and someone was doing lots of things to "make it work".
>> 
>> It wasn't perfect.  Actually it was a bit chaotic IIRC.
>> 
>> For example... Jon Postel took on the task of documenting TCP/IPV4 so it could be referenced as a Standard.  RFCs were released.  DoD declared them mandatory for all military systems that involved communicating computers.
>> 
>> A bit later, at BBN we were assisting various pieces of the government in getting their computer systems up and running with their vendor's brand-new, certified, standard TCPIPV4s.  It was a big surprise to discover that, although TCP/IP was there, none of the other "tools" we had been using for years had been implemented on those machines.
>> 
>> Much of that missing functionality was called "ICMP", well documented in RFC 792.  But only TCP/IP had been declared a DoD Standard.  Government contractors, who had not been involved in the research community, had to implement the Standard.  But the Standard didn't include ICMP.  So they didn't implement it.
>> 
>> That made it much more difficult to "make it work".  For example, without ICMP as the Internet's Swiss Army Knife, you couldn't even "ping" a DoD Standard computer.  I remember we raised quite a fuss about that, and implementations started to appear.  I'm not sure if the Standard was ever modified to require ICMP.
>> 
>> Other things, like SNMP, were useful but also missing.  Many people apparently didn't consider ICMP and its cohorts to be part of TCP/IP.  We considered such technology essential to be able to "make it work".
>> 
>> -----
>> 
>> Looking back from 2023...
>> 
>> IMHO, one of the inflection points occurred when the culture shifted from "make it work" to "make money from the Internet". Interoperability (everyone can interact with everyone else) is part of "make it work", and conformance to Metcalfe's Law (google it...).  Silos (everyone can interact, as long as you stay in *our* silo) are (thought to be) preferable for "make money".
>> 
>> I wasn't very involved in the Internet growth as NSF joined and later as the first ISPs spun off to become commercial services. Perhaps someone remembers if they had any kind of "standards" or "certification" involved as the culture shifted.  E.g., was there a "FRICC Standard" for computers joining their 'nets?  I recall there were AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies), at least at first.  Did these "fade away" and turn into "pay us to get on the Internet and you can do whatever you want"?
>> 
>> It's still puzzling (to me) that the Internet has become a global infrastructure, and hasn't been surrounded by the web of regulations, laws, codes, agencies, treaties, and such non-technical mechanisms that have developed around other infrastructures.  Roads and vehicles, electric power, marine activities, air transport, railroads, finance, water, and even the air we breathe all have such mechanisms.
>> 
>> Is the Internet different?  Or just still too young to have accreted such "management" mechanisms?
>> 
>> Jack Haverty
>> 
>>>> On 9/2/23 02:19, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
>>> I have only a brief moment to respond. The Arpanet, PRNET, SATNET, Internet
>>> sequence gets its primary stability from the sole source funding of ARPA,
>>> initially, and the pooling of resources from other DoD components using
>>> Arpanet. Arpanet was managed by BBN initially (later under contract to DCA
>>> vs ARPA). It really helped that the Internet development funding came from
>>> a single source. Decision making was largely in the hands of the ARPA
>>> program managers, well-informed by the people doing the work. In the
>>> mid-1980s, ARPA, NSF, DOE and NASA collaborated through the Federal
>>> Research Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC) made up of program
>>> managers from each agency. ESNET, NSINET and NSFNET joined Arpanet as
>>> backbones of the Internet. Again, common purpose welded the effort into a
>>> coherent whole. MERIT played a major role in the NSFNET development which
>>> really elaborated on the multi-network aspect of Internet. MERIT had to
>>> deal with scaling of the Internet to a dozen or more intermediate level
>>> networks linked together through the NSFNET backbone. BGP came out of that
>>> work and has scaled well - now needing more security from abuse/mistakes.
>>> 
>>> I think there was a common thread in all of this work: people who were
>>> working on different aspects of the Internet and its constituent networks
>>> really wanted this system to work. The goal was interoperability linking so
>>> many different packet switched networks together. Even the Xerox PARC team,
>>> whose work on PUP and later XNS was proprietary, did their best to give
>>> hints to the Stanford development team (mostly me and my graduate students
>>> during the 1974 campaign to specify TCP).
>>> 
>>> It also helped that commonality and interoperability were key desirable
>>> properties of the Internet system. These were the metrics by which success
>>> was measured.
>>> 
>>> That's all I have time for now - not sure this addresses your questions
>>> squarely.
>>> 
>>> v
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:14?PM Miles Fidelman <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Thanks Vint!
>>>> 
>>>> To follow up, if I might - since you were there from the beginning (I
>>>> landed at MIT in 1971, just before Ray's first email, and saw how MIT
>>>> adopted ARPANET technology, then got to BBN in 1985, just in time to help
>>>> split off the DDN - the period leading up to the Flag Day is mostly
>>>> anecdotal history for me)...
>>>> 
>>>> I've long used the Internet as a model for how communities can approach
>>>> infrastructure master planning - serving as the basis for our work at the
>>>> Center for Civic Networking, running a growth planning exercise for
>>>> Cambridge, and later, in our work with communities around municipal
>>>> broadband.
>>>> 
>>>> Now, I'm gearing up a new effort, focused on community-level crowdsourcing
>>>> for major infrastructure overhaul (as is started to be mandated by
>>>> electrification ordinances).  The simple notion being that of forming local
>>>> working groups, to run grand-challenge like exercises, design charettes,
>>>> crowd funding for projects like a complete infrastructure rebuild for a
>>>> condo complex (like the one I'm living in, and serving on the board of).
>>>> How to pull such groups together remains a black art - and insights from
>>>> the original model are always helpful.
>>>> 
>>>> In that context, might you share some pithy observations of significant
>>>> events in the early life of the ARPANET & Internet - how various working
>>>> groups came together in the days following Lick's initial posting to
>>>> ARPA/IPTO.  Who did what, to whom, leading to a bunch of folks coming
>>>> together into ad hoc & ongoing working groups of various sorts?  And, in
>>>> particular, what conditions/events provided impetus, urgency, and built
>>>> momentum?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks Very Much,
>>>> 
>>>> Miles
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> vinton cerf wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> TCP/IP came out of work that Bob Kahn and I did along with my graduate
>>>> students at Stanford. But the INWG (slightly more formal extension of NWG
>>>> when it became IFIP WG 6.1) contributed in a highly collaborative fashion.
>>>> So did UCL and BBN in early implementation phases of TCP and TCP/IP.
>>>> 
>>>> I tend to associate NWG with Arpanet Host-Host Protocols (and application
>>>> protocols)
>>>> and IAB (later IETF) with TCP/IP and associated applications
>>>> 
>>>> v
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:29?AM Miles Fidelman <
>>>> mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Well Vint might have a definitive voice on this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So... Vint,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Would you consider TCP/IP to have been initiated by the NWG?
>>>>> 
>>>>> What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that eventually
>>>>> became SMTP)?  As I recall, that was initially announced via a postal mail
>>>>> packet.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Miles
>>>>> 
>>>>> vinton cerf wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> +1
>>>>> v
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history <
>>>>> 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> 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
>>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From crypto at glassblower.info  Mon Sep  4 14:28:51 2023
From: crypto at glassblower.info (Tony Patti)
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 17:28:51 -0400
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <336246059.4782995.1693859851328@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <47B55FB9-BDA2-4816-90E4-5E967AD1983A@lynch.com>
 <336246059.4782995.1693859851328@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <56bf01d9df76$cc98c800$65ca5800$@glassblower.info>

Barbara,
*THIS* red button? (see image in third row)
http://www.wiwiw.org/pioneers/index.html
which is shown enlarged at 
http://www.wiwiw.org/pioneers/button-survived-tcp-transition.htm
Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: Internet-history <internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org> On Behalf Of Barbara Denny via Internet-history
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2023 4:38 PM
To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org
Subject: Re: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)

 Does anyone have their red button?  I think it said "I survived the tcp transition".  Dan Chernikoff, who worked in our group at SRI at the time, gave me his before he left SRI.  I remember he said something like you deserve it more; even though  I don't  think I had anything to do with the cutover. I don't know who made those or gave them out.  Can anyone fill me in? I looked for my button several years ago and I couldn't locate it where it should have  been. I hope it is somewhere waiting to be unearthed.
barbara
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:10:13 AM PDT, Dan Lynch via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:  
 
 I was at ISI from 80-83 in charge of the (then) huge data center serving the researchers at ISI and running the email server for much of the outside world. Vint and Bob told me to coordinate all the software that needed to be changed and tested for not just at ISI, but all over the Arpanet. I guess that the kids ( we were all kids then) just pitched in and got their site specific software to run TCP/IP and we had a few internal ?flag days ? of testing in 82. Of course I had Jon Postel just down the hall as my tech support!  

Fun times?

Dan

Cell 650-776-7313

> On Sep 4, 2023, at 10:23 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> ?Two excellent observations about the early days!  1) Someone was in charge and in control.  2) The goal was to make the system work and be actually used. 
> D
> Back in late 1981, you (Vint) asked me to take on the Gateway Project 
> at BBN, explicitly to make the Inoperate as a 24x7 reliable service, 
> following the lead that the Arpanet had developed over more than a 
> decade of operation as an infrastructure.  More about that here for 
> the curious: 
> https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-November/00559
> 5.html
> 
> That task could have been a research effort, producing protocols, algorithms, and mechanisms documented in RFCs for anyone to use. But there wasn't time to wait, so instead we just copied the mechanisms of the Arpanet, translating them into the world of TCP/IP.  Much of the Arpanet "management" technology wasn't well known or documented, but by locating the "Gateway Group" physically near the Arpanet control center (NOC), and recruiting some people from that world, it was possible to do "technology transfer" (a buzzword at the time).  The Internet acquired "operations" tools by plagiarizing what had been working for years in the Arpanet.  That was the fastest way to "make it work".
> 
> Separately, there were efforts, initiated by someone, to orchestrate the "Flag Day" on the Arpanet, to declare TCP/IP a DoD Standard, to define and implement a formal certification program for new TCP implementations, and probably other efforts I never knew about.
> 
> Someone was in charge, and someone was doing lots of things to "make it work".
> 
> It wasn't perfect.  Actually it was a bit chaotic IIRC.
> 
> For example... Jon Postel took on the task of documenting TCP/IPV4 so it could be referenced as a Standard.  RFCs were released.  DoD declared them mandatory for all military systems that involved communicating computers.
> 
> A bit later, at BBN we were assisting various pieces of the government in getting their computer systems up and running with their vendor's brand-new, certified, standard TCPIPV4s.  It was a big surprise to discover that, although TCP/IP was there, none of the other "tools" we had been using for years had been implemented on those machines.
> 
> Much of that missing functionality was called "ICMP", well documented in RFC 792.  But only TCP/IP had been declared a DoD Standard.  Government contractors, who had not been involved in the research community, had to implement the Standard.  But the Standard didn't include ICMP.  So they didn't implement it.
> 
> That made it much more difficult to "make it work".  For example, without ICMP as the Internet's Swiss Army Knife, you couldn't even "ping" a DoD Standard computer.  I remember we raised quite a fuss about that, and implementations started to appear.  I'm not sure if the Standard was ever modified to require ICMP.
> 
> Other things, like SNMP, were useful but also missing.  Many people apparently didn't consider ICMP and its cohorts to be part of TCP/IP.  We considered such technology essential to be able to "make it work".
> 
> -----
> 
> Looking back from 2023...
> 
> IMHO, one of the inflection points occurred when the culture shifted from "make it work" to "make money from the Internet". Interoperability (everyone can interact with everyone else) is part of "make it work", and conformance to Metcalfe's Law (google it...).  Silos (everyone can interact, as long as you stay in *our* silo) are (thought to be) preferable for "make money".
> 
> I wasn't very involved in the Internet growth as NSF joined and later as the first ISPs spun off to become commercial services. Perhaps someone remembers if they had any kind of "standards" or "certification" involved as the culture shifted.  E.g., was there a "FRICC Standard" for computers joining their 'nets?  I recall there were AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies), at least at first.  Did these "fade away" and turn into "pay us to get on the Internet and you can do whatever you want"?
> 
> It's still puzzling (to me) that the Internet has become a global infrastructure, and hasn't been surrounded by the web of regulations, laws, codes, agencies, treaties, and such non-technical mechanisms that have developed around other infrastructures.  Roads and vehicles, electric power, marine activities, air transport, railroads, finance, water, and even the air we breathe all have such mechanisms.
> 
> Is the Internet different?  Or just still too young to have accreted such "management" mechanisms?
> 
> Jack Haverty
> 
>> On 9/2/23 02:19, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
>> I have only a brief moment to respond. The Arpanet, PRNET, SATNET, 
>> Internet sequence gets its primary stability from the sole source 
>> funding of ARPA, initially, and the pooling of resources from other 
>> DoD components using Arpanet. Arpanet was managed by BBN initially 
>> (later under contract to DCA vs ARPA). It really helped that the 
>> Internet development funding came from a single source. Decision 
>> making was largely in the hands of the ARPA program managers, 
>> well-informed by the people doing the work. In the mid-1980s, ARPA, 
>> NSF, DOE and NASA collaborated through the Federal Research Internet 
>> Coordinating Committee (FRICC) made up of program managers from each 
>> agency. ESNET, NSINET and NSFNET joined Arpanet as backbones of the 
>> Internet. Again, common purpose welded the effort into a coherent 
>> whole. MERIT played a major role in the NSFNET development which 
>> really elaborated on the multi-network aspect of Internet. MERIT had 
>> to deal with scaling of the Internet to a dozen or more intermediate 
>> level networks linked together through the NSFNET backbone. BGP came out of that work and has scaled well - now needing more security from abuse/mistakes.
>> 
>> I think there was a common thread in all of this work: people who 
>> were working on different aspects of the Internet and its constituent 
>> networks really wanted this system to work. The goal was 
>> interoperability linking so many different packet switched networks 
>> together. Even the Xerox PARC team, whose work on PUP and later XNS 
>> was proprietary, did their best to give hints to the Stanford 
>> development team (mostly me and my graduate students during the 1974 campaign to specify TCP).
>> 
>> It also helped that commonality and interoperability were key 
>> desirable properties of the Internet system. These were the metrics 
>> by which success was measured.
>> 
>> That's all I have time for now - not sure this addresses your 
>> questions squarely.
>> 
>> v
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:14?PM Miles Fidelman 
>> <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks Vint!
>>> 
>>> To follow up, if I might - since you were there from the beginning 
>>> (I landed at MIT in 1971, just before Ray's first email, and saw how 
>>> MIT adopted ARPANET technology, then got to BBN in 1985, just in 
>>> time to help split off the DDN - the period leading up to the Flag 
>>> Day is mostly anecdotal history for me)...
>>> 
>>> I've long used the Internet as a model for how communities can 
>>> approach infrastructure master planning - serving as the basis for 
>>> our work at the Center for Civic Networking, running a growth 
>>> planning exercise for Cambridge, and later, in our work with 
>>> communities around municipal broadband.
>>> 
>>> Now, I'm gearing up a new effort, focused on community-level 
>>> crowdsourcing for major infrastructure overhaul (as is started to be 
>>> mandated by electrification ordinances).  The simple notion being 
>>> that of forming local working groups, to run grand-challenge like 
>>> exercises, design charettes, crowd funding for projects like a 
>>> complete infrastructure rebuild for a condo complex (like the one I'm living in, and serving on the board of).
>>> How to pull such groups together remains a black art - and insights 
>>> from the original model are always helpful.
>>> 
>>> In that context, might you share some pithy observations of 
>>> significant events in the early life of the ARPANET & Internet - how 
>>> various working groups came together in the days following Lick's 
>>> initial posting to ARPA/IPTO.  Who did what, to whom, leading to a 
>>> bunch of folks coming together into ad hoc & ongoing working groups 
>>> of various sorts?  And, in particular, what conditions/events 
>>> provided impetus, urgency, and built momentum?
>>> 
>>> Thanks Very Much,
>>> 
>>> Miles
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> vinton cerf wrote:
>>> 
>>> TCP/IP came out of work that Bob Kahn and I did along with my 
>>> graduate students at Stanford. But the INWG (slightly more formal 
>>> extension of NWG when it became IFIP WG 6.1) contributed in a highly collaborative fashion.
>>> So did UCL and BBN in early implementation phases of TCP and TCP/IP.
>>> 
>>> I tend to associate NWG with Arpanet Host-Host Protocols (and 
>>> application
>>> protocols)
>>> and IAB (later IETF) with TCP/IP and associated applications
>>> 
>>> v
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:29?AM Miles Fidelman < 
>>> mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Well Vint might have a definitive voice on this.
>>>> 
>>>> So... Vint,
>>>> 
>>>> Would you consider TCP/IP to have been initiated by the NWG?
>>>> 
>>>> What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that 
>>>> eventually became SMTP)?  As I recall, that was initially announced 
>>>> via a postal mail packet.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 
>>>> Miles
>>>> 
>>>> vinton cerf wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> +1
>>>> v
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history 
>>>> < 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> 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
>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> --
>>> 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
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

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



From steve at shinkuro.com  Mon Sep  4 14:35:36 2023
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 17:35:36 -0400
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <56bf01d9df76$cc98c800$65ca5800$@glassblower.info>
References: <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <47B55FB9-BDA2-4816-90E4-5E967AD1983A@lynch.com>
 <336246059.4782995.1693859851328@mail.yahoo.com>
 <56bf01d9df76$cc98c800$65ca5800$@glassblower.info>
Message-ID: <CABf5zv+Q5JB9us4gYNUw=1xqB+UoUMzQTKTeGL2u_eLRAKG-LQ@mail.gmail.com>

Pretty nifty set of pictures.  I can name many but not all of them.  Are
the names listed somewhere?

Thanks,

Steve

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 5:29?PM Tony Patti via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Barbara,
> *THIS* red button? (see image in third row)
> http://www.wiwiw.org/pioneers/index.html
> which is shown enlarged at
> http://www.wiwiw.org/pioneers/button-survived-tcp-transition.htm
> Tony
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internet-history <internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org> On
> Behalf Of Barbara Denny via Internet-history
> Sent: Monday, September 4, 2023 4:38 PM
> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
>
>  Does anyone have their red button?  I think it said "I survived the tcp
> transition".  Dan Chernikoff, who worked in our group at SRI at the time,
> gave me his before he left SRI.  I remember he said something like you
> deserve it more; even though  I don't  think I had anything to do with the
> cutover. I don't know who made those or gave them out.  Can anyone fill me
> in? I looked for my button several years ago and I couldn't locate it where
> it should have  been. I hope it is somewhere waiting to be unearthed.
> barbara
>     On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:10:13 AM PDT, Dan Lynch via
> Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>  I was at ISI from 80-83 in charge of the (then) huge data center serving
> the researchers at ISI and running the email server for much of the outside
> world. Vint and Bob told me to coordinate all the software that needed to
> be changed and tested for not just at ISI, but all over the Arpanet. I
> guess that the kids ( we were all kids then) just pitched in and got their
> site specific software to run TCP/IP and we had a few internal ?flag days ?
> of testing in 82. Of course I had Jon Postel just down the hall as my tech
> support!
>
> Fun times?
>
> Dan
>
> Cell 650-776-7313
>
> > On Sep 4, 2023, at 10:23 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > ?Two excellent observations about the early days!  1) Someone was in
> charge and in control.  2) The goal was to make the system work and be
> actually used.
> > D
> > Back in late 1981, you (Vint) asked me to take on the Gateway Project
> > at BBN, explicitly to make the Inoperate as a 24x7 reliable service,
> > following the lead that the Arpanet had developed over more than a
> > decade of operation as an infrastructure.  More about that here for
> > the curious:
> > https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-November/00559
> > 5.html
> >
> > That task could have been a research effort, producing protocols,
> algorithms, and mechanisms documented in RFCs for anyone to use. But there
> wasn't time to wait, so instead we just copied the mechanisms of the
> Arpanet, translating them into the world of TCP/IP.  Much of the Arpanet
> "management" technology wasn't well known or documented, but by locating
> the "Gateway Group" physically near the Arpanet control center (NOC), and
> recruiting some people from that world, it was possible to do "technology
> transfer" (a buzzword at the time).  The Internet acquired "operations"
> tools by plagiarizing what had been working for years in the Arpanet.  That
> was the fastest way to "make it work".
> >
> > Separately, there were efforts, initiated by someone, to orchestrate the
> "Flag Day" on the Arpanet, to declare TCP/IP a DoD Standard, to define and
> implement a formal certification program for new TCP implementations, and
> probably other efforts I never knew about.
> >
> > Someone was in charge, and someone was doing lots of things to "make it
> work".
> >
> > It wasn't perfect.  Actually it was a bit chaotic IIRC.
> >
> > For example... Jon Postel took on the task of documenting TCP/IPV4 so it
> could be referenced as a Standard.  RFCs were released.  DoD declared them
> mandatory for all military systems that involved communicating computers.
> >
> > A bit later, at BBN we were assisting various pieces of the government
> in getting their computer systems up and running with their vendor's
> brand-new, certified, standard TCPIPV4s.  It was a big surprise to discover
> that, although TCP/IP was there, none of the other "tools" we had been
> using for years had been implemented on those machines.
> >
> > Much of that missing functionality was called "ICMP", well documented in
> RFC 792.  But only TCP/IP had been declared a DoD Standard.  Government
> contractors, who had not been involved in the research community, had to
> implement the Standard.  But the Standard didn't include ICMP.  So they
> didn't implement it.
> >
> > That made it much more difficult to "make it work".  For example,
> without ICMP as the Internet's Swiss Army Knife, you couldn't even "ping" a
> DoD Standard computer.  I remember we raised quite a fuss about that, and
> implementations started to appear.  I'm not sure if the Standard was ever
> modified to require ICMP.
> >
> > Other things, like SNMP, were useful but also missing.  Many people
> apparently didn't consider ICMP and its cohorts to be part of TCP/IP.  We
> considered such technology essential to be able to "make it work".
> >
> > -----
> >
> > Looking back from 2023...
> >
> > IMHO, one of the inflection points occurred when the culture shifted
> from "make it work" to "make money from the Internet". Interoperability
> (everyone can interact with everyone else) is part of "make it work", and
> conformance to Metcalfe's Law (google it...).  Silos (everyone can
> interact, as long as you stay in *our* silo) are (thought to be) preferable
> for "make money".
> >
> > I wasn't very involved in the Internet growth as NSF joined and later as
> the first ISPs spun off to become commercial services. Perhaps someone
> remembers if they had any kind of "standards" or "certification" involved
> as the culture shifted.  E.g., was there a "FRICC Standard" for computers
> joining their 'nets?  I recall there were AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies),
> at least at first.  Did these "fade away" and turn into "pay us to get on
> the Internet and you can do whatever you want"?
> >
> > It's still puzzling (to me) that the Internet has become a global
> infrastructure, and hasn't been surrounded by the web of regulations, laws,
> codes, agencies, treaties, and such non-technical mechanisms that have
> developed around other infrastructures.  Roads and vehicles, electric
> power, marine activities, air transport, railroads, finance, water, and
> even the air we breathe all have such mechanisms.
> >
> > Is the Internet different?  Or just still too young to have accreted
> such "management" mechanisms?
> >
> > Jack Haverty
> >
> >> On 9/2/23 02:19, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> >> I have only a brief moment to respond. The Arpanet, PRNET, SATNET,
> >> Internet sequence gets its primary stability from the sole source
> >> funding of ARPA, initially, and the pooling of resources from other
> >> DoD components using Arpanet. Arpanet was managed by BBN initially
> >> (later under contract to DCA vs ARPA). It really helped that the
> >> Internet development funding came from a single source. Decision
> >> making was largely in the hands of the ARPA program managers,
> >> well-informed by the people doing the work. In the mid-1980s, ARPA,
> >> NSF, DOE and NASA collaborated through the Federal Research Internet
> >> Coordinating Committee (FRICC) made up of program managers from each
> >> agency. ESNET, NSINET and NSFNET joined Arpanet as backbones of the
> >> Internet. Again, common purpose welded the effort into a coherent
> >> whole. MERIT played a major role in the NSFNET development which
> >> really elaborated on the multi-network aspect of Internet. MERIT had
> >> to deal with scaling of the Internet to a dozen or more intermediate
> >> level networks linked together through the NSFNET backbone. BGP came
> out of that work and has scaled well - now needing more security from
> abuse/mistakes.
> >>
> >> I think there was a common thread in all of this work: people who
> >> were working on different aspects of the Internet and its constituent
> >> networks really wanted this system to work. The goal was
> >> interoperability linking so many different packet switched networks
> >> together. Even the Xerox PARC team, whose work on PUP and later XNS
> >> was proprietary, did their best to give hints to the Stanford
> >> development team (mostly me and my graduate students during the 1974
> campaign to specify TCP).
> >>
> >> It also helped that commonality and interoperability were key
> >> desirable properties of the Internet system. These were the metrics
> >> by which success was measured.
> >>
> >> That's all I have time for now - not sure this addresses your
> >> questions squarely.
> >>
> >> v
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:14?PM Miles Fidelman
> >> <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks Vint!
> >>>
> >>> To follow up, if I might - since you were there from the beginning
> >>> (I landed at MIT in 1971, just before Ray's first email, and saw how
> >>> MIT adopted ARPANET technology, then got to BBN in 1985, just in
> >>> time to help split off the DDN - the period leading up to the Flag
> >>> Day is mostly anecdotal history for me)...
> >>>
> >>> I've long used the Internet as a model for how communities can
> >>> approach infrastructure master planning - serving as the basis for
> >>> our work at the Center for Civic Networking, running a growth
> >>> planning exercise for Cambridge, and later, in our work with
> >>> communities around municipal broadband.
> >>>
> >>> Now, I'm gearing up a new effort, focused on community-level
> >>> crowdsourcing for major infrastructure overhaul (as is started to be
> >>> mandated by electrification ordinances).  The simple notion being
> >>> that of forming local working groups, to run grand-challenge like
> >>> exercises, design charettes, crowd funding for projects like a
> >>> complete infrastructure rebuild for a condo complex (like the one I'm
> living in, and serving on the board of).
> >>> How to pull such groups together remains a black art - and insights
> >>> from the original model are always helpful.
> >>>
> >>> In that context, might you share some pithy observations of
> >>> significant events in the early life of the ARPANET & Internet - how
> >>> various working groups came together in the days following Lick's
> >>> initial posting to ARPA/IPTO.  Who did what, to whom, leading to a
> >>> bunch of folks coming together into ad hoc & ongoing working groups
> >>> of various sorts?  And, in particular, what conditions/events
> >>> provided impetus, urgency, and built momentum?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks Very Much,
> >>>
> >>> Miles
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> vinton cerf wrote:
> >>>
> >>> TCP/IP came out of work that Bob Kahn and I did along with my
> >>> graduate students at Stanford. But the INWG (slightly more formal
> >>> extension of NWG when it became IFIP WG 6.1) contributed in a highly
> collaborative fashion.
> >>> So did UCL and BBN in early implementation phases of TCP and TCP/IP.
> >>>
> >>> I tend to associate NWG with Arpanet Host-Host Protocols (and
> >>> application
> >>> protocols)
> >>> and IAB (later IETF) with TCP/IP and associated applications
> >>>
> >>> v
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:29?AM Miles Fidelman <
> >>> mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Well Vint might have a definitive voice on this.
> >>>>
> >>>> So... Vint,
> >>>>
> >>>> Would you consider TCP/IP to have been initiated by the NWG?
> >>>>
> >>>> What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that
> >>>> eventually became SMTP)?  As I recall, that was initially announced
> >>>> via a postal mail packet.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> Miles
> >>>>
> >>>> vinton cerf wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> +1
> >>>> v
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history
> >>>> < 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> 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
> >>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Internet-history mailing list
> >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> --
> >>> 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
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From jack at 3kitty.org  Mon Sep  4 14:44:25 2023
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 14:44:25 -0700
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <336246059.4782995.1693859851328@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <47B55FB9-BDA2-4816-90E4-5E967AD1983A@lynch.com>
 <336246059.4782995.1693859851328@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <2b749b0c-3874-c3f7-88b9-1bc157aeb382@3kitty.org>

Trying again:

Your mail to 'Internet-history' with the subject
     Re: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
The reason it is being held:
     Message body is too big: 1206130 bytes with a limit of 400 KB




On 9/4/23 13:37, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
>   Does anyone have their red button?? I think it said "I survived the tcp transition".? Dan Chernikoff, who worked in our group at SRI at the time, gave me his before he left SRI.? I remember he said something like you deserve it more; even though? I don't? think I had anything to do with the cutover. I don't know who made those or gave them out.? Can anyone fill me in? I looked for my button several years ago and I couldn't locate it where it should have? been. I hope it is somewhere waiting to be unearthed.
> barbara
>      On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:10:13 AM PDT, Dan Lynch via Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>  wrote:
>   
>   I was at ISI from 80-83 in charge of the (then) huge data center serving the researchers at ISI and running the email server for much of the outside world. Vint and Bob told me to coordinate all the software that needed to be changed and tested for not just at ISI, but all over the Arpanet. I guess that the kids ( we were all kids then) just pitched in and got their site specific software to run TCP/IP and we had a few internal ?flag days ? of testing in 82. Of course I had Jon Postel just down the hall as my tech support!
>
> Fun times?
>
> Dan
>
> Cell 650-776-7313
>
>> On Sep 4, 2023, at 10:23 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>  wrote:
>>
>> ?Two excellent observations about the early days!? 1) Someone was in charge and in control.? 2) The goal was to make the system work and be actually used.
>> D
>> Back in late 1981, you (Vint) asked me to take on the Gateway Project at BBN, explicitly to make the Inoperate as a 24x7 reliable service, following the lead that the Arpanet had developed over more than a decade of operation as an infrastructure.? More about that here for the curious:https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-November/005595.html
>>
>> That task could have been a research effort, producing protocols, algorithms, and mechanisms documented in RFCs for anyone to use. But there wasn't time to wait, so instead we just copied the mechanisms of the Arpanet, translating them into the world of TCP/IP.? Much of the Arpanet "management" technology wasn't well known or documented, but by locating the "Gateway Group" physically near the Arpanet control center (NOC), and recruiting some people from that world, it was possible to do "technology transfer" (a buzzword at the time).? The Internet acquired "operations" tools by plagiarizing what had been working for years in the Arpanet.? That was the fastest way to "make it work".
>>
>> Separately, there were efforts, initiated by someone, to orchestrate the "Flag Day" on the Arpanet, to declare TCP/IP a DoD Standard, to define and implement a formal certification program for new TCP implementations, and probably other efforts I never knew about.
>>
>> Someone was in charge, and someone was doing lots of things to "make it work".
>>
>> It wasn't perfect.? Actually it was a bit chaotic IIRC.
>>
>> For example... Jon Postel took on the task of documenting TCP/IPV4 so it could be referenced as a Standard.? RFCs were released.? DoD declared them mandatory for all military systems that involved communicating computers.
>>
>> A bit later, at BBN we were assisting various pieces of the government in getting their computer systems up and running with their vendor's brand-new, certified, standard TCPIPV4s.? It was a big surprise to discover that, although TCP/IP was there, none of the other "tools" we had been using for years had been implemented on those machines.
>>
>> Much of that missing functionality was called "ICMP", well documented in RFC 792.? But only TCP/IP had been declared a DoD Standard.? Government contractors, who had not been involved in the research community, had to implement the Standard.? But the Standard didn't include ICMP.? So they didn't implement it.
>>
>> That made it much more difficult to "make it work".? For example, without ICMP as the Internet's Swiss Army Knife, you couldn't even "ping" a DoD Standard computer.? I remember we raised quite a fuss about that, and implementations started to appear.? I'm not sure if the Standard was ever modified to require ICMP.
>>
>> Other things, like SNMP, were useful but also missing.? Many people apparently didn't consider ICMP and its cohorts to be part of TCP/IP.? We considered such technology essential to be able to "make it work".
>>
>> -----
>>
>> Looking back from 2023...
>>
>> IMHO, one of the inflection points occurred when the culture shifted from "make it work" to "make money from the Internet". Interoperability (everyone can interact with everyone else) is part of "make it work", and conformance to Metcalfe's Law (google it...).? Silos (everyone can interact, as long as you stay in *our* silo) are (thought to be) preferable for "make money".
>>
>> I wasn't very involved in the Internet growth as NSF joined and later as the first ISPs spun off to become commercial services. Perhaps someone remembers if they had any kind of "standards" or "certification" involved as the culture shifted.? E.g., was there a "FRICC Standard" for computers joining their 'nets?? I recall there were AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies), at least at first.? Did these "fade away" and turn into "pay us to get on the Internet and you can do whatever you want"?
>>
>> It's still puzzling (to me) that the Internet has become a global infrastructure, and hasn't been surrounded by the web of regulations, laws, codes, agencies, treaties, and such non-technical mechanisms that have developed around other infrastructures.? Roads and vehicles, electric power, marine activities, air transport, railroads, finance, water, and even the air we breathe all have such mechanisms.
>>
>> Is the Internet different?? Or just still too young to have accreted such "management" mechanisms?
>>
>> Jack Haverty
>>
>>> On 9/2/23 02:19, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
>>> I have only a brief moment to respond. The Arpanet, PRNET, SATNET, Internet
>>> sequence gets its primary stability from the sole source funding of ARPA,
>>> initially, and the pooling of resources from other DoD components using
>>> Arpanet. Arpanet was managed by BBN initially (later under contract to DCA
>>> vs ARPA). It really helped that the Internet development funding came from
>>> a single source. Decision making was largely in the hands of the ARPA
>>> program managers, well-informed by the people doing the work. In the
>>> mid-1980s, ARPA, NSF, DOE and NASA collaborated through the Federal
>>> Research Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC) made up of program
>>> managers from each agency. ESNET, NSINET and NSFNET joined Arpanet as
>>> backbones of the Internet. Again, common purpose welded the effort into a
>>> coherent whole. MERIT played a major role in the NSFNET development which
>>> really elaborated on the multi-network aspect of Internet. MERIT had to
>>> deal with scaling of the Internet to a dozen or more intermediate level
>>> networks linked together through the NSFNET backbone. BGP came out of that
>>> work and has scaled well - now needing more security from abuse/mistakes.
>>>
>>> I think there was a common thread in all of this work: people who were
>>> working on different aspects of the Internet and its constituent networks
>>> really wanted this system to work. The goal was interoperability linking so
>>> many different packet switched networks together. Even the Xerox PARC team,
>>> whose work on PUP and later XNS was proprietary, did their best to give
>>> hints to the Stanford development team (mostly me and my graduate students
>>> during the 1974 campaign to specify TCP).
>>>
>>> It also helped that commonality and interoperability were key desirable
>>> properties of the Internet system. These were the metrics by which success
>>> was measured.
>>>
>>> That's all I have time for now - not sure this addresses your questions
>>> squarely.
>>>
>>> v
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:14?PM Miles Fidelman<mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Vint!
>>>>
>>>> To follow up, if I might - since you were there from the beginning (I
>>>> landed at MIT in 1971, just before Ray's first email, and saw how MIT
>>>> adopted ARPANET technology, then got to BBN in 1985, just in time to help
>>>> split off the DDN - the period leading up to the Flag Day is mostly
>>>> anecdotal history for me)...
>>>>
>>>> I've long used the Internet as a model for how communities can approach
>>>> infrastructure master planning - serving as the basis for our work at the
>>>> Center for Civic Networking, running a growth planning exercise for
>>>> Cambridge, and later, in our work with communities around municipal
>>>> broadband.
>>>>
>>>> Now, I'm gearing up a new effort, focused on community-level crowdsourcing
>>>> for major infrastructure overhaul (as is started to be mandated by
>>>> electrification ordinances).? The simple notion being that of forming local
>>>> working groups, to run grand-challenge like exercises, design charettes,
>>>> crowd funding for projects like a complete infrastructure rebuild for a
>>>> condo complex (like the one I'm living in, and serving on the board of).
>>>> How to pull such groups together remains a black art - and insights from
>>>> the original model are always helpful.
>>>>
>>>> In that context, might you share some pithy observations of significant
>>>> events in the early life of the ARPANET & Internet - how various working
>>>> groups came together in the days following Lick's initial posting to
>>>> ARPA/IPTO.? Who did what, to whom, leading to a bunch of folks coming
>>>> together into ad hoc & ongoing working groups of various sorts?? And, in
>>>> particular, what conditions/events provided impetus, urgency, and built
>>>> momentum?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Very Much,
>>>>
>>>> Miles
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> vinton cerf wrote:
>>>>
>>>> TCP/IP came out of work that Bob Kahn and I did along with my graduate
>>>> students at Stanford. But the INWG (slightly more formal extension of NWG
>>>> when it became IFIP WG 6.1) contributed in a highly collaborative fashion.
>>>> So did UCL and BBN in early implementation phases of TCP and TCP/IP.
>>>>
>>>> I tend to associate NWG with Arpanet Host-Host Protocols (and application
>>>> protocols)
>>>> and IAB (later IETF) with TCP/IP and associated applications
>>>>
>>>> v
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:29?AM Miles Fidelman <
>>>> mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well Vint might have a definitive voice on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> So... Vint,
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you consider TCP/IP to have been initiated by the NWG?
>>>>>
>>>>> What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that eventually
>>>>> became SMTP)?? As I recall, that was initially announced via a postal mail
>>>>> packet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Miles
>>>>>
>>>>> vinton cerf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>> v
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history <
>>>>> 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> 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
>>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history


From crypto at glassblower.info  Mon Sep  4 14:45:31 2023
From: crypto at glassblower.info (Tony Patti)
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 17:45:31 -0400
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <CABf5zv+Q5JB9us4gYNUw=1xqB+UoUMzQTKTeGL2u_eLRAKG-LQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <47B55FB9-BDA2-4816-90E4-5E967AD1983A@lynch.com>
 <336246059.4782995.1693859851328@mail.yahoo.com>
 <56bf01d9df76$cc98c800$65ca5800$@glassblower.info>
 <CABf5zv+Q5JB9us4gYNUw=1xqB+UoUMzQTKTeGL2u_eLRAKG-LQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56ce01d9df79$20bca0d0$6235e270$@glassblower.info>

Steve,

The names are listed in the HTML image filenames (if you click)

and via view-source:http://www.wiwiw.org/pioneers/index.html

I rather like this photo: http://www.wiwiw.org/pioneers/steve-crocker.htm

Tony

 

From: Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> 
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2023 5:36 PM
To: Tony Patti <crypto at glassblower.info>
Cc: Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com>; internet-history at elists.isoc.org
Subject: Re: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)

 

Pretty nifty set of pictures.  I can name many but not all of them.  Are the names listed somewhere?

 

Thanks,

 

Steve

 

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 5:29?PM Tony Patti via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> > wrote:

Barbara,
*THIS* red button? (see image in third row)
http://www.wiwiw.org/pioneers/index.html
which is shown enlarged at 
http://www.wiwiw.org/pioneers/button-survived-tcp-transition.htm
Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: Internet-history <internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org> > On Behalf Of Barbara Denny via Internet-history
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2023 4:38 PM
To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> 
Subject: Re: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)

 Does anyone have their red button?  I think it said "I survived the tcp transition".  Dan Chernikoff, who worked in our group at SRI at the time, gave me his before he left SRI.  I remember he said something like you deserve it more; even though  I don't  think I had anything to do with the cutover. I don't know who made those or gave them out.  Can anyone fill me in? I looked for my button several years ago and I couldn't locate it where it should have  been. I hope it is somewhere waiting to be unearthed.
barbara
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:10:13 AM PDT, Dan Lynch via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> > wrote:  

 I was at ISI from 80-83 in charge of the (then) huge data center serving the researchers at ISI and running the email server for much of the outside world. Vint and Bob told me to coordinate all the software that needed to be changed and tested for not just at ISI, but all over the Arpanet. I guess that the kids ( we were all kids then) just pitched in and got their site specific software to run TCP/IP and we had a few internal ?flag days ? of testing in 82. Of course I had Jon Postel just down the hall as my tech support!  

Fun times?

Dan

Cell 650-776-7313

> On Sep 4, 2023, at 10:23 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> > wrote:
> 
> ?Two excellent observations about the early days!  1) Someone was in charge and in control.  2) The goal was to make the system work and be actually used. 
> D
> Back in late 1981, you (Vint) asked me to take on the Gateway Project 
> at BBN, explicitly to make the Inoperate as a 24x7 reliable service, 
> following the lead that the Arpanet had developed over more than a 
> decade of operation as an infrastructure.  More about that here for 
> the curious: 
> https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-November/00559
> 5.html
> 
> That task could have been a research effort, producing protocols, algorithms, and mechanisms documented in RFCs for anyone to use. But there wasn't time to wait, so instead we just copied the mechanisms of the Arpanet, translating them into the world of TCP/IP.  Much of the Arpanet "management" technology wasn't well known or documented, but by locating the "Gateway Group" physically near the Arpanet control center (NOC), and recruiting some people from that world, it was possible to do "technology transfer" (a buzzword at the time).  The Internet acquired "operations" tools by plagiarizing what had been working for years in the Arpanet.  That was the fastest way to "make it work".
> 
> Separately, there were efforts, initiated by someone, to orchestrate the "Flag Day" on the Arpanet, to declare TCP/IP a DoD Standard, to define and implement a formal certification program for new TCP implementations, and probably other efforts I never knew about.
> 
> Someone was in charge, and someone was doing lots of things to "make it work".
> 
> It wasn't perfect.  Actually it was a bit chaotic IIRC.
> 
> For example... Jon Postel took on the task of documenting TCP/IPV4 so it could be referenced as a Standard.  RFCs were released.  DoD declared them mandatory for all military systems that involved communicating computers.
> 
> A bit later, at BBN we were assisting various pieces of the government in getting their computer systems up and running with their vendor's brand-new, certified, standard TCPIPV4s.  It was a big surprise to discover that, although TCP/IP was there, none of the other "tools" we had been using for years had been implemented on those machines.
> 
> Much of that missing functionality was called "ICMP", well documented in RFC 792.  But only TCP/IP had been declared a DoD Standard.  Government contractors, who had not been involved in the research community, had to implement the Standard.  But the Standard didn't include ICMP.  So they didn't implement it.
> 
> That made it much more difficult to "make it work".  For example, without ICMP as the Internet's Swiss Army Knife, you couldn't even "ping" a DoD Standard computer.  I remember we raised quite a fuss about that, and implementations started to appear.  I'm not sure if the Standard was ever modified to require ICMP.
> 
> Other things, like SNMP, were useful but also missing.  Many people apparently didn't consider ICMP and its cohorts to be part of TCP/IP.  We considered such technology essential to be able to "make it work".
> 
> -----
> 
> Looking back from 2023...
> 
> IMHO, one of the inflection points occurred when the culture shifted from "make it work" to "make money from the Internet". Interoperability (everyone can interact with everyone else) is part of "make it work", and conformance to Metcalfe's Law (google it...).  Silos (everyone can interact, as long as you stay in *our* silo) are (thought to be) preferable for "make money".
> 
> I wasn't very involved in the Internet growth as NSF joined and later as the first ISPs spun off to become commercial services. Perhaps someone remembers if they had any kind of "standards" or "certification" involved as the culture shifted.  E.g., was there a "FRICC Standard" for computers joining their 'nets?  I recall there were AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies), at least at first.  Did these "fade away" and turn into "pay us to get on the Internet and you can do whatever you want"?
> 
> It's still puzzling (to me) that the Internet has become a global infrastructure, and hasn't been surrounded by the web of regulations, laws, codes, agencies, treaties, and such non-technical mechanisms that have developed around other infrastructures.  Roads and vehicles, electric power, marine activities, air transport, railroads, finance, water, and even the air we breathe all have such mechanisms.
> 
> Is the Internet different?  Or just still too young to have accreted such "management" mechanisms?
> 
> Jack Haverty
> 
>> On 9/2/23 02:19, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
>> I have only a brief moment to respond. The Arpanet, PRNET, SATNET, 
>> Internet sequence gets its primary stability from the sole source 
>> funding of ARPA, initially, and the pooling of resources from other 
>> DoD components using Arpanet. Arpanet was managed by BBN initially 
>> (later under contract to DCA vs ARPA). It really helped that the 
>> Internet development funding came from a single source. Decision 
>> making was largely in the hands of the ARPA program managers, 
>> well-informed by the people doing the work. In the mid-1980s, ARPA, 
>> NSF, DOE and NASA collaborated through the Federal Research Internet 
>> Coordinating Committee (FRICC) made up of program managers from each 
>> agency. ESNET, NSINET and NSFNET joined Arpanet as backbones of the 
>> Internet. Again, common purpose welded the effort into a coherent 
>> whole. MERIT played a major role in the NSFNET development which 
>> really elaborated on the multi-network aspect of Internet. MERIT had 
>> to deal with scaling of the Internet to a dozen or more intermediate 
>> level networks linked together through the NSFNET backbone. BGP came out of that work and has scaled well - now needing more security from abuse/mistakes.
>> 
>> I think there was a common thread in all of this work: people who 
>> were working on different aspects of the Internet and its constituent 
>> networks really wanted this system to work. The goal was 
>> interoperability linking so many different packet switched networks 
>> together. Even the Xerox PARC team, whose work on PUP and later XNS 
>> was proprietary, did their best to give hints to the Stanford 
>> development team (mostly me and my graduate students during the 1974 campaign to specify TCP).
>> 
>> It also helped that commonality and interoperability were key 
>> desirable properties of the Internet system. These were the metrics 
>> by which success was measured.
>> 
>> That's all I have time for now - not sure this addresses your 
>> questions squarely.
>> 
>> v
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:14?PM Miles Fidelman 
>> <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> >
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks Vint!
>>> 
>>> To follow up, if I might - since you were there from the beginning 
>>> (I landed at MIT in 1971, just before Ray's first email, and saw how 
>>> MIT adopted ARPANET technology, then got to BBN in 1985, just in 
>>> time to help split off the DDN - the period leading up to the Flag 
>>> Day is mostly anecdotal history for me)...
>>> 
>>> I've long used the Internet as a model for how communities can 
>>> approach infrastructure master planning - serving as the basis for 
>>> our work at the Center for Civic Networking, running a growth 
>>> planning exercise for Cambridge, and later, in our work with 
>>> communities around municipal broadband.
>>> 
>>> Now, I'm gearing up a new effort, focused on community-level 
>>> crowdsourcing for major infrastructure overhaul (as is started to be 
>>> mandated by electrification ordinances).  The simple notion being 
>>> that of forming local working groups, to run grand-challenge like 
>>> exercises, design charettes, crowd funding for projects like a 
>>> complete infrastructure rebuild for a condo complex (like the one I'm living in, and serving on the board of).
>>> How to pull such groups together remains a black art - and insights 
>>> from the original model are always helpful.
>>> 
>>> In that context, might you share some pithy observations of 
>>> significant events in the early life of the ARPANET & Internet - how 
>>> various working groups came together in the days following Lick's 
>>> initial posting to ARPA/IPTO.  Who did what, to whom, leading to a 
>>> bunch of folks coming together into ad hoc & ongoing working groups 
>>> of various sorts?  And, in particular, what conditions/events 
>>> provided impetus, urgency, and built momentum?
>>> 
>>> Thanks Very Much,
>>> 
>>> Miles
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> vinton cerf wrote:
>>> 
>>> TCP/IP came out of work that Bob Kahn and I did along with my 
>>> graduate students at Stanford. But the INWG (slightly more formal 
>>> extension of NWG when it became IFIP WG 6.1) contributed in a highly collaborative fashion.
>>> So did UCL and BBN in early implementation phases of TCP and TCP/IP.
>>> 
>>> I tend to associate NWG with Arpanet Host-Host Protocols (and 
>>> application
>>> protocols)
>>> and IAB (later IETF) with TCP/IP and associated applications
>>> 
>>> v
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:29?AM Miles Fidelman < 
>>> mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> > wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Well Vint might have a definitive voice on this.
>>>> 
>>>> So... Vint,
>>>> 
>>>> Would you consider TCP/IP to have been initiated by the NWG?
>>>> 
>>>> What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that 
>>>> eventually became SMTP)?  As I recall, that was initially announced 
>>>> via a postal mail packet.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 
>>>> Miles
>>>> 
>>>> vinton cerf 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
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> --
>>> 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



From jack at 3kitty.org  Mon Sep  4 14:49:09 2023
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 14:49:09 -0700
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <2b749b0c-3874-c3f7-88b9-1bc157aeb382@3kitty.org>
References: <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <47B55FB9-BDA2-4816-90E4-5E967AD1983A@lynch.com>
 <336246059.4782995.1693859851328@mail.yahoo.com>
 <2b749b0c-3874-c3f7-88b9-1bc157aeb382@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <f2889124-397c-b5c0-cf83-930cc27fa26a@3kitty.org>

Well...

I still have my red button.? I even sent a picture of it.? That message 
bounced back, notifying me that the limit is 400kb.? Made the picture 
smaller, 100kb or so, and sent it again.? Something along the way 
apparently decided to simply silently delete it.

Oh for the old days when email just worked....

Jack


On 9/4/23 14:44, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> Trying again:
>
> Your mail to 'Internet-history' with the subject
> ??? Re: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
> Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
> The reason it is being held:
> ??? Message body is too big: 1206130 bytes with a limit of 400 KB
>
>
>
>
> On 9/4/23 13:37, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
>> ? Does anyone have their red button?? I think it said "I survived the 
>> tcp transition".? Dan Chernikoff, who worked in our group at SRI at 
>> the time, gave me his before he left SRI.? I remember he said 
>> something like you deserve it more; even though? I don't? think I had 
>> anything to do with the cutover. I don't know who made those or gave 
>> them out.? Can anyone fill me in? I looked for my button several 
>> years ago and I couldn't locate it where it should have? been. I hope 
>> it is somewhere waiting to be unearthed.
>> barbara
>> ???? On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:10:13 AM PDT, Dan Lynch via 
>> Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> ? ? I was at ISI from 80-83 in charge of the (then) huge data center 
>> serving the researchers at ISI and running the email server for much 
>> of the outside world. Vint and Bob told me to coordinate all the 
>> software that needed to be changed and tested for not just at ISI, 
>> but all over the Arpanet. I guess that the kids ( we were all kids 
>> then) just pitched in and got their site specific software to run 
>> TCP/IP and we had a few internal ?flag days ? of testing in 82. Of 
>> course I had Jon Postel just down the hall as my tech support!
>>
>> Fun times?
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> Cell 650-776-7313
>>
>>> On Sep 4, 2023, at 10:23 AM, Jack Haverty via 
>>> Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> ?Two excellent observations about the early days!? 1) Someone was in 
>>> charge and in control.? 2) The goal was to make the system work and 
>>> be actually used.
>>> D
>>> Back in late 1981, you (Vint) asked me to take on the Gateway 
>>> Project at BBN, explicitly to make the Inoperate as a 24x7 reliable 
>>> service, following the lead that the Arpanet had developed over more 
>>> than a decade of operation as an infrastructure.? More about that 
>>> here for the 
>>> curious:https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-November/005595.html
>>>
>>> That task could have been a research effort, producing protocols, 
>>> algorithms, and mechanisms documented in RFCs for anyone to use. But 
>>> there wasn't time to wait, so instead we just copied the mechanisms 
>>> of the Arpanet, translating them into the world of TCP/IP.? Much of 
>>> the Arpanet "management" technology wasn't well known or documented, 
>>> but by locating the "Gateway Group" physically near the Arpanet 
>>> control center (NOC), and recruiting some people from that world, it 
>>> was possible to do "technology transfer" (a buzzword at the time).? 
>>> The Internet acquired "operations" tools by plagiarizing what had 
>>> been working for years in the Arpanet. That was the fastest way to 
>>> "make it work".
>>>
>>> Separately, there were efforts, initiated by someone, to orchestrate 
>>> the "Flag Day" on the Arpanet, to declare TCP/IP a DoD Standard, to 
>>> define and implement a formal certification program for new TCP 
>>> implementations, and probably other efforts I never knew about.
>>>
>>> Someone was in charge, and someone was doing lots of things to "make 
>>> it work".
>>>
>>> It wasn't perfect.? Actually it was a bit chaotic IIRC.
>>>
>>> For example... Jon Postel took on the task of documenting TCP/IPV4 
>>> so it could be referenced as a Standard.? RFCs were released.? DoD 
>>> declared them mandatory for all military systems that involved 
>>> communicating computers.
>>>
>>> A bit later, at BBN we were assisting various pieces of the 
>>> government in getting their computer systems up and running with 
>>> their vendor's brand-new, certified, standard TCPIPV4s. It was a big 
>>> surprise to discover that, although TCP/IP was there, none of the 
>>> other "tools" we had been using for years had been implemented on 
>>> those machines.
>>>
>>> Much of that missing functionality was called "ICMP", well 
>>> documented in RFC 792.? But only TCP/IP had been declared a DoD 
>>> Standard.? Government contractors, who had not been involved in the 
>>> research community, had to implement the Standard.? But the Standard 
>>> didn't include ICMP.? So they didn't implement it.
>>>
>>> That made it much more difficult to "make it work".? For example, 
>>> without ICMP as the Internet's Swiss Army Knife, you couldn't even 
>>> "ping" a DoD Standard computer.? I remember we raised quite a fuss 
>>> about that, and implementations started to appear.? I'm not sure if 
>>> the Standard was ever modified to require ICMP.
>>>
>>> Other things, like SNMP, were useful but also missing.? Many people 
>>> apparently didn't consider ICMP and its cohorts to be part of 
>>> TCP/IP.? We considered such technology essential to be able to "make 
>>> it work".
>>>
>>> -----
>>>
>>> Looking back from 2023...
>>>
>>> IMHO, one of the inflection points occurred when the culture shifted 
>>> from "make it work" to "make money from the Internet". 
>>> Interoperability (everyone can interact with everyone else) is part 
>>> of "make it work", and conformance to Metcalfe's Law (google 
>>> it...).? Silos (everyone can interact, as long as you stay in *our* 
>>> silo) are (thought to be) preferable for "make money".
>>>
>>> I wasn't very involved in the Internet growth as NSF joined and 
>>> later as the first ISPs spun off to become commercial services. 
>>> Perhaps someone remembers if they had any kind of "standards" or 
>>> "certification" involved as the culture shifted.? E.g., was there a 
>>> "FRICC Standard" for computers joining their 'nets?? I recall there 
>>> were AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies), at least at first.? Did these 
>>> "fade away" and turn into "pay us to get on the Internet and you can 
>>> do whatever you want"?
>>>
>>> It's still puzzling (to me) that the Internet has become a global 
>>> infrastructure, and hasn't been surrounded by the web of 
>>> regulations, laws, codes, agencies, treaties, and such non-technical 
>>> mechanisms that have developed around other infrastructures.? Roads 
>>> and vehicles, electric power, marine activities, air transport, 
>>> railroads, finance, water, and even the air we breathe all have such 
>>> mechanisms.
>>>
>>> Is the Internet different?? Or just still too young to have accreted 
>>> such "management" mechanisms?
>>>
>>> Jack Haverty
>>>
>>>> On 9/2/23 02:19, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> I have only a brief moment to respond. The Arpanet, PRNET, SATNET, 
>>>> Internet
>>>> sequence gets its primary stability from the sole source funding of 
>>>> ARPA,
>>>> initially, and the pooling of resources from other DoD components 
>>>> using
>>>> Arpanet. Arpanet was managed by BBN initially (later under contract 
>>>> to DCA
>>>> vs ARPA). It really helped that the Internet development funding 
>>>> came from
>>>> a single source. Decision making was largely in the hands of the ARPA
>>>> program managers, well-informed by the people doing the work. In the
>>>> mid-1980s, ARPA, NSF, DOE and NASA collaborated through the Federal
>>>> Research Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC) made up of program
>>>> managers from each agency. ESNET, NSINET and NSFNET joined Arpanet as
>>>> backbones of the Internet. Again, common purpose welded the effort 
>>>> into a
>>>> coherent whole. MERIT played a major role in the NSFNET development 
>>>> which
>>>> really elaborated on the multi-network aspect of Internet. MERIT 
>>>> had to
>>>> deal with scaling of the Internet to a dozen or more intermediate 
>>>> level
>>>> networks linked together through the NSFNET backbone. BGP came out 
>>>> of that
>>>> work and has scaled well - now needing more security from 
>>>> abuse/mistakes.
>>>>
>>>> I think there was a common thread in all of this work: people who were
>>>> working on different aspects of the Internet and its constituent 
>>>> networks
>>>> really wanted this system to work. The goal was interoperability 
>>>> linking so
>>>> many different packet switched networks together. Even the Xerox 
>>>> PARC team,
>>>> whose work on PUP and later XNS was proprietary, did their best to 
>>>> give
>>>> hints to the Stanford development team (mostly me and my graduate 
>>>> students
>>>> during the 1974 campaign to specify TCP).
>>>>
>>>> It also helped that commonality and interoperability were key 
>>>> desirable
>>>> properties of the Internet system. These were the metrics by which 
>>>> success
>>>> was measured.
>>>>
>>>> That's all I have time for now - not sure this addresses your 
>>>> questions
>>>> squarely.
>>>>
>>>> v
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:14?PM Miles 
>>>> Fidelman<mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Vint!
>>>>>
>>>>> To follow up, if I might - since you were there from the beginning (I
>>>>> landed at MIT in 1971, just before Ray's first email, and saw how MIT
>>>>> adopted ARPANET technology, then got to BBN in 1985, just in time 
>>>>> to help
>>>>> split off the DDN - the period leading up to the Flag Day is mostly
>>>>> anecdotal history for me)...
>>>>>
>>>>> I've long used the Internet as a model for how communities can 
>>>>> approach
>>>>> infrastructure master planning - serving as the basis for our work 
>>>>> at the
>>>>> Center for Civic Networking, running a growth planning exercise for
>>>>> Cambridge, and later, in our work with communities around municipal
>>>>> broadband.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, I'm gearing up a new effort, focused on community-level 
>>>>> crowdsourcing
>>>>> for major infrastructure overhaul (as is started to be mandated by
>>>>> electrification ordinances).? The simple notion being that of 
>>>>> forming local
>>>>> working groups, to run grand-challenge like exercises, design 
>>>>> charettes,
>>>>> crowd funding for projects like a complete infrastructure rebuild 
>>>>> for a
>>>>> condo complex (like the one I'm living in, and serving on the 
>>>>> board of).
>>>>> How to pull such groups together remains a black art - and 
>>>>> insights from
>>>>> the original model are always helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> In that context, might you share some pithy observations of 
>>>>> significant
>>>>> events in the early life of the ARPANET & Internet - how various 
>>>>> working
>>>>> groups came together in the days following Lick's initial posting to
>>>>> ARPA/IPTO.? Who did what, to whom, leading to a bunch of folks coming
>>>>> together into ad hoc & ongoing working groups of various sorts?? 
>>>>> And, in
>>>>> particular, what conditions/events provided impetus, urgency, and 
>>>>> built
>>>>> momentum?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Very Much,
>>>>>
>>>>> Miles
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> vinton cerf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> TCP/IP came out of work that Bob Kahn and I did along with my 
>>>>> graduate
>>>>> students at Stanford. But the INWG (slightly more formal extension 
>>>>> of NWG
>>>>> when it became IFIP WG 6.1) contributed in a highly collaborative 
>>>>> fashion.
>>>>> So did UCL and BBN in early implementation phases of TCP and TCP/IP.
>>>>>
>>>>> I tend to associate NWG with Arpanet Host-Host Protocols (and 
>>>>> application
>>>>> protocols)
>>>>> and IAB (later IETF) with TCP/IP and associated applications
>>>>>
>>>>> v
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:29?AM Miles Fidelman <
>>>>> mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well Vint might have a definitive voice on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So... Vint,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would you consider TCP/IP to have been initiated by the NWG?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that 
>>>>>> eventually
>>>>>> became SMTP)?? As I recall, that was initially announced via a 
>>>>>> postal mail
>>>>>> packet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Miles
>>>>>>
>>>>>> vinton cerf wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>> v
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history <
>>>>>> 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> 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
>>>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 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
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From steve at shinkuro.com  Mon Sep  4 14:51:31 2023
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 17:51:31 -0400
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <56ce01d9df79$20bca0d0$6235e270$@glassblower.info>
References: <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <47B55FB9-BDA2-4816-90E4-5E967AD1983A@lynch.com>
 <336246059.4782995.1693859851328@mail.yahoo.com>
 <56bf01d9df76$cc98c800$65ca5800$@glassblower.info>
 <CABf5zv+Q5JB9us4gYNUw=1xqB+UoUMzQTKTeGL2u_eLRAKG-LQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <56ce01d9df79$20bca0d0$6235e270$@glassblower.info>
Message-ID: <CABf5zvJ2erqnfmR7bdOw9Qa0057a_rz-7R2+jgmtkd+QG+-3Dg@mail.gmail.com>

Ah, ha!  Thanks!

Steve


On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 5:45?PM Tony Patti <crypto at glassblower.info> wrote:

> Steve,
>
> The names are listed in the HTML image filenames (if you click)
>
> and via view-source:http://www.wiwiw.org/pioneers/index.html
>
> I rather like this photo: http://www.wiwiw.org/pioneers/steve-crocker.htm
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> *From:* Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, September 4, 2023 5:36 PM
> *To:* Tony Patti <crypto at glassblower.info>
> *Cc:* Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com>;
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
>
>
>
> Pretty nifty set of pictures.  I can name many but not all of them.  Are
> the names listed somewhere?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 5:29?PM Tony Patti via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> Barbara,
> *THIS* red button? (see image in third row)
> http://www.wiwiw.org/pioneers/index.html
> which is shown enlarged at
> http://www.wiwiw.org/pioneers/button-survived-tcp-transition.htm
> Tony
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internet-history <internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org> On
> Behalf Of Barbara Denny via Internet-history
> Sent: Monday, September 4, 2023 4:38 PM
> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
>
>  Does anyone have their red button?  I think it said "I survived the tcp
> transition".  Dan Chernikoff, who worked in our group at SRI at the time,
> gave me his before he left SRI.  I remember he said something like you
> deserve it more; even though  I don't  think I had anything to do with the
> cutover. I don't know who made those or gave them out.  Can anyone fill me
> in? I looked for my button several years ago and I couldn't locate it where
> it should have  been. I hope it is somewhere waiting to be unearthed.
> barbara
>     On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:10:13 AM PDT, Dan Lynch via
> Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>  I was at ISI from 80-83 in charge of the (then) huge data center serving
> the researchers at ISI and running the email server for much of the outside
> world. Vint and Bob told me to coordinate all the software that needed to
> be changed and tested for not just at ISI, but all over the Arpanet. I
> guess that the kids ( we were all kids then) just pitched in and got their
> site specific software to run TCP/IP and we had a few internal ?flag days ?
> of testing in 82. Of course I had Jon Postel just down the hall as my tech
> support!
>
> Fun times?
>
> Dan
>
> Cell 650-776-7313
>
> > On Sep 4, 2023, at 10:23 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > ?Two excellent observations about the early days!  1) Someone was in
> charge and in control.  2) The goal was to make the system work and be
> actually used.
> > D
> > Back in late 1981, you (Vint) asked me to take on the Gateway Project
> > at BBN, explicitly to make the Inoperate as a 24x7 reliable service,
> > following the lead that the Arpanet had developed over more than a
> > decade of operation as an infrastructure.  More about that here for
> > the curious:
> > https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-November/00559
> > 5.html
> >
> > That task could have been a research effort, producing protocols,
> algorithms, and mechanisms documented in RFCs for anyone to use. But there
> wasn't time to wait, so instead we just copied the mechanisms of the
> Arpanet, translating them into the world of TCP/IP.  Much of the Arpanet
> "management" technology wasn't well known or documented, but by locating
> the "Gateway Group" physically near the Arpanet control center (NOC), and
> recruiting some people from that world, it was possible to do "technology
> transfer" (a buzzword at the time).  The Internet acquired "operations"
> tools by plagiarizing what had been working for years in the Arpanet.  That
> was the fastest way to "make it work".
> >
> > Separately, there were efforts, initiated by someone, to orchestrate the
> "Flag Day" on the Arpanet, to declare TCP/IP a DoD Standard, to define and
> implement a formal certification program for new TCP implementations, and
> probably other efforts I never knew about.
> >
> > Someone was in charge, and someone was doing lots of things to "make it
> work".
> >
> > It wasn't perfect.  Actually it was a bit chaotic IIRC.
> >
> > For example... Jon Postel took on the task of documenting TCP/IPV4 so it
> could be referenced as a Standard.  RFCs were released.  DoD declared them
> mandatory for all military systems that involved communicating computers.
> >
> > A bit later, at BBN we were assisting various pieces of the government
> in getting their computer systems up and running with their vendor's
> brand-new, certified, standard TCPIPV4s.  It was a big surprise to discover
> that, although TCP/IP was there, none of the other "tools" we had been
> using for years had been implemented on those machines.
> >
> > Much of that missing functionality was called "ICMP", well documented in
> RFC 792.  But only TCP/IP had been declared a DoD Standard.  Government
> contractors, who had not been involved in the research community, had to
> implement the Standard.  But the Standard didn't include ICMP.  So they
> didn't implement it.
> >
> > That made it much more difficult to "make it work".  For example,
> without ICMP as the Internet's Swiss Army Knife, you couldn't even "ping" a
> DoD Standard computer.  I remember we raised quite a fuss about that, and
> implementations started to appear.  I'm not sure if the Standard was ever
> modified to require ICMP.
> >
> > Other things, like SNMP, were useful but also missing.  Many people
> apparently didn't consider ICMP and its cohorts to be part of TCP/IP.  We
> considered such technology essential to be able to "make it work".
> >
> > -----
> >
> > Looking back from 2023...
> >
> > IMHO, one of the inflection points occurred when the culture shifted
> from "make it work" to "make money from the Internet". Interoperability
> (everyone can interact with everyone else) is part of "make it work", and
> conformance to Metcalfe's Law (google it...).  Silos (everyone can
> interact, as long as you stay in *our* silo) are (thought to be) preferable
> for "make money".
> >
> > I wasn't very involved in the Internet growth as NSF joined and later as
> the first ISPs spun off to become commercial services. Perhaps someone
> remembers if they had any kind of "standards" or "certification" involved
> as the culture shifted.  E.g., was there a "FRICC Standard" for computers
> joining their 'nets?  I recall there were AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies),
> at least at first.  Did these "fade away" and turn into "pay us to get on
> the Internet and you can do whatever you want"?
> >
> > It's still puzzling (to me) that the Internet has become a global
> infrastructure, and hasn't been surrounded by the web of regulations, laws,
> codes, agencies, treaties, and such non-technical mechanisms that have
> developed around other infrastructures.  Roads and vehicles, electric
> power, marine activities, air transport, railroads, finance, water, and
> even the air we breathe all have such mechanisms.
> >
> > Is the Internet different?  Or just still too young to have accreted
> such "management" mechanisms?
> >
> > Jack Haverty
> >
> >> On 9/2/23 02:19, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> >> I have only a brief moment to respond. The Arpanet, PRNET, SATNET,
> >> Internet sequence gets its primary stability from the sole source
> >> funding of ARPA, initially, and the pooling of resources from other
> >> DoD components using Arpanet. Arpanet was managed by BBN initially
> >> (later under contract to DCA vs ARPA). It really helped that the
> >> Internet development funding came from a single source. Decision
> >> making was largely in the hands of the ARPA program managers,
> >> well-informed by the people doing the work. In the mid-1980s, ARPA,
> >> NSF, DOE and NASA collaborated through the Federal Research Internet
> >> Coordinating Committee (FRICC) made up of program managers from each
> >> agency. ESNET, NSINET and NSFNET joined Arpanet as backbones of the
> >> Internet. Again, common purpose welded the effort into a coherent
> >> whole. MERIT played a major role in the NSFNET development which
> >> really elaborated on the multi-network aspect of Internet. MERIT had
> >> to deal with scaling of the Internet to a dozen or more intermediate
> >> level networks linked together through the NSFNET backbone. BGP came
> out of that work and has scaled well - now needing more security from
> abuse/mistakes.
> >>
> >> I think there was a common thread in all of this work: people who
> >> were working on different aspects of the Internet and its constituent
> >> networks really wanted this system to work. The goal was
> >> interoperability linking so many different packet switched networks
> >> together. Even the Xerox PARC team, whose work on PUP and later XNS
> >> was proprietary, did their best to give hints to the Stanford
> >> development team (mostly me and my graduate students during the 1974
> campaign to specify TCP).
> >>
> >> It also helped that commonality and interoperability were key
> >> desirable properties of the Internet system. These were the metrics
> >> by which success was measured.
> >>
> >> That's all I have time for now - not sure this addresses your
> >> questions squarely.
> >>
> >> v
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:14?PM Miles Fidelman
> >> <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks Vint!
> >>>
> >>> To follow up, if I might - since you were there from the beginning
> >>> (I landed at MIT in 1971, just before Ray's first email, and saw how
> >>> MIT adopted ARPANET technology, then got to BBN in 1985, just in
> >>> time to help split off the DDN - the period leading up to the Flag
> >>> Day is mostly anecdotal history for me)...
> >>>
> >>> I've long used the Internet as a model for how communities can
> >>> approach infrastructure master planning - serving as the basis for
> >>> our work at the Center for Civic Networking, running a growth
> >>> planning exercise for Cambridge, and later, in our work with
> >>> communities around municipal broadband.
> >>>
> >>> Now, I'm gearing up a new effort, focused on community-level
> >>> crowdsourcing for major infrastructure overhaul (as is started to be
> >>> mandated by electrification ordinances).  The simple notion being
> >>> that of forming local working groups, to run grand-challenge like
> >>> exercises, design charettes, crowd funding for projects like a
> >>> complete infrastructure rebuild for a condo complex (like the one I'm
> living in, and serving on the board of).
> >>> How to pull such groups together remains a black art - and insights
> >>> from the original model are always helpful.
> >>>
> >>> In that context, might you share some pithy observations of
> >>> significant events in the early life of the ARPANET & Internet - how
> >>> various working groups came together in the days following Lick's
> >>> initial posting to ARPA/IPTO.  Who did what, to whom, leading to a
> >>> bunch of folks coming together into ad hoc & ongoing working groups
> >>> of various sorts?  And, in particular, what conditions/events
> >>> provided impetus, urgency, and built momentum?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks Very Much,
> >>>
> >>> Miles
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> vinton cerf wrote:
> >>>
> >>> TCP/IP came out of work that Bob Kahn and I did along with my
> >>> graduate students at Stanford. But the INWG (slightly more formal
> >>> extension of NWG when it became IFIP WG 6.1) contributed in a highly
> collaborative fashion.
> >>> So did UCL and BBN in early implementation phases of TCP and TCP/IP.
> >>>
> >>> I tend to associate NWG with Arpanet Host-Host Protocols (and
> >>> application
> >>> protocols)
> >>> and IAB (later IETF) with TCP/IP and associated applications
> >>>
> >>> v
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:29?AM Miles Fidelman <
> >>> mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Well Vint might have a definitive voice on this.
> >>>>
> >>>> So... Vint,
> >>>>
> >>>> Would you consider TCP/IP to have been initiated by the NWG?
> >>>>
> >>>> What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that
> >>>> eventually became SMTP)?  As I recall, that was initially announced
> >>>> via a postal mail packet.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> Miles
> >>>>
> >>>> vinton cerf wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> +1
> >>>> v
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history
> >>>> < 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> 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
> >>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Internet-history mailing list
> >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> --
> >>> 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
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
>


From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Mon Sep  4 15:17:29 2023
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 10:17:29 +1200
Subject: [ih] Did the MIL-STD matter? [IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag
 Day?)]
In-Reply-To: <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <13A20621-77F4-4ED7-B796-1CCC502A2072@sobco.com>
 <CAC-QkADCYoTnZuEmi2GjWDwC3EZybzg3L3wx8HA6atb++aC8Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e9ba30e5-c8a4-2ad4-aecf-2ddd525229b5@3kitty.org>
 <CAC-QkADQjHZfGGod3pCvpfXo4H4M11ZbpEkozktqx4_hqP7BDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <54da1845-de7b-d2be-3753-267ac2e3df50@gmail.com>

On 05-Sep-23 05:22, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
...

> Separately, there were efforts, initiated by someone, to orchestrate the
> "Flag Day" on the Arpanet, to declare TCP/IP a DoD Standard, to define
> and implement a formal certification program for new TCP
> implementations, and probably other efforts I never knew about.
> 
> Someone was in charge, and someone was doing lots of things to "make it
> work".
> 
> It wasn't perfect.?? Actually it was a bit chaotic IIRC.
> 
> For example... Jon Postel took on the task of documenting TCP/IPV4 so it
> could be referenced as a Standard.? RFCs were released.?? DoD declared
> them mandatory for all military systems that involved communicating
> computers.
> 
> A bit later, at BBN we were assisting various pieces of the government
> in getting their computer systems up and running with their vendor's
> brand-new, certified, standard TCPIPV4s.? It was a big surprise to
> discover that, although TCP/IP was there, none of the other "tools" we
> had been using for years had been implemented on those machines.
> 
> Much of that missing functionality was called "ICMP", well documented in
> RFC 792.? But only TCP/IP had been declared a DoD Standard.   

This was more important than you might think. The first TCP/IP document
I ever saw was MIL-STD-1777, and I think that was not uncommon in Europe.
At the time when a major argument for OSI was "because it's an ISO
standard, all the vendors will implement it", the fact the TCP/IP wasn't
just some academic research thingie but was a mandatory US military
standard was a very powerful argument. It made TCP/IP respectable at
management level, not just something that a few Unix geeks were keen on.

Certainly when I took over the CERN networking group in early 1985,
although we expected OSI/CLNP to rule the universe, MIL-STD-1777
was physically lying on my desk. When I had to walk back CERN's OSI
policy in the late 1980s, "TCP/IP is a US MIL-STD" was still a
useful argument.

> Government
> contractors, who had not been involved in the research community, had to
> implement the Standard.?? But the Standard didn't include ICMP.? So they
> didn't implement it.
> 
> That made it much more difficult to "make it work".? For example,
> without ICMP as the Internet's Swiss Army Knife, you couldn't even
> "ping" a DoD Standard computer.?? I remember we raised quite a fuss
> about that, and implementations started to appear.? I'm not sure if the
> Standard was ever modified to require ICMP.
> 
> Other things, like SNMP, were useful but also missing.? Many people
> apparently didn't consider ICMP and its cohorts to be part of TCP/IP.
> We considered such technology essential to be able to "make it work".

Nevertheless, TCP/IP "made it" and OSI, which had its own version of the
same problem, didn't.

      Brian

From touch at strayalpha.com  Mon Sep  4 15:25:14 2023
From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch)
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 15:25:14 -0700
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <f2889124-397c-b5c0-cf83-930cc27fa26a@3kitty.org>
References: <f2889124-397c-b5c0-cf83-930cc27fa26a@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <550E7757-CD83-4E0B-94D2-C8DAAD9682E2@strayalpha.com>

This list does not permit attachments of any size.  

Joe (list admin)

> On Sep 4, 2023, at 2:49 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> ?Well...
> 
> I still have my red button.  I even sent a picture of it.  That message bounced back, notifying me that the limit is 400kb.  Made the picture smaller, 100kb or so, and sent it again.  Something along the way apparently decided to simply silently delete it.
> 
> Oh for the old days when email just worked....
> 
> Jack
> 
> 
>> On 9/4/23 14:44, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
>> Trying again:
>> 
>> Your mail to 'Internet-history' with the subject
>>     Re: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
>> Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
>> The reason it is being held:
>>     Message body is too big: 1206130 bytes with a limit of 400 KB
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 9/4/23 13:37, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
>>>   Does anyone have their red button?  I think it said "I survived the tcp transition".  Dan Chernikoff, who worked in our group at SRI at the time, gave me his before he left SRI.  I remember he said something like you deserve it more; even though  I don't  think I had anything to do with the cutover. I don't know who made those or gave them out.  Can anyone fill me in? I looked for my button several years ago and I couldn't locate it where it should have  been. I hope it is somewhere waiting to be unearthed.
>>> barbara
>>>>      On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:10:13 AM PDT, Dan Lynch via Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>     I was at ISI from 80-83 in charge of the (then) huge data center serving the researchers at ISI and running the email server for much of the outside world. Vint and Bob told me to coordinate all the software that needed to be changed and tested for not just at ISI, but all over the Arpanet. I guess that the kids ( we were all kids then) just pitched in and got their site specific software to run TCP/IP and we had a few internal ?flag days ? of testing in 82. Of course I had Jon Postel just down the hall as my tech support!
>>> 
>>> Fun times?
>>> 
>>> Dan
>>> 
>>> Cell 650-776-7313
>>> 
>>>> On Sep 4, 2023, at 10:23 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> ?Two excellent observations about the early days!  1) Someone was in charge and in control.  2) The goal was to make the system work and be actually used.
>>>> D
>>>> Back in late 1981, you (Vint) asked me to take on the Gateway Project at BBN, explicitly to make the Inoperate as a 24x7 reliable service, following the lead that the Arpanet had developed over more than a decade of operation as an infrastructure.  More about that here for the curious:https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-November/005595.html
>>>> 
>>>> That task could have been a research effort, producing protocols, algorithms, and mechanisms documented in RFCs for anyone to use. But there wasn't time to wait, so instead we just copied the mechanisms of the Arpanet, translating them into the world of TCP/IP.  Much of the Arpanet "management" technology wasn't well known or documented, but by locating the "Gateway Group" physically near the Arpanet control center (NOC), and recruiting some people from that world, it was possible to do "technology transfer" (a buzzword at the time).  The Internet acquired "operations" tools by plagiarizing what had been working for years in the Arpanet. That was the fastest way to "make it work".
>>>> 
>>>> Separately, there were efforts, initiated by someone, to orchestrate the "Flag Day" on the Arpanet, to declare TCP/IP a DoD Standard, to define and implement a formal certification program for new TCP implementations, and probably other efforts I never knew about.
>>>> 
>>>> Someone was in charge, and someone was doing lots of things to "make it work".
>>>> 
>>>> It wasn't perfect.  Actually it was a bit chaotic IIRC.
>>>> 
>>>> For example... Jon Postel took on the task of documenting TCP/IPV4 so it could be referenced as a Standard.  RFCs were released.  DoD declared them mandatory for all military systems that involved communicating computers.
>>>> 
>>>> A bit later, at BBN we were assisting various pieces of the government in getting their computer systems up and running with their vendor's brand-new, certified, standard TCPIPV4s. It was a big surprise to discover that, although TCP/IP was there, none of the other "tools" we had been using for years had been implemented on those machines.
>>>> 
>>>> Much of that missing functionality was called "ICMP", well documented in RFC 792.  But only TCP/IP had been declared a DoD Standard.  Government contractors, who had not been involved in the research community, had to implement the Standard.  But the Standard didn't include ICMP.  So they didn't implement it.
>>>> 
>>>> That made it much more difficult to "make it work".  For example, without ICMP as the Internet's Swiss Army Knife, you couldn't even "ping" a DoD Standard computer.  I remember we raised quite a fuss about that, and implementations started to appear.  I'm not sure if the Standard was ever modified to require ICMP.
>>>> 
>>>> Other things, like SNMP, were useful but also missing.  Many people apparently didn't consider ICMP and its cohorts to be part of TCP/IP.  We considered such technology essential to be able to "make it work".
>>>> 
>>>> -----
>>>> 
>>>> Looking back from 2023...
>>>> 
>>>> IMHO, one of the inflection points occurred when the culture shifted from "make it work" to "make money from the Internet". Interoperability (everyone can interact with everyone else) is part of "make it work", and conformance to Metcalfe's Law (google it...).  Silos (everyone can interact, as long as you stay in *our* silo) are (thought to be) preferable for "make money".
>>>> 
>>>> I wasn't very involved in the Internet growth as NSF joined and later as the first ISPs spun off to become commercial services. Perhaps someone remembers if they had any kind of "standards" or "certification" involved as the culture shifted.  E.g., was there a "FRICC Standard" for computers joining their 'nets?  I recall there were AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies), at least at first.  Did these "fade away" and turn into "pay us to get on the Internet and you can do whatever you want"?
>>>> 
>>>> It's still puzzling (to me) that the Internet has become a global infrastructure, and hasn't been surrounded by the web of regulations, laws, codes, agencies, treaties, and such non-technical mechanisms that have developed around other infrastructures.  Roads and vehicles, electric power, marine activities, air transport, railroads, finance, water, and even the air we breathe all have such mechanisms.
>>>> 
>>>> Is the Internet different?  Or just still too young to have accreted such "management" mechanisms?
>>>> 
>>>> Jack Haverty
>>>> 
>>>>> On 9/2/23 02:19, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>> I have only a brief moment to respond. The Arpanet, PRNET, SATNET, Internet
>>>>> sequence gets its primary stability from the sole source funding of ARPA,
>>>>> initially, and the pooling of resources from other DoD components using
>>>>> Arpanet. Arpanet was managed by BBN initially (later under contract to DCA
>>>>> vs ARPA). It really helped that the Internet development funding came from
>>>>> a single source. Decision making was largely in the hands of the ARPA
>>>>> program managers, well-informed by the people doing the work. In the
>>>>> mid-1980s, ARPA, NSF, DOE and NASA collaborated through the Federal
>>>>> Research Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC) made up of program
>>>>> managers from each agency. ESNET, NSINET and NSFNET joined Arpanet as
>>>>> backbones of the Internet. Again, common purpose welded the effort into a
>>>>> coherent whole. MERIT played a major role in the NSFNET development which
>>>>> really elaborated on the multi-network aspect of Internet. MERIT had to
>>>>> deal with scaling of the Internet to a dozen or more intermediate level
>>>>> networks linked together through the NSFNET backbone. BGP came out of that
>>>>> work and has scaled well - now needing more security from abuse/mistakes.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think there was a common thread in all of this work: people who were
>>>>> working on different aspects of the Internet and its constituent networks
>>>>> really wanted this system to work. The goal was interoperability linking so
>>>>> many different packet switched networks together. Even the Xerox PARC team,
>>>>> whose work on PUP and later XNS was proprietary, did their best to give
>>>>> hints to the Stanford development team (mostly me and my graduate students
>>>>> during the 1974 campaign to specify TCP).
>>>>> 
>>>>> It also helped that commonality and interoperability were key desirable
>>>>> properties of the Internet system. These were the metrics by which success
>>>>> was measured.
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's all I have time for now - not sure this addresses your questions
>>>>> squarely.
>>>>> 
>>>>> v
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:14?PM Miles Fidelman<mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks Vint!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> To follow up, if I might - since you were there from the beginning (I
>>>>>> landed at MIT in 1971, just before Ray's first email, and saw how MIT
>>>>>> adopted ARPANET technology, then got to BBN in 1985, just in time to help
>>>>>> split off the DDN - the period leading up to the Flag Day is mostly
>>>>>> anecdotal history for me)...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I've long used the Internet as a model for how communities can approach
>>>>>> infrastructure master planning - serving as the basis for our work at the
>>>>>> Center for Civic Networking, running a growth planning exercise for
>>>>>> Cambridge, and later, in our work with communities around municipal
>>>>>> broadband.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Now, I'm gearing up a new effort, focused on community-level crowdsourcing
>>>>>> for major infrastructure overhaul (as is started to be mandated by
>>>>>> electrification ordinances).  The simple notion being that of forming local
>>>>>> working groups, to run grand-challenge like exercises, design charettes,
>>>>>> crowd funding for projects like a complete infrastructure rebuild for a
>>>>>> condo complex (like the one I'm living in, and serving on the board of).
>>>>>> How to pull such groups together remains a black art - and insights from
>>>>>> the original model are always helpful.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In that context, might you share some pithy observations of significant
>>>>>> events in the early life of the ARPANET & Internet - how various working
>>>>>> groups came together in the days following Lick's initial posting to
>>>>>> ARPA/IPTO.  Who did what, to whom, leading to a bunch of folks coming
>>>>>> together into ad hoc & ongoing working groups of various sorts?  And, in
>>>>>> particular, what conditions/events provided impetus, urgency, and built
>>>>>> momentum?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks Very Much,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Miles
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> vinton cerf wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> TCP/IP came out of work that Bob Kahn and I did along with my graduate
>>>>>> students at Stanford. But the INWG (slightly more formal extension of NWG
>>>>>> when it became IFIP WG 6.1) contributed in a highly collaborative fashion.
>>>>>> So did UCL and BBN in early implementation phases of TCP and TCP/IP.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I tend to associate NWG with Arpanet Host-Host Protocols (and application
>>>>>> protocols)
>>>>>> and IAB (later IETF) with TCP/IP and associated applications
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> v
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:29?AM Miles Fidelman <
>>>>>> mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Well Vint might have a definitive voice on this.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So... Vint,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Would you consider TCP/IP to have been initiated by the NWG?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that eventually
>>>>>>> became SMTP)?  As I recall, that was initially announced via a postal mail
>>>>>>> packet.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Miles
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> vinton cerf wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>> v
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history <
>>>>>>> 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> 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
>>>>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 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
>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From dhc at dcrocker.net  Mon Sep  4 15:30:14 2023
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 15:30:14 -0700
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <550E7757-CD83-4E0B-94D2-C8DAAD9682E2@strayalpha.com>
References: <f2889124-397c-b5c0-cf83-930cc27fa26a@3kitty.org>
 <550E7757-CD83-4E0B-94D2-C8DAAD9682E2@strayalpha.com>
Message-ID: <15998a8a-4cee-005a-7ecf-8a964dacb115@dcrocker.net>

On 9/4/2023 3:25 PM, Joe Touch via Internet-history wrote:
> This list does not permit attachments of any size.


except, of course, emotional ones.

those are encouraged.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social



From vint at google.com  Mon Sep  4 15:48:46 2023
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 18:48:46 -0400
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <56bf01d9df76$cc98c800$65ca5800$@glassblower.info>
References: <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <47B55FB9-BDA2-4816-90E4-5E967AD1983A@lynch.com>
 <336246059.4782995.1693859851328@mail.yahoo.com>
 <56bf01d9df76$cc98c800$65ca5800$@glassblower.info>
Message-ID: <CAHxHgge2FdxmH2kb5EfWRqWymJExEi=b7uLwmqz4APf6x6BX_Q@mail.gmail.com>

shall we create a matrix, columns A B C D
rows 1...N

then try to make a spreadsheet with the names of each person?

v


On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 5:29?PM Tony Patti via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Barbara,
> *THIS* red button? (see image in third row)
> http://www.wiwiw.org/pioneers/index.html
> which is shown enlarged at
> http://www.wiwiw.org/pioneers/button-survived-tcp-transition.htm
> Tony
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internet-history <internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org> On
> Behalf Of Barbara Denny via Internet-history
> Sent: Monday, September 4, 2023 4:38 PM
> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
>
>  Does anyone have their red button?  I think it said "I survived the tcp
> transition".  Dan Chernikoff, who worked in our group at SRI at the time,
> gave me his before he left SRI.  I remember he said something like you
> deserve it more; even though  I don't  think I had anything to do with the
> cutover. I don't know who made those or gave them out.  Can anyone fill me
> in? I looked for my button several years ago and I couldn't locate it where
> it should have  been. I hope it is somewhere waiting to be unearthed.
> barbara
>     On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:10:13 AM PDT, Dan Lynch via
> Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>  I was at ISI from 80-83 in charge of the (then) huge data center serving
> the researchers at ISI and running the email server for much of the outside
> world. Vint and Bob told me to coordinate all the software that needed to
> be changed and tested for not just at ISI, but all over the Arpanet. I
> guess that the kids ( we were all kids then) just pitched in and got their
> site specific software to run TCP/IP and we had a few internal ?flag days ?
> of testing in 82. Of course I had Jon Postel just down the hall as my tech
> support!
>
> Fun times?
>
> Dan
>
> Cell 650-776-7313 <(650)%20776-7313>
>
> > On Sep 4, 2023, at 10:23 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > ?Two excellent observations about the early days!  1) Someone was in
> charge and in control.  2) The goal was to make the system work and be
> actually used.
> > D
> > Back in late 1981, you (Vint) asked me to take on the Gateway Project
> > at BBN, explicitly to make the Inoperate as a 24x7 reliable service,
> > following the lead that the Arpanet had developed over more than a
> > decade of operation as an infrastructure.  More about that here for
> > the curious:
> > https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-November/00559
> > 5.html
> >
> > That task could have been a research effort, producing protocols,
> algorithms, and mechanisms documented in RFCs for anyone to use. But there
> wasn't time to wait, so instead we just copied the mechanisms of the
> Arpanet, translating them into the world of TCP/IP.  Much of the Arpanet
> "management" technology wasn't well known or documented, but by locating
> the "Gateway Group" physically near the Arpanet control center (NOC), and
> recruiting some people from that world, it was possible to do "technology
> transfer" (a buzzword at the time).  The Internet acquired "operations"
> tools by plagiarizing what had been working for years in the Arpanet.  That
> was the fastest way to "make it work".
> >
> > Separately, there were efforts, initiated by someone, to orchestrate the
> "Flag Day" on the Arpanet, to declare TCP/IP a DoD Standard, to define and
> implement a formal certification program for new TCP implementations, and
> probably other efforts I never knew about.
> >
> > Someone was in charge, and someone was doing lots of things to "make it
> work".
> >
> > It wasn't perfect.  Actually it was a bit chaotic IIRC.
> >
> > For example... Jon Postel took on the task of documenting TCP/IPV4 so it
> could be referenced as a Standard.  RFCs were released.  DoD declared them
> mandatory for all military systems that involved communicating computers.
> >
> > A bit later, at BBN we were assisting various pieces of the government
> in getting their computer systems up and running with their vendor's
> brand-new, certified, standard TCPIPV4s.  It was a big surprise to discover
> that, although TCP/IP was there, none of the other "tools" we had been
> using for years had been implemented on those machines.
> >
> > Much of that missing functionality was called "ICMP", well documented in
> RFC 792.  But only TCP/IP had been declared a DoD Standard.  Government
> contractors, who had not been involved in the research community, had to
> implement the Standard.  But the Standard didn't include ICMP.  So they
> didn't implement it.
> >
> > That made it much more difficult to "make it work".  For example,
> without ICMP as the Internet's Swiss Army Knife, you couldn't even "ping" a
> DoD Standard computer.  I remember we raised quite a fuss about that, and
> implementations started to appear.  I'm not sure if the Standard was ever
> modified to require ICMP.
> >
> > Other things, like SNMP, were useful but also missing.  Many people
> apparently didn't consider ICMP and its cohorts to be part of TCP/IP.  We
> considered such technology essential to be able to "make it work".
> >
> > -----
> >
> > Looking back from 2023...
> >
> > IMHO, one of the inflection points occurred when the culture shifted
> from "make it work" to "make money from the Internet". Interoperability
> (everyone can interact with everyone else) is part of "make it work", and
> conformance to Metcalfe's Law (google it...).  Silos (everyone can
> interact, as long as you stay in *our* silo) are (thought to be) preferable
> for "make money".
> >
> > I wasn't very involved in the Internet growth as NSF joined and later as
> the first ISPs spun off to become commercial services. Perhaps someone
> remembers if they had any kind of "standards" or "certification" involved
> as the culture shifted.  E.g., was there a "FRICC Standard" for computers
> joining their 'nets?  I recall there were AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies),
> at least at first.  Did these "fade away" and turn into "pay us to get on
> the Internet and you can do whatever you want"?
> >
> > It's still puzzling (to me) that the Internet has become a global
> infrastructure, and hasn't been surrounded by the web of regulations, laws,
> codes, agencies, treaties, and such non-technical mechanisms that have
> developed around other infrastructures.  Roads and vehicles, electric
> power, marine activities, air transport, railroads, finance, water, and
> even the air we breathe all have such mechanisms.
> >
> > Is the Internet different?  Or just still too young to have accreted
> such "management" mechanisms?
> >
> > Jack Haverty
> >
> >> On 9/2/23 02:19, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> >> I have only a brief moment to respond. The Arpanet, PRNET, SATNET,
> >> Internet sequence gets its primary stability from the sole source
> >> funding of ARPA, initially, and the pooling of resources from other
> >> DoD components using Arpanet. Arpanet was managed by BBN initially
> >> (later under contract to DCA vs ARPA). It really helped that the
> >> Internet development funding came from a single source. Decision
> >> making was largely in the hands of the ARPA program managers,
> >> well-informed by the people doing the work. In the mid-1980s, ARPA,
> >> NSF, DOE and NASA collaborated through the Federal Research Internet
> >> Coordinating Committee (FRICC) made up of program managers from each
> >> agency. ESNET, NSINET and NSFNET joined Arpanet as backbones of the
> >> Internet. Again, common purpose welded the effort into a coherent
> >> whole. MERIT played a major role in the NSFNET development which
> >> really elaborated on the multi-network aspect of Internet. MERIT had
> >> to deal with scaling of the Internet to a dozen or more intermediate
> >> level networks linked together through the NSFNET backbone. BGP came
> out of that work and has scaled well - now needing more security from
> abuse/mistakes.
> >>
> >> I think there was a common thread in all of this work: people who
> >> were working on different aspects of the Internet and its constituent
> >> networks really wanted this system to work. The goal was
> >> interoperability linking so many different packet switched networks
> >> together. Even the Xerox PARC team, whose work on PUP and later XNS
> >> was proprietary, did their best to give hints to the Stanford
> >> development team (mostly me and my graduate students during the 1974
> campaign to specify TCP).
> >>
> >> It also helped that commonality and interoperability were key
> >> desirable properties of the Internet system. These were the metrics
> >> by which success was measured.
> >>
> >> That's all I have time for now - not sure this addresses your
> >> questions squarely.
> >>
> >> v
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:14?PM Miles Fidelman
> >> <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks Vint!
> >>>
> >>> To follow up, if I might - since you were there from the beginning
> >>> (I landed at MIT in 1971, just before Ray's first email, and saw how
> >>> MIT adopted ARPANET technology, then got to BBN in 1985, just in
> >>> time to help split off the DDN - the period leading up to the Flag
> >>> Day is mostly anecdotal history for me)...
> >>>
> >>> I've long used the Internet as a model for how communities can
> >>> approach infrastructure master planning - serving as the basis for
> >>> our work at the Center for Civic Networking, running a growth
> >>> planning exercise for Cambridge, and later, in our work with
> >>> communities around municipal broadband.
> >>>
> >>> Now, I'm gearing up a new effort, focused on community-level
> >>> crowdsourcing for major infrastructure overhaul (as is started to be
> >>> mandated by electrification ordinances).  The simple notion being
> >>> that of forming local working groups, to run grand-challenge like
> >>> exercises, design charettes, crowd funding for projects like a
> >>> complete infrastructure rebuild for a condo complex (like the one I'm
> living in, and serving on the board of).
> >>> How to pull such groups together remains a black art - and insights
> >>> from the original model are always helpful.
> >>>
> >>> In that context, might you share some pithy observations of
> >>> significant events in the early life of the ARPANET & Internet - how
> >>> various working groups came together in the days following Lick's
> >>> initial posting to ARPA/IPTO.  Who did what, to whom, leading to a
> >>> bunch of folks coming together into ad hoc & ongoing working groups
> >>> of various sorts?  And, in particular, what conditions/events
> >>> provided impetus, urgency, and built momentum?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks Very Much,
> >>>
> >>> Miles
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> vinton cerf wrote:
> >>>
> >>> TCP/IP came out of work that Bob Kahn and I did along with my
> >>> graduate students at Stanford. But the INWG (slightly more formal
> >>> extension of NWG when it became IFIP WG 6.1) contributed in a highly
> collaborative fashion.
> >>> So did UCL and BBN in early implementation phases of TCP and TCP/IP.
> >>>
> >>> I tend to associate NWG with Arpanet Host-Host Protocols (and
> >>> application
> >>> protocols)
> >>> and IAB (later IETF) with TCP/IP and associated applications
> >>>
> >>> v
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:29?AM Miles Fidelman <
> >>> mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Well Vint might have a definitive voice on this.
> >>>>
> >>>> So... Vint,
> >>>>
> >>>> Would you consider TCP/IP to have been initiated by the NWG?
> >>>>
> >>>> What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that
> >>>> eventually became SMTP)?  As I recall, that was initially announced
> >>>> via a postal mail packet.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> Miles
> >>>>
> >>>> vinton cerf wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> +1
> >>>> v
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history
> >>>> < 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> 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
> >>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Internet-history mailing list
> >>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> --
> >>> 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
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
> --
> 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

From jack at 3kitty.org  Mon Sep  4 15:56:56 2023
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 15:56:56 -0700
Subject: [ih] Did the MIL-STD matter? [IETF relevance (was Memories of
 Flag Day?)]
In-Reply-To: <54da1845-de7b-d2be-3753-267ac2e3df50@gmail.com>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAC-QkADCYoTnZuEmi2GjWDwC3EZybzg3L3wx8HA6atb++aC8Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e9ba30e5-c8a4-2ad4-aecf-2ddd525229b5@3kitty.org>
 <CAC-QkADQjHZfGGod3pCvpfXo4H4M11ZbpEkozktqx4_hqP7BDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <54da1845-de7b-d2be-3753-267ac2e3df50@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e2f22df0-110f-de3b-773b-251026463694@3kitty.org>

Interesting.?? I hadn't realized the effect that a MIL-STD had outside 
of the US DoD contractor community.

Curious about the history - are there other Internet technologies that 
also became MIL-STDs??? TCPIPV6?? Any of the other IETF Standards??? If 
not, why not...?

Jack

On 9/4/23 15:17, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 05-Sep-23 05:22, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> ...
>
>> Separately, there were efforts, initiated by someone, to orchestrate the
>> "Flag Day" on the Arpanet, to declare TCP/IP a DoD Standard, to define
>> and implement a formal certification program for new TCP
>> implementations, and probably other efforts I never knew about.
>>
>> Someone was in charge, and someone was doing lots of things to "make it
>> work".
>>
>> It wasn't perfect.?? Actually it was a bit chaotic IIRC.
>>
>> For example... Jon Postel took on the task of documenting TCP/IPV4 so it
>> could be referenced as a Standard.? RFCs were released.?? DoD declared
>> them mandatory for all military systems that involved communicating
>> computers.
>>
>> A bit later, at BBN we were assisting various pieces of the government
>> in getting their computer systems up and running with their vendor's
>> brand-new, certified, standard TCPIPV4s.? It was a big surprise to
>> discover that, although TCP/IP was there, none of the other "tools" we
>> had been using for years had been implemented on those machines.
>>
>> Much of that missing functionality was called "ICMP", well documented in
>> RFC 792.? But only TCP/IP had been declared a DoD Standard. 
>
> This was more important than you might think. The first TCP/IP document
> I ever saw was MIL-STD-1777, and I think that was not uncommon in Europe.
> At the time when a major argument for OSI was "because it's an ISO
> standard, all the vendors will implement it", the fact the TCP/IP wasn't
> just some academic research thingie but was a mandatory US military
> standard was a very powerful argument. It made TCP/IP respectable at
> management level, not just something that a few Unix geeks were keen on.
>
> Certainly when I took over the CERN networking group in early 1985,
> although we expected OSI/CLNP to rule the universe, MIL-STD-1777
> was physically lying on my desk. When I had to walk back CERN's OSI
> policy in the late 1980s, "TCP/IP is a US MIL-STD" was still a
> useful argument.
>
>> Government
>> contractors, who had not been involved in the research community, had to
>> implement the Standard.?? But the Standard didn't include ICMP. So they
>> didn't implement it.
>>
>> That made it much more difficult to "make it work".? For example,
>> without ICMP as the Internet's Swiss Army Knife, you couldn't even
>> "ping" a DoD Standard computer.?? I remember we raised quite a fuss
>> about that, and implementations started to appear.? I'm not sure if the
>> Standard was ever modified to require ICMP.
>>
>> Other things, like SNMP, were useful but also missing.? Many people
>> apparently didn't consider ICMP and its cohorts to be part of TCP/IP.
>> We considered such technology essential to be able to "make it work".
>
> Nevertheless, TCP/IP "made it" and OSI, which had its own version of the
> same problem, didn't.
>
> ???? Brian



From bill.n1vux at gmail.com  Mon Sep  4 18:13:42 2023
From: bill.n1vux at gmail.com (Bill Ricker)
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 21:13:42 -0400
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHgge2FdxmH2kb5EfWRqWymJExEi=b7uLwmqz4APf6x6BX_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <47B55FB9-BDA2-4816-90E4-5E967AD1983A@lynch.com>
 <336246059.4782995.1693859851328@mail.yahoo.com>
 <56bf01d9df76$cc98c800$65ca5800$@glassblower.info>
 <CAHxHgge2FdxmH2kb5EfWRqWymJExEi=b7uLwmqz4APf6x6BX_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAbKA3Uo8JM1STyfK_C8gT1+8=US-bpd+Qzj=W+-DODxUvH=qA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 6:49?PM Vint Cerf via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> shall we create a matrix, columns A B C D
> rows 1...N
> then try to make a spreadsheet with the names of each person?
>
re

> > *THIS* red button? (see image in third row)
>> > http://www.wiwiw.org/pioneers/index.html
>>
>
If one *hovers* the mouse cursor over a face,
the help-text appearing in a standard browser's hint bar or hint popup will
report their name as the URL of the linked pioneer's biographical-sketch
page.
So the page's HTML <table><tr><td>... elements provide the key already.
E.g., the 4th row (just below the button) starts
<tr> <td><a href="*cerf.htm*"><img src="*cerf_thm*.*jpg*" width="131"
height="180" alt="" border="0"></a></td> ... </tr>

(FWIW, this page could be improved by providing ALT TEXT for visually
impaired users.)


From b_a_denny at yahoo.com  Mon Sep  4 21:41:34 2023
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 04:41:34 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <56bf01d9df76$cc98c800$65ca5800$@glassblower.info>
References: <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <47B55FB9-BDA2-4816-90E4-5E967AD1983A@lynch.com>
 <336246059.4782995.1693859851328@mail.yahoo.com>
 <56bf01d9df76$cc98c800$65ca5800$@glassblower.info>
Message-ID: <1924872282.4920981.1693888894650@mail.yahoo.com>

 Yep..that red button.? Thanks everyone!
Little slow in answering right now. I am on a small road trip?
barbara
    On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 02:28:53 PM PDT, Tony Patti <crypto at glassblower.info> wrote:  
 
 Barbara,
*THIS* red button? (see image in third row)
http://www.wiwiw.org/pioneers/index.html
which is shown enlarged at 
http://www.wiwiw.org/pioneers/button-survived-tcp-transition.htm
Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: Internet-history <internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org> On Behalf Of Barbara Denny via Internet-history
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2023 4:38 PM
To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org
Subject: Re: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)

 Does anyone have their red button?? I think it said "I survived the tcp transition".? Dan Chernikoff, who worked in our group at SRI at the time, gave me his before he left SRI.? I remember he said something like you deserve it more; even though? I don't? think I had anything to do with the cutover. I don't know who made those or gave them out.? Can anyone fill me in? I looked for my button several years ago and I couldn't locate it where it should have? been. I hope it is somewhere waiting to be unearthed.
barbara
? ? On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:10:13 AM PDT, Dan Lynch via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:? 
 
 I was at ISI from 80-83 in charge of the (then) huge data center serving the researchers at ISI and running the email server for much of the outside world. Vint and Bob told me to coordinate all the software that needed to be changed and tested for not just at ISI, but all over the Arpanet. I guess that the kids ( we were all kids then) just pitched in and got their site specific software to run TCP/IP and we had a few internal ?flag days ? of testing in 82. Of course I had Jon Postel just down the hall as my tech support!? 

Fun times?

Dan

Cell 650-776-7313

> On Sep 4, 2023, at 10:23 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> ?Two excellent observations about the early days!? 1) Someone was in charge and in control.? 2) The goal was to make the system work and be actually used. 
> D
> Back in late 1981, you (Vint) asked me to take on the Gateway Project 
> at BBN, explicitly to make the Inoperate as a 24x7 reliable service, 
> following the lead that the Arpanet had developed over more than a 
> decade of operation as an infrastructure.? More about that here for 
> the curious: 
> https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-November/00559
> 5.html
> 
> That task could have been a research effort, producing protocols, algorithms, and mechanisms documented in RFCs for anyone to use. But there wasn't time to wait, so instead we just copied the mechanisms of the Arpanet, translating them into the world of TCP/IP.? Much of the Arpanet "management" technology wasn't well known or documented, but by locating the "Gateway Group" physically near the Arpanet control center (NOC), and recruiting some people from that world, it was possible to do "technology transfer" (a buzzword at the time).? The Internet acquired "operations" tools by plagiarizing what had been working for years in the Arpanet.? That was the fastest way to "make it work".
> 
> Separately, there were efforts, initiated by someone, to orchestrate the "Flag Day" on the Arpanet, to declare TCP/IP a DoD Standard, to define and implement a formal certification program for new TCP implementations, and probably other efforts I never knew about.
> 
> Someone was in charge, and someone was doing lots of things to "make it work".
> 
> It wasn't perfect.? Actually it was a bit chaotic IIRC.
> 
> For example... Jon Postel took on the task of documenting TCP/IPV4 so it could be referenced as a Standard.? RFCs were released.? DoD declared them mandatory for all military systems that involved communicating computers.
> 
> A bit later, at BBN we were assisting various pieces of the government in getting their computer systems up and running with their vendor's brand-new, certified, standard TCPIPV4s.? It was a big surprise to discover that, although TCP/IP was there, none of the other "tools" we had been using for years had been implemented on those machines.
> 
> Much of that missing functionality was called "ICMP", well documented in RFC 792.? But only TCP/IP had been declared a DoD Standard.? Government contractors, who had not been involved in the research community, had to implement the Standard.? But the Standard didn't include ICMP.? So they didn't implement it.
> 
> That made it much more difficult to "make it work".? For example, without ICMP as the Internet's Swiss Army Knife, you couldn't even "ping" a DoD Standard computer.? I remember we raised quite a fuss about that, and implementations started to appear.? I'm not sure if the Standard was ever modified to require ICMP.
> 
> Other things, like SNMP, were useful but also missing.? Many people apparently didn't consider ICMP and its cohorts to be part of TCP/IP.? We considered such technology essential to be able to "make it work".
> 
> -----
> 
> Looking back from 2023...
> 
> IMHO, one of the inflection points occurred when the culture shifted from "make it work" to "make money from the Internet". Interoperability (everyone can interact with everyone else) is part of "make it work", and conformance to Metcalfe's Law (google it...).? Silos (everyone can interact, as long as you stay in *our* silo) are (thought to be) preferable for "make money".
> 
> I wasn't very involved in the Internet growth as NSF joined and later as the first ISPs spun off to become commercial services. Perhaps someone remembers if they had any kind of "standards" or "certification" involved as the culture shifted.? E.g., was there a "FRICC Standard" for computers joining their 'nets?? I recall there were AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies), at least at first.? Did these "fade away" and turn into "pay us to get on the Internet and you can do whatever you want"?
> 
> It's still puzzling (to me) that the Internet has become a global infrastructure, and hasn't been surrounded by the web of regulations, laws, codes, agencies, treaties, and such non-technical mechanisms that have developed around other infrastructures.? Roads and vehicles, electric power, marine activities, air transport, railroads, finance, water, and even the air we breathe all have such mechanisms.
> 
> Is the Internet different?? Or just still too young to have accreted such "management" mechanisms?
> 
> Jack Haverty
> 
>> On 9/2/23 02:19, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
>> I have only a brief moment to respond. The Arpanet, PRNET, SATNET, 
>> Internet sequence gets its primary stability from the sole source 
>> funding of ARPA, initially, and the pooling of resources from other 
>> DoD components using Arpanet. Arpanet was managed by BBN initially 
>> (later under contract to DCA vs ARPA). It really helped that the 
>> Internet development funding came from a single source. Decision 
>> making was largely in the hands of the ARPA program managers, 
>> well-informed by the people doing the work. In the mid-1980s, ARPA, 
>> NSF, DOE and NASA collaborated through the Federal Research Internet 
>> Coordinating Committee (FRICC) made up of program managers from each 
>> agency. ESNET, NSINET and NSFNET joined Arpanet as backbones of the 
>> Internet. Again, common purpose welded the effort into a coherent 
>> whole. MERIT played a major role in the NSFNET development which 
>> really elaborated on the multi-network aspect of Internet. MERIT had 
>> to deal with scaling of the Internet to a dozen or more intermediate 
>> level networks linked together through the NSFNET backbone. BGP came out of that work and has scaled well - now needing more security from abuse/mistakes.
>> 
>> I think there was a common thread in all of this work: people who 
>> were working on different aspects of the Internet and its constituent 
>> networks really wanted this system to work. The goal was 
>> interoperability linking so many different packet switched networks 
>> together. Even the Xerox PARC team, whose work on PUP and later XNS 
>> was proprietary, did their best to give hints to the Stanford 
>> development team (mostly me and my graduate students during the 1974 campaign to specify TCP).
>> 
>> It also helped that commonality and interoperability were key 
>> desirable properties of the Internet system. These were the metrics 
>> by which success was measured.
>> 
>> That's all I have time for now - not sure this addresses your 
>> questions squarely.
>> 
>> v
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:14?PM Miles Fidelman 
>> <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks Vint!
>>> 
>>> To follow up, if I might - since you were there from the beginning 
>>> (I landed at MIT in 1971, just before Ray's first email, and saw how 
>>> MIT adopted ARPANET technology, then got to BBN in 1985, just in 
>>> time to help split off the DDN - the period leading up to the Flag 
>>> Day is mostly anecdotal history for me)...
>>> 
>>> I've long used the Internet as a model for how communities can 
>>> approach infrastructure master planning - serving as the basis for 
>>> our work at the Center for Civic Networking, running a growth 
>>> planning exercise for Cambridge, and later, in our work with 
>>> communities around municipal broadband.
>>> 
>>> Now, I'm gearing up a new effort, focused on community-level 
>>> crowdsourcing for major infrastructure overhaul (as is started to be 
>>> mandated by electrification ordinances).? The simple notion being 
>>> that of forming local working groups, to run grand-challenge like 
>>> exercises, design charettes, crowd funding for projects like a 
>>> complete infrastructure rebuild for a condo complex (like the one I'm living in, and serving on the board of).
>>> How to pull such groups together remains a black art - and insights 
>>> from the original model are always helpful.
>>> 
>>> In that context, might you share some pithy observations of 
>>> significant events in the early life of the ARPANET & Internet - how 
>>> various working groups came together in the days following Lick's 
>>> initial posting to ARPA/IPTO.? Who did what, to whom, leading to a 
>>> bunch of folks coming together into ad hoc & ongoing working groups 
>>> of various sorts?? And, in particular, what conditions/events 
>>> provided impetus, urgency, and built momentum?
>>> 
>>> Thanks Very Much,
>>> 
>>> Miles
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> vinton cerf wrote:
>>> 
>>> TCP/IP came out of work that Bob Kahn and I did along with my 
>>> graduate students at Stanford. But the INWG (slightly more formal 
>>> extension of NWG when it became IFIP WG 6.1) contributed in a highly collaborative fashion.
>>> So did UCL and BBN in early implementation phases of TCP and TCP/IP.
>>> 
>>> I tend to associate NWG with Arpanet Host-Host Protocols (and 
>>> application
>>> protocols)
>>> and IAB (later IETF) with TCP/IP and associated applications
>>> 
>>> v
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:29?AM Miles Fidelman < 
>>> mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Well Vint might have a definitive voice on this.
>>>> 
>>>> So... Vint,
>>>> 
>>>> Would you consider TCP/IP to have been initiated by the NWG?
>>>> 
>>>> What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that 
>>>> eventually became SMTP)?? As I recall, that was initially announced 
>>>> via a postal mail packet.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 
>>>> Miles
>>>> 
>>>> vinton cerf wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> +1
>>>> v
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via Internet-history 
>>>> < 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> 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
>>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> --
>>> 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
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

--
Internet-history mailing list
Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
? 
--
Internet-history mailing list
Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

  

From scott.brim at gmail.com  Tue Sep  5 09:33:14 2023
From: scott.brim at gmail.com (Scott Brim)
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 12:33:14 -0400
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <56ce01d9df79$20bca0d0$6235e270$@glassblower.info>
References: <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <47B55FB9-BDA2-4816-90E4-5E967AD1983A@lynch.com>
 <336246059.4782995.1693859851328@mail.yahoo.com>
 <56bf01d9df76$cc98c800$65ca5800$@glassblower.info>
 <CABf5zv+Q5JB9us4gYNUw=1xqB+UoUMzQTKTeGL2u_eLRAKG-LQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <56ce01d9df79$20bca0d0$6235e270$@glassblower.info>
Message-ID: <CAPv4CP_y+5y6sPjY8S3Dp4=3Dsp0nrpRp=rjvCYyhdPtdREMdg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 5:45?PM Tony Patti via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Steve,
>
> The names are listed in the HTML image filenames (if you click)
>
> and via view-source:http://www.wiwiw.org/pioneers/index.html


or just hover over them and your browser will tell you.



>
>
> I rather like this photo: http://www.wiwiw.org/pioneers/steve-crocker.htm
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> From: Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 4, 2023 5:36 PM
> To: Tony Patti <crypto at glassblower.info>
> Cc: Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com>; internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
>
>
>
> Pretty nifty set of pictures.  I can name many but not all of them.  Are
> the names listed somewhere?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 5:29?PM Tony Patti via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> > wrote:
>
> Barbara,
> *THIS* red button? (see image in third row)
> http://www.wiwiw.org/pioneers/index.html
> which is shown enlarged at
> http://www.wiwiw.org/pioneers/button-survived-tcp-transition.htm
> Tony
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internet-history <internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
> internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org> > On Behalf Of Barbara Denny
> via Internet-history
> Sent: Monday, September 4, 2023 4:38 PM
> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> Subject: Re: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
>
>  Does anyone have their red button?  I think it said "I survived the tcp
> transition".  Dan Chernikoff, who worked in our group at SRI at the time,
> gave me his before he left SRI.  I remember he said something like you
> deserve it more; even though  I don't  think I had anything to do with the
> cutover. I don't know who made those or gave them out.  Can anyone fill me
> in? I looked for my button several years ago and I couldn't locate it where
> it should have  been. I hope it is somewhere waiting to be unearthed.
> barbara
>     On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:10:13 AM PDT, Dan Lynch via
> Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> > wrote:
>
>  I was at ISI from 80-83 in charge of the (then) huge data center serving
> the researchers at ISI and running the email server for much of the outside
> world. Vint and Bob told me to coordinate all the software that needed to
> be changed and tested for not just at ISI, but all over the Arpanet. I
> guess that the kids ( we were all kids then) just pitched in and got their
> site specific software to run TCP/IP and we had a few internal ?flag days ?
> of testing in 82. Of course I had Jon Postel just down the hall as my tech
> support!
>
> Fun times?
>
> Dan
>
> Cell 650-776-7313
>
> > On Sep 4, 2023, at 10:23 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > ?Two excellent observations about the early days!  1) Someone was in
> charge and in control.  2) The goal was to make the system work and be
> actually used.
> > D
> > Back in late 1981, you (Vint) asked me to take on the Gateway Project
> > at BBN, explicitly to make the Inoperate as a 24x7 reliable service,
> > following the lead that the Arpanet had developed over more than a
> > decade of operation as an infrastructure.  More about that here for
> > the curious:
> > https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-November/00559
> > 5.html
> >
> > That task could have been a research effort, producing protocols,
> algorithms, and mechanisms documented in RFCs for anyone to use. But there
> wasn't time to wait, so instead we just copied the mechanisms of the
> Arpanet, translating them into the world of TCP/IP.  Much of the Arpanet
> "management" technology wasn't well known or documented, but by locating
> the "Gateway Group" physically near the Arpanet control center (NOC), and
> recruiting some people from that world, it was possible to do "technology
> transfer" (a buzzword at the time).  The Internet acquired "operations"
> tools by plagiarizing what had been working for years in the Arpanet.  That
> was the fastest way to "make it work".
> >
> > Separately, there were efforts, initiated by someone, to orchestrate the
> "Flag Day" on the Arpanet, to declare TCP/IP a DoD Standard, to define and
> implement a formal certification program for new TCP implementations, and
> probably other efforts I never knew about.
> >
> > Someone was in charge, and someone was doing lots of things to "make it
> work".
> >
> > It wasn't perfect.  Actually it was a bit chaotic IIRC.
> >
> > For example... Jon Postel took on the task of documenting TCP/IPV4 so it
> could be referenced as a Standard.  RFCs were released.  DoD declared them
> mandatory for all military systems that involved communicating computers.
> >
> > A bit later, at BBN we were assisting various pieces of the government
> in getting their computer systems up and running with their vendor's
> brand-new, certified, standard TCPIPV4s.  It was a big surprise to discover
> that, although TCP/IP was there, none of the other "tools" we had been
> using for years had been implemented on those machines.
> >
> > Much of that missing functionality was called "ICMP", well documented in
> RFC 792.  But only TCP/IP had been declared a DoD Standard.  Government
> contractors, who had not been involved in the research community, had to
> implement the Standard.  But the Standard didn't include ICMP.  So they
> didn't implement it.
> >
> > That made it much more difficult to "make it work".  For example,
> without ICMP as the Internet's Swiss Army Knife, you couldn't even "ping" a
> DoD Standard computer.  I remember we raised quite a fuss about that, and
> implementations started to appear.  I'm not sure if the Standard was ever
> modified to require ICMP.
> >
> > Other things, like SNMP, were useful but also missing.  Many people
> apparently didn't consider ICMP and its cohorts to be part of TCP/IP.  We
> considered such technology essential to be able to "make it work".
> >
> > -----
> >
> > Looking back from 2023...
> >
> > IMHO, one of the inflection points occurred when the culture shifted
> from "make it work" to "make money from the Internet". Interoperability
> (everyone can interact with everyone else) is part of "make it work", and
> conformance to Metcalfe's Law (google it...).  Silos (everyone can
> interact, as long as you stay in *our* silo) are (thought to be) preferable
> for "make money".
> >
> > I wasn't very involved in the Internet growth as NSF joined and later as
> the first ISPs spun off to become commercial services. Perhaps someone
> remembers if they had any kind of "standards" or "certification" involved
> as the culture shifted.  E.g., was there a "FRICC Standard" for computers
> joining their 'nets?  I recall there were AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies),
> at least at first.  Did these "fade away" and turn into "pay us to get on
> the Internet and you can do whatever you want"?
> >
> > It's still puzzling (to me) that the Internet has become a global
> infrastructure, and hasn't been surrounded by the web of regulations, laws,
> codes, agencies, treaties, and such non-technical mechanisms that have
> developed around other infrastructures.  Roads and vehicles, electric
> power, marine activities, air transport, railroads, finance, water, and
> even the air we breathe all have such mechanisms.
> >
> > Is the Internet different?  Or just still too young to have accreted
> such "management" mechanisms?
> >
> > Jack Haverty
> >
> >> On 9/2/23 02:19, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> >> I have only a brief moment to respond. The Arpanet, PRNET, SATNET,
> >> Internet sequence gets its primary stability from the sole source
> >> funding of ARPA, initially, and the pooling of resources from other
> >> DoD components using Arpanet. Arpanet was managed by BBN initially
> >> (later under contract to DCA vs ARPA). It really helped that the
> >> Internet development funding came from a single source. Decision
> >> making was largely in the hands of the ARPA program managers,
> >> well-informed by the people doing the work. In the mid-1980s, ARPA,
> >> NSF, DOE and NASA collaborated through the Federal Research Internet
> >> Coordinating Committee (FRICC) made up of program managers from each
> >> agency. ESNET, NSINET and NSFNET joined Arpanet as backbones of the
> >> Internet. Again, common purpose welded the effort into a coherent
> >> whole. MERIT played a major role in the NSFNET development which
> >> really elaborated on the multi-network aspect of Internet. MERIT had
> >> to deal with scaling of the Internet to a dozen or more intermediate
> >> level networks linked together through the NSFNET backbone. BGP came
> out of that work and has scaled well - now needing more security from
> abuse/mistakes.
> >>
> >> I think there was a common thread in all of this work: people who
> >> were working on different aspects of the Internet and its constituent
> >> networks really wanted this system to work. The goal was
> >> interoperability linking so many different packet switched networks
> >> together. Even the Xerox PARC team, whose work on PUP and later XNS
> >> was proprietary, did their best to give hints to the Stanford
> >> development team (mostly me and my graduate students during the 1974
> campaign to specify TCP).
> >>
> >> It also helped that commonality and interoperability were key
> >> desirable properties of the Internet system. These were the metrics
> >> by which success was measured.
> >>
> >> That's all I have time for now - not sure this addresses your
> >> questions squarely.
> >>
> >> v
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:14?PM Miles Fidelman
> >> <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks Vint!
> >>>
> >>> To follow up, if I might - since you were there from the beginning
> >>> (I landed at MIT in 1971, just before Ray's first email, and saw how
> >>> MIT adopted ARPANET technology, then got to BBN in 1985, just in
> >>> time to help split off the DDN - the period leading up to the Flag
> >>> Day is mostly anecdotal history for me)...
> >>>
> >>> I've long used the Internet as a model for how communities can
> >>> approach infrastructure master planning - serving as the basis for
> >>> our work at the Center for Civic Networking, running a growth
> >>> planning exercise for Cambridge, and later, in our work with
> >>> communities around municipal broadband.
> >>>
> >>> Now, I'm gearing up a new effort, focused on community-level
> >>> crowdsourcing for major infrastructure overhaul (as is started to be
> >>> mandated by electrification ordinances).  The simple notion being
> >>> that of forming local working groups, to run grand-challenge like
> >>> exercises, design charettes, crowd funding for projects like a
> >>> complete infrastructure rebuild for a condo complex (like the one I'm
> living in, and serving on the board of).
> >>> How to pull such groups together remains a black art - and insights
> >>> from the original model are always helpful.
> >>>
> >>> In that context, might you share some pithy observations of
> >>> significant events in the early life of the ARPANET & Internet - how
> >>> various working groups came together in the days following Lick's
> >>> initial posting to ARPA/IPTO.  Who did what, to whom, leading to a
> >>> bunch of folks coming together into ad hoc & ongoing working groups
> >>> of various sorts?  And, in particular, what conditions/events
> >>> provided impetus, urgency, and built momentum?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks Very Much,
> >>>
> >>> Miles
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> vinton cerf wrote:
> >>>
> >>> TCP/IP came out of work that Bob Kahn and I did along with my
> >>> graduate students at Stanford. But the INWG (slightly more formal
> >>> extension of NWG when it became IFIP WG 6.1) contributed in a highly
> collaborative fashion.
> >>> So did UCL and BBN in early implementation phases of TCP and TCP/IP.
> >>>
> >>> I tend to associate NWG with Arpanet Host-Host Protocols (and
> >>> application
> >>> protocols)
> >>> and IAB (later IETF) with TCP/IP and associated applications
> >>>
> >>> v
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:29?AM Miles Fidelman <
> >>> mfidelman at meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> >
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Well Vint might have a definitive voice on this.
> >>>>
> >>>> So... Vint,
> >>>>
> >>>> Would you consider TCP/IP to have been initiated by the NWG?
> >>>>
> >>>> What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that
> >>>> eventually became SMTP)?  As I recall, that was initially announced
> >>>> via a postal mail packet.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> Miles
> >>>>
> >>>> vinton cerf 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> --
> >>> 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
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From mfidelman at meetinghouse.net  Tue Sep  5 10:19:25 2023
From: mfidelman at meetinghouse.net (Miles Fidelman)
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 13:19:25 -0400
Subject: [ih] Did the MIL-STD matter? [IETF relevance (was Memories of
 Flag Day?)]
In-Reply-To: <54da1845-de7b-d2be-3753-267ac2e3df50@gmail.com>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAC-QkADCYoTnZuEmi2GjWDwC3EZybzg3L3wx8HA6atb++aC8Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e9ba30e5-c8a4-2ad4-aecf-2ddd525229b5@3kitty.org>
 <CAC-QkADQjHZfGGod3pCvpfXo4H4M11ZbpEkozktqx4_hqP7BDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <54da1845-de7b-d2be-3753-267ac2e3df50@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1e62811d-b95b-4fa0-bf51-6a266ceb0889@meetinghouse.net>

I recall that, when I first arrived at BBN, I was handed several books:
The Original Unix & C books,
Comer & Tannenbaum on data networking,
The DoD Protocol Handbook - containing the TCP/IP, FTP, and SMTP 
standards (maybe a couple more).

All seminal references during my BBN years, and for many years afterwards.

Miles Fidelman


Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
> On 05-Sep-23 05:22, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> ...
>
>> Separately, there were efforts, initiated by someone, to orchestrate the
>> "Flag Day" on the Arpanet, to declare TCP/IP a DoD Standard, to define
>> and implement a formal certification program for new TCP
>> implementations, and probably other efforts I never knew about.
>>
>> Someone was in charge, and someone was doing lots of things to "make it
>> work".
>>
>> It wasn't perfect.?? Actually it was a bit chaotic IIRC.
>>
>> For example... Jon Postel took on the task of documenting TCP/IPV4 so it
>> could be referenced as a Standard.? RFCs were released.?? DoD declared
>> them mandatory for all military systems that involved communicating
>> computers.
>>
>> A bit later, at BBN we were assisting various pieces of the government
>> in getting their computer systems up and running with their vendor's
>> brand-new, certified, standard TCPIPV4s.? It was a big surprise to
>> discover that, although TCP/IP was there, none of the other "tools" we
>> had been using for years had been implemented on those machines.
>>
>> Much of that missing functionality was called "ICMP", well documented in
>> RFC 792.? But only TCP/IP had been declared a DoD Standard. 
>
> This was more important than you might think. The first TCP/IP document
> I ever saw was MIL-STD-1777, and I think that was not uncommon in Europe.
> At the time when a major argument for OSI was "because it's an ISO
> standard, all the vendors will implement it", the fact the TCP/IP wasn't
> just some academic research thingie but was a mandatory US military
> standard was a very powerful argument. It made TCP/IP respectable at
> management level, not just something that a few Unix geeks were keen on.
>
> Certainly when I took over the CERN networking group in early 1985,
> although we expected OSI/CLNP to rule the universe, MIL-STD-1777
> was physically lying on my desk. When I had to walk back CERN's OSI
> policy in the late 1980s, "TCP/IP is a US MIL-STD" was still a
> useful argument.
>
>> Government
>> contractors, who had not been involved in the research community, had to
>> implement the Standard.?? But the Standard didn't include ICMP. So they
>> didn't implement it.
>>
>> That made it much more difficult to "make it work".? For example,
>> without ICMP as the Internet's Swiss Army Knife, you couldn't even
>> "ping" a DoD Standard computer.?? I remember we raised quite a fuss
>> about that, and implementations started to appear.? I'm not sure if the
>> Standard was ever modified to require ICMP.
>>
>> Other things, like SNMP, were useful but also missing.? Many people
>> apparently didn't consider ICMP and its cohorts to be part of TCP/IP.
>> We considered such technology essential to be able to "make it work".
>
> Nevertheless, TCP/IP "made it" and OSI, which had its own version of the
> same problem, didn't.
>
> ???? 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



From dhc at dcrocker.net  Tue Sep  5 10:31:15 2023
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 10:31:15 -0700
Subject: [ih] Did the MIL-STD matter? [IETF relevance (was Memories of
 Flag Day?)]
In-Reply-To: <1e62811d-b95b-4fa0-bf51-6a266ceb0889@meetinghouse.net>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <e9ba30e5-c8a4-2ad4-aecf-2ddd525229b5@3kitty.org>
 <CAC-QkADQjHZfGGod3pCvpfXo4H4M11ZbpEkozktqx4_hqP7BDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <54da1845-de7b-d2be-3753-267ac2e3df50@gmail.com>
 <1e62811d-b95b-4fa0-bf51-6a266ceb0889@meetinghouse.net>
Message-ID: <8a8ada14-63a3-58a1-ad93-0f690586b1e4@dcrocker.net>

On 9/5/2023 10:19 AM, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote:
> The DoD Protocol Handbook - containing the TCP/IP, FTP, and SMTP standards


This otherwise-superb, multi-volume document demonstrated an issue -- 
though I prefer to call it a combination of errors -- that created a 
professional life lesson for me.

It cites SMTP, but not RFC 822.? They didn't realize that the RFC was an 
independently-usable (and used) Internet protocol.

The lesson for me was the power of acronyms.? Make sure a specification 
comes with a short-form name or initials.? Oh, and that people get into 
the habit of using it.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social



From jack at 3kitty.org  Tue Sep  5 11:05:49 2023
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 11:05:49 -0700
Subject: [ih] Did the MIL-STD matter? [IETF relevance (was Memories of
 Flag Day?)]
In-Reply-To: <8a8ada14-63a3-58a1-ad93-0f690586b1e4@dcrocker.net>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <e9ba30e5-c8a4-2ad4-aecf-2ddd525229b5@3kitty.org>
 <CAC-QkADQjHZfGGod3pCvpfXo4H4M11ZbpEkozktqx4_hqP7BDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <54da1845-de7b-d2be-3753-267ac2e3df50@gmail.com>
 <1e62811d-b95b-4fa0-bf51-6a266ceb0889@meetinghouse.net>
 <8a8ada14-63a3-58a1-ad93-0f690586b1e4@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <eb0d8d1e-4642-aad3-1df8-90b19b98ef9f@3kitty.org>

IIRC, SMTP defined a mechanism for sending bunches-of-bytes between two 
machines.?? RFC822 defined a particular structure and syntax for those 
bytes.? By not mandating RFC822, DoD left open the possibility of 
developing other schemes for organizing that content.

For example, the 1981 "Military Message Experiment" had tried using 
"Arpanet mail" in an operational military context, and identified 
missing functionality -? "Precedence", "Authorization", and security 
issues are ones I remember. ?? Such functions were then in current use 
with the military "Autodin" messaging infrastructure, and the Experiment 
helped to identify what might be needed in an alternative to RFC822.? I 
don't know if anything further was actually developed as Autodin evolved 
into the DDN system.

Jack

On 9/5/23 10:31, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
> On 9/5/2023 10:19 AM, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote:
>> The DoD Protocol Handbook - containing the TCP/IP, FTP, and SMTP 
>> standards
>
>
> This otherwise-superb, multi-volume document demonstrated an issue -- 
> though I prefer to call it a combination of errors -- that created a 
> professional life lesson for me.
>
> It cites SMTP, but not RFC 822.? They didn't realize that the RFC was 
> an independently-usable (and used) Internet protocol.
>
> The lesson for me was the power of acronyms.? Make sure a 
> specification comes with a short-form name or initials.? Oh, and that 
> people get into the habit of using it.
>
> d/
>



From dhc at dcrocker.net  Tue Sep  5 11:18:10 2023
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 11:18:10 -0700
Subject: [ih] Did the MIL-STD matter? [IETF relevance (was Memories of
 Flag Day?)]
In-Reply-To: <eb0d8d1e-4642-aad3-1df8-90b19b98ef9f@3kitty.org>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAC-QkADQjHZfGGod3pCvpfXo4H4M11ZbpEkozktqx4_hqP7BDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <54da1845-de7b-d2be-3753-267ac2e3df50@gmail.com>
 <1e62811d-b95b-4fa0-bf51-6a266ceb0889@meetinghouse.net>
 <8a8ada14-63a3-58a1-ad93-0f690586b1e4@dcrocker.net>
 <eb0d8d1e-4642-aad3-1df8-90b19b98ef9f@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <f165dafc-ce87-12c6-0ff1-61a01494489c@dcrocker.net>

On 9/5/2023 11:05 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> IIRC, SMTP defined a mechanism for sending bunches-of-bytes between 
> two machines.?? RFC822 defined a particular structure and syntax for 
> those bytes.? By not mandating RFC822, DoD left open the possibility 
> of developing other schemes for organizing that content. 

Well, in fact, RFC 821 does mandate RFC 822:

> mail data
>
>        A sequence of ASCII characters of arbitrary length, which conforms
>        to the standard set in the Standard for the Format of ARPA
>        Internet Text Messages (RFC 822  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc822>  [2  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc821#ref-2>]).

However this was indirect enough to make it harder to find when 
compiling specs for the 3-volume tome.

And it misses the use of RFC 822 without SMTP.? This was relevant to the 
Internet in terms of (not) facilitating gatewaying with other email 
services.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From jack at 3kitty.org  Tue Sep  5 12:13:10 2023
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 12:13:10 -0700
Subject: [ih] Did the MIL-STD matter? [IETF relevance (was Memories of
 Flag Day?)]
In-Reply-To: <f165dafc-ce87-12c6-0ff1-61a01494489c@dcrocker.net>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <54da1845-de7b-d2be-3753-267ac2e3df50@gmail.com>
 <1e62811d-b95b-4fa0-bf51-6a266ceb0889@meetinghouse.net>
 <8a8ada14-63a3-58a1-ad93-0f690586b1e4@dcrocker.net>
 <eb0d8d1e-4642-aad3-1df8-90b19b98ef9f@3kitty.org>
 <f165dafc-ce87-12c6-0ff1-61a01494489c@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <1c406fc1-812d-f6be-3e2f-4f54b1cef764@3kitty.org>

You're right.? I missed that too.

But did any of the email RFCs "Standards" ever become MIL-STDs like TCP 
and IP did??? DoD was the actual customer, and from their point of view 
RFC822 was lacking some functionality needed for military use.?? Perhaps 
that prevented it becoming a MIL-STD??? Or perhaps whoever orchestrated 
the TCP and IP MIL-STDs wasn't aware of SMTP, RFC822, ICMP, et al as 
being part of the DoD protocol suite to be declared a MIL-STD?? Same 
perhaps with FTP, Telnet, DNS, NTP, etc etc.??? Who was expected to push 
other "Internet Technology" to become MIL-STDs?

Perhaps Historians will figure it out...

Jack


On 9/5/23 11:18, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 9/5/2023 11:05 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
>> IIRC, SMTP defined a mechanism for sending bunches-of-bytes between 
>> two machines.?? RFC822 defined a particular structure and syntax for 
>> those bytes.? By not mandating RFC822, DoD left open the possibility 
>> of developing other schemes for organizing that content. 
>
> Well, in fact, RFC 821 does mandate RFC 822:
>
>> mail data
>>
>>        A sequence of ASCII characters of arbitrary length, which conforms
>>        to the standard set in the Standard for the Format of ARPA
>>        Internet Text Messages (RFC 822  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc822>  [2  <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc821#ref-2>]).
>
> However this was indirect enough to make it harder to find when 
> compiling specs for the 3-volume tome.
>
> And it misses the use of RFC 822 without SMTP.? This was relevant to 
> the Internet in terms of (not) facilitating gatewaying with other 
> email services.
>
> d/
>
> -- 
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social


From b_a_denny at yahoo.com  Tue Sep  5 12:54:43 2023
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 19:54:43 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] Did the MIL-STD matter? [IETF relevance (was Memories of
 Flag Day?)]
In-Reply-To: <1c406fc1-812d-f6be-3e2f-4f54b1cef764@3kitty.org>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <54da1845-de7b-d2be-3753-267ac2e3df50@gmail.com>
 <1e62811d-b95b-4fa0-bf51-6a266ceb0889@meetinghouse.net>
 <8a8ada14-63a3-58a1-ad93-0f690586b1e4@dcrocker.net>
 <eb0d8d1e-4642-aad3-1df8-90b19b98ef9f@3kitty.org>
 <f165dafc-ce87-12c6-0ff1-61a01494489c@dcrocker.net> <1c406fc1-812d-f6be-
 3e2f-4f54b1cef764@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <811863988.5315593.1693943683275@mail.yahoo.com>

 

I know that lack of control regarding multicast group membership was a big issue for the military. I was working on contracts for the Army at that point in time.?
barbara?
    On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:13:32 PM PDT, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:  
 
 You're right.? I missed that too.

But did any of the email RFCs "Standards" ever become MIL-STDs like TCP 
and IP did??? DoD was the actual customer, and from their point of view 
RFC822 was lacking some functionality needed for military use.?? Perhaps 
that prevented it becoming a MIL-STD??? Or perhaps whoever orchestrated 
the TCP and IP MIL-STDs wasn't aware of SMTP, RFC822, ICMP, et al as 
being part of the DoD protocol suite to be declared a MIL-STD?? Same 
perhaps with FTP, Telnet, DNS, NTP, etc etc.??? Who was expected to push 
other "Internet Technology" to become MIL-STDs?

Perhaps Historians will figure it out...

Jack


On 9/5/23 11:18, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 9/5/2023 11:05 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
>> IIRC, SMTP defined a mechanism for sending bunches-of-bytes between 
>> two machines.?? RFC822 defined a particular structure and syntax for 
>> those bytes.? By not mandating RFC822, DoD left open the possibility 
>> of developing other schemes for organizing that content. 
>
> Well, in fact, RFC 821 does mandate RFC 822:
>
>> mail data
>>
>>? ? ? ? A sequence of ASCII characters of arbitrary length, which conforms
>>? ? ? ? to the standard set in the Standard for the Format of ARPA
>>? ? ? ? Internet Text Messages (RFC 822? <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc822>? [2? <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc821#ref-2>]).
>
> However this was indirect enough to make it harder to find when 
> compiling specs for the 3-volume tome.
>
> And it misses the use of RFC 822 without SMTP.? This was relevant to 
> the Internet in terms of (not) facilitating gatewaying with other 
> email services.
>
> d/
>
> -- 
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social
-- 
Internet-history mailing list
Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
  

From b_a_denny at yahoo.com  Tue Sep  5 14:26:45 2023
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 21:26:45 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] Did the MIL-STD matter? [IETF relevance (was Memories of
 Flag Day?)]
In-Reply-To: <811863988.5315593.1693943683275@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <54da1845-de7b-d2be-3753-267ac2e3df50@gmail.com>
 <1e62811d-b95b-4fa0-bf51-6a266ceb0889@meetinghouse.net>
 <8a8ada14-63a3-58a1-ad93-0f690586b1e4@dcrocker.net>
 <eb0d8d1e-4642-aad3-1df8-90b19b98ef9f@3kitty.org>
 <f165dafc-ce87-12c6-0ff1-61a01494489c@dcrocker.net> <1c406fc1-812d-f6be-
 3e2f-4f54b1cef764@3kitty.org>
 <1c406fc1-812d-f6be-3e2f-4f54b1cef764@3kitty.org>
 <811863988.5315593.1693943683275@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <991972510.5383719.1693949205538@mail.yahoo.com>

 I shouldn't forget to mention what the protocol impacts were for supporting wireless and mobility took quite some time (and may still be outstanding?). To me, this is pretty obvious but maybe not so much to others.?
barbara
    On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:57:04 PM PDT, Barbara Denny via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:  
 
I know that lack of control regarding multicast group membership was a big issue for the military. I was working on contracts for the Army at that point in time.?
barbara?
? ? On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 12:13:32 PM PDT, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:? 
 
 You're right.? I missed that too.

But did any of the email RFCs "Standards" ever become MIL-STDs like TCP 
and IP did??? DoD was the actual customer, and from their point of view 
RFC822 was lacking some functionality needed for military use.?? Perhaps 
that prevented it becoming a MIL-STD??? Or perhaps whoever orchestrated 
the TCP and IP MIL-STDs wasn't aware of SMTP, RFC822, ICMP, et al as 
being part of the DoD protocol suite to be declared a MIL-STD?? Same 
perhaps with FTP, Telnet, DNS, NTP, etc etc.??? Who was expected to push 
other "Internet Technology" to become MIL-STDs?

Perhaps Historians will figure it out...

Jack


On 9/5/23 11:18, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 9/5/2023 11:05 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
>> IIRC, SMTP defined a mechanism for sending bunches-of-bytes between 
>> two machines.?? RFC822 defined a particular structure and syntax for 
>> those bytes.? By not mandating RFC822, DoD left open the possibility 
>> of developing other schemes for organizing that content. 
>
> Well, in fact, RFC 821 does mandate RFC 822:
>
>> mail data
>>
>>? ? ? ? A sequence of ASCII characters of arbitrary length, which conforms
>>? ? ? ? to the standard set in the Standard for the Format of ARPA
>>? ? ? ? Internet Text Messages (RFC 822? <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc822>? [2? <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc821#ref-2>]).
>
> However this was indirect enough to make it harder to find when 
> compiling specs for the 3-volume tome.
>
> And it misses the use of RFC 822 without SMTP.? This was relevant to 
> the Internet in terms of (not) facilitating gatewaying with other 
> email services.
>
> d/
>
> -- 
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social
-- 
Internet-history mailing list
Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
? 
-- 
Internet-history mailing list
Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
  

From karl at cavebear.com  Tue Sep  5 14:35:05 2023
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 14:35:05 -0700
Subject: [ih] Did the MIL-STD matter? [IETF relevance (was Memories of
 Flag Day?)]
In-Reply-To: <54da1845-de7b-d2be-3753-267ac2e3df50@gmail.com>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAC-QkADCYoTnZuEmi2GjWDwC3EZybzg3L3wx8HA6atb++aC8Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e9ba30e5-c8a4-2ad4-aecf-2ddd525229b5@3kitty.org>
 <CAC-QkADQjHZfGGod3pCvpfXo4H4M11ZbpEkozktqx4_hqP7BDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <54da1845-de7b-d2be-3753-267ac2e3df50@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b092f371-6099-7abe-52d4-184c0e1301d2@cavebear.com>

I don't know much about the Mil-STD for TCP.? However, I do remember 
David Kaufman (part of our group at SDC) working to help write it.

 ??? --karl--




From jack at 3kitty.org  Tue Sep  5 21:36:54 2023
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 21:36:54 -0700
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggewNqT2nszszH+-u_dsXbFy0VOiiaMtDmTf-O=a6JgSmQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAC-QkADCYoTnZuEmi2GjWDwC3EZybzg3L3wx8HA6atb++aC8Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e9ba30e5-c8a4-2ad4-aecf-2ddd525229b5@3kitty.org>
 <CAC-QkADQjHZfGGod3pCvpfXo4H4M11ZbpEkozktqx4_hqP7BDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <CAHxHggewNqT2nszszH+-u_dsXbFy0VOiiaMtDmTf-O=a6JgSmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <802df5f7-2ffb-f54e-3669-f20010854af4@3kitty.org>

Hi Vint,

Glad to see that the political world has joined the Internet team! It's 
good to see progress ... but I'm not sure it's in the traditional direction.

I looked the summary at the GDPR info at gdpr.eu.?? They seem to be 
farther along than NIS2.? I'm not sure what DMA or DSA are... Google 
suggests Democratic Socialists of America and Data Marketing 
Association.? Sounds unlikely...

What I see is a huge gap between the political and technical worlds of 
the Internet.?? The GDPR is responding to an important problem, and its 
solution is to legally mandate a host of "Data Protection Principles" 
and associated rules and laws.? But there's no indication of what one 
must do to comply, such as a reference to any technology requirements 
(RFCs, Standards, whatever).?? How to comply is left up to the 
individual companies, governments, courts, lawyers, et al to figure out, 
and they may not be technically savvy.

One concrete example....

The GPRD site comments "GDPR compliance is easier with**encrypted 
email", but gives no indication of how to accomplish that.

In the US, we've encountered a similar situation earlier, in the context 
of HIPAA (privacy constraints on medical information) as well as laws 
about financial information and services.? There may be Internet 
technologies "on the shelf" that could be used to meet such 
requirements.? Or if those technologies are insufficient, they could 
perhaps be modified to meet the needs.?? I don't believe HIPAA indicates 
how Internet Standards might be used to satisfy the legal requirements.

Rather than researching through the "shelf" of Internet Standards, I 
suspect it was easier, for all the IT staffs associated with the medical 
and financial industries, to simply invent their own solutions, very 
simple, very understandable, and very easy to convince management (and 
the lawyers) that it satisfies the legal requirements.

I just have my own data point, but I now have perhaps 10 to 20 separate 
and distinct "message" boxes, where I can get access to medical, 
financial, legal, governmental, and other such personal material via the 
Internet.?? Our classic Internet email system, i.e., SMTP et al, is used 
only to inform me that I have a message waiting inside their particular 
silo.?? I have to go there if I want to read it, reply, etc.

So instead of one mailbox, I now have several dozen, all providing the 
same service as "Internet Email", but none interoperable with anything else.

My email program claims to have the ability to handle encrypted email, 
cryptographically verified signatures, certificates, and such, and there 
are lots of RFCs/Standards describing mechanisms for secure email.?? I 
don't know why none of my legal, medical, or financial providers chose 
to use such "on the shelf" technologies. Perhaps they weren't aware of 
them, or don't see how to apply them, or have discovered they aren't 
sufficiently secure, or ???? Or perhaps it was just easier and less 
risky to create yet another email silo, relying only on HTTPS or a VPN 
to provide the required security to get to the silo.?? Or just require 
use of their own "app" on your smart device which can use whatever 
privacy or security mechanisms it chooses.

A similar progression has occurred in video conferencing.? Back in the 
dark ages of the Internet there was a lot of work on conferencing, with 
mechanisms such as the mBone functioning even with the limited network 
capacity we had in the 80s.?? Today there is quite powerful 
videoconferencing available, but as far as I can tell, each system is 
its own silo, not able to interact with any other.?? I don't know if any 
of those silos use or are based on any current or past Internet 
Standards or if each uses proprietary designs.

So, although there is some movement to add regulations and some 
semblance of "control" on the Internet, I'm not confident it will result 
in the kind of interoperability that we strove for in the early days.

I'll be pleased to be proven wrong!

Jack Haverty

**


On 9/4/23 10:32, Vint Cerf wrote:
> many regulations are in place or in development - the Internet has not 
> escaped. There is a major cybercrime treaty in negotiation for 
> example. The UN Global Digital Compact is in development. The 
> Europeans are imposing major rules that will like escape Europe and be 
> adopted or emulated elsewhere. Think of the GDPR, NIS 2, DMA, DSA, .....
>
>
> v
>
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 1:23?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history 
> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>     Two excellent observations about the early days!? 1) Someone was in
>     charge and in control.? 2) The goal was to make the system work
>     and be
>     actually used.
>
>     Back in late 1981, you (Vint) asked me to take on the Gateway
>     Project at
>     BBN, explicitly to make the Internet operate as a 24x7 reliable
>     service,
>     following the lead that the Arpanet had developed over more than a
>     decade of operation as an infrastructure.?? More about that here
>     for the
>     curious:
>     https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-November/005595.html
>
>     That task could have been a research effort, producing protocols,
>     algorithms, and mechanisms documented in RFCs for anyone to use. But
>     there wasn't time to wait, so instead we just copied the
>     mechanisms of
>     the Arpanet, translating them into the world of TCP/IP.?? Much of the
>     Arpanet "management" technology wasn't well known or documented,
>     but by
>     locating the "Gateway Group" physically near the Arpanet control
>     center
>     (NOC), and recruiting some people from that world, it was possible
>     to do
>     "technology transfer" (a buzzword at the time).?? The Internet
>     acquired
>     "operations" tools by plagiarizing what had been working for years in
>     the Arpanet.?? That was the fastest way to "make it work".
>
>     Separately, there were efforts, initiated by someone, to
>     orchestrate the
>     "Flag Day" on the Arpanet, to declare TCP/IP a DoD Standard, to
>     define
>     and implement a formal certification program for new TCP
>     implementations, and probably other efforts I never knew about.
>
>     Someone was in charge, and someone was doing lots of things to
>     "make it
>     work".
>
>     It wasn't perfect.?? Actually it was a bit chaotic IIRC.
>
>     For example... Jon Postel took on the task of documenting TCP/IPV4
>     so it
>     could be referenced as a Standard.? RFCs were released.?? DoD
>     declared
>     them mandatory for all military systems that involved communicating
>     computers.
>
>     A bit later, at BBN we were assisting various pieces of the
>     government
>     in getting their computer systems up and running with their vendor's
>     brand-new, certified, standard TCPIPV4s.? It was a big surprise to
>     discover that, although TCP/IP was there, none of the other
>     "tools" we
>     had been using for years had been implemented on those machines.
>
>     Much of that missing functionality was called "ICMP", well
>     documented in
>     RFC 792.? But only TCP/IP had been declared a DoD Standard.
>     Government
>     contractors, who had not been involved in the research community,
>     had to
>     implement the Standard.?? But the Standard didn't include ICMP.?
>     So they
>     didn't implement it.
>
>     That made it much more difficult to "make it work".? For example,
>     without ICMP as the Internet's Swiss Army Knife, you couldn't even
>     "ping" a DoD Standard computer.?? I remember we raised quite a fuss
>     about that, and implementations started to appear.? I'm not sure
>     if the
>     Standard was ever modified to require ICMP.
>
>     Other things, like SNMP, were useful but also missing.? Many people
>     apparently didn't consider ICMP and its cohorts to be part of TCP/IP.
>     We considered such technology essential to be able to "make it work".
>
>     -----
>
>     Looking back from 2023...
>
>     IMHO, one of the inflection points occurred when the culture shifted
>     from "make it work" to "make money from the Internet".
>     Interoperability
>     (everyone can interact with everyone else) is part of "make it work",
>     and conformance to Metcalfe's Law (google it...).?? Silos
>     (everyone can
>     interact, as long as you stay in *our* silo) are (thought to be)
>     preferable for "make money".
>
>     I wasn't very involved in the Internet growth as NSF joined and
>     later as
>     the first ISPs spun off to become commercial services. Perhaps
>     someone
>     remembers if they had any kind of "standards" or "certification"
>     involved as the culture shifted.? E.g., was there a "FRICC
>     Standard" for
>     computers joining their 'nets?? I recall there were AUPs
>     (Acceptable Use
>     Policies), at least at first.?? Did these "fade away" and turn
>     into "pay
>     us to get on the Internet and you can do whatever you want"?
>
>     It's still puzzling (to me) that the Internet has become a global
>     infrastructure, and hasn't been surrounded by the web of regulations,
>     laws, codes, agencies, treaties, and such non-technical mechanisms
>     that
>     have developed around other infrastructures.? Roads and vehicles,
>     electric power, marine activities, air transport, railroads, finance,
>     water, and even the air we breathe all have such mechanisms.
>
>     Is the Internet different?? Or just still too young to have accreted
>     such "management" mechanisms?
>
>     Jack Haverty
>
>     On 9/2/23 02:19, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
>     > I have only a brief moment to respond. The Arpanet, PRNET,
>     SATNET, Internet
>     > sequence gets its primary stability from the sole source funding
>     of ARPA,
>     > initially, and the pooling of resources from other DoD
>     components using
>     > Arpanet. Arpanet was managed by BBN initially (later under
>     contract to DCA
>     > vs ARPA). It really helped that the Internet development funding
>     came from
>     > a single source. Decision making was largely in the hands of the
>     ARPA
>     > program managers, well-informed by the people doing the work. In the
>     > mid-1980s, ARPA, NSF, DOE and NASA collaborated through the Federal
>     > Research Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC) made up of program
>     > managers from each agency. ESNET, NSINET and NSFNET joined
>     Arpanet as
>     > backbones of the Internet. Again, common purpose welded the
>     effort into a
>     > coherent whole. MERIT played a major role in the NSFNET
>     development which
>     > really elaborated on the multi-network aspect of Internet. MERIT
>     had to
>     > deal with scaling of the Internet to a dozen or more
>     intermediate level
>     > networks linked together through the NSFNET backbone. BGP came
>     out of that
>     > work and has scaled well - now needing more security from
>     abuse/mistakes.
>     >
>     > I think there was a common thread in all of this work: people
>     who were
>     > working on different aspects of the Internet and its constituent
>     networks
>     > really wanted this system to work. The goal was interoperability
>     linking so
>     > many different packet switched networks together. Even the Xerox
>     PARC team,
>     > whose work on PUP and later XNS was proprietary, did their best
>     to give
>     > hints to the Stanford development team (mostly me and my
>     graduate students
>     > during the 1974 campaign to specify TCP).
>     >
>     > It also helped that commonality and interoperability were key
>     desirable
>     > properties of the Internet system. These were the metrics by
>     which success
>     > was measured.
>     >
>     > That's all I have time for now - not sure this addresses your
>     questions
>     > squarely.
>     >
>     > v
>     >
>     >
>     > On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:14?PM Miles Fidelman
>     <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
>     > wrote:
>     >
>     >> Thanks Vint!
>     >>
>     >> To follow up, if I might - since you were there from the
>     beginning (I
>     >> landed at MIT in 1971, just before Ray's first email, and saw
>     how MIT
>     >> adopted ARPANET technology, then got to BBN in 1985, just in
>     time to help
>     >> split off the DDN - the period leading up to the Flag Day is mostly
>     >> anecdotal history for me)...
>     >>
>     >> I've long used the Internet as a model for how communities can
>     approach
>     >> infrastructure master planning - serving as the basis for our
>     work at the
>     >> Center for Civic Networking, running a growth planning exercise for
>     >> Cambridge, and later, in our work with communities around municipal
>     >> broadband.
>     >>
>     >> Now, I'm gearing up a new effort, focused on community-level
>     crowdsourcing
>     >> for major infrastructure overhaul (as is started to be mandated by
>     >> electrification ordinances).? The simple notion being that of
>     forming local
>     >> working groups, to run grand-challenge like exercises, design
>     charettes,
>     >> crowd funding for projects like a complete infrastructure
>     rebuild for a
>     >> condo complex (like the one I'm living in, and serving on the
>     board of).
>     >> How to pull such groups together remains a black art - and
>     insights from
>     >> the original model are always helpful.
>     >>
>     >> In that context, might you share some pithy observations of
>     significant
>     >> events in the early life of the ARPANET & Internet - how
>     various working
>     >> groups came together in the days following Lick's initial
>     posting to
>     >> ARPA/IPTO.? Who did what, to whom, leading to a bunch of folks
>     coming
>     >> together into ad hoc & ongoing working groups of various
>     sorts?? And, in
>     >> particular, what conditions/events provided impetus, urgency,
>     and built
>     >> momentum?
>     >>
>     >> Thanks Very Much,
>     >>
>     >> Miles
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> vinton cerf wrote:
>     >>
>     >> TCP/IP came out of work that Bob Kahn and I did along with my
>     graduate
>     >> students at Stanford. But the INWG (slightly more formal
>     extension of NWG
>     >> when it became IFIP WG 6.1) contributed in a highly
>     collaborative fashion.
>     >> So did UCL and BBN in early implementation phases of TCP and
>     TCP/IP.
>     >>
>     >> I tend to associate NWG with Arpanet Host-Host Protocols (and
>     application
>     >> protocols)
>     >> and IAB (later IETF) with TCP/IP and associated applications
>     >>
>     >> v
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:29?AM Miles Fidelman <
>     >> mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
>     >>
>     >>> Well Vint might have a definitive voice on this.
>     >>>
>     >>> So... Vint,
>     >>>
>     >>> Would you consider TCP/IP to have been initiated by the NWG?
>     >>>
>     >>> What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that
>     eventually
>     >>> became SMTP)?? As I recall, that was initially announced via a
>     postal mail
>     >>> packet.
>     >>>
>     >>> Cheers,
>     >>>
>     >>> Miles
>     >>>
>     >>> vinton cerf wrote:
>     >>>
>     >>> +1
>     >>> v
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via
>     Internet-history <
>     >>> 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> 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
>     >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>     >>>>>
>     >>>> --
>     >>>> Internet-history mailing list
>     >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>     >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>     >>>>
>     >>>
>     >>> --
>     >>> 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
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >> --
>     >> 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
>     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
>
>
>


From vgcerf at gmail.com  Wed Sep  6 00:44:59 2023
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 03:44:59 -0400
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <802df5f7-2ffb-f54e-3669-f20010854af4@3kitty.org>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAC-QkADCYoTnZuEmi2GjWDwC3EZybzg3L3wx8HA6atb++aC8Bw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e9ba30e5-c8a4-2ad4-aecf-2ddd525229b5@3kitty.org>
 <CAC-QkADQjHZfGGod3pCvpfXo4H4M11ZbpEkozktqx4_hqP7BDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <CAHxHggewNqT2nszszH+-u_dsXbFy0VOiiaMtDmTf-O=a6JgSmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <802df5f7-2ffb-f54e-3669-f20010854af4@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_VzG7LTtarsg+9Gd9i1jM55f1nRKdGYHC3JT=Lfn_u3PA@mail.gmail.com>

DSA = digital services act
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act-package

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en
DMA = Digital Markets Act

DSM = Digital Single Market

re; HIPAA, think Instant Messaging. Non-interoperable despite the existence
of Internet standards for same. Your analysis/complaint is spot on.

v


On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 12:37?AM Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Hi Vint,
>
> Glad to see that the political world has joined the Internet team! It's
> good to see progress ... but I'm not sure it's in the traditional
> direction.
>
> I looked the summary at the GDPR info at gdpr.eu.   They seem to be
> farther along than NIS2.  I'm not sure what DMA or DSA are... Google
> suggests Democratic Socialists of America and Data Marketing
> Association.  Sounds unlikely...
>
> What I see is a huge gap between the political and technical worlds of
> the Internet.   The GDPR is responding to an important problem, and its
> solution is to legally mandate a host of "Data Protection Principles"
> and associated rules and laws.  But there's no indication of what one
> must do to comply, such as a reference to any technology requirements
> (RFCs, Standards, whatever).   How to comply is left up to the
> individual companies, governments, courts, lawyers, et al to figure out,
> and they may not be technically savvy.
>
> One concrete example....
>
> The GPRD site comments "GDPR compliance is easier with**encrypted
> email", but gives no indication of how to accomplish that.
>
> In the US, we've encountered a similar situation earlier, in the context
> of HIPAA (privacy constraints on medical information) as well as laws
> about financial information and services.  There may be Internet
> technologies "on the shelf" that could be used to meet such
> requirements.  Or if those technologies are insufficient, they could
> perhaps be modified to meet the needs.   I don't believe HIPAA indicates
> how Internet Standards might be used to satisfy the legal requirements.
>
> Rather than researching through the "shelf" of Internet Standards, I
> suspect it was easier, for all the IT staffs associated with the medical
> and financial industries, to simply invent their own solutions, very
> simple, very understandable, and very easy to convince management (and
> the lawyers) that it satisfies the legal requirements.
>
> I just have my own data point, but I now have perhaps 10 to 20 separate
> and distinct "message" boxes, where I can get access to medical,
> financial, legal, governmental, and other such personal material via the
> Internet.   Our classic Internet email system, i.e., SMTP et al, is used
> only to inform me that I have a message waiting inside their particular
> silo.   I have to go there if I want to read it, reply, etc.
>
> So instead of one mailbox, I now have several dozen, all providing the
> same service as "Internet Email", but none interoperable with anything
> else.
>
> My email program claims to have the ability to handle encrypted email,
> cryptographically verified signatures, certificates, and such, and there
> are lots of RFCs/Standards describing mechanisms for secure email.   I
> don't know why none of my legal, medical, or financial providers chose
> to use such "on the shelf" technologies. Perhaps they weren't aware of
> them, or don't see how to apply them, or have discovered they aren't
> sufficiently secure, or ???  Or perhaps it was just easier and less
> risky to create yet another email silo, relying only on HTTPS or a VPN
> to provide the required security to get to the silo.   Or just require
> use of their own "app" on your smart device which can use whatever
> privacy or security mechanisms it chooses.
>
> A similar progression has occurred in video conferencing.  Back in the
> dark ages of the Internet there was a lot of work on conferencing, with
> mechanisms such as the mBone functioning even with the limited network
> capacity we had in the 80s.   Today there is quite powerful
> videoconferencing available, but as far as I can tell, each system is
> its own silo, not able to interact with any other.   I don't know if any
> of those silos use or are based on any current or past Internet
> Standards or if each uses proprietary designs.
>
> So, although there is some movement to add regulations and some
> semblance of "control" on the Internet, I'm not confident it will result
> in the kind of interoperability that we strove for in the early days.
>
> I'll be pleased to be proven wrong!
>
> Jack Haverty
>
> **
>
>
> On 9/4/23 10:32, Vint Cerf wrote:
> > many regulations are in place or in development - the Internet has not
> > escaped. There is a major cybercrime treaty in negotiation for
> > example. The UN Global Digital Compact is in development. The
> > Europeans are imposing major rules that will like escape Europe and be
> > adopted or emulated elsewhere. Think of the GDPR, NIS 2, DMA, DSA, .....
> >
> >
> > v
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 1:23?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history
> > <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> >     Two excellent observations about the early days!  1) Someone was in
> >     charge and in control.  2) The goal was to make the system work
> >     and be
> >     actually used.
> >
> >     Back in late 1981, you (Vint) asked me to take on the Gateway
> >     Project at
> >     BBN, explicitly to make the Internet operate as a 24x7 reliable
> >     service,
> >     following the lead that the Arpanet had developed over more than a
> >     decade of operation as an infrastructure.   More about that here
> >     for the
> >     curious:
> >
> https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2019-November/005595.html
> >
> >     That task could have been a research effort, producing protocols,
> >     algorithms, and mechanisms documented in RFCs for anyone to use. But
> >     there wasn't time to wait, so instead we just copied the
> >     mechanisms of
> >     the Arpanet, translating them into the world of TCP/IP.   Much of the
> >     Arpanet "management" technology wasn't well known or documented,
> >     but by
> >     locating the "Gateway Group" physically near the Arpanet control
> >     center
> >     (NOC), and recruiting some people from that world, it was possible
> >     to do
> >     "technology transfer" (a buzzword at the time).   The Internet
> >     acquired
> >     "operations" tools by plagiarizing what had been working for years in
> >     the Arpanet.   That was the fastest way to "make it work".
> >
> >     Separately, there were efforts, initiated by someone, to
> >     orchestrate the
> >     "Flag Day" on the Arpanet, to declare TCP/IP a DoD Standard, to
> >     define
> >     and implement a formal certification program for new TCP
> >     implementations, and probably other efforts I never knew about.
> >
> >     Someone was in charge, and someone was doing lots of things to
> >     "make it
> >     work".
> >
> >     It wasn't perfect.   Actually it was a bit chaotic IIRC.
> >
> >     For example... Jon Postel took on the task of documenting TCP/IPV4
> >     so it
> >     could be referenced as a Standard.  RFCs were released.   DoD
> >     declared
> >     them mandatory for all military systems that involved communicating
> >     computers.
> >
> >     A bit later, at BBN we were assisting various pieces of the
> >     government
> >     in getting their computer systems up and running with their vendor's
> >     brand-new, certified, standard TCPIPV4s.  It was a big surprise to
> >     discover that, although TCP/IP was there, none of the other
> >     "tools" we
> >     had been using for years had been implemented on those machines.
> >
> >     Much of that missing functionality was called "ICMP", well
> >     documented in
> >     RFC 792.  But only TCP/IP had been declared a DoD Standard.
> >     Government
> >     contractors, who had not been involved in the research community,
> >     had to
> >     implement the Standard.   But the Standard didn't include ICMP.
> >     So they
> >     didn't implement it.
> >
> >     That made it much more difficult to "make it work".  For example,
> >     without ICMP as the Internet's Swiss Army Knife, you couldn't even
> >     "ping" a DoD Standard computer.   I remember we raised quite a fuss
> >     about that, and implementations started to appear.  I'm not sure
> >     if the
> >     Standard was ever modified to require ICMP.
> >
> >     Other things, like SNMP, were useful but also missing.  Many people
> >     apparently didn't consider ICMP and its cohorts to be part of TCP/IP.
> >     We considered such technology essential to be able to "make it work".
> >
> >     -----
> >
> >     Looking back from 2023...
> >
> >     IMHO, one of the inflection points occurred when the culture shifted
> >     from "make it work" to "make money from the Internet".
> >     Interoperability
> >     (everyone can interact with everyone else) is part of "make it work",
> >     and conformance to Metcalfe's Law (google it...).   Silos
> >     (everyone can
> >     interact, as long as you stay in *our* silo) are (thought to be)
> >     preferable for "make money".
> >
> >     I wasn't very involved in the Internet growth as NSF joined and
> >     later as
> >     the first ISPs spun off to become commercial services. Perhaps
> >     someone
> >     remembers if they had any kind of "standards" or "certification"
> >     involved as the culture shifted.  E.g., was there a "FRICC
> >     Standard" for
> >     computers joining their 'nets?  I recall there were AUPs
> >     (Acceptable Use
> >     Policies), at least at first.   Did these "fade away" and turn
> >     into "pay
> >     us to get on the Internet and you can do whatever you want"?
> >
> >     It's still puzzling (to me) that the Internet has become a global
> >     infrastructure, and hasn't been surrounded by the web of regulations,
> >     laws, codes, agencies, treaties, and such non-technical mechanisms
> >     that
> >     have developed around other infrastructures.  Roads and vehicles,
> >     electric power, marine activities, air transport, railroads, finance,
> >     water, and even the air we breathe all have such mechanisms.
> >
> >     Is the Internet different?  Or just still too young to have accreted
> >     such "management" mechanisms?
> >
> >     Jack Haverty
> >
> >     On 9/2/23 02:19, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> >     > I have only a brief moment to respond. The Arpanet, PRNET,
> >     SATNET, Internet
> >     > sequence gets its primary stability from the sole source funding
> >     of ARPA,
> >     > initially, and the pooling of resources from other DoD
> >     components using
> >     > Arpanet. Arpanet was managed by BBN initially (later under
> >     contract to DCA
> >     > vs ARPA). It really helped that the Internet development funding
> >     came from
> >     > a single source. Decision making was largely in the hands of the
> >     ARPA
> >     > program managers, well-informed by the people doing the work. In
> the
> >     > mid-1980s, ARPA, NSF, DOE and NASA collaborated through the Federal
> >     > Research Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC) made up of program
> >     > managers from each agency. ESNET, NSINET and NSFNET joined
> >     Arpanet as
> >     > backbones of the Internet. Again, common purpose welded the
> >     effort into a
> >     > coherent whole. MERIT played a major role in the NSFNET
> >     development which
> >     > really elaborated on the multi-network aspect of Internet. MERIT
> >     had to
> >     > deal with scaling of the Internet to a dozen or more
> >     intermediate level
> >     > networks linked together through the NSFNET backbone. BGP came
> >     out of that
> >     > work and has scaled well - now needing more security from
> >     abuse/mistakes.
> >     >
> >     > I think there was a common thread in all of this work: people
> >     who were
> >     > working on different aspects of the Internet and its constituent
> >     networks
> >     > really wanted this system to work. The goal was interoperability
> >     linking so
> >     > many different packet switched networks together. Even the Xerox
> >     PARC team,
> >     > whose work on PUP and later XNS was proprietary, did their best
> >     to give
> >     > hints to the Stanford development team (mostly me and my
> >     graduate students
> >     > during the 1974 campaign to specify TCP).
> >     >
> >     > It also helped that commonality and interoperability were key
> >     desirable
> >     > properties of the Internet system. These were the metrics by
> >     which success
> >     > was measured.
> >     >
> >     > That's all I have time for now - not sure this addresses your
> >     questions
> >     > squarely.
> >     >
> >     > v
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 2:14?PM Miles Fidelman
> >     <mfidelman at meetinghouse.net>
> >     > wrote:
> >     >
> >     >> Thanks Vint!
> >     >>
> >     >> To follow up, if I might - since you were there from the
> >     beginning (I
> >     >> landed at MIT in 1971, just before Ray's first email, and saw
> >     how MIT
> >     >> adopted ARPANET technology, then got to BBN in 1985, just in
> >     time to help
> >     >> split off the DDN - the period leading up to the Flag Day is
> mostly
> >     >> anecdotal history for me)...
> >     >>
> >     >> I've long used the Internet as a model for how communities can
> >     approach
> >     >> infrastructure master planning - serving as the basis for our
> >     work at the
> >     >> Center for Civic Networking, running a growth planning exercise
> for
> >     >> Cambridge, and later, in our work with communities around
> municipal
> >     >> broadband.
> >     >>
> >     >> Now, I'm gearing up a new effort, focused on community-level
> >     crowdsourcing
> >     >> for major infrastructure overhaul (as is started to be mandated by
> >     >> electrification ordinances).  The simple notion being that of
> >     forming local
> >     >> working groups, to run grand-challenge like exercises, design
> >     charettes,
> >     >> crowd funding for projects like a complete infrastructure
> >     rebuild for a
> >     >> condo complex (like the one I'm living in, and serving on the
> >     board of).
> >     >> How to pull such groups together remains a black art - and
> >     insights from
> >     >> the original model are always helpful.
> >     >>
> >     >> In that context, might you share some pithy observations of
> >     significant
> >     >> events in the early life of the ARPANET & Internet - how
> >     various working
> >     >> groups came together in the days following Lick's initial
> >     posting to
> >     >> ARPA/IPTO.  Who did what, to whom, leading to a bunch of folks
> >     coming
> >     >> together into ad hoc & ongoing working groups of various
> >     sorts?  And, in
> >     >> particular, what conditions/events provided impetus, urgency,
> >     and built
> >     >> momentum?
> >     >>
> >     >> Thanks Very Much,
> >     >>
> >     >> Miles
> >     >>
> >     >>
> >     >>
> >     >> vinton cerf wrote:
> >     >>
> >     >> TCP/IP came out of work that Bob Kahn and I did along with my
> >     graduate
> >     >> students at Stanford. But the INWG (slightly more formal
> >     extension of NWG
> >     >> when it became IFIP WG 6.1) contributed in a highly
> >     collaborative fashion.
> >     >> So did UCL and BBN in early implementation phases of TCP and
> >     TCP/IP.
> >     >>
> >     >> I tend to associate NWG with Arpanet Host-Host Protocols (and
> >     application
> >     >> protocols)
> >     >> and IAB (later IETF) with TCP/IP and associated applications
> >     >>
> >     >> v
> >     >>
> >     >>
> >     >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 10:29?AM Miles Fidelman <
> >     >> mfidelman at meetinghouse.net> wrote:
> >     >>
> >     >>> Well Vint might have a definitive voice on this.
> >     >>>
> >     >>> So... Vint,
> >     >>>
> >     >>> Would you consider TCP/IP to have been initiated by the NWG?
> >     >>>
> >     >>> What about SMTP - which originated as a late-night hack (that
> >     eventually
> >     >>> became SMTP)?  As I recall, that was initially announced via a
> >     postal mail
> >     >>> packet.
> >     >>>
> >     >>> Cheers,
> >     >>>
> >     >>> Miles
> >     >>>
> >     >>> vinton cerf wrote:
> >     >>>
> >     >>> +1
> >     >>> v
> >     >>>
> >     >>>
> >     >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 9:57?AM Steve Crocker via
> >     Internet-history <
> >     >>> 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> 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
> >     >>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >     >>>>>
> >     >>>> --
> >     >>>> Internet-history mailing list
> >     >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> >     >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >     >>>>
> >     >>>
> >     >>> --
> >     >>> 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
> >     >>>
> >     >>>
> >     >> --
> >     >> 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
> >     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
>


From jhlowry at mac.com  Wed Sep  6 03:07:23 2023
From: jhlowry at mac.com (John Lowry)
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 06:07:23 -0400
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <802df5f7-2ffb-f54e-3669-f20010854af4@3kitty.org>
References: <802df5f7-2ffb-f54e-3669-f20010854af4@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <3B8BBCC8-7439-43DE-9A71-85C895071774@mac.com>

You were correct the first time - these are messages. They are not providing the same service as Internet email.  You can only talk to them.  You cannot download or forward. You can only access via a TLS/SSL connection.  

The technology metaphor is an email client that is not completely dissimilar to a message board, but it is not email.
 
This leaves all the identity and data protection records (HIV status, etc) to them and whatever internal mechanisms they have in place.  If you ask for a complete copy of your record, you can guess what they are doing and see what they?re not doing. It won?t be available or delivered via these messages.

> On Sep 6, 2023, at 12:37 AM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> So instead of one mailbox, I now have several dozen, all providing the same service as "Internet Email", but none interoperable with anything else.


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Wed Sep  6 05:31:22 2023
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 05:31:22 -0700
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <802df5f7-2ffb-f54e-3669-f20010854af4@3kitty.org>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <e9ba30e5-c8a4-2ad4-aecf-2ddd525229b5@3kitty.org>
 <CAC-QkADQjHZfGGod3pCvpfXo4H4M11ZbpEkozktqx4_hqP7BDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <CAHxHggewNqT2nszszH+-u_dsXbFy0VOiiaMtDmTf-O=a6JgSmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <802df5f7-2ffb-f54e-3669-f20010854af4@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <7adcff2f-94a7-6efe-333c-201466915630@dcrocker.net>

On 9/5/2023 9:36 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> My email program claims to have the ability to handle encrypted email, 
> cryptographically verified signatures, certificates, and such, and 
> there are lots of RFCs/Standards describing mechanisms for secure 
> email.?? I don't know why none of my legal, medical, or financial 
> providers chose to use such "on the shelf" technologies.

Other than for transit-level email authentication crypto -- working at 
domain name level -- email-based encryption has been unable to scale.? 
So, yes, your software includes those functions, but no, they are not 
deemed viable for serious communications at scale.

Hence some environments choose messaging functions that they can operate 
solely under their control.? (They rely on https for that 'at scale' 
part of crypto.)

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social



From frantisek.borsik at gmail.com  Wed Sep  6 10:36:40 2023
From: frantisek.borsik at gmail.com (Frantisek Borsik)
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 19:36:40 +0200
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <7adcff2f-94a7-6efe-333c-201466915630@dcrocker.net>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <e9ba30e5-c8a4-2ad4-aecf-2ddd525229b5@3kitty.org>
 <CAC-QkADQjHZfGGod3pCvpfXo4H4M11ZbpEkozktqx4_hqP7BDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <CAHxHggewNqT2nszszH+-u_dsXbFy0VOiiaMtDmTf-O=a6JgSmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <802df5f7-2ffb-f54e-3669-f20010854af4@3kitty.org>
 <7adcff2f-94a7-6efe-333c-201466915630@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <CAJUtOOgM+o6bY0ex8W7Xrnsh=i1LaxNG3fcxU9ZKoPLa9Lq7xA@mail.gmail.com>

DSA, DMA, DSM... GDPR in the past, or even that horrible CRA = Cyber
Resilience Act are just a continued long list of garbage ideas out of
Brussels.

https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/10/the-eus-proposed-cyber-resilience-act-will-damage-the-open-source-ecosystem/
https://blog.nlnetlabs.nl/open-source-software-vs-the-cyber-resilience-act/

Good intentions don't count, bad results do. Most of the evil in this world
is done by people with good intentions.

All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik



https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik at gmail.com


On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 2:31?PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> On 9/5/2023 9:36 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> > My email program claims to have the ability to handle encrypted email,
> > cryptographically verified signatures, certificates, and such, and
> > there are lots of RFCs/Standards describing mechanisms for secure
> > email.   I don't know why none of my legal, medical, or financial
> > providers chose to use such "on the shelf" technologies.
>
> Other than for transit-level email authentication crypto -- working at
> domain name level -- email-based encryption has been unable to scale.
> So, yes, your software includes those functions, but no, they are not
> deemed viable for serious communications at scale.
>
> Hence some environments choose messaging functions that they can operate
> solely under their control.  (They rely on https for that 'at scale'
> part of crypto.)
>
> d/
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From dave.taht at gmail.com  Wed Sep  6 10:52:10 2023
From: dave.taht at gmail.com (Dave Taht)
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 10:52:10 -0700
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <CAJUtOOgM+o6bY0ex8W7Xrnsh=i1LaxNG3fcxU9ZKoPLa9Lq7xA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <e9ba30e5-c8a4-2ad4-aecf-2ddd525229b5@3kitty.org>
 <CAC-QkADQjHZfGGod3pCvpfXo4H4M11ZbpEkozktqx4_hqP7BDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <CAHxHggewNqT2nszszH+-u_dsXbFy0VOiiaMtDmTf-O=a6JgSmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <802df5f7-2ffb-f54e-3669-f20010854af4@3kitty.org>
 <7adcff2f-94a7-6efe-333c-201466915630@dcrocker.net>
 <CAJUtOOgM+o6bY0ex8W7Xrnsh=i1LaxNG3fcxU9ZKoPLa9Lq7xA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAA93jw43RyJxi6SEiMDJBZpxnySjACL8akTbRqop7ab2zFM1Fg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 10:37?AM Frantisek Borsik via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> DSA, DMA, DSM... GDPR in the past, or even that horrible CRA = Cyber
> Resilience Act are just a continued long list of garbage ideas out of
> Brussels.
>
>
> https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2022/10/the-eus-proposed-cyber-resilience-act-will-damage-the-open-source-ecosystem/
> https://blog.nlnetlabs.nl/open-source-software-vs-the-cyber-resilience-act/
>
> Good intentions don't count, bad results do. Most of the evil in this world
> is done by people with good intentions.
>

That stings. Had we been able to imagine 100 Billion potentially malicious
devices on the internet, what would we have done differently? We were
blinded by the potential goodness of the things, and perpetually blindsided
by everything from the Morris worm, to spam. I sometimes look sadly at the
ensign handing "email" to Captain Kirk in the old star treks as a possible
outgrowth of the only way to ensure that a message got through, and was
acknowledged, in that future.

This enormous thread on hackernews went by on how to deal with IoT over the
past few days. The FCC was proposing to mere slap a label on devices
attesting to their cybersecurity. It was wonderful to see the FCC reach out
to that forum... with 866 well thought out, and often heated, responses as
I write.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37392676

To bring this thought back to the IETF component, as technologists, we have
failed, and the conventional mechanisms of society towards mis-deeds and
malfeasance need to migrate to the internet.

>
> All the best,
>
> Frank
>
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>
>
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>
> Skype: casioa5302ca
>
> frantisek.borsik at gmail.com
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 2:31?PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> > On 9/5/2023 9:36 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> > > My email program claims to have the ability to handle encrypted email,
> > > cryptographically verified signatures, certificates, and such, and
> > > there are lots of RFCs/Standards describing mechanisms for secure
> > > email.   I don't know why none of my legal, medical, or financial
> > > providers chose to use such "on the shelf" technologies.
> >
> > Other than for transit-level email authentication crypto -- working at
> > domain name level -- email-based encryption has been unable to scale.
> > So, yes, your software includes those functions, but no, they are not
> > deemed viable for serious communications at scale.
> >
> > Hence some environments choose messaging functions that they can operate
> > solely under their control.  (They rely on https for that 'at scale'
> > part of crypto.)
> >
> > d/
> >
> > --
> > Dave Crocker
> > Brandenburg InternetWorking
> > bbiw.net
> > mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social
> >
> > --
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


-- 
Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
Dave T?ht CSO, LibreQos


From steffen at sdaoden.eu  Wed Sep  6 15:58:57 2023
From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso)
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2023 00:58:57 +0200
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <7adcff2f-94a7-6efe-333c-201466915630@dcrocker.net>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <e9ba30e5-c8a4-2ad4-aecf-2ddd525229b5@3kitty.org>
 <CAC-QkADQjHZfGGod3pCvpfXo4H4M11ZbpEkozktqx4_hqP7BDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <CAHxHggewNqT2nszszH+-u_dsXbFy0VOiiaMtDmTf-O=a6JgSmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <802df5f7-2ffb-f54e-3669-f20010854af4@3kitty.org>
 <7adcff2f-94a7-6efe-333c-201466915630@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <20230906225857.s5xXo%steffen@sdaoden.eu>

Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote in
 <7adcff2f-94a7-6efe-333c-201466915630 at dcrocker.net>:
 |On 9/5/2023 9:36 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
 |> My email program claims to have the ability to handle encrypted email, 
 |> cryptographically verified signatures, certificates, and such, and 
 |> there are lots of RFCs/Standards describing mechanisms for secure 
 |> email.?? I don't know why none of my legal, medical, or financial 
 |> providers chose to use such "on the shelf" technologies.
 |
 |Other than for transit-level email authentication crypto -- working at 
 |domain name level -- email-based encryption has been unable to scale.? 

Maybe it just takes more time.
I have passport, bank card, healthcare card, all these have user
IDs, maybe in two years (what our chancellor said) even more such
will come.  I think the Russians are very much digital-enabled?

Maybe, in the not too distant future, ... and i think in Sweden
and in Catalonia there were already hip dance clubs aka a company,
where people could choose to implant a chip under their skin for
paying aka attendance tracing .. any many did.  I am convinced we
all get a brain implant ever since i am a conscious adult --- and
is it you who wants to be responsible when first aid gives you
wrong medicine because they do not know about allergies, and
a thousand other reasons why paedophiles shall ring alarms near
kindergartens!  I did not invent the idea either, i think i just
read about it in an old book.  (Asimov?)

Anyhow, if people are enabled by their governments to learn about
and use the digital world, and if it is only a small info booklet,
and an USB card reader, (for as long as people cannot use their
implant as they now indeed use their "smart" watches
.. everywhere!), then of course two-way encryption via email is
easy.

 |So, yes, your software includes those functions, but no, they are not 
 |deemed viable for serious communications at scale.

My opinion is it is viable.  That "deem" is evil.  That "deem"
wants CA pools as business.

 |Hence some environments choose messaging functions that they can operate 
 |solely under their control.? (They rely on https for that 'at scale' 
 |part of crypto.)

Instead of PKI etc.

For example, IETF could invent a Reply-With-Identity: header.  Now
that email as it comes in is nicely verifiable cryptographically
to the root with DKIM-Store:, whatever happened with it, and it
is signed then encrypted via S/MIME or PGP itself in addition.
Now email software is enabled to enforce that replies to such
emails are signed and encrypted themselves, and it likely could
use the given info to look in a local S/MIME and PGP pool if that
is present automatically, only confirming correctness by asking
the user.
Now plant a manager in front of a graphical email user agent and
let him go through the given scenario: here you have viability.
A hundred percent.

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Wed Sep  6 16:04:41 2023
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 16:04:41 -0700
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <20230906225857.s5xXo%steffen@sdaoden.eu>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <CAHxHggewNqT2nszszH+-u_dsXbFy0VOiiaMtDmTf-O=a6JgSmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <802df5f7-2ffb-f54e-3669-f20010854af4@3kitty.org>
 <7adcff2f-94a7-6efe-333c-201466915630@dcrocker.net>
 <20230906225857.s5xXo%steffen@sdaoden.eu>
Message-ID: <cfa26777-e4a3-d819-fa79-baaff39f7c56@dcrocker.net>

On 9/6/2023 3:58 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> Maybe it just takes more time.


30 years, and no evident progress in design or adoption is not encouraging.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social



From steffen at sdaoden.eu  Wed Sep  6 17:36:19 2023
From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso)
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2023 02:36:19 +0200
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <cfa26777-e4a3-d819-fa79-baaff39f7c56@dcrocker.net>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <7a9d5e57-d075-1cb7-73d4-2631620f6102@dcrocker.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <CAHxHggewNqT2nszszH+-u_dsXbFy0VOiiaMtDmTf-O=a6JgSmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <802df5f7-2ffb-f54e-3669-f20010854af4@3kitty.org>
 <7adcff2f-94a7-6efe-333c-201466915630@dcrocker.net>
 <20230906225857.s5xXo%steffen@sdaoden.eu>
 <cfa26777-e4a3-d819-fa79-baaff39f7c56@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <20230907003619.rPDOq%steffen@sdaoden.eu>

Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote in
 <cfa26777-e4a3-d819-fa79-baaff39f7c56 at dcrocker.net>:
 |On 9/6/2023 3:58 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
 |> Maybe it just takes more time.
 |
 |30 years, and no evident progress in design or adoption is not encouraging.

DNSSEC is also coming, and is "over twenty years" old.

And IETF and noone else has such a Reply-With-Identity: header.
How should MUAs know that the user must not reply in clear text,
but must reply with a specific certificate from a bank (card) /
healthcare (card) / xxx?

And it is oh-so-easy to simply push things onto the browser.

Browsers are dozen-million code line "monsters", and firefox
cannot even display the HTTP realm when it asks for HTTP auth user
and password (whereas lynx and cURL can).  But it can run lots of
scripting, in fact only the basic page of my bank loads 72 scripts
(man is that a mess, and sqlite comes with that single file
amalgamation, yie-ha Texas i think it is; ha-ha), but also
5 images and 5 CSS style sheets.  (Luckily me no online banking.)
Now i am a lazy sort and do not look after potential load chains
therein.  And all over HTTPS, verified via CA pool business.
Well, granted, ri?h email with HTML and images and stylesheets is
nothing for a hearts pleasure either.  But still.

One of the problem with the western world is, that if you then ask
"smart" people about something, where the public opinion and the
public discourse is very clear, and you can read and hear about it
everywhere, so it is a fact, right?, you end up with ".. but .. it
is not like that" aka "but that is not how it is" (an actual
citation of a German car manager working in a region where Uigurs
live that suddenly came to mind).  Yes.

And then giving up is death.

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)


From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Wed Sep  6 17:51:13 2023
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 17:51:13 -0700
Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day?
In-Reply-To: <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com>
 <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com>
Message-ID: <18DC3CED-9517-4BF2-A515-3DF7D9D7583D@icloud.com>


> On Aug 9, 2023, at 6:50 PM, John Gilmore via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> I had a "tourist" account at the MIT-AI system running ITS, back in the
> NCP days.  I used to log in to it over a TIP that had RS232 cables
> quietly connecting it to a Telenet node.  I'd dial in to a local Telenet
> access point, connect to the cross-connect's node and port, and be
> talking to a TIP, where I'd "@o 134" to get to MIT-AI.
> 
> When NCP was turned off on the Flag Day, that stopped working.  At MIT,
> as I understand it, they decided not to implement TCP/IP for ITS.  The
> workaround for tourists like me was to borrow someone's account at
> MIT-OZ, which had TCP support and could also talk to ITS (over
> Chaosnet?).  So I'd connect from the TIP using TCP to MIT-OZ, and then
> connect to MIT-AI.  It worked OK, though I had to remember when (and how
> many times) to double the escape characters.  My access was via a dialup
> modem, which was probably the slowest part of the whole system.
> 

There was a TCP/IP implementation for ITS. The following snippet from the bug-its list [1] is from Ken Harrenstien, who worked at the SRI NIC:

****

KLH at MIT-MC 11/10/82 15:44:32 Re: ITS TCP is coming...
To: (BUG ITS) at MIT-MC, MIT-NET-CONNECT at MIT-MC
I am now officially working on the installation of TCP/IP in ITS.
The ITS sources in MC:SYSTEM; should be considered write-locked
as of today; if you need to make some changes, see me to fold them
in.  Likewise, if you know that these sources are for some reason
NOT the latest stuff, tell me immediately.  Ditto any patches
that haven't yet been put in the source.  If more than a couple of
people are interested in following the progress of this stuff, I
will create a mailing list to keep them posted and possibly to
solicit opinions on certain design issues.
Here we go, folks!

****

MIT-MC was accessible via its ARPAnet attachment using TCP/IP for some time afterwards.  I remember using TACs to access it and other Internet systems by giving the dotted quad notation.

?gregbo

[1] https://github.com/larsbrinkhoff/its-archives/blob/master/email/its.obugs0



From dhc at dcrocker.net  Wed Sep  6 18:05:21 2023
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 18:05:21 -0700
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <20230907003619.rPDOq%steffen@sdaoden.eu>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <CAHxHggewNqT2nszszH+-u_dsXbFy0VOiiaMtDmTf-O=a6JgSmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <802df5f7-2ffb-f54e-3669-f20010854af4@3kitty.org>
 <7adcff2f-94a7-6efe-333c-201466915630@dcrocker.net>
 <20230906225857.s5xXo%steffen@sdaoden.eu>
 <cfa26777-e4a3-d819-fa79-baaff39f7c56@dcrocker.net>
 <20230907003619.rPDOq%steffen@sdaoden.eu>
Message-ID: <0848326a-1c7a-f4e9-30f4-5c812d275270@dcrocker.net>

On 9/6/2023 5:36 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso via Internet-history wrote:
> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote in
>   <cfa26777-e4a3-d819-fa79-baaff39f7c56 at dcrocker.net>:
>   ||
>   |30 years, and no evident progress in design or adoption is not encouraging.
>
> DNSSEC is also coming, and is "over twenty years" old.

Actually, it too has been a 30-year effort.? Work started around 1990.? 
Not that I had anything to do with the actual work, but I happened to be 
the cognizant IETF Area Director when it started.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker at mastodon.social



From lars at nocrew.org  Wed Sep  6 23:52:28 2023
From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff)
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2023 06:52:28 +0000
Subject: [ih] Memories of ITS [was: Flag Day]?
In-Reply-To: <18DC3CED-9517-4BF2-A515-3DF7D9D7583D@icloud.com> (Greg Skinner
 via Internet-history's message of "Wed, 6 Sep 2023 17:51:13 -0700")
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <00736E8F-603D-491E-97A1-39ECFABBA7DC@icloud.com>
 <14221.1691632252@hop.toad.com>
 <18DC3CED-9517-4BF2-A515-3DF7D9D7583D@icloud.com>
Message-ID: <7wedjascer.fsf_-_@junk.nocrew.org>

Greg Skinner wrote:
> There was a TCP/IP implementation for ITS.

I tried to locate hard evidence for when the ITS machines started
running TCP/IP, so I checked the binary files called @ ITS which is the
"kernel".  According to the timestamps, I can see MIT-MC was running
TCP/IP in December 1982, MIT-ML in January 1983, and MIT-DMS in June
1983.  Unfortunately the backup tape archive doesn't cover everything
and I don't see any MIT-AI file.  However, there is this message:

  "ITS implementation of TCP-IP was begun on November 10, 1982, nearly
   single-handedly by Ken Harrenstien, and MIT-MC was doing TCP on
   December 19th.  The other machines began running the TCP version of
   ITS on flag day: MIT-AI started running ITS 1312 on December 31 at
   21:03-EST and it all worked."

It bears repeating what a heroic feat Harrenstein pulled off.


> MIT-MC was accessible via its ARPAnet attachment using TCP/IP for some
> time afterwards.

The KA10 incarnations of MIT-AI [1], MIT-DMS [2], and MIT-ML developed
hardware problems and were shut down permanently during 1983-84.  DEC
donated KS10 computers [3] to MIT, so AI [4], ML, MD, and MX were
revived after a while.  MIT-MC soldiered on until 1988 [5], albeit in
declining health.  The ARPANET IMP connections were lost at some point,
after which the ITS machines were only available through Chaosnet.  The
KS10 machines gradually succumbed to hardware issues and were shut down
in 1990.

Today ITS runs again in fully glory on emulators that support KA10,
KL10, KS10 processors, as well as most of MIT's quirky custom hardware
devices.  The first emulator running ITS was written by the very same
Harrenstien mentioned above.


[1]
  "Date: 05/02/83 13:51:15
   From: CSTACY @ MIT-MC
   The AI KA10 has been flushed, please update your programs."

[2]
  "Date: 11/02/83 19:20:51
   From: KMP @ MIT-MC
   Re: I see no DM here.
   A few moments ago (7:05:50pm), the MIT-DMS machine was officially
   powered down for the last time. It is the second of four ITS
   machines to be retired, being survived by MIT-ML and MIT-MC."

[3]
  "Date: 27 June 1984 09:52-EDT
   From: J. Noel Chiappa
   Re: MIT-AI (sub 2) arrives!
   On the very loading dock at 545TS there is a monster moving van
   unloading a large collection of large boxes manifested to one
   M. Roylance, Esq. The THING seems to be here..."

[4]
  "Date: Wed,17 Apr 85 17:19:39 EST
   From: Alan Bawden ALAN at MIT-MC
   Subject: AI ITS 1514
   So today I typed ^Z on AI's system console and ITS started a job,
   loaded SYS:ATSIGN HACTRN which contained a program that opened the
   TTY: and did trivial terminal IO. Wow. Multi-processing and
   everything..."

[5]
  "Date: Thu, 8 Sep 88 21:39:25 EDT
   From: "Pandora B. Berman" CENT at AI.AI.MIT.EDU
   Subject: The end of the world as we used to know it

   Once there was a KL-10 called MIT-MC which belonged to the Macsyma
   Consortium.  It provided Macsyma, the symbolic algebra system, to
   researchers all over the world, and mail gatewaying and mailing list
   support to a large fraction of the Arpanet.  Things continued in this
   fashion from 1975 to 1983.

   When the Macsyma Consortium dissolved in 1983, MC turned to providing
   cycles for MIT's Laboratory for Computer Science, and continued
   supporting much of the Arpanet's mail service.  But the machine
   itself was growing old and cranky.  In 1986, the mail services were
   moved to a smaller, more maintainable machine (a KS-10), and the name
   "MC" was moved with them.  But the KL-10 continued to run under the
   new name "MX".

   Now the end has come.  MX was down cold for several months, and has
   only been revived recently to copy some old 7-track tapes.  LCS can't
   keep MX any longer -- it needs the space for other purposes.  So the
   KL is being sent to the Home for Aged But Beloved PDP-10s; a crack
   team of hardware hackers will arrive next week to dismantle it and
   take it back with them to Sweden."


From steffen at sdaoden.eu  Thu Sep  7 09:46:58 2023
From: steffen at sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso)
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2023 18:46:58 +0200
Subject: [ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
In-Reply-To: <0848326a-1c7a-f4e9-30f4-5c812d275270@dcrocker.net>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
 <facb1363-80c0-8763-6810-8aa511fae2e0@meetinghouse.net>
 <3f821f1a-f0d5-522e-2120-327087299a56@gmail.com>
 <4448b186-45a8-3c47-bd4d-ec5fddaf638b@meetinghouse.net>
 <CABf5zvLrCJshrtsepbnK9m9PUb5hFEefFt5L=fmmPJjGyMjq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_UW003__be8M6t0xe7p_kf1iU8JP0F0D54VcviM6PNuXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb5f8364-14bc-e33c-537e-ef1d83054815@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_XMuLJoogTbzbR43++4M2K4DmtuNgJNquicuoiuhe5U4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <b3c84334-9185-0d0f-37fe-1370b5393ea6@meetinghouse.net>
 <CAAFtm_VwwCwNphvykvrpS6B8nOiTu8GkbZ=f2PggJMYUntOJzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3335f434-cdc8-87bc-08bc-d9af26d02373@3kitty.org>
 <CAHxHggewNqT2nszszH+-u_dsXbFy0VOiiaMtDmTf-O=a6JgSmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <802df5f7-2ffb-f54e-3669-f20010854af4@3kitty.org>
 <7adcff2f-94a7-6efe-333c-201466915630@dcrocker.net>
 <20230906225857.s5xXo%steffen@sdaoden.eu>
 <cfa26777-e4a3-d819-fa79-baaff39f7c56@dcrocker.net>
 <20230907003619.rPDOq%steffen@sdaoden.eu>
 <0848326a-1c7a-f4e9-30f4-5c812d275270@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <20230907164658.B6sF-%steffen@sdaoden.eu>

Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote in
 <0848326a-1c7a-f4e9-30f4-5c812d275270 at dcrocker.net>:
 |On 9/6/2023 5:36 PM, Steffen Nurpmeso via Internet-history wrote:
 |> Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote in
 |>   <cfa26777-e4a3-d819-fa79-baaff39f7c56 at dcrocker.net>:
 |>||
 |>|30 years, and no evident progress in design or adoption is not encouragi\
 |>|ng.
 |>
 |> DNSSEC is also coming, and is "over twenty years" old.
 |
 |Actually, it too has been a 30-year effort.? Work started around 1990.? 
 |Not that I had anything to do with the actual work, but I happened to be 
 |the cognizant IETF Area Director when it started.

I have here most of the RFCs, and hated 2065 (1997) and 2535
(1999) actively and from my very heart.  Earlier DNS security
documents than 2065 i do not know of.
RFC 2181 (greetings, Robert Elz) states in section 10.

  It should be noted that DNS Security is still very new, and
  there is, as yet, little experience with it.  Readers should be
  prepared for the information related to DNSSEC contained in this
  document to become outdated as the DNS Security specification
  matures.

RFC 403[345] came later, in 2005, and were a huge step, obsoleting
and updating nine RFCs each.

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)


From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Sat Sep  9 14:40:07 2023
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2023 14:40:07 -0700
Subject: [ih] CLNP
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw4EBd5aSXZJOqXR3evYT7_++E1xup4C5Rxz7X3uEXWBMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA93jw4EBd5aSXZJOqXR3evYT7_++E1xup4C5Rxz7X3uEXWBMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BA294098-C414-4E83-9430-EBCC1A736918@icloud.com>

For additional perspectives on this subject at a time the choice was being considered, see this IETF list thread from 1992 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/hTOgEGG_VsHa0IuKix2Cqlwj8k8/>.  (If you don?t have time to read the entire thread, Steve Deering made a key point <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XZ7NQRwohprBGCZLvwmTd_JctzY/> that is worth reading, IMO.) Although Radia didn?t actually participate in this thread, her name was mentioned.

--gregbo

> On Sep 2, 2023, at 6:45 PM, Dave Taht via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Radia Perlman gave a good talk at sharkfest earlier this year, about
> her view of CLNP?s development vs a vs IP.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek7SfLuv8PI
> 
> 
> -- 
> Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
> Dave T?ht CSO, LibreQos
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sat Sep  9 19:15:49 2023
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 14:15:49 +1200
Subject: [ih] CLNP
In-Reply-To: <BA294098-C414-4E83-9430-EBCC1A736918@icloud.com>
References: <CAA93jw4EBd5aSXZJOqXR3evYT7_++E1xup4C5Rxz7X3uEXWBMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <BA294098-C414-4E83-9430-EBCC1A736918@icloud.com>
Message-ID: <5f77390a-e45e-3c45-277e-f52c1c1bc5c8@gmail.com>

For another snapshot of the process, you can look at the minutes of the IPDECIDE BOF held at IETF 27 (Amsterdam, July 1993). Start at page 105 of https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/27.pdf (that's page 105 of the PDF file, a.k.a. page 97 of the hard copy proceedings).

You will notice that the IESG drafted two complete outsiders to chair this BOF, one of whom has been stuck to the IETF ever since.

And of course there is the semi-official history at https://archive.org/details/ipnginternetprot0000unse

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 10-Sep-23 09:40, Greg Skinner via Internet-history wrote:
> For additional perspectives on this subject at a time the choice was being considered, see this IETF list thread from 1992 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/hTOgEGG_VsHa0IuKix2Cqlwj8k8/>.  (If you don?t have time to read the entire thread, Steve Deering made a key point <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XZ7NQRwohprBGCZLvwmTd_JctzY/> that is worth reading, IMO.) Although Radia didn?t actually participate in this thread, her name was mentioned.
> 
> --gregbo
> 
>> On Sep 2, 2023, at 6:45 PM, Dave Taht via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>> Radia Perlman gave a good talk at sharkfest earlier this year, about
>> her view of CLNP?s development vs a vs IP.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek7SfLuv8PI
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
>> Dave T?ht CSO, LibreQos
>> -- 
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> 

From dave.taht at gmail.com  Sat Sep  9 19:31:35 2023
From: dave.taht at gmail.com (Dave Taht)
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2023 19:31:35 -0700
Subject: [ih] Why the Soviet Internet Failed
Message-ID: <CAA93jw4-x8AkadsFhx+TMMFkB2Ocg6ZWLbO7muWbo74Rekc2_g@mail.gmail.com>

Today I stumbled across a channel that talks about failed computer research
results worldwide, from the 1950s through the 70s,  and this one shed light
on why the USSR computing environment developed how it did.
It intersects with the arpanet in 1969 about 2/3s of the way through:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLOD5f-q0as

... but doesn't make it all the way to the Kremvax.


-- 
Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
Dave T?ht CSO, LibreQos


From frantisek.borsik at gmail.com  Sun Sep 10 02:26:55 2023
From: frantisek.borsik at gmail.com (Frantisek Borsik)
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:26:55 +0200
Subject: [ih] Why the Soviet Internet Failed
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw4-x8AkadsFhx+TMMFkB2Ocg6ZWLbO7muWbo74Rekc2_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA93jw4-x8AkadsFhx+TMMFkB2Ocg6ZWLbO7muWbo74Rekc2_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJUtOOiNU_nBm1Nk3MYFwfrpMDsw4RGdC5BWxn3=3fggROs=gw@mail.gmail.com>

I have visited Akademgorodok, so called ?Soviet Silicon Valley?, a few
years ago.

It was one of the centers of technology/Internet development in the Soviet
Union.

https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20200625-the-ussrs-secret-siberian-democracy

https://www.britannica.com/place/Akademgorodok

https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1956-2/akademgorodok/

https://www.ewdn.com/category/regions-and-cities/akademgorodok-novosibirsk/



All the best,

Frank
Frantisek (Frank) Borsik

https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
Skype: casioa5302ca
frantisek.borsik at gmail.com


On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 at 4:32 AM, Dave Taht via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Today I stumbled across a channel that talks about failed computer research
> results worldwide, from the 1950s through the 70s,  and this one shed light
> on why the USSR computing environment developed how it did.
> It intersects with the arpanet in 1969 about 2/3s of the way through:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLOD5f-q0as
>
> ... but doesn't make it all the way to the Kremvax.
>
>
> --
> Oct 30:
> https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
> Dave T?ht CSO, LibreQos
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From julf at Julf.com  Sun Sep 10 04:41:12 2023
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 13:41:12 +0200
Subject: [ih] Why the Soviet Internet Failed
In-Reply-To: <CAJUtOOiNU_nBm1Nk3MYFwfrpMDsw4RGdC5BWxn3=3fggROs=gw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA93jw4-x8AkadsFhx+TMMFkB2Ocg6ZWLbO7muWbo74Rekc2_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJUtOOiNU_nBm1Nk3MYFwfrpMDsw4RGdC5BWxn3=3fggROs=gw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <05b88451-282a-8646-2fa3-92bdd9982f93@Julf.com>

I still remember the first (and last) Soviet UNIX conference in 1990
or 1991. Bill Joy from Sun was there, and Sun was donating a big batch
of obsolete Sun 3 machines.

In one session, a bunch of Soviet/Russian academics were debating how
to port UNIX to some big Russian mainframe computer, and Bill Joy
stepped up to the mic and commented "you do realize that any of those
Sun 3:s will run circles around that mainframe".

https://www.osti.gov/biblio/458760

	Julf

On 10/09/2023 11:26, Frantisek Borsik via Internet-history wrote:
> I have visited Akademgorodok, so called ?Soviet Silicon Valley?, a few
> years ago.
> 
> It was one of the centers of technology/Internet development in the Soviet
> Union.
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20200625-the-ussrs-secret-siberian-democracy
> 
> https://www.britannica.com/place/Akademgorodok
> 
> https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1956-2/akademgorodok/
> 
> https://www.ewdn.com/category/regions-and-cities/akademgorodok-novosibirsk/
> 
> 
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Frank
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
> 
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
> Skype: casioa5302ca
> frantisek.borsik at gmail.com
> 
> 
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 at 4:32 AM, Dave Taht via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>> Today I stumbled across a channel that talks about failed computer research
>> results worldwide, from the 1950s through the 70s,  and this one shed light
>> on why the USSR computing environment developed how it did.
>> It intersects with the arpanet in 1969 about 2/3s of the way through:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLOD5f-q0as
>>
>> ... but doesn't make it all the way to the Kremvax.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Oct 30:
>> https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
>> Dave T?ht CSO, LibreQos
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>


From vint at google.com  Sun Sep 10 05:10:15 2023
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 08:10:15 -0400
Subject: [ih] Why the Soviet Internet Failed
In-Reply-To: <05b88451-282a-8646-2fa3-92bdd9982f93@Julf.com>
References: <CAA93jw4-x8AkadsFhx+TMMFkB2Ocg6ZWLbO7muWbo74Rekc2_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJUtOOiNU_nBm1Nk3MYFwfrpMDsw4RGdC5BWxn3=3fggROs=gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <05b88451-282a-8646-2fa3-92bdd9982f93@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggd=FdFXBuxvM01Sa3MjoMPEc6ihUJgC=hc5x-9rdCjHzQ@mail.gmail.com>

I wonder whether one of the big mainframes was the BESM 6? Or maybe one of
the Elbrus series?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbrus_(computer)

v


On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 7:41?AM Johan Helsingius via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> I still remember the first (and last) Soviet UNIX conference in 1990
> or 1991. Bill Joy from Sun was there, and Sun was donating a big batch
> of obsolete Sun 3 machines.
>
> In one session, a bunch of Soviet/Russian academics were debating how
> to port UNIX to some big Russian mainframe computer, and Bill Joy
> stepped up to the mic and commented "you do realize that any of those
> Sun 3:s will run circles around that mainframe".
>
> https://www.osti.gov/biblio/458760
>
>         Julf
>
> On 10/09/2023 11:26, Frantisek Borsik via Internet-history wrote:
> > I have visited Akademgorodok, so called ?Soviet Silicon Valley?, a few
> > years ago.
> >
> > It was one of the centers of technology/Internet development in the
> Soviet
> > Union.
> >
> >
> https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20200625-the-ussrs-secret-siberian-democracy
> >
> > https://www.britannica.com/place/Akademgorodok
> >
> > https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1956-2/akademgorodok/
> >
> >
> https://www.ewdn.com/category/regions-and-cities/akademgorodok-novosibirsk/
> >
> >
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Frank
> > Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
> >
> > https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
> > Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 <+421%20919%20416%20714>
> > iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 <+420%20775%20230%20885>
> > Skype: casioa5302ca
> > frantisek.borsik at gmail.com
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 at 4:32 AM, Dave Taht via Internet-history <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Today I stumbled across a channel that talks about failed computer
> research
> >> results worldwide, from the 1950s through the 70s,  and this one shed
> light
> >> on why the USSR computing environment developed how it did.
> >> It intersects with the arpanet in 1969 about 2/3s of the way through:
> >>
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLOD5f-q0as
> >>
> >> ... but doesn't make it all the way to the Kremvax.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Oct 30:
> >> https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
> >> Dave T?ht CSO, LibreQos
> >> --
> >> Internet-history mailing list
> >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >>
> --
> 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

From dvburk at gmail.com  Sun Sep 10 07:58:41 2023
From: dvburk at gmail.com (Dmitry Burkov)
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 17:58:41 +0300
Subject: [ih] Why the Soviet Internet Failed
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggd=FdFXBuxvM01Sa3MjoMPEc6ihUJgC=hc5x-9rdCjHzQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA93jw4-x8AkadsFhx+TMMFkB2Ocg6ZWLbO7muWbo74Rekc2_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJUtOOiNU_nBm1Nk3MYFwfrpMDsw4RGdC5BWxn3=3fggROs=gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <05b88451-282a-8646-2fa3-92bdd9982f93@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggd=FdFXBuxvM01Sa3MjoMPEc6ihUJgC=hc5x-9rdCjHzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <866b1934-1ef0-0f2e-7819-9fdb19171cbb@gmail.com>

It was Elbrus B - newest version of BESM 6 (full compatible)

Dmitry

On 9/10/23 3:10 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> I wonder whether one of the big mainframes was the BESM 6? Or maybe one of
> the Elbrus series?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbrus_(computer)
>
> v
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 7:41?AM Johan Helsingius via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>> I still remember the first (and last) Soviet UNIX conference in 1990
>> or 1991. Bill Joy from Sun was there, and Sun was donating a big batch
>> of obsolete Sun 3 machines.
>>
>> In one session, a bunch of Soviet/Russian academics were debating how
>> to port UNIX to some big Russian mainframe computer, and Bill Joy
>> stepped up to the mic and commented "you do realize that any of those
>> Sun 3:s will run circles around that mainframe".
>>
>> https://www.osti.gov/biblio/458760
>>
>>          Julf
>>
>> On 10/09/2023 11:26, Frantisek Borsik via Internet-history wrote:
>>> I have visited Akademgorodok, so called ?Soviet Silicon Valley?, a few
>>> years ago.
>>>
>>> It was one of the centers of technology/Internet development in the
>> Soviet
>>> Union.
>>>
>>>
>> https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20200625-the-ussrs-secret-siberian-democracy
>>> https://www.britannica.com/place/Akademgorodok
>>>
>>> https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1956-2/akademgorodok/
>>>
>>>
>> https://www.ewdn.com/category/regions-and-cities/akademgorodok-novosibirsk/
>>>
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Frank
>>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>>>
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 <+421%20919%20416%20714>
>>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 <+420%20775%20230%20885>
>>> Skype: casioa5302ca
>>> frantisek.borsik at gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 at 4:32 AM, Dave Taht via Internet-history <
>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Today I stumbled across a channel that talks about failed computer
>> research
>>>> results worldwide, from the 1950s through the 70s,  and this one shed
>> light
>>>> on why the USSR computing environment developed how it did.
>>>> It intersects with the arpanet in 1969 about 2/3s of the way through:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLOD5f-q0as
>>>>
>>>> ... but doesn't make it all the way to the Kremvax.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Oct 30:
>>>> https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
>>>> Dave T?ht CSO, LibreQos
>>>> --
>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>
>
>


From vgcerf at gmail.com  Sun Sep 10 08:00:23 2023
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:00:23 -0400
Subject: [ih] Why the Soviet Internet Failed
In-Reply-To: <866b1934-1ef0-0f2e-7819-9fdb19171cbb@gmail.com>
References: <CAA93jw4-x8AkadsFhx+TMMFkB2Ocg6ZWLbO7muWbo74Rekc2_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJUtOOiNU_nBm1Nk3MYFwfrpMDsw4RGdC5BWxn3=3fggROs=gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <05b88451-282a-8646-2fa3-92bdd9982f93@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggd=FdFXBuxvM01Sa3MjoMPEc6ihUJgC=hc5x-9rdCjHzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <866b1934-1ef0-0f2e-7819-9fdb19171cbb@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_W85AtVuJFtzi4WScSJH7FftoFiHXzYuJU_MX51KO5Lxw@mail.gmail.com>

thanks Dmitry! I remember being introduced to the BESM and Elbrus lines
when I was at DARPA....

v


On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 10:58?AM Dmitry Burkov via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> It was Elbrus B - newest version of BESM 6 (full compatible)
>
> Dmitry
>
> On 9/10/23 3:10 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> > I wonder whether one of the big mainframes was the BESM 6? Or maybe one
> of
> > the Elbrus series?
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbrus_(computer)
> >
> > v
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 7:41?AM Johan Helsingius via Internet-history <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I still remember the first (and last) Soviet UNIX conference in 1990
> >> or 1991. Bill Joy from Sun was there, and Sun was donating a big batch
> >> of obsolete Sun 3 machines.
> >>
> >> In one session, a bunch of Soviet/Russian academics were debating how
> >> to port UNIX to some big Russian mainframe computer, and Bill Joy
> >> stepped up to the mic and commented "you do realize that any of those
> >> Sun 3:s will run circles around that mainframe".
> >>
> >> https://www.osti.gov/biblio/458760
> >>
> >>          Julf
> >>
> >> On 10/09/2023 11:26, Frantisek Borsik via Internet-history wrote:
> >>> I have visited Akademgorodok, so called ?Soviet Silicon Valley?, a few
> >>> years ago.
> >>>
> >>> It was one of the centers of technology/Internet development in the
> >> Soviet
> >>> Union.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20200625-the-ussrs-secret-siberian-democracy
> >>> https://www.britannica.com/place/Akademgorodok
> >>>
> >>> https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1956-2/akademgorodok/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://www.ewdn.com/category/regions-and-cities/akademgorodok-novosibirsk/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> All the best,
> >>>
> >>> Frank
> >>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
> >>>
> >>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
> >>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 <+421%20919%20416%20714>
> >>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 <+420%20775%20230%20885>
> >>> Skype: casioa5302ca
> >>> frantisek.borsik at gmail.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 at 4:32 AM, Dave Taht via Internet-history <
> >>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Today I stumbled across a channel that talks about failed computer
> >> research
> >>>> results worldwide, from the 1950s through the 70s,  and this one shed
> >> light
> >>>> on why the USSR computing environment developed how it did.
> >>>> It intersects with the arpanet in 1969 about 2/3s of the way through:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLOD5f-q0as
> >>>>
> >>>> ... but doesn't make it all the way to the Kremvax.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Oct 30:
> >>>> https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
> >>>> Dave T?ht CSO, LibreQos
> >>>> --
> >>>> Internet-history mailing list
> >>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >>>>
> >> --
> >> Internet-history mailing list
> >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >>
> >
> >
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From julf at Julf.com  Sun Sep 10 08:01:13 2023
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 17:01:13 +0200
Subject: [ih] Why the Soviet Internet Failed
In-Reply-To: <866b1934-1ef0-0f2e-7819-9fdb19171cbb@gmail.com>
References: <CAA93jw4-x8AkadsFhx+TMMFkB2Ocg6ZWLbO7muWbo74Rekc2_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJUtOOiNU_nBm1Nk3MYFwfrpMDsw4RGdC5BWxn3=3fggROs=gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <05b88451-282a-8646-2fa3-92bdd9982f93@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggd=FdFXBuxvM01Sa3MjoMPEc6ihUJgC=hc5x-9rdCjHzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <866b1934-1ef0-0f2e-7819-9fdb19171cbb@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7b457496-0dbe-a9c8-4fa1-463cd3750142@Julf.com>

Thanks!

	Julf

On 10/09/2023 16:58, Dmitry Burkov via Internet-history wrote:
> It was Elbrus B - newest version of BESM 6 (full compatible)
> 
> Dmitry
> 
> On 9/10/23 3:10 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote:
>> I wonder whether one of the big mainframes was the BESM 6? Or maybe one of
>> the Elbrus series?
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbrus_(computer)
>>
>> v
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 7:41?AM Johan Helsingius via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I still remember the first (and last) Soviet UNIX conference in 1990
>>> or 1991. Bill Joy from Sun was there, and Sun was donating a big batch
>>> of obsolete Sun 3 machines.
>>>
>>> In one session, a bunch of Soviet/Russian academics were debating how
>>> to port UNIX to some big Russian mainframe computer, and Bill Joy
>>> stepped up to the mic and commented "you do realize that any of those
>>> Sun 3:s will run circles around that mainframe".
>>>
>>> https://www.osti.gov/biblio/458760
>>>
>>>           Julf
>>>
>>> On 10/09/2023 11:26, Frantisek Borsik via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> I have visited Akademgorodok, so called ?Soviet Silicon Valley?, a few
>>>> years ago.
>>>>
>>>> It was one of the centers of technology/Internet development in the
>>> Soviet
>>>> Union.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20200625-the-ussrs-secret-siberian-democracy
>>>> https://www.britannica.com/place/Akademgorodok
>>>>
>>>> https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1956-2/akademgorodok/
>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://www.ewdn.com/category/regions-and-cities/akademgorodok-novosibirsk/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All the best,
>>>>
>>>> Frank
>>>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>>>>
>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>>>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 <+421%20919%20416%20714>
>>>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 <+420%20775%20230%20885>
>>>> Skype: casioa5302ca
>>>> frantisek.borsik at gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 at 4:32 AM, Dave Taht via Internet-history <
>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Today I stumbled across a channel that talks about failed computer
>>> research
>>>>> results worldwide, from the 1950s through the 70s,  and this one shed
>>> light
>>>>> on why the USSR computing environment developed how it did.
>>>>> It intersects with the arpanet in 1969 about 2/3s of the way through:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLOD5f-q0as
>>>>>
>>>>> ... but doesn't make it all the way to the Kremvax.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Oct 30:
>>>>> https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
>>>>> Dave T?ht CSO, LibreQos
>>>>> --
>>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>>
>>> --
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>
>>
>>


From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sun Sep 10 14:15:30 2023
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 09:15:30 +1200
Subject: [ih] Why the Soviet Internet Failed
In-Reply-To: <866b1934-1ef0-0f2e-7819-9fdb19171cbb@gmail.com>
References: <CAA93jw4-x8AkadsFhx+TMMFkB2Ocg6ZWLbO7muWbo74Rekc2_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJUtOOiNU_nBm1Nk3MYFwfrpMDsw4RGdC5BWxn3=3fggROs=gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <05b88451-282a-8646-2fa3-92bdd9982f93@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggd=FdFXBuxvM01Sa3MjoMPEc6ihUJgC=hc5x-9rdCjHzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <866b1934-1ef0-0f2e-7819-9fdb19171cbb@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <46a72f32-fb89-6f73-eb8c-0f0af811451b@gmail.com>

Mention of the BESM-6 reminded me of the following.

In October 1981, my then boss at CERN, the late Berend Kuiper, and I spent two weeks at IHEP, the Soviet high energy physics lab in Protvino (?????????), 100km from Moscow. We gave them a course of lectures on distributed computer control systems. At that time we were rebuilding the control system for the CERN 28 GeV proton synchrotron, based on Norsk Data ND-10 minicomputers and a CERN homebrew network loosely inspired by ARPANET. (In the course of our visit, we were proudly shown their BESM-6, which I immediately concluded was basically a knock-off of the Manchester/Ferranti ATLAS, which I used as a grad student. But that is another discussion.)

I recall that the main difficulty we had was explaining to the IHEP engineers why managing software development on a large distributed system was an important matter (what we'd call software engineering today). They were very much in the mindset of programming as an isolated one-person job. I don't recall them showing much interest in networking, even though it was foundational for distributed control systems. Sadly, I don't have my lecture notes - at that time, they would have been hand-drawn overhead projector sheets.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 11-Sep-23 02:58, Dmitry Burkov via Internet-history wrote:
> It was Elbrus B - newest version of BESM 6 (full compatible)
> 
> Dmitry
> 
> On 9/10/23 3:10 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote:
>> I wonder whether one of the big mainframes was the BESM 6? Or maybe one of
>> the Elbrus series?
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbrus_(computer)
>>
>> v
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 7:41?AM Johan Helsingius via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I still remember the first (and last) Soviet UNIX conference in 1990
>>> or 1991. Bill Joy from Sun was there, and Sun was donating a big batch
>>> of obsolete Sun 3 machines.
>>>
>>> In one session, a bunch of Soviet/Russian academics were debating how
>>> to port UNIX to some big Russian mainframe computer, and Bill Joy
>>> stepped up to the mic and commented "you do realize that any of those
>>> Sun 3:s will run circles around that mainframe".
>>>
>>> https://www.osti.gov/biblio/458760
>>>
>>>           Julf
>>>
>>> On 10/09/2023 11:26, Frantisek Borsik via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> I have visited Akademgorodok, so called ?Soviet Silicon Valley?, a few
>>>> years ago.
>>>>
>>>> It was one of the centers of technology/Internet development in the
>>> Soviet
>>>> Union.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20200625-the-ussrs-secret-siberian-democracy
>>>> https://www.britannica.com/place/Akademgorodok
>>>>
>>>> https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1956-2/akademgorodok/
>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://www.ewdn.com/category/regions-and-cities/akademgorodok-novosibirsk/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All the best,
>>>>
>>>> Frank
>>>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>>>>
>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>>>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 <+421%20919%20416%20714>
>>>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 <+420%20775%20230%20885>
>>>> Skype: casioa5302ca
>>>> frantisek.borsik at gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 at 4:32 AM, Dave Taht via Internet-history <
>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Today I stumbled across a channel that talks about failed computer
>>> research
>>>>> results worldwide, from the 1950s through the 70s,  and this one shed
>>> light
>>>>> on why the USSR computing environment developed how it did.
>>>>> It intersects with the arpanet in 1969 about 2/3s of the way through:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLOD5f-q0as
>>>>>
>>>>> ... but doesn't make it all the way to the Kremvax.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Oct 30:
>>>>> https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
>>>>> Dave T?ht CSO, LibreQos
>>>>> --
>>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>>>
>>> --
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>
>>
>>

From venture37 at geeklan.co.uk  Sun Sep 10 15:55:29 2023
From: venture37 at geeklan.co.uk (Sevan Janiyan)
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2023 23:55:29 +0100
Subject: [ih] Project Cybersyn
Message-ID: <68e3a9c4-d779-402f-a91f-c743aca5d61a@geeklan.co.uk>

Hello,
50 years on (11/9/1973) since Salvador Allende was overthrown by a 
US-backed military coup, Evgeny Morozov put together The Santiago Boys 
which covers how Project Cybersyn came to be and the people involved.

https://the-santiago-boys.com/episodes

Thought I'd share it since I saw the thread about Soviet internet.


Sevan


From jaap at NLnetLabs.nl  Mon Sep 11 03:56:04 2023
From: jaap at NLnetLabs.nl (Jaap Akkerhuis)
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 12:56:04 +0200
Subject: [ih] Why the Soviet Internet Failed
In-Reply-To: <05b88451-282a-8646-2fa3-92bdd9982f93@Julf.com>
References: <CAA93jw4-x8AkadsFhx+TMMFkB2Ocg6ZWLbO7muWbo74Rekc2_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJUtOOiNU_nBm1Nk3MYFwfrpMDsw4RGdC5BWxn3=3fggROs=gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <05b88451-282a-8646-2fa3-92bdd9982f93@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <202309111056.38BAu4h1095687@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>

 Johan Helsingius via Internet-history writes:

 > I still remember the first (and last) Soviet UNIX conference in 1990
 > or 1991. Bill Joy from Sun was there, and Sun was donating a big batch
 > of obsolete Sun 3 machines.

There were multiple SUUG meetings.

Also, the Sun 3 machines were not donated. If I remember correctly,
Sun had just introduced the SPARC architecture and had surplus of
the old ones which didn't really sell. Also, the US govennment had
relaxed the export.

 > In one session, a bunch of Soviet/Russian academics were debating how
 > to port UNIX to some big Russian mainframe computer, and Bill Joy
 > stepped up to the mic and commented "you do realize that any of those
 > Sun 3:s will run circles around that mainframe".

I also remember being shown an IBM 360 clone (or was that on the
second SUUG meeting?).

	jaap


From julf at Julf.com  Mon Sep 11 04:09:51 2023
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 13:09:51 +0200
Subject: [ih] Why the Soviet Internet Failed
In-Reply-To: <202309111056.38BAu4h1095687@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>
References: <CAA93jw4-x8AkadsFhx+TMMFkB2Ocg6ZWLbO7muWbo74Rekc2_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJUtOOiNU_nBm1Nk3MYFwfrpMDsw4RGdC5BWxn3=3fggROs=gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <05b88451-282a-8646-2fa3-92bdd9982f93@Julf.com>
 <202309111056.38BAu4h1095687@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>
Message-ID: <a185b3c5-f76f-2bc6-d43e-46cc66117b33@Julf.com>

On 11/09/2023 12:56, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:

> There were multiple SUUG meetings.

But I thought the second one was after the Soviet Union ceased to
exist.

	Julf



From jaap at NLnetLabs.nl  Mon Sep 11 04:30:16 2023
From: jaap at NLnetLabs.nl (Jaap Akkerhuis)
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 13:30:16 +0200
Subject: [ih] Why the Soviet Internet Failed
In-Reply-To: <a185b3c5-f76f-2bc6-d43e-46cc66117b33@Julf.com>
References: <CAA93jw4-x8AkadsFhx+TMMFkB2Ocg6ZWLbO7muWbo74Rekc2_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJUtOOiNU_nBm1Nk3MYFwfrpMDsw4RGdC5BWxn3=3fggROs=gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <05b88451-282a-8646-2fa3-92bdd9982f93@Julf.com>
 <202309111056.38BAu4h1095687@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>
 <a185b3c5-f76f-2bc6-d43e-46cc66117b33@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <202309111130.38BBUG7v016753@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>

 Johan Helsingius writes:

 > On 11/09/2023 12:56, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
 >
 > But I thought the second one was after the Soviet Union ceased to
 > exist.
 >

The first SUUG was October 1990, the attempted coup was August 1991.
The meetings were called SUUF meetings for a while if I remember
cirrectky. But Dimitri might have more reliable information.

	jaap


From dvburk at gmail.com  Mon Sep 11 08:14:06 2023
From: dvburk at gmail.com (Dmitry Burkov)
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 18:14:06 +0300
Subject: [ih] Why the Soviet Internet Failed
In-Reply-To: <a185b3c5-f76f-2bc6-d43e-46cc66117b33@Julf.com>
References: <CAA93jw4-x8AkadsFhx+TMMFkB2Ocg6ZWLbO7muWbo74Rekc2_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJUtOOiNU_nBm1Nk3MYFwfrpMDsw4RGdC5BWxn3=3fggROs=gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <05b88451-282a-8646-2fa3-92bdd9982f93@Julf.com>
 <202309111056.38BAu4h1095687@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>
 <a185b3c5-f76f-2bc6-d43e-46cc66117b33@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <7e362eda-3d9f-8282-34b3-5bae00ecb096@gmail.com>

as I remember - first two were in USSR

On 9/11/23 2:09 PM, Johan Helsingius via Internet-history wrote:
> On 11/09/2023 12:56, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
>
>> There were multiple SUUG meetings.
>
> But I thought the second one was after the Soviet Union ceased to
> exist.
>
> ????Julf
>


From dvburk at gmail.com  Mon Sep 11 08:16:19 2023
From: dvburk at gmail.com (Dmitry Burkov)
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 18:16:19 +0300
Subject: [ih] Why the Soviet Internet Failed
In-Reply-To: <202309111130.38BBUG7v016753@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>
References: <CAA93jw4-x8AkadsFhx+TMMFkB2Ocg6ZWLbO7muWbo74Rekc2_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJUtOOiNU_nBm1Nk3MYFwfrpMDsw4RGdC5BWxn3=3fggROs=gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <05b88451-282a-8646-2fa3-92bdd9982f93@Julf.com>
 <202309111056.38BAu4h1095687@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>
 <a185b3c5-f76f-2bc6-d43e-46cc66117b33@Julf.com>
 <202309111130.38BBUG7v016753@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>
Message-ID: <bfbe99c6-e1db-e92e-9162-fc013c5f0365@gmail.com>

In 1992 it was renamed as Society of Unix User's Groups

Before it had original Soviet Unix User Group Conference

On 9/11/23 2:30 PM, Jaap Akkerhuis via Internet-history wrote:
>   Johan Helsingius writes:
>
>   > On 11/09/2023 12:56, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
>   >
>   > But I thought the second one was after the Soviet Union ceased to
>   > exist.
>   >
>
> The first SUUG was October 1990, the attempted coup was August 1991.
> The meetings were called SUUF meetings for a while if I remember
> cirrectky. But Dimitri might have more reliable information.
>
> 	jaap


From julf at Julf.com  Mon Sep 11 08:32:50 2023
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 17:32:50 +0200
Subject: [ih] Why the Soviet Internet Failed
In-Reply-To: <7e362eda-3d9f-8282-34b3-5bae00ecb096@gmail.com>
References: <CAA93jw4-x8AkadsFhx+TMMFkB2Ocg6ZWLbO7muWbo74Rekc2_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJUtOOiNU_nBm1Nk3MYFwfrpMDsw4RGdC5BWxn3=3fggROs=gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <05b88451-282a-8646-2fa3-92bdd9982f93@Julf.com>
 <202309111056.38BAu4h1095687@bela.nlnetlabs.nl>
 <a185b3c5-f76f-2bc6-d43e-46cc66117b33@Julf.com>
 <7e362eda-3d9f-8282-34b3-5bae00ecb096@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <068f2482-9be6-495f-0f45-00d029e39cc5@Julf.com>

On 11/09/2023 17:14, Dmitry Burkov via Internet-history wrote:
> as I remember - first two were in USSR

Ah, thanks to you and Jaap for correcting me.

	Julf



From jon at callas.org  Wed Sep 13 15:43:10 2023
From: jon at callas.org (Jon Callas)
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 15:43:10 -0700
Subject: [ih] DKIM history, was IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
Message-ID: <C2CF7CDD-BF88-4B07-91D1-F172DB70E63C@callas.org>

I am late to this DKIM history party, yet I'd like to add in some memories, because I have my own accounts that add to it.

I got involved with DKIM when the DomainKeys folks from Yahoo contacted me. I was CTO at PGP Corporation and they said they wanted to use digital signatures for a form of email handling. Even then, we tried not to say "spam fighting" as we knew it wasn't One Cool Trick (or silver bullet). I met with them, they told me what they wanted to do, and asked if I'd help with the digital signature parts. This was also when I first heard the problem statement that (e.g.) Bank of America wants to send you and email, it bounced through a .forward at your alumni association, and then arrives at Yahoo. Yahoo would like to know that it really came from BoA, and this affects how the message is handled. 

There was SPF at the time, of course, and while SPF is valuable, the problem statement is precisely a case that SPF *cannot* handle.

About two weeks later, a couple people from Cisco called up and said that they were trying to use digital signatures to know the source of an email -- you know, the case that SPF can't handle.

Mike Thomas called it convergent evolution and I can attest that that is exactly what it was. DK and IIM were a case of it being Steam Engine Time for this type of authentication.

From that, the team spread outward, to include Sendmail, Exchange people from Microsoft, Verisign, trad email infrastructure (Dave Crocker) and others. I remember there being over a dozen of us in a few of the meetings. From the start, one of the things we wanted to do was get it into the IETF, and there were also many meta-discussions. There's a reason for the rule of thumb of "rough consensus and working code" along with the need for an actual community of interest (as opposed to a good idea wanting an RFC number). There was also discussions about pieces that were implied but not there, and that there isn't a complete solution, let alone some silver bullet. The initial Yahoo problem statement has implicit things in there that are semantic, not syntactic. The original sender, so-called Bank of America, is implicitly assumed to be some sort of tacitly "good" sender. That implies something a lot like a reputation system, left as an exercise for later. That's just to start.

We discussed a lot about whether this could or should be done with existing standards like S/MIME or OpenPGP. The decision, of course, was ultimately no. I think there are both syntactic and semantic reasons for this. I'd love to rant on this; this isn't the place. DKIM decided it was key-based, "administrative domain" based, and actively focused on the email envelope (like headers). S/MIME and OpenPGP are completely about the body of the email, and we'd have to warp them to get it to the headers; once that's done, we'd have to deal with the differences of author signing and infrastructure signing (again, both syntactic and semantic). 

A relevant thing to this discussion is that DKIM uses what I called in a paper "authoritative trust": you want to send to Alice over at Example.com, so you ask the domain, "hey, what's Alice's key." The domain is an authority, and might have an uneasy relationship with Alice (this is the issue of the server lying about the key, and solutions to that include key transparency, safety numbers, short authentication strings, and so on). The knock-on issues don't really exist here because the conversation is the bank talking to the ISP with DNS as a transport. Thus, while there are DNS issues, there's also DNSSEC sitting over there with possible solutions. This is important, I think, because The Bank thinks it's talking to the alumni association (there's MTA to MTA communication) and it cannot know, a priori, that it's really talking to Yahoo. It's Yahoo who is in conversation with the bank. This recapitulates the phylogeny of Layer 3, where a router just passes the packets on, with no other involvement. Thus, I definitely disagree with the previous side discussions about how perhaps we could have used those protocols. No, we couldn't have and yes we thought about it and talked it out.

Aside: Since there's more discussion of how this might have worked otherwise, including Let's Encrypt or something like it, part of why DKIM is merely awful and not quite horrible is that it's a server-to-server -- excuse me, administrative domain -- conversation. If it were a user-to-doman conversation, that would require a certification system that included a per-user reputation system. It also has to include mechanisms where someone is improperly labeled a bad sender (it's going to be an amazing abuse vector), someone who reforms themselves (or the identifier is reused -- we don't want to have to retire "Alice" for all eternity because the last one was a spammer), and so on. We don't want to go there, because here lies dragons as well as a privacy, abuse, safety, and trust nightmare that's the superset of all the other ones.

Back to constructing DKIM. There are many cases where an IETF standard not only did rough consensus and running code, but it took existing system(s) and created combinations and compromises. Directly relevant, TLS took Netscape's SSL and Microsoft's PCT and joined them together. DKIM took DK and IIM and put them together. Things got left on the cutting room floor, and the combined use case isn't the same. I know that there were IIM features that were cool and didn't get in there; they didn't get in there because there wasn't a rough consensus. We see this historically other places -- there was once a huge philosophical fight that pitted the IPsec folks along with TLS and SECSH -- particularly over the use case that I'll call "telnet over SSL." Probably the standard case of SSH (and SECSH) is pretty much that. Then there's port forwarding, which is a mini-VPN; connections into file transfer territory and so on. All of these are a bit of a mess because the problem space is a bit messy and it's not really possible to apply mathematical rigor to a taxonomy.

I disagree with the word "vile" that Mike said when talking about this, but I get it. There were really good things in IIM that ended up on the cutting room floor, just like there were good things in PCT that didn't make it into TLS. I do agree with the conclusion which is that the combo of Cisco, Yahoo, and Sendmail hammered the convergent evolution into running code that reflected a rough-but-not-complete consensus. The process of getting an IETF standard is one of inevitably including something one doesn't like and dropping something one thought should be included. (And this is its own long topic.)

Obviously, there's more retrospective thoughts I could give; like producing a document, though, at some point one needs to hit send.

	Jon






From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Sat Sep 23 22:26:05 2023
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2023 22:26:05 -0700
Subject: [ih] Memories of Flag Day?
In-Reply-To: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
References: <97655067-9d4b-03bd-76f4-d7fa5bdd2b2a@meetinghouse.net>
Message-ID: <36BAFBE0-DF60-4EB2-B0C8-A7768EBDBC68@icloud.com>

I found another ? an interview by Janet Abbate of Jake Feinler, who talked about her experiences on the eve of the flag day.  She also mentioned the ?I survived the TCP transition? buttons.

https://ethw.org/Oral-History:Elizabeth_%22Jake%22_Feinler?

Incidentally, we?re coming up on the 40th anniversary of the ARPANET/MILNET logical split (4 October 1983).

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/museum/ddn-news/ddn-news.n26.1?	
ddn-news.n26
File ? 12 KB


> On Aug 6, 2023, at 4:34 AM, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> Does anybody have some memories of the TCP/IP Flag Day they can share?
> 
> [?]
> 
> Thanks Very Much,
> 
> Miles Fidelman
> 
> -- 
> 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
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history