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

[vinton cerf]

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
>
>