[ih] IETF relevance (was Memories of Flag Day?)
Tony Patti
crypto at glassblower.info
Mon Sep 4 14:45:31 PDT 2023
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
More information about the Internet-history
mailing list