From dave.taht at gmail.com  Thu Mar  7 12:28:51 2024
From: dave.taht at gmail.com (Dave Taht)
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 15:28:51 -0500
Subject: [ih] Fwd: FW: Memorial service for David Mills
In-Reply-To: <CAMbSiYD=BDxeJPqjfAeQ1+JOAeu4GXpqLtJz2gFV3EZDHjbxRw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5a1d5390cbd9e87290b0346fe.288a146672.20240301152917.edba38fcb3.a57db475@mail133.atl291.mcsv.net>
 <CAPLeeZDnpNj+hH0jrDLSThqc_NZUPfNULP=R4bBBE==Jfvh6EQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <BN0PR13MB466192CBAEF486DE592F079CBF5D2@BN0PR13MB4661.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
 <BN0PR13MB46611E6B0B706515C47ECD0ABF5C2@BN0PR13MB4661.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAMbSiYD=BDxeJPqjfAeQ1+JOAeu4GXpqLtJz2gFV3EZDHjbxRw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAA93jw68DvGrya0H1=5NehaN7MPGctpfEuW5z1CvUu=mJbe28w@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Dave Hart <davehart at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 3:18?PM
Subject: Fwd: FW: Memorial service for David Mills
To: <questions at lists.ntp.org>, NTP WG <ntp at ietf.org>, <
time-nuts at lists.febo.com>, NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>


The University of Delaware is hosting a memorial service for "Father Time"
David Mills this coming Monday at 3:00pm local time.  With Sunday's leap
ahead in local time, that's 17:00 UTC, Noon US Pacific time.  There will be
a live stream:  https://sites.udel.edu/udlive/mills/

Cheers,
Dave Hart
Dr. David L. Mills Memorial Service
11 Mar 2024, 13:00 ? 11 Mar 2024, 16:00
(GMT+00:00) Coordinated Universal Time
Mitchell Hall



Memorial Service for David MillsMonday, March 11 | 3 p.m.
Mitchell Hall





David Mills, a retired University of Delaware professor known as the
?father time? of the Internet, *passed away*
<https://udel.us11.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5a1d5390cbd9e87290b0346fe&id=c862ff63c9&e=288a146672>
on
January 17, 2024. Dr. Mills is survived by his wife Beverly Mills, his
daughter Eileen Schnitzler, his son Keith Mills, and his brother Gregory
Mills.

You?re invited to join the Mills family and the University of Delaware
College of Engineering for a secular memorial for Dr. David Mills at 3 p.m.
on March 11 in Mitchell Hall.

Dr. Mills, who held appointments in UD?s College of Engineering in the
departments of electrical and computer engineering and computer and
information sciences, is most well-known for developing the network time
protocol, the system that allows computers on a network to synchronize
their time. Along with being a pioneer of the early Internet, he is
remembered for his curiosity, knowledge and enthusiasm.

The impact of Dr. Mills? work was recognized by several professional
societies?Dr. Mills was a member of the National Academy of Engineering,
the Internet Society (ISOC), the American Association for the Advancement
of Science and he was a Fellow of both the Association for Computing
Machinery and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineering.

Outside of his career?s many achievements, Dr. Mills? hobbies included
running an amateur radio station (W3HCF) out of his home in Newark. He was
also a member of the American Radio Relay League, the Radio Society of
Great Britain and the Amateur Satellite Organization.

*Please let us know if you?ll attend.*
<https://udel.us11.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5a1d5390cbd9e87290b0346fe&id=967bc954b9&e=288a146672>



*Read the New York Times obituary*
<https://udel.us11.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5a1d5390cbd9e87290b0346fe&id=9786453fb4&e=288a146672>

*Copyright ? 2024 University of Delaware College of Engineering, All rights
reserved.*
You are receiving this email message as a member of the University of
Delaware College of Engineering community.

*Our mailing address is:*

University of Delaware College of Engineering

102 DuPont Hall

Newark, Delaware 19716







-- 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0Tmvv5jJKs Epik Mellon Podcast
Dave T?ht CSO, LibreQos


From dave.taht at gmail.com  Fri Mar  8 02:55:29 2024
From: dave.taht at gmail.com (Dave Taht)
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 05:55:29 -0500
Subject: [ih] Some Berkeley Unix history - too many PHDs per packet
Message-ID: <CAA93jw6x=aMFrmRFhmXMwqaPxEyPsgRATOoDBj-cE2DQ4CUerw@mail.gmail.com>

>From john nagle here, a good article, and a long and enjoyable thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39630457

...

Ford Aerospace was one of the first commercial sites of BSD Unix. The
licensing was complicated. We had to buy Unix 32V from AT&T first.
That transaction got on the path for major corporate documents. AT&T
and Ford Motor had a cross-licensing agreement. Eventually, I got a
no-cost license agreement embossed with the corporate seals of both
the Ford Motor Company and the American Telephone and Telegraph
Corporation. Made a copy and taped it onto a VAX. Then I drove up to
Berkeley from Palo Alto and Bill Joy gave me a BSD tape.

BSD didn't have networking at that point. We bought 3COM's UNET.[1]
That was TCP/IP, written by Greg Shaw. $7,300 for a first CPU. $4,300
for each additional CPU. It didn't use "sockets"; you opened a
connection by opening a pseudo-device. UNET itself was in user space,
talking to the other end of those pseudo-devices.

Once we got that going, we had it on VAX machines, some PDP-11
machines, and some Zilog Z8000 machines. (The Zilog Z8000 was roughly
similar to a PDP-11) All of which, along with some other weird
machines including a Symbolics LISP machine, eventually interoperated.
We had some of Dave Mills' Fuzzballs as routers [2], and a long-haul
link to another Ford location that connected to the ARPANET. Links
included 10Mb/s Ethernet, a DEC device called a DMC that used triaxial
coax cables, and serial lines running SLIP. A dedicated 9600 baud
serial synchronous line to Detroit was a big expense.

My work in congestion control came from making all this play well
together. These early TCP/IP implementations did not play well with
others. Network interoperability is assumed now, but it was a new,
strange idea back then, in an era when each major computer maker had
their own networking protocols. UNET as delivered was intended to talk
only to other UNET nodes. I had to write UDP and ICMP, and do a major
rewrite on TCP.

When BSD got networking, it was initially intended to talk only over
Ethernet, to other BSD implementations. When 4.3BSD came out, it would
only talk to some other implementations during alternate 4 hour
intervals. I had to fix the sequence number arithmetic, which wrapped
incorrectly.

And finally, it all worked. For a few years, it was said of the TCP/IP
Internet that it took "too many PhDs per packet." One day, on the
Stanford campus, I saw a big guy with a tool belt carrying an Ethernet
bridge (a sizable box in those days) under his arm, and thought, this
is finally a working technology.

[1] https://archive.org/details/bitsavers_3Com3ComUN_1019199/pag...
[2] https://eecs.engin.umich.edu/stories/remembering-alum-david-...


-- 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0Tmvv5jJKs Epik Mellon Podcast
Dave T?ht CSO, LibreQos


From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Fri Mar  8 17:31:09 2024
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 17:31:09 -0800
Subject: [ih] Fwd:  Some Berkeley Unix history - too many PHDs per packet
References: <2016897332.2275446.1709935422281@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <D5360937-ED4C-4A57-9084-30D8444DFF74@icloud.com>

Forwarded for Barbara

> On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 01:34:11 PM PST, Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com> wrote: 
> 
> 
> Hope the list doesn't get too many copies of this message as I try various ways.  I am having trouble again with my posts.  It is interesting I don't seem to have a problem with a different mailing list on Google groups.   I am trimming the original message too.  
> 
> 
> ******************
> 
> Didn't you only need a license if you wanted source code?   I  remember having to wait quite some time for all that to happen when I was at SRI. I was able to figure a bug once we got the code.  We made a guess about header processing that wasn't right since we didn't know about the internals. I will admit my memory feels foggy on this.
> 
> barbara
> 
> On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 02:55:56 AM PST, Dave Taht via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: 
> 
> 
> From john nagle here, a good article, and a long and enjoyable thread:
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39630457
> 
> ...
> 
> Ford Aerospace was one of the first commercial sites of BSD Unix. The
> licensing was complicated. We had to buy Unix 32V from AT&T first.
> That transaction got on the path for major corporate documents. AT&T
> and Ford Motor had a cross-licensing agreement. Eventually, I got a
> no-cost license agreement embossed with the corporate seals of both
> the Ford Motor Company and the American Telephone and Telegraph
> Corporation. Made a copy and taped it onto a VAX. Then I drove up to
> Berkeley from Palo Alto and Bill Joy gave me a BSD tape.
> 
> **********Message cut- barbara********



From b_a_denny at yahoo.com  Fri Mar  8 18:43:08 2024
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2024 02:43:08 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] Fwd: Some Berkeley Unix history - too many PHDs per packet
In-Reply-To: <D5360937-ED4C-4A57-9084-30D8444DFF74@icloud.com>
References: <2016897332.2275446.1709935422281@mail.yahoo.com>
 <D5360937-ED4C-4A57-9084-30D8444DFF74@icloud.com>
Message-ID: <1470030559.2351780.1709952188673@mail.yahoo.com>

 I should clarify buy a system V license from AT&T first.
barbara
    On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 05:31:33 PM PST, Greg Skinner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:  
 
 Forwarded for Barbara

> On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 01:34:11 PM PST, Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com> wrote: 
> 
> 
> Hope the list doesn't get too many copies of this message as I try various ways.? I am having trouble again with my posts.? It is interesting I don't seem to have a problem with a different mailing list on Google groups.? I am trimming the original message too.? 
> 
> 
> ******************
> 
> Didn't you only need a license if you wanted source code?? I? remember having to wait quite some time for all that to happen when I was at SRI. I was able to figure a bug once we got the code.? We made a guess about header processing that wasn't right since we didn't know about the internals. I will admit my memory feels foggy on this.
> 
> barbara
> 
> On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 02:55:56 AM PST, Dave Taht via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: 
> 
> 
> From john nagle here, a good article, and a long and enjoyable thread:
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39630457
> 
> ...
> 
> Ford Aerospace was one of the first commercial sites of BSD Unix. The
> licensing was complicated. We had to buy Unix 32V from AT&T first.
> That transaction got on the path for major corporate documents. AT&T
> and Ford Motor had a cross-licensing agreement. Eventually, I got a
> no-cost license agreement embossed with the corporate seals of both
> the Ford Motor Company and the American Telephone and Telegraph
> Corporation. Made a copy and taped it onto a VAX. Then I drove up to
> Berkeley from Palo Alto and Bill Joy gave me a BSD tape.
> 
> **********Message cut- barbara********

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

From clemc at ccc.com  Fri Mar  8 19:05:00 2024
From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole)
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 22:05:00 -0500
Subject: [ih] Fwd: Some Berkeley Unix history - too many PHDs per packet
In-Reply-To: <1470030559.2351780.1709952188673@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <2016897332.2275446.1709935422281@mail.yahoo.com>
 <D5360937-ED4C-4A57-9084-30D8444DFF74@icloud.com>
 <1470030559.2351780.1709952188673@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAC20D2MHQSvCWS7dC=BuZxN4o3DGA9S-pB-hTTTX-zfo3VjnTw@mail.gmail.com>

This is really a discussion for COFF not IH list but I?ll reply since it
came up.  By the time if Sys v vendors could sell you a binary use license
- DEC, IBM, Masscomp, Sun, HP, etc.  If you had purchased a 3B2 or 3B20
from ATT it came with a binary license. But ATT only sold source licenses
and second to N cpu licenses.

Coming back to the post.  FWIW I (via Tektronix) was 3Com?s first
customer.  Somewhere in my archives is the shipping bag with the address
label and the postal marking of the 32nd of December.  Bob had some sort
requirement with his VCs that they ship before the end of the year. I got
the tape a few days later so we could start to debug our VMS TCP stack we
were writing.



Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual


On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 9:44?PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

>  I should clarify buy a system V license from AT&T first.
> barbara
>     On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 05:31:33 PM PST, Greg Skinner via
> Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>  Forwarded for Barbara
>
> > On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 01:34:11 PM PST, Barbara Denny <
> b_a_denny at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hope the list doesn't get too many copies of this message as I try
> various ways.  I am having trouble again with my posts.  It is interesting
> I don't seem to have a problem with a different mailing list on Google
> groups.  I am trimming the original message too.
> >
> >
> > ******************
> >
> > Didn't you only need a license if you wanted source code?  I  remember
> having to wait quite some time for all that to happen when I was at SRI. I
> was able to figure a bug once we got the code.  We made a guess about
> header processing that wasn't right since we didn't know about the
> internals. I will admit my memory feels foggy on this.
> >
> > barbara
> >
> > On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 02:55:56 AM PST, Dave Taht via
> Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From john nagle here, a good article, and a long and enjoyable thread:
> > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39630457
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Ford Aerospace was one of the first commercial sites of BSD Unix. The
> > licensing was complicated. We had to buy Unix 32V from AT&T first.
> > That transaction got on the path for major corporate documents. AT&T
> > and Ford Motor had a cross-licensing agreement. Eventually, I got a
> > no-cost license agreement embossed with the corporate seals of both
> > the Ford Motor Company and the American Telephone and Telegraph
> > Corporation. Made a copy and taped it onto a VAX. Then I drove up to
> > Berkeley from Palo Alto and Bill Joy gave me a BSD tape.
> >
> > **********Message cut- barbara********
>
> --
> 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  Fri Mar  8 19:32:26 2024
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 19:32:26 -0800
Subject: [ih] Fwd: Some Berkeley Unix history - too many PHDs per packet
In-Reply-To: <CAC20D2MHQSvCWS7dC=BuZxN4o3DGA9S-pB-hTTTX-zfo3VjnTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2016897332.2275446.1709935422281@mail.yahoo.com>
 <D5360937-ED4C-4A57-9084-30D8444DFF74@icloud.com>
 <1470030559.2351780.1709952188673@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAC20D2MHQSvCWS7dC=BuZxN4o3DGA9S-pB-hTTTX-zfo3VjnTw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3df08953-f3fd-47bb-a1ab-2cb4f4a9d858@3kitty.org>

Some Internet-related Unix history...

In 1977 I joined BBN and my first job was to write the first TCP for 
Unix, using Jim Mathis' TCP implementation for MOS as a resource. The 
implementation was done on a PDP-11/40 owned by ARPA, and IIRC ARPA took 
care of the Unix licensing issues.

However, to implement TCP required some kernel changes, so a bigger 
issue was access to the OS source code.? Again IIRC, getting the source 
code was considered "dangerous" to programmers, who feared that viewing 
the Unix source code might "taint" them for some future employer who 
might fear action by ATT to defend their property rights in Unix design 
and coding. ? If you had worked with Unix source code, a company might 
not be willing to hire you.

The source code was somewhat opaque.? With the government's help, we 
even did a road trip to Bell Labs and met with the Unix gurus (can't 
remember if it was Kernighan or Ritchie).? We also somehow got a copy of 
the paper describing the Unix architecture from Woolongong (who were not 
network accessible at the time).

I never heard how that source code issue was resolved but I suspect it 
was addressed when ARPA managed the BSD projects.? When I worked on Unix 
TCP, there had already been an NCP implemented to attach Unix machines 
to Arpanet.? Perhaps that's where the programmer fears had emerged.

Jack Haverty

On 3/8/24 19:05, Clem Cole via Internet-history wrote:
> This is really a discussion for COFF not IH list but I?ll reply since it
> came up.  By the time if Sys v vendors could sell you a binary use license
> - DEC, IBM, Masscomp, Sun, HP, etc.  If you had purchased a 3B2 or 3B20
> from ATT it came with a binary license. But ATT only sold source licenses
> and second to N cpu licenses.
>
> Coming back to the post.  FWIW I (via Tektronix) was 3Com?s first
> customer.  Somewhere in my archives is the shipping bag with the address
> label and the postal marking of the 32nd of December.  Bob had some sort
> requirement with his VCs that they ship before the end of the year. I got
> the tape a few days later so we could start to debug our VMS TCP stack we
> were writing.
>
>
>
> Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 9:44?PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>>   I should clarify buy a system V license from AT&T first.
>> barbara
>>      On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 05:31:33 PM PST, Greg Skinner via
>> Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>  wrote:
>>
>>   Forwarded for Barbara
>>
>>> On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 01:34:11 PM PST, Barbara Denny <
>> b_a_denny at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hope the list doesn't get too many copies of this message as I try
>> various ways.  I am having trouble again with my posts.  It is interesting
>> I don't seem to have a problem with a different mailing list on Google
>> groups.  I am trimming the original message too.
>>>
>>> ******************
>>>
>>> Didn't you only need a license if you wanted source code?  I  remember
>> having to wait quite some time for all that to happen when I was at SRI. I
>> was able to figure a bug once we got the code.  We made a guess about
>> header processing that wasn't right since we didn't know about the
>> internals. I will admit my memory feels foggy on this.
>>> barbara
>>>
>>> On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 02:55:56 AM PST, Dave Taht via
>> Internet-history<internet-history at elists.isoc.org>  wrote:
>>>
>>>  From john nagle here, a good article, and a long and enjoyable thread:
>>> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39630457
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Ford Aerospace was one of the first commercial sites of BSD Unix. The
>>> licensing was complicated. We had to buy Unix 32V from AT&T first.
>>> That transaction got on the path for major corporate documents. AT&T
>>> and Ford Motor had a cross-licensing agreement. Eventually, I got a
>>> no-cost license agreement embossed with the corporate seals of both
>>> the Ford Motor Company and the American Telephone and Telegraph
>>> Corporation. Made a copy and taped it onto a VAX. Then I drove up to
>>> Berkeley from Palo Alto and Bill Joy gave me a BSD tape.
>>>
>>> **********Message cut- barbara********
>> --
>> 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
>>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240308/78893f24/attachment.asc>

From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Fri Mar  8 20:32:08 2024
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 20:32:08 -0800
Subject: [ih] Fwd:  Some Berkeley Unix history - too many PHDs per packet
References: <606871377.2352922.1709955781555@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <84A5C4DC-E9E7-46F7-AA6C-AADD64ACD305@icloud.com>

Forwarded for Barbara

> I will admit your response is confusing me.  My post only concerns what I think I remember as a  problem in getting BSD UNIX, in particular the source code. Nothing about getting something  we wanted to use on a hardware platform from one of the commercial vendors.  We needed the BSD source but got hung up.
> 
> barbara
> 
> 
> On Friday, March 8, 2024 at 07:05:12 PM PST, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote: 
> 
> 
> This is really a discussion for COFF not IH list but I?ll reply since it came up.  By the time if Sys v vendors could sell you a binary use license - DEC, IBM, Masscomp, Sun, HP, etc.  If you had purchased a 3B2 or 3B20 from ATT it came with a binary license. But ATT only sold source licenses and second to N cpu licenses.  
> 
> Coming back to the post.  FWIW I (via Tektronix) was 3Com?s first customer.  Somewhere in my archives is the shipping bag with the address label and the postal marking of the 32nd of December.  Bob had some sort requirement with his VCs that they ship before the end of the year. I got the tape a few days later so we could start to debug our VMS TCP stack we were writing.  
> 
> 
> Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual
> 
> *** More cuts -  Barbara
> 
> 



From clemc at ccc.com  Sat Mar  9 11:52:28 2024
From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole)
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2024 14:52:28 -0500
Subject: [ih] Fwd: Some Berkeley Unix history - too many PHDs per packet
In-Reply-To: <84A5C4DC-E9E7-46F7-AA6C-AADD64ACD305@icloud.com>
References: <606871377.2352922.1709955781555@mail.yahoo.com>
 <84A5C4DC-E9E7-46F7-AA6C-AADD64ACD305@icloud.com>
Message-ID: <CAC20D2Ox7YLVuiQ5j8GTj=EwGd-CeKcxYqdZazo8SEJZFMLujw@mail.gmail.com>

This is UNIX history, but since the Internet's history and Unix history are
so intertwined, I'm going to risk the wrath of the IH moderators to try to
explain, as I was one of the folks who was at the table in those the times
and participated in my small way in both events: the birth of the Internet
and the spreading of the UNIX IP.

More details can be found in a paper I did a few years ago:
https://technique-societe.cnam.fr/colloque-international-unix-en-france-et-aux-etats-unis-innovation-diffusion-et-appropriation--945215.kjsp
[If you cannot find it and are interested send me email off list and I'll
forward it].

And ... if people want to continue this discussion -- please, please, move
it to the more appropriate COFF mailing list:
https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff - which I have CC'ed in
this reply.


On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 11:32?PM Greg Skinner via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Forwarded for Barbara
>
> > I will admit your response is confusing me.  My post only concerns what
> I think I remember as a  problem in getting BSD UNIX, in particular the
> source code. Nothing about getting something  we wanted to use on a
> hardware platform from one of the commercial vendors.  We needed the BSD
> source but got hung up.
>

Let me see if I can explain better ...

Assuming you were running BSD UNIX on a Vax, your team would have needed
two things:

   - an AT&T License for 32/V [Research Version 7 -- port to a Vax/780 at
   AT&T] and a
   - a license for BSD 3, later 4, then 4.1, *etc*., from the Regents of
   the University of CA.

The first license gave your team core a few rights from AT&T:

   1.  the right to run UNIX binaries on a single CPU (which was named in
   your license)
   2. the right to look at and modify the sources,
   3. the right the create derivative works from the AT&T IP, and
   4. the right to exchange your derivative works with others people that
   held a similar license from AT&T.

[AT&T had been forced to allow this access (license) to their IP under the
rules of the 1956 consent decree - see paper for more details, but
remember, as part of the consent decree allow it to have a legal monopoly
on the phone system, AT&T had to make its IP available to the US Gov --
which I'm guessing the crux of Barbara's question/observation].

For not-for-profits (University/Research), a small fee was allowed to be
charged (order of 1-2 hundred $s) to process the paperwork and copy the mag
tape. But their IP came without any warranty, and you had to hold AT&T
harmless if you used it. In those days, we referred to this as *the UNIX IP
was abandoned on your doorstep.*   BTW: This license allowed the research
sites to move AT&T derivative work (binaries) within their site freely.
Still, if you look at the license carefully, most had a restriction
(often/usually ignored at the universities) that the sources were supposed
to only be available on the original CPU named in their specific license.

Thus, if you were a University license, no fees were charged to run the
AT&T IP on other CPUs --> however, the licensees were not allowed to use it
for "commercial" users at the University [BTW: this clause was often
ignored, although a group of us at CMU hackers in the late 1970s famously
went on strike until the Unversity obtained at least one commercial
license].  The agreement was that a single CPU should be officially bound
for all commercial use for that institution.  I am aware that Case-Western
got a similar license soon after CMU did (their folks found out about
the CMU strike/license).  But I do not know if MIT, Standford, or UCB
officials came clean on that part and paid for a commercial license
(depending on the type of license, its cost was the order of $20K-25K for
the first CPU and an order of $7K-10K for each CPU afterward - each of
these "additional cpu' could also have the sources - but named in an
appendix for each license with AT&T).   I believe that some of the larger
state schools like Penn State, Rutgers, Purdue, and UW started to follow
that practice by the time Unix started to spread around each campus.

That said, a different license for UNIX-based IP could be granted by the
Regents of the University of CA and managed by its  'Industrial
Laison's Office" at UCB (the 'IOL' - the same folks that brought licenses
for tools like SPICE, SPLICE, MOTIS,* et al*). This license gave the holder
the right to examine and use the UCB's derivative works on anything as long
as you acknowledged that you got that from UCB and held the
Regents blameless [we often called this the 'dead-fish license' -- *you
could make a chip, make a computer, or even wrap dead-fish in it.*  But you
had to say you started with something from the Regents, but they were not
to be blamed for what you did with it].

The Regents were exercising rights 3 and 4 from AT&T. Thus, a team who
wanted to obtain the Berkeley Software Distribution for UNIX (*a.k.a*. BSD)
needed to demonstrate that they held the appropriate license from AT&T
[send a copy of the signature page from your license to the ILO] before UCB
would release the bits. They also had a small processing fee to the IOL in
the order of $1K.   [The original BSD is unnumbered, although most refer to
it today as 1BSD to differentiate it from later BSD releases for UNIX].

Before I go on, in those times, the standard way we operated was that you
needed to have a copy of someone else's signature page to share things. In
what would later become USENIX (truth here - I'm an ex-president of the
same), you could only get invited and come to a conference if you were
licensed from AT&T. That was not a big deal. We all knew each other.
FWIW: at different times in my career, I have had a hanging file in a
cabinet with a copy of the number of these pages from different folks, with
whom I would share mag tapes (remember this is pre-Internet, and many of
the folks using UNIX were not part of the ARPAnet).

However, the song has other verses that make this a little confusing.

If your team obtained a* commercial use license* from AT&T, they could
further obtain a *commercial redistribution license*.  This was initially
granted for the Research Seventh Edition. It was later rewritten (with the
business terms changing each time) for what would eventually be called
System III[1], and then the different System V releases.   The price of the
redistribution license for V7 was $150K, plus a sliding scale per CPU you
ran the AT&T IP, depending on the number of CPUs you needed. With this, the
single CPU for the source restriction was removed.

So ... if you had a redistribution license, you could also get a license
from the Regents, and as long as you obeyed their rules, you could sell a
copy of UNIX to run on any licensed target.  Traditionally, hardware is
part of the same purchase when purchased from a firm like DEC, IBM,
Masscomp,* etc*. However, separate SW licenses were sold via firms such as
Microsoft and Mt. Xinu. The purchaser of *a binary license* from one of
those firms did not have the right to do anything but use the AT&T
derivative work.  If your team had a binary licensee, you could not obtain
any of the BSD distributions until the so-called 'NET2" BSD release [and
I'm going to ignore the whole AT&T/BSDi/Regents case here as it is not
relevant to Barbara's question/comment].

So the question is, how did a DoD contractor, be it BBN, Ford Aerospace,
SRI, etc., originally get access to UNIX IP? Universities and traditional
research teams could get a research license.   Commercial firms like DEC
needed a commercial licensee. Folks with DoD contracts were in a hazy
area.    The original v5 commercial licensee was written for Rand, a DoD
contractor.   However, as discussed here in the IH mailing list and
elsewhere, some places like BBN had access to the core UNIX IP as part of
their DoD contracts. I believe Ford Aerospace was working with AT&T
together as part of another US Gov project - which is how UNIX got there
originally (Ford Aero could use it for that project, but not the folks at
Ford Motors, for instance].

The point is, if you access the *IP indirectly* such as that, then
your site probably did not have a negotiated license with a signature page
to send to someone.

@Barbara, I can not say for sure, but if this was either a PDP-11 or a VAX
and you wanted one of the eBSDs, I guess/suspect that maybe your team was
dealing with an indirect path to AT&T licensing -- your site license might
have come from a US Gov contract, not directly. So trying to get a BSD tape
directly from the IOL might have been more difficult without a signature
page.

So, rolling back to the original.  You get access to BSD sources, but you
had to demonstrate to the IOL folks in UCB's Cory Hall that you were
legally allowed access to the AT&T IP in source code form.  That
demonstration was traditionally fulfilled with a xerographic copy of the
signature page for your institution, which the IOL kept on file.   That
said, if you had legal access to the AT&T IP by indirect means, I do not
know how the IOL completed that check or what they needed to protect the
Regents.

Clem




1.] What would be called a System from a marketing standpoint was
originally developed as PWB 3.0.   This was the system a number of firms,
including my own, were discussing with AT&T at the famous meetings at
'Ricky's Hyatt' during the price (re)negotiations after the original V7
redistribution license.


From david.sitman at gmail.com  Fri Mar 15 03:19:24 2024
From: david.sitman at gmail.com (David Sitman)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:19:24 +0200
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
Message-ID: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>

In my talk at the EARN 40th Anniversary Conference in Athens in April I
would like to speculate a bit about what the world would be like today if
OSI had won the "Protocol Wars".
In 1986, it was a foregone conclusion that EARN would migrate to OSI in the
near future. However, when I began my international activity in 1991, OSI
was discussed as a promise that had gone largely unfulfilled and EARN
members were actively supporting TCP/IP networks. It seemed obvious why
TCP/IP had prevailed.
Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space and
security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a meme?
I would be very grateful for any thoughts about this.

Thanks,
David Sitman


From agmalis at gmail.com  Fri Mar 15 06:06:12 2024
From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:06:12 -0400
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAA=duU2aP_CMqry29EcRA8VMDBNbqL-nbo3gG7xEYs+twuV0YA@mail.gmail.com>

Back in the day, while I was at BBN, I worked on the GOSIP specs in
addition to my work on the ARPAnet and TCP/IP, so I have some familiarity
with the topic. INMO, I can imagine an alternate reality where if TCP/IP
hadn't taken off as it did for whatever reason, then OSI would have taken
its place, but things would have just been delayed. There's no reason why,
if the specs had been made freely available and with the same effort put
into interoperability testing, congestion control, and such that happened
for TCP/IP, that OSI IP and TP4 wouldn't eventually have worked as well.

Cheers,
Andy


On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 6:19?AM David Sitman via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> In my talk at the EARN 40th Anniversary Conference in Athens in April I
> would like to speculate a bit about what the world would be like today if
> OSI had won the "Protocol Wars".
> In 1986, it was a foregone conclusion that EARN would migrate to OSI in the
> near future. However, when I began my international activity in 1991, OSI
> was discussed as a promise that had gone largely unfulfilled and EARN
> members were actively supporting TCP/IP networks. It seemed obvious why
> TCP/IP had prevailed.
> Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
> networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space and
> security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a
> meme?
> I would be very grateful for any thoughts about this.
>
> Thanks,
> David Sitman
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From ocl at gih.com  Fri Mar 15 06:34:15 2024
From: ocl at gih.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=C3=A9pin-Leblond?=)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:34:15 +0000
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d3af7405-4ac2-4d25-86ff-71d59753989a@gih.com>



On 15/03/2024 10:19, David Sitman via Internet-history wrote:
> Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
> networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space and
> security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a meme?

Having actually used X.3, X.21, X.25, X.400, X.500... sorry, let me 
re-phrase this... having actually struggled with the aforementioned X. 
based services and also programmed stacks according to these protocols a 
loooong time ago, my prediction of a Green Internet based on computing 
networking with OSI would be resumed as this:




Kindest regards,

Olivier







From ocl at gih.com  Fri Mar 15 06:36:05 2024
From: ocl at gih.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=C3=A9pin-Leblond?=)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:36:05 +0000
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <d3af7405-4ac2-4d25-86ff-71d59753989a@gih.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d3af7405-4ac2-4d25-86ff-71d59753989a@gih.com>
Message-ID: <543a4c1f-3a9f-48ef-b061-072ba116d6cd@gih.com>



On 15/03/2024 13:34, Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond via Internet-history wrote:
>
>
> On 15/03/2024 10:19, David Sitman via Internet-history wrote:
>> Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
>> networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address 
>> space and
>> security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become 
>> a meme?
>
> Having actually used X.3, X.21, X.25, X.400, X.500... sorry, let me 
> re-phrase this... having actually struggled with the aforementioned X. 
> based services and also programmed stacks according to these protocols 
> a loooong time ago, my prediction of a Green Internet based on 
> computing networking with OSI would be resumed as this:
>
>
>

And as the list stripped pictures, here's a link: 
https://www.bing.com/images/create/a-bright-green-sneaker-with-osi-logo-on-it/1-65f44c2966d7477884c76d7914be2bf6?id=oiufq8FtuQ9dPQT%2f2ETwVA%3d%3d&view=detailv2&idpp=genimg&idpclose=1&thId=OIG3.IQig2FDd_t3cKvUjIr8X&frame=sydedg&FORM=SYDBIC

Best,

Olivier

From vgcerf at gmail.com  Fri Mar 15 06:40:09 2024
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:40:09 -0400
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <543a4c1f-3a9f-48ef-b061-072ba116d6cd@gih.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d3af7405-4ac2-4d25-86ff-71d59753989a@gih.com>
 <543a4c1f-3a9f-48ef-b061-072ba116d6cd@gih.com>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_XtrGjmDL2NuQV_29n-1zgC8aiciFVrzYz2FOpXAN4B4Q@mail.gmail.com>

SNEAKERNET!!!!



On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 9:36?AM Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond via
Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 15/03/2024 13:34, Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond via Internet-history wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 15/03/2024 10:19, David Sitman via Internet-history wrote:
> >> Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
> >> networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address
> >> space and
> >> security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become
> >> a meme?
> >
> > Having actually used X.3, X.21, X.25, X.400, X.500... sorry, let me
> > re-phrase this... having actually struggled with the aforementioned X.
> > based services and also programmed stacks according to these protocols
> > a loooong time ago, my prediction of a Green Internet based on
> > computing networking with OSI would be resumed as this:
> >
> >
> >
>
> And as the list stripped pictures, here's a link:
>
> https://www.bing.com/images/create/a-bright-green-sneaker-with-osi-logo-on-it/1-65f44c2966d7477884c76d7914be2bf6?id=oiufq8FtuQ9dPQT%2f2ETwVA%3d%3d&view=detailv2&idpp=genimg&idpclose=1&thId=OIG3.IQig2FDd_t3cKvUjIr8X&frame=sydedg&FORM=SYDBIC
>
> Best,
>
> Olivier
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Fri Mar 15 06:52:38 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:52:38 -0400
Subject: [ih] Fwd:  OSI and alternate reality
References: <45053942-5262-455E-8178-2929826A7476@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <3EB3770B-7AA3-4E72-96B8-B7414629CD3A@comcast.net>

Sorry forgot to hit reply-all.


> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
> Date: March 15, 2024 at 09:45:07 EDT
> To: Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> 
> These were all crap.  X.25/X.75/X.29 were all trying to preserve the PTT monopoly.
> 
> The PTTs never got (and still don?t) that this was all about dynamic resource allocation, not static allocation.
> 
> X.400 was far too complex.  X.500 was trying to be the white pages and the yellow pages, when all that was necessary was a simple protocol that mapped application names to network addresses.
> 
> These were all illustrate how the PTTs didn?t get what was going on.
> 
> The mistake OSI made was inviting to do the work jointly with CCITT (ITU). However, given that there was no telecom deregulation even being talked about in Europe the Europeans felt they had no choice, especially given the interference they had already shown with EIN and EURONET.
> 
> The Europeans proved to be their own best enemy.
> 
> Take care,
> John
> 
>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 09:34, Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 15/03/2024 10:19, David Sitman via Internet-history wrote:
>>> Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
>>> networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space and
>>> security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a meme?
>> 
>> Having actually used X.3, X.21, X.25, X.400, X.500... sorry, let me re-phrase this... having actually struggled with the aforementioned X. based services and also programmed stacks according to these protocols a loooong time ago, my prediction of a Green Internet based on computing networking with OSI would be resumed as this:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Kindest regards,
>> 
>> Olivier
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> 



From vgcerf at gmail.com  Fri Mar 15 06:54:10 2024
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:54:10 -0400
Subject: [ih] Fwd: OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <3EB3770B-7AA3-4E72-96B8-B7414629CD3A@comcast.net>
References: <45053942-5262-455E-8178-2929826A7476@comcast.net>
 <3EB3770B-7AA3-4E72-96B8-B7414629CD3A@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_VQi6L9J6L5_C_-6QQiUGt_DRExVK+v1Jnqe=f_Z8T6OQ@mail.gmail.com>

that's a pretty good summary, John.
v


On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 9:53?AM John Day via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Sorry forgot to hit reply-all.
>
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
> > Subject: Re: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
> > Date: March 15, 2024 at 09:45:07 EDT
> > To: Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> >
> > These were all crap.  X.25/X.75/X.29 were all trying to preserve the PTT
> monopoly.
> >
> > The PTTs never got (and still don?t) that this was all about dynamic
> resource allocation, not static allocation.
> >
> > X.400 was far too complex.  X.500 was trying to be the white pages and
> the yellow pages, when all that was necessary was a simple protocol that
> mapped application names to network addresses.
> >
> > These were all illustrate how the PTTs didn?t get what was going on.
> >
> > The mistake OSI made was inviting to do the work jointly with CCITT
> (ITU). However, given that there was no telecom deregulation even being
> talked about in Europe the Europeans felt they had no choice, especially
> given the interference they had already shown with EIN and EURONET.
> >
> > The Europeans proved to be their own best enemy.
> >
> > Take care,
> > John
> >
> >> On Mar 15, 2024, at 09:34, Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond via
> Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 15/03/2024 10:19, David Sitman via Internet-history wrote:
> >>> Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
> >>> networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address
> space and
> >>> security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a
> meme?
> >>
> >> Having actually used X.3, X.21, X.25, X.400, X.500... sorry, let me
> re-phrase this... having actually struggled with the aforementioned X.
> based services and also programmed stacks according to these protocols a
> loooong time ago, my prediction of a Green Internet based on computing
> networking with OSI would be resumed as this:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Kindest regards,
> >>
> >> Olivier
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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 odlyzko at umn.edu  Fri Mar 15 07:19:30 2024
From: odlyzko at umn.edu (odlyzko at umn.edu)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:19:30 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 52, Issue 4
In-Reply-To: <mailman.106.1710510788.29976.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
References: <mailman.106.1710510788.29976.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2403150909290.10425@math-vinh511.math.umn.edu>

Yes, PTTs were definitely trying to preserve their monopolies.
But I am pretty sure that if the Internet had not come out
when it did, what the public sees and does would have turned
out pretty much the same, but delayed a couple of years.
The tide of digital communication was rising (as it has been
rising for hundreds of years), as I documented in my 2000
manuscript "The history of communications and its implications
for the Internet,"

     https://www-users.cse.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/history.communications0.pdf

and could not be restrained for long.

Andrew





> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:52:38 -0400
> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
> To: Vint Cerf via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> Subject: [ih] Fwd:  OSI and alternate reality
> Message-ID: <3EB3770B-7AA3-4E72-96B8-B7414629CD3A at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=utf-8
>
> Sorry forgot to hit reply-all.
>
>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
>> Subject: Re: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
>> Date: March 15, 2024 at 09:45:07 EDT
>> To: Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
>>
>> These were all crap.  X.25/X.75/X.29 were all trying to preserve the PTT monopoly.
>>
>> The PTTs never got (and still don?t) that this was all about dynamic resource allocation, not static allocation.
>>
>> X.400 was far too complex.  X.500 was trying to be the white pages and the yellow pages, when all that was necessary was a simple protocol that mapped application names to network addresses.
>>
>> These were all illustrate how the PTTs didn?t get what was going on.
>>
>> The mistake OSI made was inviting to do the work jointly with CCITT (ITU). However, given that there was no telecom deregulation even being talked about in Europe the Europeans felt they had no choice, especially given the interference they had already shown with EIN and EURONET.
>>
>> The Europeans proved to be their own best enemy.
>>
>> Take care,
>> John
>>
>>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 09:34, Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15/03/2024 10:19, David Sitman via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
>>>> networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space and
>>>> security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a meme?
>>>
>>> Having actually used X.3, X.21, X.25, X.400, X.500... sorry, let me re-phrase this... having actually struggled with the aforementioned X. based services and also programmed stacks according to these protocols a loooong time ago, my prediction of a Green Internet based on computing networking with OSI would be resumed as this:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kindest regards,
>>>
>>> Olivier
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 52, Issue 4
> ***********************************************
>


From julf at Julf.com  Fri Mar 15 07:34:52 2024
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:34:52 +0100
Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 52, Issue 4
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2403150909290.10425@math-vinh511.math.umn.edu>
References: <mailman.106.1710510788.29976.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2403150909290.10425@math-vinh511.math.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <8cbb4754-06b4-413e-a598-6f20bbe8ddfd@Julf.com>

On 15/03/2024 15:19, Andrew Odlyzko via Internet-history wrote:

> Yes, PTTs were definitely trying to preserve their monopolies.
> But I am pretty sure that if the Internet had not come out
> when it did, what the public sees and does would have turned
> out pretty much the same, but delayed a couple of years.

I think I have to disagree. The Internet was a success because
it was open-ended, and from the start assumed that people would
do all sorts of unexpected stuff on top of the protocols, while
the OSI/CCITT people tried to come up with all the ways to
use the net, and then define (by committee) complicated
protocols for each application.

	Julf



From clemc at ccc.com  Fri Mar 15 07:36:03 2024
From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:36:03 -0400
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU2aP_CMqry29EcRA8VMDBNbqL-nbo3gG7xEYs+twuV0YA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA=duU2aP_CMqry29EcRA8VMDBNbqL-nbo3gG7xEYs+twuV0YA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAC20D2OLFSXh0ZroZw4n=8VYsiGFGLgwfb1WN3Oc5QbCJpPmiA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 9:06?AM Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Back in the day, while I was at BBN, I worked on the GOSIP specs in
> addition to my work on the ARPAnet and TCP/IP, so I have some familiarity
> with the topic.

I was running Datacom for Masscomp.  We were trying to sell realtime
systems to Aerospace, Automotive and of course DoD.
So, I, too, took a long and hard familiarity with GOSIP and MAP.  And
because of the EU  (can you Airbus in particular) I learned to loath
X.* family (25, 3, 28, 21  and the directory cruft 400, 500).

We delivered an X.25 stack and X.3 pad for our European customers, and we
also provided some X.400 support for our mailers.
It was a sales check box.   Funny thing, little of it was actually sold or
used, best I could tell.



> INMO, I can imagine an alternate reality where if TCP/IP
> hadn't taken off as it did for whatever reason, then OSI would have taken
> its place, but things would have just been delayed.
>
We differ in our experience/view on this. I see essentially two issues,
both related to control/MetCalfe's Law.

To me, what made the Internet a success (and a vast improvement over
previous networks like ARPAnet) was based on what I like to call Dave
Clark's revelation [the storing being in the mid-1970s we did something
silly at CMU that caused Clark and company at MIT to have to reset
everything].  Dave is believed to have said something on the order of why
we are being affected by those numskulls in Pittsburgh.

My simple point is that IP was a* distribution network of networks, with
ease of communication, cooperation, and sharing as the north star but
designed so that what was on my network could not(should) negatively affect
what was on your network *[Morris worm discounted].

ISO was being pushed by the PTT and firms like DEC, who saw *central
control and being able to sell more of my services in my 'walled garden' as
the high order bit?not cooperation and sharing*. Manufacturing firms with a
closed factory floor saw no issue with this thinking - which, of course, is
why MAP was fine with them. There is no way Boeing's factory is going to be
connected to anything else.  But ... the walled garden thinking is in
direct violation of Metacalf's observation of value, which relies on
sharing and desire to communicate/share.

The question you can ask is, would the pressures of Metacalf's law have
started to bring some of those walls down? We look at the current market
to find our answer by examining what occurred with the cell and cable TV
industries.   We still have the same behavior -- be on my network, not
the other guys.

IMO: what would have happened in N different networks like we have today
with cell, each trying to compete with who had the better services and
offers?  Large enough forms would have connected to multiple of them.  You
would have ended up with content aggregators like we do with TV.

My few cents ... it would have been bleak (and confusing).
Clem


From bpurvy at gmail.com  Fri Mar 15 08:21:14 2024
From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 08:21:14 -0700
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU2aP_CMqry29EcRA8VMDBNbqL-nbo3gG7xEYs+twuV0YA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA=duU2aP_CMqry29EcRA8VMDBNbqL-nbo3gG7xEYs+twuV0YA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFq6nVGcaAhMEOT6i3gp+3eKCx0LqFbybrOJWhiDz8LzN+iZDw@mail.gmail.com>

> if the specs had been made freely available and with the same effort put
into interoperability testing

That is quite an IF. "If OSi hadn't been so bureaucratic", is what you're
saying.

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 6:06?AM Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Back in the day, while I was at BBN, I worked on the GOSIP specs in
> addition to my work on the ARPAnet and TCP/IP, so I have some familiarity
> with the topic. INMO, I can imagine an alternate reality where if TCP/IP
> hadn't taken off as it did for whatever reason, then OSI would have taken
> its place, but things would have just been delayed. There's no reason why,
> if the specs had been made freely available and with the same effort put
> into interoperability testing, congestion control, and such that happened
> for TCP/IP, that OSI IP and TP4 wouldn't eventually have worked as well.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 6:19?AM David Sitman via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> > In my talk at the EARN 40th Anniversary Conference in Athens in April I
> > would like to speculate a bit about what the world would be like today if
> > OSI had won the "Protocol Wars".
> > In 1986, it was a foregone conclusion that EARN would migrate to OSI in
> the
> > near future. However, when I began my international activity in 1991, OSI
> > was discussed as a promise that had gone largely unfulfilled and EARN
> > members were actively supporting TCP/IP networks. It seemed obvious why
> > TCP/IP had prevailed.
> > Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
> > networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space
> and
> > security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a
> > meme?
> > I would be very grateful for any thoughts about this.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David Sitman
> > --
> > 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 agmalis at gmail.com  Fri Mar 15 08:39:42 2024
From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:39:42 -0400
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <CAFq6nVGcaAhMEOT6i3gp+3eKCx0LqFbybrOJWhiDz8LzN+iZDw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA=duU2aP_CMqry29EcRA8VMDBNbqL-nbo3gG7xEYs+twuV0YA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFq6nVGcaAhMEOT6i3gp+3eKCx0LqFbybrOJWhiDz8LzN+iZDw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAA=duU0B2D=sksv2utkvfAHGjStmYYM-fzXC_vnzx5Jp=8yT6w@mail.gmail.com>

Bob,

>> if the specs had been made freely available and with the same effort put
>> into interoperability testing

> That is quite an IF. "If OSi hadn't been so bureaucratic", is what you're
saying.

Yup. From a purely technical standpoint, without any of the
bureaucratic barriers ISO IP and TP4 could have been the basis for the
Internet. And we wouldn't be having our current issues with IPv4 to v6
transition.

Cheers,
Andy



On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 11:21?AM Bob Purvy <bpurvy at gmail.com> wrote:

> > if the specs had been made freely available and with the same effort put
> into interoperability testing
>
> That is quite an IF. "If OSi hadn't been so bureaucratic", is what you're
> saying.
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 6:06?AM Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>> Back in the day, while I was at BBN, I worked on the GOSIP specs in
>> addition to my work on the ARPAnet and TCP/IP, so I have some familiarity
>> with the topic. INMO, I can imagine an alternate reality where if TCP/IP
>> hadn't taken off as it did for whatever reason, then OSI would have taken
>> its place, but things would have just been delayed. There's no reason why,
>> if the specs had been made freely available and with the same effort put
>> into interoperability testing, congestion control, and such that happened
>> for TCP/IP, that OSI IP and TP4 wouldn't eventually have worked as well.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andy
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 6:19?AM David Sitman via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>> > In my talk at the EARN 40th Anniversary Conference in Athens in April I
>> > would like to speculate a bit about what the world would be like today
>> if
>> > OSI had won the "Protocol Wars".
>> > In 1986, it was a foregone conclusion that EARN would migrate to OSI in
>> the
>> > near future. However, when I began my international activity in 1991,
>> OSI
>> > was discussed as a promise that had gone largely unfulfilled and EARN
>> > members were actively supporting TCP/IP networks. It seemed obvious why
>> > TCP/IP had prevailed.
>> > Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
>> > networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space
>> and
>> > security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a
>> > meme?
>> > I would be very grateful for any thoughts about this.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > David Sitman
>> > --
>> > 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 lyman at interisle.net  Fri Mar 15 08:41:44 2024
From: lyman at interisle.net (Lyman Chapin)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:41:44 -0400
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <3EB3770B-7AA3-4E72-96B8-B7414629CD3A@comcast.net>
References: <45053942-5262-455E-8178-2929826A7476@comcast.net>
 <3EB3770B-7AA3-4E72-96B8-B7414629CD3A@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <C9123452-6B5C-463D-95A1-8F6696DF203E@interisle.net>

I think the missed opportunity had nothing to do with choosing between OSI and TCP/IP as self-contained monoliths?it was the opportunity, which I presented to the IAB in 1990, to absorb into the TCP/IP framework just two OSI protocols, CLNP (OSI's IP) and TP4 (OSI's TCP). The idea was not to swallow OSI whole, but to use CLNP (in particular) as the starting point for finding solutions within the TCP/IP world for problems like IP address space exhaustion (CLNP had variable length source and destination addresses).

In 1990 CLNP and TP4 were running in production networks using equipment from most of the major minicomputer vendors (including DEC, DG, HP, and Tandem). We could have started with the implementation and deployment experience already gained with those protocols. Instead, we had to start with a new protocol (IPv6) that had never been implemented or deployed. And 30+ years later I think we all know how well that has turned out.

The ?protocol wars? language that was used to frame ?OSI vs. TCP/IP? as a competition obscured opportunities like the one I?ve just described to recognize and develop good ideas regardless of where they came from (the TP4 checksum being another example). The ?wars? language makes it seem as though there were two ?camps??but the same people who were working on CLNP, routing, and TP4 were also working in the IETF on IP, routing, and TCP.

As you suggest, it may have been impossible, regardless of the language being used, to take advantage of these opportunities given the weight of all the surrounding X. crap. For many people, that crap was OSI. Too bad -

- Lyman

> On Mar 15, 2024, at 9:52?AM, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Sorry forgot to hit reply-all.
> 
> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
>> Subject: Re: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
>> Date: March 15, 2024 at 09:45:07 EDT
>> To: Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
>> 
>> These were all crap.  X.25/X.75/X.29 were all trying to preserve the PTT monopoly.
>> 
>> The PTTs never got (and still don?t) that this was all about dynamic resource allocation, not static allocation.
>> 
>> X.400 was far too complex.  X.500 was trying to be the white pages and the yellow pages, when all that was necessary was a simple protocol that mapped application names to network addresses.
>> 
>> These were all illustrate how the PTTs didn?t get what was going on.
>> 
>> The mistake OSI made was inviting to do the work jointly with CCITT (ITU). However, given that there was no telecom deregulation even being talked about in Europe the Europeans felt they had no choice, especially given the interference they had already shown with EIN and EURONET.
>> 
>> The Europeans proved to be their own best enemy.
>> 
>> Take care,
>> John
>> 
>>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 09:34, Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 15/03/2024 10:19, David Sitman via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
>>>> networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space and
>>>> security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a meme?
>>> 
>>> Having actually used X.3, X.21, X.25, X.400, X.500... sorry, let me re-phrase this... having actually struggled with the aforementioned X. based services and also programmed stacks according to these protocols a loooong time ago, my prediction of a Green Internet based on computing networking with OSI would be resumed as this:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Kindest regards,
>>> 
>>> Olivier
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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 Bovio at aol.com  Fri Mar 15 08:45:25 2024
From: Bovio at aol.com (Daniele Bovio)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:45:25 +0200
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <041701da76ef$cdb2cf40$69186dc0$@aol.com>

David,
One of the major problems at the time was that the PTTs planned to charge
the X.25 traffic by volume, and this would have slowed down the development
of applications enormously, as nobody could have afforded to send images,
sound and videos over the network at an affordable price.
The other issue was that X.25 was limited to E1/DS1 (2Mb), and that was a
severe limitation.
Of course prices would have decreased for packet switched networks as well
after the monopolies fell for good at the end of the 90, and probably some
other X. would have been invented to overcome the E1 limitation of X.25, but
I believe it would have been an uphill road all the way.

Cheers

Daniele


-----Original Message-----
From: Internet-history [mailto:internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On
Behalf Of David Sitman via Internet-history
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 12:19 PM
To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality

In my talk at the EARN 40th Anniversary Conference in Athens in April I
would like to speculate a bit about what the world would be like today if
OSI had won the "Protocol Wars".
In 1986, it was a foregone conclusion that EARN would migrate to OSI in the
near future. However, when I began my international activity in 1991, OSI
was discussed as a promise that had gone largely unfulfilled and EARN
members were actively supporting TCP/IP networks. It seemed obvious why
TCP/IP had prevailed.
Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space and
security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a meme?
I would be very grateful for any thoughts about this.

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



From odlyzko at umn.edu  Fri Mar 15 09:02:07 2024
From: odlyzko at umn.edu (odlyzko at umn.edu)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:02:07 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 52, Issue 5
In-Reply-To: <mailman.110.1710516092.29976.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
References: <mailman.110.1710516092.29976.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2403151050260.13099@math-vinh511.math.umn.edu>

Well, we may have to continue disagreeing.  My argument
is that while the OSI/CCITT people did indeed try to
come up for complicated protocols for each application,
this would not have worked.  The 1966 Carterfone decision
limited (at least in the US) what the telcos could do,
and in any event, the bulk of data communications, up
until the end of the 1990s, was carried not by the
public Internet, but by corporate private line networks,
X.25, Frame Relay, and the like, where the telco had
no insight into what was being carried.

At the time of the Netscape IPO in 1995, which by many
accounts was the start of the Internet bubble frenzy,
most individuals were online through services like
AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy.  Here the telcos only
saw the modem calls from the home to the central office,
where it was handed off to AOL, ...  Now AOL and its
competitors switched to TCP/IP, but had that not been
available, they likely would have adopted something
else, again out of the telco control.  So there would
have been delay there, and of course more delay since
AOL, ..., tried to maintain their walled gardens, so
it would have taken some time to figure out how to
interconnect those services.  But, even though it would
have been clumsy, I expect it would have happened.

Andrew



> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:34:52 +0100
> From: Johan Helsingius <julf at Julf.com>
> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 52, Issue 4
> Message-ID: <8cbb4754-06b4-413e-a598-6f20bbe8ddfd at Julf.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 15/03/2024 15:19, Andrew Odlyzko via Internet-history wrote:
>
>> Yes, PTTs were definitely trying to preserve their monopolies.
>> But I am pretty sure that if the Internet had not come out
>> when it did, what the public sees and does would have turned
>> out pretty much the same, but delayed a couple of years.
>
> I think I have to disagree. The Internet was a success because
> it was open-ended, and from the start assumed that people would
> do all sorts of unexpected stuff on top of the protocols, while
> the OSI/CCITT people tried to come up with all the ways to
> use the net, and then define (by committee) complicated
> protocols for each application.
>
> 	Julf
>
>


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Fri Mar 15 09:07:54 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:07:54 -0700
Subject: [ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 52, Issue 4
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2403150909290.10425@math-vinh511.math.umn.edu>
References: <mailman.106.1710510788.29976.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2403150909290.10425@math-vinh511.math.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <3dfb1965-1de1-4651-b55e-745f16409f4f@dcrocker.net>

On 3/15/2024 7:19 AM, Andrew Odlyzko via Internet-history wrote:
> But I am pretty sure that if the Internet had not come out
> when it did, what the public sees and does would have turned
> out pretty much the same,


I believe there is nothing in the nature of what was happening then to 
support this view, and quite a lot of what was happening that counters 
this view.? The entire range of OSI work demonstrates this rather 
forcefully, I believe.

Technical work is heavily influenced by the culture and skills of the 
team(s) producing it.? The Internet's world differed fundamentally from 
that of classic communications standards efforts.

The chapter I did, "Evolving the system" In Internet System Handbook, D. 
Lynch, and M. Rose, eds., is about the IETF standards process and 
offered some comparison between Internet (IETF) and International (OSI) 
approach to doing this work.? (A revised version of the chapter was 
published separately.)

Making standards the IETF way | StandardView <#>

? https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/174683.174689 
<https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/174683.174689>


There were commonly-held views in both communities about limitations and 
problems with the 'other' community.? In my experience, most of these 
assessments were wrong.? What I saw uniformly were bright, 
well-motivated, knowledgeable people trying to solve things well.? 
(However, yes, in the CCITT world there was an ingrained requirement to 
keep PTTs at the center. X.400 relaxed this, eventually, but far too 
late to matter.)

The biggest difference I saw was in the approach to resolving competing 
approaches.? The international folk tend to include each one as an 
alternative.? The Internet folk (back then) tended to choose one.? This 
also applied to the inclusion of features.? One tended to include lots 
of features.? The other few.

And, of course, one tended to have (relatively) aggressive schedules, 
wanting the work to be in fielded products yesterday. The other went for 
years without being able to field a widely-usable service.

These differences produce wildly different designs.? If the Internet 
community had not existed, we know exactly what we would have been stuck 
with. And it is nothing like what we now have.

d/

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


From bpurvy at gmail.com  Fri Mar 15 09:08:18 2024
From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:08:18 -0700
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <C9123452-6B5C-463D-95A1-8F6696DF203E@interisle.net>
References: <45053942-5262-455E-8178-2929826A7476@comcast.net>
 <3EB3770B-7AA3-4E72-96B8-B7414629CD3A@comcast.net>
 <C9123452-6B5C-463D-95A1-8F6696DF203E@interisle.net>
Message-ID: <CAFq6nVFYOsWnOVS7bh+MFKQC6xr0da4Ur6TQAPLuOzC+zR458A@mail.gmail.com>

> In 1990 CLNP and TP4 were running in production networks using equipment
from most of the major minicomputer vendors (including DEC, DG, HP, and
Tandem)

what you left out there is the vast ecosystem of TCP/IP vendors *other
than* the
giants, who were coming together at Interop to iron out differences in
their implementations.

That, plus the years of NOC experience running diverse TCP/IP networks in
production.

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 8:42?AM Lyman Chapin via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> I think the missed opportunity had nothing to do with choosing between OSI
> and TCP/IP as self-contained monoliths?it was the opportunity, which I
> presented to the IAB in 1990, to absorb into the TCP/IP framework just two
> OSI protocols, CLNP (OSI's IP) and TP4 (OSI's TCP). The idea was not to
> swallow OSI whole, but to use CLNP (in particular) as the starting point
> for finding solutions within the TCP/IP world for problems like IP address
> space exhaustion (CLNP had variable length source and destination
> addresses).
>
> In 1990 CLNP and TP4 were running in production networks using equipment
> from most of the major minicomputer vendors (including DEC, DG, HP, and
> Tandem). We could have started with the implementation and deployment
> experience already gained with those protocols. Instead, we had to start
> with a new protocol (IPv6) that had never been implemented or deployed. And
> 30+ years later I think we all know how well that has turned out.
>
> The ?protocol wars? language that was used to frame ?OSI vs. TCP/IP? as a
> competition obscured opportunities like the one I?ve just described to
> recognize and develop good ideas regardless of where they came from (the
> TP4 checksum being another example). The ?wars? language makes it seem as
> though there were two ?camps??but the same people who were working on CLNP,
> routing, and TP4 were also working in the IETF on IP, routing, and TCP.
>
> As you suggest, it may have been impossible, regardless of the language
> being used, to take advantage of these opportunities given the weight of
> all the surrounding X. crap. For many people, that crap was OSI. Too bad -
>
> - Lyman
>
> > On Mar 15, 2024, at 9:52?AM, John Day via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry forgot to hit reply-all.
> >
> >
> >> Begin forwarded message:
> >>
> >> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
> >> Subject: Re: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
> >> Date: March 15, 2024 at 09:45:07 EDT
> >> To: Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>
> >>
> >> These were all crap.  X.25/X.75/X.29 were all trying to preserve the
> PTT monopoly.
> >>
> >> The PTTs never got (and still don?t) that this was all about dynamic
> resource allocation, not static allocation.
> >>
> >> X.400 was far too complex.  X.500 was trying to be the white pages and
> the yellow pages, when all that was necessary was a simple protocol that
> mapped application names to network addresses.
> >>
> >> These were all illustrate how the PTTs didn?t get what was going on.
> >>
> >> The mistake OSI made was inviting to do the work jointly with CCITT
> (ITU). However, given that there was no telecom deregulation even being
> talked about in Europe the Europeans felt they had no choice, especially
> given the interference they had already shown with EIN and EURONET.
> >>
> >> The Europeans proved to be their own best enemy.
> >>
> >> Take care,
> >> John
> >>
> >>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 09:34, Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond via
> Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 15/03/2024 10:19, David Sitman via Internet-history wrote:
> >>>> Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
> >>>> networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address
> space and
> >>>> security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become
> a meme?
> >>>
> >>> Having actually used X.3, X.21, X.25, X.400, X.500... sorry, let me
> re-phrase this... having actually struggled with the aforementioned X.
> based services and also programmed stacks according to these protocols a
> loooong time ago, my prediction of a Green Internet based on computing
> networking with OSI would be resumed as this:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Kindest regards,
> >>>
> >>> Olivier
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> 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 geoff at iconia.com  Fri Mar 15 09:14:24 2024
From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:14:24 -0700
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEf-zriXMguOW=Bp+WoJFvY_iJ8PowrEGcW=ZweOcrUeRTCL2Q@mail.gmail.com>

imho, what made the Internet a resounding success was the "flat rate and
sender keeps all cost nature" of connection -- i.e. the lack of
"settlements" for traffic transited between interconnected networks as is
the case with the PSTN and was the case with the interconnected X
networks...  there was A Very Pivotal Moment in Internet history where...
that almost didn't happen, viz.:


*Data Network Raises Monopoly Fear*
By JOHN MARKOFF
The New York Times
December 19, 1991
http://www.nytimes.com/1991
/12/19/business/data-network-raises-monopoly-fear.html

Soon after President Bush signed legislation calling for the creation of a
nationwide computer data "superhighway," a debate has erupted over whether
the Government gave an unfair advantage to a joint venture of I.B.M. MCI
that built and manages a key part of the network.

The venture, known as Advanced Network and Services, manages a network
called NSFnet, which connects hundreds of research centers and
universities. NSFnet also manages links to dozens of other countries. All
these networks are collectively known as Internet.

Some private competitors say Advanced Network and Services uses its favored
position to squeeze them out of the data-transmission market by
establishing rules that make it difficult to connect to NSFnet.

*Traffic Has Doubled*

NSFnet was founded by the National Science Foundation, a Federal agency,
and is composed of leased telephone lines that link special computers
called routers, which transmit packages of data to three million users in
33 countries. Data traffic over the NSFnet backbone has doubled in the last
year.

The Government wants to develop a national data highway for electronic
commerce, digital video transmissions to homes and vast electronic
libraries that could be drawn on by the nation's schools.

Advanced Network and Services, based in Elmsford, N.Y., was set up last
year as a nonprofit corporation with $10 million from the International
Business Machines Corporation and the MCI Communications Corporation.
Earlier this year it set up a for-profit subsidiary, called ANS CO+RE
(pronounced core), to sell computer network services. That led some
competitors to complain that Advanced Network and Services would be able to
compete unfairly because of its arrangement with the Government.

*Fear Loss of Innovation*

People involved in planning for a national data network say it is essential
to provide for fair competition, which will lead rival companies to offer
creative and entrepreneurial services in the hope of building market share.
Without competiton, they say, the Government will have created a monopoly
that has little incentive to innovate.

"This is the first major communication business to be born under the
deregulation era," said David Farber, a computer scientist at the
University of Pennsylvania and a pioneer in data networking. "This hasn't
happened since the growth of the telephone industry. You want it to be a
business that doesn't repeat the errors of the past."

In recent years, the National Science Foundation has tried to shift its
operations and ownership of NSFnet to Advanced Network and Services. And it
will try to establish competition through contracts for networks to compete
with NSFnet next year.

But there is no level playing field, complained William L. Schrader,
president of Performance Systems International Inc., a Reston, Va., company
that provides commercial data connections to Internet. He made public two
letters between officials of Advanced Network and Services and the National
Science Foundation that he said gave the company unfair control over access
to the network. The result, he added, was that the Government turned over
valuable public property to a private company.

"It's like taking a Federal park and giving it to K Mart," Mr. Schrader
said. "It's not right, and it isn't going to stand."

Performance Systems and several other companies have set up an alternative
to NSFnet, known as a CIX. Mr. Schrader said his company and the venture of
I.B.M. and MCI were competing for the same customers but unlike his rival
he lacked a Federal subsidy. He said he might ask the Internal Revenue
Service to look at the business relationship between Advanced Network's
nonprofit and for-profit operations.

*'Very Competitive Environment'*

Allan Weis, the president of Advanced Network, disputed that his company
had an unfair advantage. "It's a very competitive environment right now,"
he said.

At the National Science Foundation, Stephen Wolff, director of its
networking division, said I.B.M. and MCI had overbuilt the network and were
selling commercial service based on the excess capacity that was available.

A number of organizations are working informally to settle the dispute.

"I think it's a mess," said Mitchell D. Kapor, the founder of the Lotus
Development Corporation and now head of the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
a public-interest group focusing on public policy issues surrounding data
networks. "Nobody should have an unfair advantage."

######


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Fri Mar 15 10:17:34 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:17:34 -0400
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <af74b3d4-0f22-4d7d-affa-47ef174bcf2a@gih.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d3af7405-4ac2-4d25-86ff-71d59753989a@gih.com>
 <45053942-5262-455E-8178-2929826A7476@comcast.net>
 <af74b3d4-0f22-4d7d-affa-47ef174bcf2a@gih.com>
Message-ID: <5625129E-3231-464A-9F7B-9231A8242771@comcast.net>

Catching up.

The core OSI Protocols were:
Ethernet (all 802 standards are ISO standards)
(Network Layer-was intended to be technology dependent and potentially non-standard. This is following the INWG and ISO 8648 model of internetworking.)
CLNP - as the internetwork protocol
TP4 for transport.
Fast-byte for the collapsed upper layers.
ACSE - for creating application connections including authentication and was designed to be recursive.
Then most anything that was proposed could be done (remember standards are bottom up, so if support could be generated for an application it could be done.) 

The application layer structure was designed to be modular, so base application protocols could be mixed and matched with supporting protocols. Among the things proposed were:
Virtual Terminal - which was mostly obsolete by then but was on the write track until DEC screwed it up.
FTAM - for file transfer
JTAM - for Job Transfer
CCR - for commitment, concurrency and recovery.
RPC - for Remote Procedure Call
TP - for Transaction Processing.
CMIP - for network management (but really the base application protocol since all application protocols act on objects external to the protocol. The only difference is what the object models are.)

> On Mar 15, 2024, at 09:52, Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
> 
> Totally agree -- hence the only possible evolution from there, which I followed up in my next email:
> 
> https://www.bing.com/images/create/a-bright-green-sneaker-with-osi-logo-on-it/1-65f44c2966d7477884c76d7914be2bf6?id=oiufq8FtuQ9dPQT%2f2ETwVA%3d%3d&view=detailv2&idpp=genimg&idpclose=1&thId=OIG3.IQig2FDd_t3cKvUjIr8X&frame=sydedg&FORM=SYDBIC
> 
> :-)
> 
> On 15/03/2024 13:45, John Day wrote:
>> These were all crap.  X.25/X.75/X.29 were all trying to preserve the PTT monopoly.
>> 
>> The PTTs never got (and still don?t) that this was all about dynamic resource allocation, not static allocation.
>> 
>> X.400 was far too complex.  X.500 was trying to be the white pages and the yellow pages, when all that was necessary was a simple protocol that mapped application names to network addresses.
>> 
>> These were all illustrate how the PTTs didn?t get what was going on.
>> 
>> The mistake OSI made was inviting to do the work jointly with CCITT (ITU). However, given that there was no telecom deregulation even being talked about in Europe the Europeans felt they had no choice, especially given the interference they had already shown with EIN and EURONET.
>> 
>> The Europeans proved to be their own best enemy.
>> 
>> Take care,
>> John
>> 
>>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 09:34, Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 15/03/2024 10:19, David Sitman via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
>>>> networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space and
>>>> security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a meme?
>>> Having actually used X.3, X.21, X.25, X.400, X.500... sorry, let me re-phrase this... having actually struggled with the aforementioned X. based services and also programmed stacks according to these protocols a loooong time ago, my prediction of a Green Internet based on computing networking with OSI would be resumed as this:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Kindest regards,
>>> 
>>> Olivier
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 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
> 
> -- 
> Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html



From jeanjour at comcast.net  Fri Mar 15 10:20:15 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:20:15 -0400
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU0B2D=sksv2utkvfAHGjStmYYM-fzXC_vnzx5Jp=8yT6w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA=duU2aP_CMqry29EcRA8VMDBNbqL-nbo3gG7xEYs+twuV0YA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFq6nVGcaAhMEOT6i3gp+3eKCx0LqFbybrOJWhiDz8LzN+iZDw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA=duU0B2D=sksv2utkvfAHGjStmYYM-fzXC_vnzx5Jp=8yT6w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C1BB58DA-A7D4-42D1-BC23-492D8602966A@comcast.net>

Actually, that is quite interesting.

It is highly likely that at the time OSI TP4 would have adopted the DEC work on congestion (Raj Jain?s DEC Report) which was a vast improvement over what TCP adopted.

> On Mar 15, 2024, at 11:39, Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Bob,
> 
>>> if the specs had been made freely available and with the same effort put
>>> into interoperability testing
> 
>> That is quite an IF. "If OSi hadn't been so bureaucratic", is what you're
> saying.
> 
> Yup. From a purely technical standpoint, without any of the
> bureaucratic barriers ISO IP and TP4 could have been the basis for the
> Internet. And we wouldn't be having our current issues with IPv4 to v6
> transition.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 11:21?AM Bob Purvy <bpurvy at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> if the specs had been made freely available and with the same effort put
>> into interoperability testing
>> 
>> That is quite an IF. "If OSi hadn't been so bureaucratic", is what you're
>> saying.
>> 
>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 6:06?AM Andrew G. Malis via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Back in the day, while I was at BBN, I worked on the GOSIP specs in
>>> addition to my work on the ARPAnet and TCP/IP, so I have some familiarity
>>> with the topic. INMO, I can imagine an alternate reality where if TCP/IP
>>> hadn't taken off as it did for whatever reason, then OSI would have taken
>>> its place, but things would have just been delayed. There's no reason why,
>>> if the specs had been made freely available and with the same effort put
>>> into interoperability testing, congestion control, and such that happened
>>> for TCP/IP, that OSI IP and TP4 wouldn't eventually have worked as well.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Andy
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 6:19?AM David Sitman via Internet-history <
>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In my talk at the EARN 40th Anniversary Conference in Athens in April I
>>>> would like to speculate a bit about what the world would be like today
>>> if
>>>> OSI had won the "Protocol Wars".
>>>> In 1986, it was a foregone conclusion that EARN would migrate to OSI in
>>> the
>>>> near future. However, when I began my international activity in 1991,
>>> OSI
>>>> was discussed as a promise that had gone largely unfulfilled and EARN
>>>> members were actively supporting TCP/IP networks. It seemed obvious why
>>>> TCP/IP had prevailed.
>>>> Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
>>>> networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space
>>> and
>>>> security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a
>>>> meme?
>>>> I would be very grateful for any thoughts about this.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> David Sitman
>>>> --
>>>> 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 jeanjour at comcast.net  Fri Mar 15 10:24:39 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:24:39 -0400
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate realiv
In-Reply-To: <041701da76ef$cdb2cf40$69186dc0$@aol.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <041701da76ef$cdb2cf40$69186dc0$@aol.com>
Message-ID: <7038C6B8-45DF-4416-A435-8E40E43F0E32@comcast.net>

Yes, the PTTs had no idea what was coming.  As late as the late 1980s, I had people telling me that the amount of data traffic would never exceed the amount voice traffic. (!!) You could only wonder what they were smoking!  ;-)

Also, recent delving into the old papers makes it clear the degree to which the PTTs thwarted the development of comparable networks in Europe, e.g., EIN and EURONET.

> On Mar 15, 2024, at 11:45, Daniele Bovio via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> David,
> One of the major problems at the time was that the PTTs planned to charge
> the X.25 traffic by volume, and this would have slowed down the development
> of applications enormously, as nobody could have afforded to send images,
> sound and videos over the network at an affordable price.
> The other issue was that X.25 was limited to E1/DS1 (2Mb), and that was a
> severe limitation.
> Of course prices would have decreased for packet switched networks as well
> after the monopolies fell for good at the end of the 90, and probably some
> other X. would have been invented to overcome the E1 limitation of X.25, but
> I believe it would have been an uphill road all the way.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Daniele
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internet-history [mailto:internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On
> Behalf Of David Sitman via Internet-history
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 12:19 PM
> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
> 
> In my talk at the EARN 40th Anniversary Conference in Athens in April I
> would like to speculate a bit about what the world would be like today if
> OSI had won the "Protocol Wars".
> In 1986, it was a foregone conclusion that EARN would migrate to OSI in the
> near future. However, when I began my international activity in 1991, OSI
> was discussed as a promise that had gone largely unfulfilled and EARN
> members were actively supporting TCP/IP networks. It seemed obvious why
> TCP/IP had prevailed.
> Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
> networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space and
> security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a meme?
> I would be very grateful for any thoughts about this.
> 
> Thanks,
> David Sitman
> --
> 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  Fri Mar 15 10:52:08 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:52:08 -0700
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU0B2D=sksv2utkvfAHGjStmYYM-fzXC_vnzx5Jp=8yT6w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA=duU2aP_CMqry29EcRA8VMDBNbqL-nbo3gG7xEYs+twuV0YA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFq6nVGcaAhMEOT6i3gp+3eKCx0LqFbybrOJWhiDz8LzN+iZDw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA=duU0B2D=sksv2utkvfAHGjStmYYM-fzXC_vnzx5Jp=8yT6w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75f76214-41c1-4360-a02e-59be3f72bebf@dcrocker.net>

>  From a purely technical standpoint, without any of the
> bureaucratic barriers ISO IP and TP4 could have been the basis for the
> Internet.


It is pretty much always true that if things had been different, things 
would be different.

It is also true that a) things taken in isolation often look much better 
than when taken in aggregation, and b) a thing that is proposed or even 
implemented in small scale can look far more appealing than something 
tested at scale.

As an integrated design, OSI was vastly too complex, notably incomplete, 
and vastly under-tested.? That portions of it had good and possibly 
superior design is largely irrelevant to the question of history.

So, for example, the fact that CLNP had a larger address space sounds 
obviously appealing, until one notes a lack of design and testing for 
the use of those bits.? At scale.? A problem that troubled IPv6, too.

The technical, operational, economic, and political realities of the two 
communities were profoundly different.? If the Internet community had 
not existed, we would have had some sort of global, digital service, but 
it would have been or been like what the global, telecom standards 
community in fact produced.? And that is nothing like what we now have.? 
In spite of bits of it being similar.

d/

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


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Fri Mar 15 10:58:00 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:58:00 -0400
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <CAEf-zriXMguOW=Bp+WoJFvY_iJ8PowrEGcW=ZweOcrUeRTCL2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEf-zriXMguOW=Bp+WoJFvY_iJ8PowrEGcW=ZweOcrUeRTCL2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <922C772C-5812-4483-9D62-0880291C7B25@comcast.net>

I agree this was a big breakthrough. The PTTs were too intent on making it expensive.

BTW, the other utilities such as electric power have long known that a flat rate would be preferable, but regulatory agencies won?t let them do it. Of course by now meter reading has become far simpler than it use to be.

> On Mar 15, 2024, at 12:14, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> imho, what made the Internet a resounding success was the "flat rate and
> sender keeps all cost nature" of connection -- i.e. the lack of
> "settlements" for traffic transited between interconnected networks as is
> the case with the PSTN and was the case with the interconnected X
> networks...  there was A Very Pivotal Moment in Internet history where...
> that almost didn't happen, viz.:
> 
> 
> *Data Network Raises Monopoly Fear*
> By JOHN MARKOFF
> The New York Times
> December 19, 1991
> http://www.nytimes.com/1991
> /12/19/business/data-network-raises-monopoly-fear.html
> 
> Soon after President Bush signed legislation calling for the creation of a
> nationwide computer data "superhighway," a debate has erupted over whether
> the Government gave an unfair advantage to a joint venture of I.B.M. MCI
> that built and manages a key part of the network.
> 
> The venture, known as Advanced Network and Services, manages a network
> called NSFnet, which connects hundreds of research centers and
> universities. NSFnet also manages links to dozens of other countries. All
> these networks are collectively known as Internet.
> 
> Some private competitors say Advanced Network and Services uses its favored
> position to squeeze them out of the data-transmission market by
> establishing rules that make it difficult to connect to NSFnet.
> 
> *Traffic Has Doubled*
> 
> NSFnet was founded by the National Science Foundation, a Federal agency,
> and is composed of leased telephone lines that link special computers
> called routers, which transmit packages of data to three million users in
> 33 countries. Data traffic over the NSFnet backbone has doubled in the last
> year.
> 
> The Government wants to develop a national data highway for electronic
> commerce, digital video transmissions to homes and vast electronic
> libraries that could be drawn on by the nation's schools.
> 
> Advanced Network and Services, based in Elmsford, N.Y., was set up last
> year as a nonprofit corporation with $10 million from the International
> Business Machines Corporation and the MCI Communications Corporation.
> Earlier this year it set up a for-profit subsidiary, called ANS CO+RE
> (pronounced core), to sell computer network services. That led some
> competitors to complain that Advanced Network and Services would be able to
> compete unfairly because of its arrangement with the Government.
> 
> *Fear Loss of Innovation*
> 
> People involved in planning for a national data network say it is essential
> to provide for fair competition, which will lead rival companies to offer
> creative and entrepreneurial services in the hope of building market share.
> Without competiton, they say, the Government will have created a monopoly
> that has little incentive to innovate.
> 
> "This is the first major communication business to be born under the
> deregulation era," said David Farber, a computer scientist at the
> University of Pennsylvania and a pioneer in data networking. "This hasn't
> happened since the growth of the telephone industry. You want it to be a
> business that doesn't repeat the errors of the past."
> 
> In recent years, the National Science Foundation has tried to shift its
> operations and ownership of NSFnet to Advanced Network and Services. And it
> will try to establish competition through contracts for networks to compete
> with NSFnet next year.
> 
> But there is no level playing field, complained William L. Schrader,
> president of Performance Systems International Inc., a Reston, Va., company
> that provides commercial data connections to Internet. He made public two
> letters between officials of Advanced Network and Services and the National
> Science Foundation that he said gave the company unfair control over access
> to the network. The result, he added, was that the Government turned over
> valuable public property to a private company.
> 
> "It's like taking a Federal park and giving it to K Mart," Mr. Schrader
> said. "It's not right, and it isn't going to stand."
> 
> Performance Systems and several other companies have set up an alternative
> to NSFnet, known as a CIX. Mr. Schrader said his company and the venture of
> I.B.M. and MCI were competing for the same customers but unlike his rival
> he lacked a Federal subsidy. He said he might ask the Internal Revenue
> Service to look at the business relationship between Advanced Network's
> nonprofit and for-profit operations.
> 
> *'Very Competitive Environment'*
> 
> Allan Weis, the president of Advanced Network, disputed that his company
> had an unfair advantage. "It's a very competitive environment right now,"
> he said.
> 
> At the National Science Foundation, Stephen Wolff, director of its
> networking division, said I.B.M. and MCI had overbuilt the network and were
> selling commercial service based on the excess capacity that was available.
> 
> A number of organizations are working informally to settle the dispute.
> 
> "I think it's a mess," said Mitchell D. Kapor, the founder of the Lotus
> Development Corporation and now head of the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
> a public-interest group focusing on public policy issues surrounding data
> networks. "Nobody should have an unfair advantage."
> 
> ######
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From cos at aaaaa.org  Fri Mar 15 11:06:31 2024
From: cos at aaaaa.org (Ofer Inbar)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:06:31 -0400
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_XtrGjmDL2NuQV_29n-1zgC8aiciFVrzYz2FOpXAN4B4Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d3af7405-4ac2-4d25-86ff-71d59753989a@gih.com>
 <543a4c1f-3a9f-48ef-b061-072ba116d6cd@gih.com>
 <CAAFtm_XtrGjmDL2NuQV_29n-1zgC8aiciFVrzYz2FOpXAN4B4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20240315180631.GG18170@miplet.aaaaa.org>

> SNEAKERNET!!!!

My domain sneaker.net is almost 30 years old :)

Since it only has MX and not A (or AAAA) records, I used to get random
emails in the late 90s and early 2000s from people offering to buy it
because I supposedly wasn't using it.  Don't get those much anymore,
I guess most everyone has forgotten about sneakernet.
  -- Cos


From geoff at iconia.com  Fri Mar 15 11:58:50 2024
From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:58:50 -0700
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <922C772C-5812-4483-9D62-0880291C7B25@comcast.net>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEf-zriXMguOW=Bp+WoJFvY_iJ8PowrEGcW=ZweOcrUeRTCL2Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <922C772C-5812-4483-9D62-0880291C7B25@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CAEf-zri0Mq=ju5KqR8LHBgTcY5p0vTXLqVL-rOhdtVsRjD5Vhg@mail.gmail.com>

The Other Side of The Coin of the Internet not charging (by the ARPANET
"WAN model") of packet data sent (or transited between WAN's) was that
there was No Impetus on/for efficiency in:

#1.) minimizing the amount of info/data sent across the network
-or-
#2.) the number of packets (handshakes) to effectuate a "transaction"

for the sake of an e.g. SMTP necessitates ~13 back-and-forth interactions
to transact the sending of an email from either a UA or MTA to another MTA.

in a "thin pipe" RF environment where efficiency of spectrum (and cost!) is
paramount not only is every BIT precious/sacred but also is the
minimization/seizure of the spectrum "sacred"

in the case of implementing RadioMail (the first two-way wireless email
service on the ARDIS Single Frequency Reuse (SFR) MDC-4800 4.8 kbps
wireless network with its max packet length of 256 bytes [
https://www.sigidwiki.com/wiki/MDC-4800]  (as well as on the Ericsson
Mobitex wireless network of RAM Mobile Data at 8000 bit/s,) we developed
the RadioMail Transport Protocol (RMTP) that not only sent/received email
over-the-air in 1 packet "transaction" (if everything fit) but also
"denuded" a transited email into being as "small" as possible -- for
example rather than sending Date: xxx, From: yyy at host.com, Subject: foo,
etc it became ^Dxxx^Fyyy at host.com^Sfoo and was "reconstituted" on the other
end so as to minimize bits transmitted over the air.

yours truly often thinks of how might our Dearly Beloved Internet (and the
APRANET before it) protocols summarily evolved differently if there was
such an emphasis put on efficiency/"bit miserliness" as well as making them
be as less "chatty" (back-and-forths) as possible?

the solution always seemed to be MORE BANDWIDTH (i.e. a fatter pipe) rather
than from the get go making the protocols themselves be as bit (not byte!)
miserly as possible.

it seems that today we are reaching/now at a point where even with
essentially "unlimited" bandwidth The Solution to "congestion" or the
"cause" of degradation why things aren't "working" is/has been causing
folks (say like Dave Taht and the bufferbloat.net fq_codel, cake
& LibreQoS team) to be more "recognized"/"respected" for their efforts in
making The Internet a better place/more efficient/usable for all.

geoff


From jack at 3kitty.org  Fri Mar 15 11:59:50 2024
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:59:50 -0700
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3b2abd91-fb86-4921-b97d-18406502cda9@3kitty.org>



On 3/15/24 03:19, David Sitman via Internet-history wrote:
> In my talk at the EARN 40th Anniversary Conference in Athens in April I
> would like to speculate a bit about what the world would be like today if
> OSI had won the "Protocol Wars".
> In 1986, it was a foregone conclusion that EARN would migrate to OSI in the
> near future. However, when I began my international activity in 1991, OSI
> was discussed as a promise that had gone largely unfulfilled and EARN
> members were actively supporting TCP/IP networks. It seemed obvious why
> TCP/IP had prevailed.
> Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
> networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space and
> security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a meme?
> I would be very grateful for any thoughts about this.
>
> Thanks,
> David Sitman

Well, I've always liked sci-fi "alternate reality" stories.? So here's 
some thoughts...

IMHO, both the TCP/IP and OSI approaches were similarly incomplete back 
in the 80s and 90s when the marketplace was choosing the Internet 
approach.?? Evidence for that is the deluge of 1000s of RFCs since then, 
containing Standards, Draft Standards, Wannabee Standards, Protocols, 
Algorithms, and other such technical additions that have been deemed 
necessary over the decades and continue today.

Both TCP and OSI technologies were incomplete and needed extensions, 
adaptation, and refinement as the technology hit the issues of the real 
world.?? So in thinking about some alternate reality, one has to also 
think about how the technology might have evolved over the same time period.

To do that, IMHO the issue is not the technology per se.? Today's 
worldwide communications system could have been built using either OSI 
or TCP approaches, beginning with those 80s-era prototypes and evolving 
them into something quite different today.

So how might that have happened if TCP had just disappeared one day?

I think one of the important drivers of such evolution was the "culture" 
of the two worlds.?? The TCP world was somewhat chaotic, with lots of 
ideas flying around and eventually congealing into "rough consensus and 
running code".?? The managers and administrators at places like ARPA, 
NSF, et al fostered such an environment, explicitly labelling the work 
as "an Experiment", and encouraging new ideas that were unproven, 
unanalyzed, but might work.

In contrast, the OSI world was much more orchestrated, formal, and 
tightly managed.? I recall one instance in some Internet meeting where a 
discussion focussed on what the default value of some timing parameter 
should be.? Someone shouted out "How about 3 seconds?", and a consensus 
quickly formed that 3 seconds would probably be OK and we could always 
change it later.? In OSI land, a committee would likely have been 
formed, meetings held, and perhaps months or years later some 
recommendation would emerge, yet to be proven in actual deployed 
implementations.

I wasn't involved in much OSI work, but I do recall one meeting, 
somewhere in Europe about some technical topic that I can't recall.?? 
Progress was actually happening, as the proponents of various choices 
swayed each other toward a consensus, which seemed (to me) to be 
imminent.? Then the Chair interrupted, noting that it was now 3PM and 
therefore time to go on to the agenda item scheduled for that time.? So 
the productive discussion was halted, progress stopped, and the question 
was never resolved, as the meeting focus shifted to the new topic as 
scheduled.

In the TCP community, we would have continued that first discussion 
until consensus was reached, possibly adjourning to some restaurant in 
the interim, and watching the size of the group diminish until only the 
people who really cared about the result remained to hash out a 
solution.?? Meetings in the TCP world also often had agendas, but I 
don't recall that we ever finished one as it was scheduled.

Other people have mentioned other aspects of the "culture" differences - 
e.g., the OSI tendency to focus on business models, competitive 
advantages, et al.?? IMHO, all of these "cultural differences" would 
have had a significant effect on how OSI might have evolved into an 
alternate reality today.

One example might be videoconferencing.?? We probably all have 
experienced today's ubiquitous videoconferencing over the Internet.?? 
How might that have evolved in an OSI world and how would we do 
videoconferencing today?

In the early 1990s, I was working in Silicon Valley and my company HQ 
used videoconferencing to interact with customers.?? We had our own 
corporate "intranet" and were also connected to "The Internet", but 
neither of those had videoconferencing mechanisms available at the 
time.?? There were experimental systems such as MBone, but those weren't 
usable for communications with customers outside of the research 
world.?? But you could buy videoconferencing equipment and services from 
PTTs.

I don't recall the exact technical details, but in the 90s IIRC 
videoconferencing required use of two ISDN lines.? Those weren't normal 
everyday phone lines, so they were special orders to install the 
appropriate wires, modems,? monitors, cameras, et al into a room made 
for the purpose.?? Using the ISDN lines was charged by the minute, but 
all the other costs dominated.?? So we had only one special room set up 
for videoconferencing.?? It worked amazingly well, providing clear and 
responsive video over just two 64 (or was it 56?) kilobits/sec 
circuits.? But of course few of the thousands of employees at our site 
ever used it, and not many customers had similar setups either.

What would such a system look like today if TCP had disappeared as it 
was expected to do and replaced by OSI?

Personally, I don't have a clue, but I can imagine lots of 
possibilities.? Given the slow pace of OSI's culture, we might be still 
using those ISDN lines.?? Or perhaps the "TCP Culture" would have 
infiltrated the OSI community and produced 1000s of OSI RFCs despite the 
Chairs' attempts to exert control?? It might have happened either way.

But I think we can see some clues even today about how the OSI culture 
remains.?? Just a week or so ago, I read a bit about the emerging "5G" 
cellular technology and in particular about its use of "Network Slices" 
to segregate traffic based on whether it is video, audio, interactive, 
bulk, etc.? One of the possibilities of using such a scheme is to apply 
different costs to each category.?? So a video call might cost more per 
minute than an audio one.?? All bits are not created equal.?? Some are 
more lucrative than others.

In contrast, TCP-thinkers believe that all data is just bits.? It also 
seems that current thinking is that bandwidth is ubiquitous, free, and 
plentiful - although there are some anomalies like "data caps" that 
belie that thinking.

That wasn't always true.? Back in the early Internet, as TCPV4 was being 
defined, a "Type Of Service" (TOS) field was placed in each datagram 
header, reflecting a belief that there would be different kinds of bits 
that required different treatment as they were carried through the 
Internet.? Some bits, like those containing the next frame of video, 
aren't useful if they arrive too late to be used in creating the frame 
that was just displayed.

Over the decades however, the importance of TOS seems to have waned in 
the culture of today's Internet, with little (if any) attention now paid 
to TOS.? Functions used by mechanisms such as MBone haven't spread.? We 
have new terms such as "bufferbloat" to explain how today's Internet 
behaves.?? All bits are created equal.? None are more important than 
others or need different handling.

So, if OSI had "won" and the technology had evolved to include features 
such as "Network Slices" what would videoconferencing today look like?

Perhaps it would still be expensive, requiring special rooms, equipment 
and ISP services, and as a consequence very limited in use - quite 
different from today's world where anyone, individual or huge 
corporation, can interact by video with their customers, families, 
friends, and colleagues.

Such interactions have become critical for many users of today's 
Internet.? But we have all gotten used to, and accept, the occasional 
glitches - the visual and audible dropouts, dropped connections, 
"buffering!" interruptions, and such characteristics of today's service.

In an OSI-based world, perhaps video uses would be more expensive and 
less pervasive.?? But perhaps the video quality would have been 99.99% 
perfect.

Jack Haverty



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20240315/0f1515fb/attachment.asc>

From bpurvy at gmail.com  Fri Mar 15 12:15:25 2024
From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:15:25 -0700
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <3b2abd91-fb86-4921-b97d-18406502cda9@3kitty.org>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <3b2abd91-fb86-4921-b97d-18406502cda9@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <CAFq6nVHgroJTRH0M9kERhpmn4ry9jzh-Yegf7impXyZdOLi_Xg@mail.gmail.com>

Jack, your description of the meeting structures between the two systems is
spot-on.

If your overriding concern is that everything must be fairly adjudicated,
and moreover, be SEEN to be fair, and all parties have a fair chance to
weigh in, then you end up with the OSI model.

Not only is it slow, but as a rule, no one can be offended by having their
ideas left out.. Therefore, the final product tends to include almost
everything that anyone with any power feels strongly about.

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 12:00?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 3/15/24 03:19, David Sitman via Internet-history wrote:
> > In my talk at the EARN 40th Anniversary Conference in Athens in April I
> > would like to speculate a bit about what the world would be like today if
> > OSI had won the "Protocol Wars".
> > In 1986, it was a foregone conclusion that EARN would migrate to OSI in
> the
> > near future. However, when I began my international activity in 1991, OSI
> > was discussed as a promise that had gone largely unfulfilled and EARN
> > members were actively supporting TCP/IP networks. It seemed obvious why
> > TCP/IP had prevailed.
> > Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
> > networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space
> and
> > security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a
> meme?
> > I would be very grateful for any thoughts about this.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David Sitman
>
> Well, I've always liked sci-fi "alternate reality" stories.  So here's
> some thoughts...
>
> IMHO, both the TCP/IP and OSI approaches were similarly incomplete back
> in the 80s and 90s when the marketplace was choosing the Internet
> approach.   Evidence for that is the deluge of 1000s of RFCs since then,
> containing Standards, Draft Standards, Wannabee Standards, Protocols,
> Algorithms, and other such technical additions that have been deemed
> necessary over the decades and continue today.
>
> Both TCP and OSI technologies were incomplete and needed extensions,
> adaptation, and refinement as the technology hit the issues of the real
> world.   So in thinking about some alternate reality, one has to also
> think about how the technology might have evolved over the same time
> period.
>
> To do that, IMHO the issue is not the technology per se.  Today's
> worldwide communications system could have been built using either OSI
> or TCP approaches, beginning with those 80s-era prototypes and evolving
> them into something quite different today.
>
> So how might that have happened if TCP had just disappeared one day?
>
> I think one of the important drivers of such evolution was the "culture"
> of the two worlds.   The TCP world was somewhat chaotic, with lots of
> ideas flying around and eventually congealing into "rough consensus and
> running code".   The managers and administrators at places like ARPA,
> NSF, et al fostered such an environment, explicitly labelling the work
> as "an Experiment", and encouraging new ideas that were unproven,
> unanalyzed, but might work.
>
> In contrast, the OSI world was much more orchestrated, formal, and
> tightly managed.  I recall one instance in some Internet meeting where a
> discussion focussed on what the default value of some timing parameter
> should be.  Someone shouted out "How about 3 seconds?", and a consensus
> quickly formed that 3 seconds would probably be OK and we could always
> change it later.  In OSI land, a committee would likely have been
> formed, meetings held, and perhaps months or years later some
> recommendation would emerge, yet to be proven in actual deployed
> implementations.
>
> I wasn't involved in much OSI work, but I do recall one meeting,
> somewhere in Europe about some technical topic that I can't recall.
> Progress was actually happening, as the proponents of various choices
> swayed each other toward a consensus, which seemed (to me) to be
> imminent.  Then the Chair interrupted, noting that it was now 3PM and
> therefore time to go on to the agenda item scheduled for that time.  So
> the productive discussion was halted, progress stopped, and the question
> was never resolved, as the meeting focus shifted to the new topic as
> scheduled.
>
> In the TCP community, we would have continued that first discussion
> until consensus was reached, possibly adjourning to some restaurant in
> the interim, and watching the size of the group diminish until only the
> people who really cared about the result remained to hash out a
> solution.   Meetings in the TCP world also often had agendas, but I
> don't recall that we ever finished one as it was scheduled.
>
> Other people have mentioned other aspects of the "culture" differences -
> e.g., the OSI tendency to focus on business models, competitive
> advantages, et al.   IMHO, all of these "cultural differences" would
> have had a significant effect on how OSI might have evolved into an
> alternate reality today.
>
> One example might be videoconferencing.   We probably all have
> experienced today's ubiquitous videoconferencing over the Internet.
> How might that have evolved in an OSI world and how would we do
> videoconferencing today?
>
> In the early 1990s, I was working in Silicon Valley and my company HQ
> used videoconferencing to interact with customers.   We had our own
> corporate "intranet" and were also connected to "The Internet", but
> neither of those had videoconferencing mechanisms available at the
> time.   There were experimental systems such as MBone, but those weren't
> usable for communications with customers outside of the research
> world.   But you could buy videoconferencing equipment and services from
> PTTs.
>
> I don't recall the exact technical details, but in the 90s IIRC
> videoconferencing required use of two ISDN lines.  Those weren't normal
> everyday phone lines, so they were special orders to install the
> appropriate wires, modems,  monitors, cameras, et al into a room made
> for the purpose.   Using the ISDN lines was charged by the minute, but
> all the other costs dominated.   So we had only one special room set up
> for videoconferencing.   It worked amazingly well, providing clear and
> responsive video over just two 64 (or was it 56?) kilobits/sec
> circuits.  But of course few of the thousands of employees at our site
> ever used it, and not many customers had similar setups either.
>
> What would such a system look like today if TCP had disappeared as it
> was expected to do and replaced by OSI?
>
> Personally, I don't have a clue, but I can imagine lots of
> possibilities.  Given the slow pace of OSI's culture, we might be still
> using those ISDN lines.   Or perhaps the "TCP Culture" would have
> infiltrated the OSI community and produced 1000s of OSI RFCs despite the
> Chairs' attempts to exert control?  It might have happened either way.
>
> But I think we can see some clues even today about how the OSI culture
> remains.   Just a week or so ago, I read a bit about the emerging "5G"
> cellular technology and in particular about its use of "Network Slices"
> to segregate traffic based on whether it is video, audio, interactive,
> bulk, etc.  One of the possibilities of using such a scheme is to apply
> different costs to each category.   So a video call might cost more per
> minute than an audio one.   All bits are not created equal.   Some are
> more lucrative than others.
>
> In contrast, TCP-thinkers believe that all data is just bits.  It also
> seems that current thinking is that bandwidth is ubiquitous, free, and
> plentiful - although there are some anomalies like "data caps" that
> belie that thinking.
>
> That wasn't always true.  Back in the early Internet, as TCPV4 was being
> defined, a "Type Of Service" (TOS) field was placed in each datagram
> header, reflecting a belief that there would be different kinds of bits
> that required different treatment as they were carried through the
> Internet.  Some bits, like those containing the next frame of video,
> aren't useful if they arrive too late to be used in creating the frame
> that was just displayed.
>
> Over the decades however, the importance of TOS seems to have waned in
> the culture of today's Internet, with little (if any) attention now paid
> to TOS.  Functions used by mechanisms such as MBone haven't spread.  We
> have new terms such as "bufferbloat" to explain how today's Internet
> behaves.   All bits are created equal.  None are more important than
> others or need different handling.
>
> So, if OSI had "won" and the technology had evolved to include features
> such as "Network Slices" what would videoconferencing today look like?
>
> Perhaps it would still be expensive, requiring special rooms, equipment
> and ISP services, and as a consequence very limited in use - quite
> different from today's world where anyone, individual or huge
> corporation, can interact by video with their customers, families,
> friends, and colleagues.
>
> Such interactions have become critical for many users of today's
> Internet.  But we have all gotten used to, and accept, the occasional
> glitches - the visual and audible dropouts, dropped connections,
> "buffering!" interruptions, and such characteristics of today's service.
>
> In an OSI-based world, perhaps video uses would be more expensive and
> less pervasive.   But perhaps the video quality would have been 99.99%
> perfect.
>
> Jack Haverty
>
>
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From steve at shinkuro.com  Fri Mar 15 12:45:17 2024
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:45:17 -0700
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <CAEf-zri0Mq=ju5KqR8LHBgTcY5p0vTXLqVL-rOhdtVsRjD5Vhg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEf-zriXMguOW=Bp+WoJFvY_iJ8PowrEGcW=ZweOcrUeRTCL2Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <922C772C-5812-4483-9D62-0880291C7B25@comcast.net>
 <CAEf-zri0Mq=ju5KqR8LHBgTcY5p0vTXLqVL-rOhdtVsRjD5Vhg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABf5zv++7DJUryA1AdY2-ubkKDPCSV0bF4+-K=BJtgd9b+76tQ@mail.gmail.com>

When we were designing the first suite of protocols for the Arpanet, I
worried a LOT about the number of round trips.  It wasn't a cost issue; it
was a matter of responsiveness.  I thought it important to be able to get a
connection started quickly.

Steve


On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 11:59?AM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via
Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> The Other Side of The Coin of the Internet not charging (by the ARPANET
> "WAN model") of packet data sent (or transited between WAN's) was that
> there was No Impetus on/for efficiency in:
>
> #1.) minimizing the amount of info/data sent across the network
> -or-
> #2.) the number of packets (handshakes) to effectuate a "transaction"
>
> for the sake of an e.g. SMTP necessitates ~13 back-and-forth interactions
> to transact the sending of an email from either a UA or MTA to another MTA.
>
> in a "thin pipe" RF environment where efficiency of spectrum (and cost!) is
> paramount not only is every BIT precious/sacred but also is the
> minimization/seizure of the spectrum "sacred"
>
> in the case of implementing RadioMail (the first two-way wireless email
> service on the ARDIS Single Frequency Reuse (SFR) MDC-4800 4.8 kbps
> wireless network with its max packet length of 256 bytes [
> https://www.sigidwiki.com/wiki/MDC-4800]  (as well as on the Ericsson
> Mobitex wireless network of RAM Mobile Data at 8000 bit/s,) we developed
> the RadioMail Transport Protocol (RMTP) that not only sent/received email
> over-the-air in 1 packet "transaction" (if everything fit) but also
> "denuded" a transited email into being as "small" as possible -- for
> example rather than sending Date: xxx, From: yyy at host.com, Subject: foo,
> etc it became ^Dxxx^Fyyy at host.com^Sfoo and was "reconstituted" on the
> other
> end so as to minimize bits transmitted over the air.
>
> yours truly often thinks of how might our Dearly Beloved Internet (and the
> APRANET before it) protocols summarily evolved differently if there was
> such an emphasis put on efficiency/"bit miserliness" as well as making them
> be as less "chatty" (back-and-forths) as possible?
>
> the solution always seemed to be MORE BANDWIDTH (i.e. a fatter pipe) rather
> than from the get go making the protocols themselves be as bit (not byte!)
> miserly as possible.
>
> it seems that today we are reaching/now at a point where even with
> essentially "unlimited" bandwidth The Solution to "congestion" or the
> "cause" of degradation why things aren't "working" is/has been causing
> folks (say like Dave Taht and the bufferbloat.net fq_codel, cake
> & LibreQoS team) to be more "recognized"/"respected" for their efforts in
> making The Internet a better place/more efficient/usable for all.
>
> geoff
> --
> 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  Fri Mar 15 13:04:35 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:04:35 +1300
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <5625129E-3231-464A-9F7B-9231A8242771@comcast.net>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d3af7405-4ac2-4d25-86ff-71d59753989a@gih.com>
 <45053942-5262-455E-8178-2929826A7476@comcast.net>
 <af74b3d4-0f22-4d7d-affa-47ef174bcf2a@gih.com>
 <5625129E-3231-464A-9F7B-9231A8242771@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <7e4ca9e2-9bf1-0de9-3ba0-bab4b919bcea@gmail.com>

John,

> CLNP - as the internetwork protocol
> TP4 for transport.

Really, the critical OSI issue in the mid/late 1980s was that
there were two OSI candidates for each of those layers, with
European profiles using a connection-oriented internetwork
protocol (X.75/X.25) and a dumb transport protocol (TP2).

And that was what gave TCP/IP its chance - no competing profiles,
plus running code.

Another thing I'd mention, which was a direct consequence of the
above, is that when Tim Berners-Lee designed HTML and HTTP,
there was exactly one deployed transport layer available.
(Although the official CERN policy was TP4/CLNP at the time,
the CERN reality was TCP/IP.)

So, getting back to David's counterfactual question, if we
had all simply waited for OSI, Tim would have had no substrate
for the Web, it would at best have been a lab project, and
none of us would be where we are today. In other words,
that was a really major branching point in history.

David, I assume you're familiar with Olivier Martin's history
of the period? Very relevant to EARN.
http://ictconsulting.ch/reports/European-Research-Internet-History.pdf

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 16-Mar-24 06:17, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> Catching up.
> 
> The core OSI Protocols were:
> Ethernet (all 802 standards are ISO standards)
> (Network Layer-was intended to be technology dependent and potentially non-standard. This is following the INWG and ISO 8648 model of internetworking.)
> CLNP - as the internetwork protocol
> TP4 for transport.
> Fast-byte for the collapsed upper layers.
> ACSE - for creating application connections including authentication and was designed to be recursive.
> Then most anything that was proposed could be done (remember standards are bottom up, so if support could be generated for an application it could be done.)
> 
> The application layer structure was designed to be modular, so base application protocols could be mixed and matched with supporting protocols. Among the things proposed were:
> Virtual Terminal - which was mostly obsolete by then but was on the write track until DEC screwed it up.
> FTAM - for file transfer
> JTAM - for Job Transfer
> CCR - for commitment, concurrency and recovery.
> RPC - for Remote Procedure Call
> TP - for Transaction Processing.
> CMIP - for network management (but really the base application protocol since all application protocols act on objects external to the protocol. The only difference is what the object models are.)
> 
>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 09:52, Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
>>
>> Totally agree -- hence the only possible evolution from there, which I followed up in my next email:
>>
>> https://www.bing.com/images/create/a-bright-green-sneaker-with-osi-logo-on-it/1-65f44c2966d7477884c76d7914be2bf6?id=oiufq8FtuQ9dPQT%2f2ETwVA%3d%3d&view=detailv2&idpp=genimg&idpclose=1&thId=OIG3.IQig2FDd_t3cKvUjIr8X&frame=sydedg&FORM=SYDBIC
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> On 15/03/2024 13:45, John Day wrote:
>>> These were all crap.  X.25/X.75/X.29 were all trying to preserve the PTT monopoly.
>>>
>>> The PTTs never got (and still don?t) that this was all about dynamic resource allocation, not static allocation.
>>>
>>> X.400 was far too complex.  X.500 was trying to be the white pages and the yellow pages, when all that was necessary was a simple protocol that mapped application names to network addresses.
>>>
>>> These were all illustrate how the PTTs didn?t get what was going on.
>>>
>>> The mistake OSI made was inviting to do the work jointly with CCITT (ITU). However, given that there was no telecom deregulation even being talked about in Europe the Europeans felt they had no choice, especially given the interference they had already shown with EIN and EURONET.
>>>
>>> The Europeans proved to be their own best enemy.
>>>
>>> Take care,
>>> John
>>>
>>>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 09:34, Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15/03/2024 10:19, David Sitman via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>> Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
>>>>> networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space and
>>>>> security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a meme?
>>>> Having actually used X.3, X.21, X.25, X.400, X.500... sorry, let me re-phrase this... having actually struggled with the aforementioned X. based services and also programmed stacks according to these protocols a loooong time ago, my prediction of a Green Internet based on computing networking with OSI would be resumed as this:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kindest regards,
>>>>
>>>> Olivier
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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
>>
>> -- 
>> Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD
>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
> 

From jeanjour at comcast.net  Fri Mar 15 13:14:24 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:14:24 -0400
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <7e4ca9e2-9bf1-0de9-3ba0-bab4b919bcea@gmail.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d3af7405-4ac2-4d25-86ff-71d59753989a@gih.com>
 <45053942-5262-455E-8178-2929826A7476@comcast.net>
 <af74b3d4-0f22-4d7d-affa-47ef174bcf2a@gih.com>
 <5625129E-3231-464A-9F7B-9231A8242771@comcast.net>
 <7e4ca9e2-9bf1-0de9-3ba0-bab4b919bcea@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <504404DB-6D11-47CC-94A6-F41DC64B669F@comcast.net>

Brian,

> On Mar 15, 2024, at 16:04, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> John,
> 
>> CLNP - as the internetwork protocol
>> TP4 for transport.
> 
> Really, the critical OSI issue in the mid/late 1980s was that
> there were two OSI candidates for each of those layers, with
> European profiles using a connection-oriented internetwork
> protocol (X.75/X.25) and a dumb transport protocol (TP2).

Only to the uninformed. ;-) Only the PTTs kept trying to push X.75 but everyone knew it could never sustain a network. That was implicit in 8648. We all knew the PTTs were a dead horse so why waste time on it. From the time of CYCLADES and before, it was clear that the game had to be dynamic resource allocation, which virtual circuit wasn?t doing.

Yea, the Brits had to push TP2. I have never understood why. Just so they could say they had done something. It wasn?t any more efficient than TP4 under the same error conditions and if those errors occurred (which could be eliminated) TP2 didn?t work and TP4 did. Also TP4 incorporated Watson?s result on synchronization which made it more robust and more secure. The Brits were always a pain. TP4 was a major advance, besides being less overhead.
> 
> And that was what gave TCP/IP its chance - no competing profiles,
> plus running code.

There was running code by the demos in 1985, I believe.

Take care,
John
> 
> Another thing I'd mention, which was a direct consequence of the
> above, is that when Tim Berners-Lee designed HTML and HTTP,
> there was exactly one deployed transport layer available.
> (Although the official CERN policy was TP4/CLNP at the time,
> the CERN reality was TCP/IP.)
> 
> So, getting back to David's counterfactual question, if we
> had all simply waited for OSI, Tim would have had no substrate
> for the Web, it would at best have been a lab project, and
> none of us would be where we are today. In other words,
> that was a really major branching point in history.
> 
> David, I assume you're familiar with Olivier Martin's history
> of the period? Very relevant to EARN.
> http://ictconsulting.ch/reports/European-Research-Internet-History.pdf
> 
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter
> 
> On 16-Mar-24 06:17, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>> Catching up.
>> The core OSI Protocols were:
>> Ethernet (all 802 standards are ISO standards)
>> (Network Layer-was intended to be technology dependent and potentially non-standard. This is following the INWG and ISO 8648 model of internetworking.)
>> CLNP - as the internetwork protocol
>> TP4 for transport.
>> Fast-byte for the collapsed upper layers.
>> ACSE - for creating application connections including authentication and was designed to be recursive.
>> Then most anything that was proposed could be done (remember standards are bottom up, so if support could be generated for an application it could be done.)
>> The application layer structure was designed to be modular, so base application protocols could be mixed and matched with supporting protocols. Among the things proposed were:
>> Virtual Terminal - which was mostly obsolete by then but was on the write track until DEC screwed it up.
>> FTAM - for file transfer
>> JTAM - for Job Transfer
>> CCR - for commitment, concurrency and recovery.
>> RPC - for Remote Procedure Call
>> TP - for Transaction Processing.
>> CMIP - for network management (but really the base application protocol since all application protocols act on objects external to the protocol. The only difference is what the object models are.)
>>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 09:52, Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Totally agree -- hence the only possible evolution from there, which I followed up in my next email:
>>> 
>>> https://www.bing.com/images/create/a-bright-green-sneaker-with-osi-logo-on-it/1-65f44c2966d7477884c76d7914be2bf6?id=oiufq8FtuQ9dPQT%2f2ETwVA%3d%3d&view=detailv2&idpp=genimg&idpclose=1&thId=OIG3.IQig2FDd_t3cKvUjIr8X&frame=sydedg&FORM=SYDBIC
>>> 
>>> :-)
>>> 
>>> On 15/03/2024 13:45, John Day wrote:
>>>> These were all crap.  X.25/X.75/X.29 were all trying to preserve the PTT monopoly.
>>>> 
>>>> The PTTs never got (and still don?t) that this was all about dynamic resource allocation, not static allocation.
>>>> 
>>>> X.400 was far too complex.  X.500 was trying to be the white pages and the yellow pages, when all that was necessary was a simple protocol that mapped application names to network addresses.
>>>> 
>>>> These were all illustrate how the PTTs didn?t get what was going on.
>>>> 
>>>> The mistake OSI made was inviting to do the work jointly with CCITT (ITU). However, given that there was no telecom deregulation even being talked about in Europe the Europeans felt they had no choice, especially given the interference they had already shown with EIN and EURONET.
>>>> 
>>>> The Europeans proved to be their own best enemy.
>>>> 
>>>> Take care,
>>>> John
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 09:34, Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 15/03/2024 10:19, David Sitman via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>>> Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
>>>>>> networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space and
>>>>>> security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a meme?
>>>>> Having actually used X.3, X.21, X.25, X.400, X.500... sorry, let me re-phrase this... having actually struggled with the aforementioned X. based services and also programmed stacks according to these protocols a loooong time ago, my prediction of a Green Internet based on computing networking with OSI would be resumed as this:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Kindest regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Olivier
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 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
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD
>>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html



From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Fri Mar 15 13:51:45 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:51:45 +1300
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <504404DB-6D11-47CC-94A6-F41DC64B669F@comcast.net>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d3af7405-4ac2-4d25-86ff-71d59753989a@gih.com>
 <45053942-5262-455E-8178-2929826A7476@comcast.net>
 <af74b3d4-0f22-4d7d-affa-47ef174bcf2a@gih.com>
 <5625129E-3231-464A-9F7B-9231A8242771@comcast.net>
 <7e4ca9e2-9bf1-0de9-3ba0-bab4b919bcea@gmail.com>
 <504404DB-6D11-47CC-94A6-F41DC64B669F@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <36e1b8c1-fb0a-50b0-9f7f-b855e978791c@gmail.com>

On 16-Mar-24 09:14, John Day wrote:
> Brian,
> 
>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 16:04, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> John,
>>
>>> CLNP - as the internetwork protocol
>>> TP4 for transport.
>>
>> Really, the critical OSI issue in the mid/late 1980s was that
>> there were two OSI candidates for each of those layers, with
>> European profiles using a connection-oriented internetwork
>> protocol (X.75/X.25) and a dumb transport protocol (TP2).
> 
> Only to the uninformed. ;-) 

Who included most of the people handing out the money, and the
people supplying international leased lines. I remember having
it explained to me (probably in Brussels) that CLNP was an
American plan to take over the universe and destroy the European
computing industry (or words implying that). CERN wasn't popular
among the European GOSIP promoters because we had chosen CLNP
and TP4 as the way to go, long before we became more unpopular for
switching horses midstream to TCP/IP.

> Only the PTTs kept trying to push X.75 but everyone knew it could never sustain a network. That was implicit in 8648. We all knew the PTTs were a dead horse so why waste time on it. From the time of CYCLADES and before, it was clear that the game had to be dynamic resource allocation, which virtual circuit wasn?t doing.
> 
> Yea, the Brits had to push TP2. I have never understood why. Just so they could say they had done something. It wasn?t any more efficient than TP4 under the same error conditions and if those errors occurred (which could be eliminated) TP2 didn?t work and TP4 did. Also TP4 incorporated Watson?s result on synchronization which made it more robust and more secure. The Brits were always a pain. TP4 was a major advance, besides being less overhead.
>>
>> And that was what gave TCP/IP its chance - no competing profiles,
>> plus running code.
> 
> There was running code by the demos in 1985, I believe.

I'm sure there was, but I remember trying to find viable CLNP
code for the Motorola 68000 around that time, and the price
was absolutely ludicrous. (Some small company in Santa Monica
was trying to make megadollars out of US GOSIP.) But by the time
DECNET Phase V was deployable, it was already "game over".

     Brian

> 
> Take care,
> John
>>
>> Another thing I'd mention, which was a direct consequence of the
>> above, is that when Tim Berners-Lee designed HTML and HTTP,
>> there was exactly one deployed transport layer available.
>> (Although the official CERN policy was TP4/CLNP at the time,
>> the CERN reality was TCP/IP.)
>>
>> So, getting back to David's counterfactual question, if we
>> had all simply waited for OSI, Tim would have had no substrate
>> for the Web, it would at best have been a lab project, and
>> none of us would be where we are today. In other words,
>> that was a really major branching point in history.
>>
>> David, I assume you're familiar with Olivier Martin's history
>> of the period? Very relevant to EARN.
>> http://ictconsulting.ch/reports/European-Research-Internet-History.pdf
>>
>> Regards
>>    Brian Carpenter
>>
>> On 16-Mar-24 06:17, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>>> Catching up.
>>> The core OSI Protocols were:
>>> Ethernet (all 802 standards are ISO standards)
>>> (Network Layer-was intended to be technology dependent and potentially non-standard. This is following the INWG and ISO 8648 model of internetworking.)
>>> CLNP - as the internetwork protocol
>>> TP4 for transport.
>>> Fast-byte for the collapsed upper layers.
>>> ACSE - for creating application connections including authentication and was designed to be recursive.
>>> Then most anything that was proposed could be done (remember standards are bottom up, so if support could be generated for an application it could be done.)
>>> The application layer structure was designed to be modular, so base application protocols could be mixed and matched with supporting protocols. Among the things proposed were:
>>> Virtual Terminal - which was mostly obsolete by then but was on the write track until DEC screwed it up.
>>> FTAM - for file transfer
>>> JTAM - for Job Transfer
>>> CCR - for commitment, concurrency and recovery.
>>> RPC - for Remote Procedure Call
>>> TP - for Transaction Processing.
>>> CMIP - for network management (but really the base application protocol since all application protocols act on objects external to the protocol. The only difference is what the object models are.)
>>>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 09:52, Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Totally agree -- hence the only possible evolution from there, which I followed up in my next email:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bing.com/images/create/a-bright-green-sneaker-with-osi-logo-on-it/1-65f44c2966d7477884c76d7914be2bf6?id=oiufq8FtuQ9dPQT%2f2ETwVA%3d%3d&view=detailv2&idpp=genimg&idpclose=1&thId=OIG3.IQig2FDd_t3cKvUjIr8X&frame=sydedg&FORM=SYDBIC
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> On 15/03/2024 13:45, John Day wrote:
>>>>> These were all crap.  X.25/X.75/X.29 were all trying to preserve the PTT monopoly.
>>>>>
>>>>> The PTTs never got (and still don?t) that this was all about dynamic resource allocation, not static allocation.
>>>>>
>>>>> X.400 was far too complex.  X.500 was trying to be the white pages and the yellow pages, when all that was necessary was a simple protocol that mapped application names to network addresses.
>>>>>
>>>>> These were all illustrate how the PTTs didn?t get what was going on.
>>>>>
>>>>> The mistake OSI made was inviting to do the work jointly with CCITT (ITU). However, given that there was no telecom deregulation even being talked about in Europe the Europeans felt they had no choice, especially given the interference they had already shown with EIN and EURONET.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Europeans proved to be their own best enemy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Take care,
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 09:34, Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15/03/2024 10:19, David Sitman via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>>>> Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
>>>>>>> networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space and
>>>>>>> security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a meme?
>>>>>> Having actually used X.3, X.21, X.25, X.400, X.500... sorry, let me re-phrase this... having actually struggled with the aforementioned X. based services and also programmed stacks according to these protocols a loooong time ago, my prediction of a Green Internet based on computing networking with OSI would be resumed as this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kindest regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Olivier
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD
>>>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
> 

From jeanjour at comcast.net  Fri Mar 15 16:35:13 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:35:13 -0400
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <36e1b8c1-fb0a-50b0-9f7f-b855e978791c@gmail.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <d3af7405-4ac2-4d25-86ff-71d59753989a@gih.com>
 <45053942-5262-455E-8178-2929826A7476@comcast.net>
 <af74b3d4-0f22-4d7d-affa-47ef174bcf2a@gih.com>
 <5625129E-3231-464A-9F7B-9231A8242771@comcast.net>
 <7e4ca9e2-9bf1-0de9-3ba0-bab4b919bcea@gmail.com>
 <504404DB-6D11-47CC-94A6-F41DC64B669F@comcast.net>
 <36e1b8c1-fb0a-50b0-9f7f-b855e978791c@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48C3FA40-0020-4575-A16B-F480B5B1C016@comcast.net>

;-) lol that is really funny.

> On Mar 15, 2024, at 16:51, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 16-Mar-24 09:14, John Day wrote:
>> Brian,
>>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 16:04, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> John,
>>> 
>>>> CLNP - as the internetwork protocol
>>>> TP4 for transport.
>>> 
>>> Really, the critical OSI issue in the mid/late 1980s was that
>>> there were two OSI candidates for each of those layers, with
>>> European profiles using a connection-oriented internetwork
>>> protocol (X.75/X.25) and a dumb transport protocol (TP2).
>> Only to the uninformed. ;-)
> 
> Who included most of the people handing out the money, and the
> people supplying international leased lines. I remember having
> it explained to me (probably in Brussels) that CLNP was an
> American plan to take over the universe and destroy the European
> computing industry (or words implying that). CERN wasn't popular
> among the European GOSIP promoters because we had chosen CLNP
> and TP4 as the way to go, long before we became more unpopular for
> switching horses midstream to TCP/IP.
> 
>> Only the PTTs kept trying to push X.75 but everyone knew it could never sustain a network. That was implicit in 8648. We all knew the PTTs were a dead horse so why waste time on it. From the time of CYCLADES and before, it was clear that the game had to be dynamic resource allocation, which virtual circuit wasn?t doing.
>> Yea, the Brits had to push TP2. I have never understood why. Just so they could say they had done something. It wasn?t any more efficient than TP4 under the same error conditions and if those errors occurred (which could be eliminated) TP2 didn?t work and TP4 did. Also TP4 incorporated Watson?s result on synchronization which made it more robust and more secure. The Brits were always a pain. TP4 was a major advance, besides being less overhead.
>>> 
>>> And that was what gave TCP/IP its chance - no competing profiles,
>>> plus running code.
>> There was running code by the demos in 1985, I believe.
> 
> I'm sure there was, but I remember trying to find viable CLNP
> code for the Motorola 68000 around that time, and the price
> was absolutely ludicrous. (Some small company in Santa Monica
> was trying to make megadollars out of US GOSIP.) But by the time
> DECNET Phase V was deployable, it was already "game over".
> 
>    Brian
> 
>> Take care,
>> John
>>> 
>>> Another thing I'd mention, which was a direct consequence of the
>>> above, is that when Tim Berners-Lee designed HTML and HTTP,
>>> there was exactly one deployed transport layer available.
>>> (Although the official CERN policy was TP4/CLNP at the time,
>>> the CERN reality was TCP/IP.)
>>> 
>>> So, getting back to David's counterfactual question, if we
>>> had all simply waited for OSI, Tim would have had no substrate
>>> for the Web, it would at best have been a lab project, and
>>> none of us would be where we are today. In other words,
>>> that was a really major branching point in history.
>>> 
>>> David, I assume you're familiar with Olivier Martin's history
>>> of the period? Very relevant to EARN.
>>> http://ictconsulting.ch/reports/European-Research-Internet-History.pdf
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>>   Brian Carpenter
>>> 
>>> On 16-Mar-24 06:17, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> Catching up.
>>>> The core OSI Protocols were:
>>>> Ethernet (all 802 standards are ISO standards)
>>>> (Network Layer-was intended to be technology dependent and potentially non-standard. This is following the INWG and ISO 8648 model of internetworking.)
>>>> CLNP - as the internetwork protocol
>>>> TP4 for transport.
>>>> Fast-byte for the collapsed upper layers.
>>>> ACSE - for creating application connections including authentication and was designed to be recursive.
>>>> Then most anything that was proposed could be done (remember standards are bottom up, so if support could be generated for an application it could be done.)
>>>> The application layer structure was designed to be modular, so base application protocols could be mixed and matched with supporting protocols. Among the things proposed were:
>>>> Virtual Terminal - which was mostly obsolete by then but was on the write track until DEC screwed it up.
>>>> FTAM - for file transfer
>>>> JTAM - for Job Transfer
>>>> CCR - for commitment, concurrency and recovery.
>>>> RPC - for Remote Procedure Call
>>>> TP - for Transaction Processing.
>>>> CMIP - for network management (but really the base application protocol since all application protocols act on objects external to the protocol. The only difference is what the object models are.)
>>>>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 09:52, Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Totally agree -- hence the only possible evolution from there, which I followed up in my next email:
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://www.bing.com/images/create/a-bright-green-sneaker-with-osi-logo-on-it/1-65f44c2966d7477884c76d7914be2bf6?id=oiufq8FtuQ9dPQT%2f2ETwVA%3d%3d&view=detailv2&idpp=genimg&idpclose=1&thId=OIG3.IQig2FDd_t3cKvUjIr8X&frame=sydedg&FORM=SYDBIC
>>>>> 
>>>>> :-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 15/03/2024 13:45, John Day wrote:
>>>>>> These were all crap.  X.25/X.75/X.29 were all trying to preserve the PTT monopoly.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The PTTs never got (and still don?t) that this was all about dynamic resource allocation, not static allocation.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> X.400 was far too complex.  X.500 was trying to be the white pages and the yellow pages, when all that was necessary was a simple protocol that mapped application names to network addresses.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> These were all illustrate how the PTTs didn?t get what was going on.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The mistake OSI made was inviting to do the work jointly with CCITT (ITU). However, given that there was no telecom deregulation even being talked about in Europe the Europeans felt they had no choice, especially given the interference they had already shown with EIN and EURONET.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The Europeans proved to be their own best enemy.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Take care,
>>>>>> John
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 09:34, Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 15/03/2024 10:19, David Sitman via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>>>>> Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
>>>>>>>> networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space and
>>>>>>>> security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a meme?
>>>>>>> Having actually used X.3, X.21, X.25, X.400, X.500... sorry, let me re-phrase this... having actually struggled with the aforementioned X. based services and also programmed stacks according to these protocols a loooong time ago, my prediction of a Green Internet based on computing networking with OSI would be resumed as this:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Kindest regards,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Olivier
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD
>>>>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html



From bill.n1vux at gmail.com  Fri Mar 15 17:37:22 2024
From: bill.n1vux at gmail.com (Bill Ricker)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:37:22 -0400
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <3b2abd91-fb86-4921-b97d-18406502cda9@3kitty.org>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <3b2abd91-fb86-4921-b97d-18406502cda9@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <CAAbKA3UkBpCJezd5yoEiwe6KEAnW4QfVpfWqbnYHs1cHqj1wmQ@mail.gmail.com>

Speaking as the Literary Estate of Michael A Padlipsky (MAP)*

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 3:00?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> Well, I've always liked sci-fi "alternate reality" stories.

Since MAP ? our own Casandra preaching against OSI ISORM from within the
temple of GOSIP (MITRE, where I met him) ? wrote the 1st or 2nd
degree-thesis on SciFi as LitCrit,?
he would have had several opinions on this sentence, and the following
introductory paragraph.
(The rest of the analysis I'm not quibbling; from what i remember learning
at MAP's metaphoric knee, the history *sounds* right, and extrapolation
sounds plausible.)

I suspect he'd have said that an "alternate reality" in which OSI was the
basis for a cyberpunk setting was ^science-fiction^ only in the broader
sense in which say elves-with-aluminum-block Vega hot-rods in the hills
surrounding Los Angeles (a real book series, don't ask! Just don't
drag-race an elf on Dead Man's Curve at midnight, ok?) or steam-powered
dirigibles transit from Earth to our Victorian Mars Colonies (ditto only
moreso) are accepted under the greater SciFi&Fantasy rubric.

> IMHO, both the TCP/IP and OSI approaches were similarly incomplete back
> in the 80s and 90s when the marketplace was choosing the Internet
> approach.   Evidence ...

Yes, more was to come from both. However, examining the contemporaneous
testimony we can recall that one had more there there then than the other
then.

MAP's own writing in the 1980s (*Tea Bag Papers*? [1982] et seq.) observed
that the ARPA Reference Model had a working prototype, evolved from actual
use, unlike the Other Brand.
His aphorism on the situation went something like this (*I don't have the
right source file ready to hand, alas*; *i looked*):

> when Junior asks to borrow the car tonight for his hot date,
> offering him a tire, a steering wheel, and a Cadillac sales brochure
> is not going to meet his immediate need.
>
(IIRC, his was more elaborate yet of course pithier than i can recreate -
the 4 tires were 4 different sizes?)

In the 1985 collected expansion of the *Tea Bag Papers*, *_Elements of
Networking Style_*,? MAP wrote of OSI *et al* as
"*oversold, underdesigned, & years from here*."
(Which the elders and historians among us will recognize as a formerly
obvious allusion to the witty derogatory complaint about US GIs (Yanks)
while collecting England in preparation for OPERATION OVERLORD (commonly
mistakenly called D-DAY):
"*oversexed, over-paid, and over here*".)



* https://n1vux.github.io/articles/MAP/
? https://n1vux.github.io/articles/MAP/SciFi/
? https://n1vux.github.io/articles/MAP/RFC/#teabag
? Literary Executor is my penance, since i inadvertently acted as
Author-Agent in that placement. Field Editor that I got deskcopy from and
gave bookstore-placement for a couple dozen Unix how-to books to wanted to
know if i had a manuscript begging to get out. i answered no, but i have a
friend&colleague who does.


From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Fri Mar 15 22:56:33 2024
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:56:33 -0700
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
In-Reply-To: <CAEf-zriXMguOW=Bp+WoJFvY_iJ8PowrEGcW=ZweOcrUeRTCL2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEf-zriXMguOW=Bp+WoJFvY_iJ8PowrEGcW=ZweOcrUeRTCL2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3D44C6AD-E12B-459F-AB66-D6646B801B00@icloud.com>

On Mar 15, 2024, at 9:14?AM, the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
> 
> imho, what made the Internet a resounding success was the "flat rate and
> sender keeps all cost nature" of connection -- i.e. the lack of
> "settlements" for traffic transited between interconnected networks as is
> the case with the PSTN and was the case with the interconnected X
> networks...  there was A Very Pivotal Moment in Internet history where...
> that almost didn't happen, viz.:
> 
> *Data Network Raises Monopoly Fear*
> By JOHN MARKOFF
> The New York Times
> December 19, 1991
> http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/19/business/data-network-raises-monopoly-fear.html

For more about this, see "Management of NSFNET. Hearing before the Subcommittee
on Science of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, One
Hundred Second Congress, Second Session.? [1]

--gregbo

[1] https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED350986.pdf

From bpurvy at gmail.com  Sat Mar 16 15:17:14 2024
From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy)
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:17:14 -0700
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate realiv
In-Reply-To: <7038C6B8-45DF-4416-A435-8E40E43F0E32@comcast.net>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <041701da76ef$cdb2cf40$69186dc0$@aol.com>
 <7038C6B8-45DF-4416-A435-8E40E43F0E32@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CAFq6nVEv+Z8Zo84kDrD0Cpk-=VX0vUNDQBNWb2we4nFBLchn+Q@mail.gmail.com>

Even when they actually *had* the future up and running, they spurned it:

Minitel. It caught on, the French loved it, and the PTT still failed to
capitalize on it.

With friends like PTTs, OSI didn't need any enemies.

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 10:25?AM John Day via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Yes, the PTTs had no idea what was coming.  As late as the late 1980s, I
> had people telling me that the amount of data traffic would never exceed
> the amount voice traffic. (!!) You could only wonder what they were
> smoking!  ;-)
>
> Also, recent delving into the old papers makes it clear the degree to
> which the PTTs thwarted the development of comparable networks in Europe,
> e.g., EIN and EURONET.
>
> > On Mar 15, 2024, at 11:45, Daniele Bovio via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > David,
> > One of the major problems at the time was that the PTTs planned to charge
> > the X.25 traffic by volume, and this would have slowed down the
> development
> > of applications enormously, as nobody could have afforded to send images,
> > sound and videos over the network at an affordable price.
> > The other issue was that X.25 was limited to E1/DS1 (2Mb), and that was a
> > severe limitation.
> > Of course prices would have decreased for packet switched networks as
> well
> > after the monopolies fell for good at the end of the 90, and probably
> some
> > other X. would have been invented to overcome the E1 limitation of X.25,
> but
> > I believe it would have been an uphill road all the way.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Daniele
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Internet-history [mailto:internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of David Sitman via Internet-history
> > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 12:19 PM
> > To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
> >
> > In my talk at the EARN 40th Anniversary Conference in Athens in April I
> > would like to speculate a bit about what the world would be like today if
> > OSI had won the "Protocol Wars".
> > In 1986, it was a foregone conclusion that EARN would migrate to OSI in
> the
> > near future. However, when I began my international activity in 1991, OSI
> > was discussed as a promise that had gone largely unfulfilled and EARN
> > members were actively supporting TCP/IP networks. It seemed obvious why
> > TCP/IP had prevailed.
> > Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
> > networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space
> and
> > security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a
> meme?
> > I would be very grateful for any thoughts about this.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > David Sitman
> > --
> > 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 jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat Mar 16 16:22:12 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:22:12 -0400
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate realiv
In-Reply-To: <CAFq6nVEv+Z8Zo84kDrD0Cpk-=VX0vUNDQBNWb2we4nFBLchn+Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <041701da76ef$cdb2cf40$69186dc0$@aol.com>
 <7038C6B8-45DF-4416-A435-8E40E43F0E32@comcast.net>
 <CAFq6nVEv+Z8Zo84kDrD0Cpk-=VX0vUNDQBNWb2we4nFBLchn+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CD1860FF-2054-439A-9846-C83567F5EA60@comcast.net>

The PTTs were still stuck in the 20 year turnover of equipment and it was changing lot faster.

Minitel had nothing to do with OSI. It was already in the works when it started. That was how the Session Layer got stolen and why there was TP0.

What is even funnier was WAP was Videotex all over again and just as bad the second time around.

> On Mar 16, 2024, at 18:17, Bob Purvy <bpurvy at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Even when they actually had the future up and running, they spurned it:
> 
> Minitel. It caught on, the French loved it, and the PTT still failed to capitalize on it.
> 
> With friends like PTTs, OSI didn't need any enemies.
> 
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 10:25?AM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>> Yes, the PTTs had no idea what was coming.  As late as the late 1980s, I had people telling me that the amount of data traffic would never exceed the amount voice traffic. (!!) You could only wonder what they were smoking!  ;-)
>> 
>> Also, recent delving into the old papers makes it clear the degree to which the PTTs thwarted the development of comparable networks in Europe, e.g., EIN and EURONET.
>> 
>> > On Mar 15, 2024, at 11:45, Daniele Bovio via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>> > 
>> > David,
>> > One of the major problems at the time was that the PTTs planned to charge
>> > the X.25 traffic by volume, and this would have slowed down the development
>> > of applications enormously, as nobody could have afforded to send images,
>> > sound and videos over the network at an affordable price.
>> > The other issue was that X.25 was limited to E1/DS1 (2Mb), and that was a
>> > severe limitation.
>> > Of course prices would have decreased for packet switched networks as well
>> > after the monopolies fell for good at the end of the 90, and probably some
>> > other X. would have been invented to overcome the E1 limitation of X.25, but
>> > I believe it would have been an uphill road all the way.
>> > 
>> > Cheers
>> > 
>> > Daniele
>> > 
>> > 
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Internet-history [mailto:internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org>] On
>> > Behalf Of David Sitman via Internet-history
>> > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 12:19 PM
>> > To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>> > Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
>> > 
>> > In my talk at the EARN 40th Anniversary Conference in Athens in April I
>> > would like to speculate a bit about what the world would be like today if
>> > OSI had won the "Protocol Wars".
>> > In 1986, it was a foregone conclusion that EARN would migrate to OSI in the
>> > near future. However, when I began my international activity in 1991, OSI
>> > was discussed as a promise that had gone largely unfulfilled and EARN
>> > members were actively supporting TCP/IP networks. It seemed obvious why
>> > TCP/IP had prevailed.
>> > Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
>> > networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space and
>> > security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a meme?
>> > I would be very grateful for any thoughts about this.
>> > 
>> > Thanks,
>> > David Sitman
>> > --
>> > 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 bpurvy at gmail.com  Sat Mar 16 16:45:50 2024
From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy)
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:45:50 -0700
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate realiv
In-Reply-To: <CD1860FF-2054-439A-9846-C83567F5EA60@comcast.net>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <041701da76ef$cdb2cf40$69186dc0$@aol.com>
 <7038C6B8-45DF-4416-A435-8E40E43F0E32@comcast.net>
 <CAFq6nVEv+Z8Zo84kDrD0Cpk-=VX0vUNDQBNWb2we4nFBLchn+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CD1860FF-2054-439A-9846-C83567F5EA60@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CAFq6nVHrVg+svTLRUqmYEMASrZn3eA4geQbyeM5eXM87LPk1FQ@mail.gmail.com>

> Minitel had nothing to do with OSI.

except both were heavily backed by one or more PTTs

On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 4:22?PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:

> The PTTs were still stuck in the 20 year turnover of equipment and it was
> changing lot faster.
>
> Minitel had nothing to do with OSI. It was already in the works when it
> started. That was how the Session Layer got stolen and why there was TP0.
>
> What is even funnier was WAP was Videotex all over again and just as bad
> the second time around.
>
> On Mar 16, 2024, at 18:17, Bob Purvy <bpurvy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Even when they actually *had* the future up and running, they spurned it:
>
> Minitel. It caught on, the French loved it, and the PTT still failed to
> capitalize on it.
>
> With friends like PTTs, OSI didn't need any enemies.
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 10:25?AM John Day via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>> Yes, the PTTs had no idea what was coming.  As late as the late 1980s, I
>> had people telling me that the amount of data traffic would never exceed
>> the amount voice traffic. (!!) You could only wonder what they were
>> smoking!  ;-)
>>
>> Also, recent delving into the old papers makes it clear the degree to
>> which the PTTs thwarted the development of comparable networks in Europe,
>> e.g., EIN and EURONET.
>>
>> > On Mar 15, 2024, at 11:45, Daniele Bovio via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > David,
>> > One of the major problems at the time was that the PTTs planned to
>> charge
>> > the X.25 traffic by volume, and this would have slowed down the
>> development
>> > of applications enormously, as nobody could have afforded to send
>> images,
>> > sound and videos over the network at an affordable price.
>> > The other issue was that X.25 was limited to E1/DS1 (2Mb), and that was
>> a
>> > severe limitation.
>> > Of course prices would have decreased for packet switched networks as
>> well
>> > after the monopolies fell for good at the end of the 90, and probably
>> some
>> > other X. would have been invented to overcome the E1 limitation of
>> X.25, but
>> > I believe it would have been an uphill road all the way.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> >
>> > Daniele
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Internet-history [mailto:internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org]
>> On
>> > Behalf Of David Sitman via Internet-history
>> > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 12:19 PM
>> > To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> > Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
>> >
>> > In my talk at the EARN 40th Anniversary Conference in Athens in April I
>> > would like to speculate a bit about what the world would be like today
>> if
>> > OSI had won the "Protocol Wars".
>> > In 1986, it was a foregone conclusion that EARN would migrate to OSI in
>> the
>> > near future. However, when I began my international activity in 1991,
>> OSI
>> > was discussed as a promise that had gone largely unfulfilled and EARN
>> > members were actively supporting TCP/IP networks. It seemed obvious why
>> > TCP/IP had prevailed.
>> > Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
>> > networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space
>> and
>> > security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a
>> meme?
>> > I would be very grateful for any thoughts about this.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > David Sitman
>> > --
>> > 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 jeanjour at comcast.net  Sat Mar 16 17:03:45 2024
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:03:45 -0400
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate realiv
In-Reply-To: <CAFq6nVHrVg+svTLRUqmYEMASrZn3eA4geQbyeM5eXM87LPk1FQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <041701da76ef$cdb2cf40$69186dc0$@aol.com>
 <7038C6B8-45DF-4416-A435-8E40E43F0E32@comcast.net>
 <CAFq6nVEv+Z8Zo84kDrD0Cpk-=VX0vUNDQBNWb2we4nFBLchn+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CD1860FF-2054-439A-9846-C83567F5EA60@comcast.net>
 <CAFq6nVHrVg+svTLRUqmYEMASrZn3eA4geQbyeM5eXM87LPk1FQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B7580782-1FC3-4A03-A397-908AC6B2A6DF@comcast.net>

As I recall, Videotex was in the works in SGVIII when the Europeans hatched the agreement to ditch the CCITT Reference Model effort and CCITT would develop jointly with ISO, around 1980 or 82. (a big mistake as I have said). SGVIII basically laid out their header format and drew lines where they wanted layers.

Of course, they didn?t want a Transport Protocol (or one they could ignore) because Videotex would be outside their monopoly and subject to competition, hence TP0. They also didn?t want anything to do with Presentation or the Application Layer.  They were the ones advocating for an API at Session Layer that when they got done with it had nothing to do with creating Sessions. Actually, giving SGVIII the Session Layer may have been part of the deal. It wasn?t a good idea but then I haven?t seen anything from ITU that was a good idea.

WAP was especially hilarious. The original Videotex was killed by technology moving faster than they thought, which was basically what killed WAP. You would think they would learn. But then I have always said that ITU plans for a window of opportunity 15 minutes in the future.

By your logic, am I to conclude that anything the PTTs backed was OSI? 

> On Mar 16, 2024, at 19:45, Bob Purvy <bpurvy at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Minitel had nothing to do with OSI.
> 
> except both were heavily backed by one or more PTTs
> 
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 4:22?PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>> The PTTs were still stuck in the 20 year turnover of equipment and it was changing lot faster.
>> 
>> Minitel had nothing to do with OSI. It was already in the works when it started. That was how the Session Layer got stolen and why there was TP0.
>> 
>> What is even funnier was WAP was Videotex all over again and just as bad the second time around.
>> 
>>> On Mar 16, 2024, at 18:17, Bob Purvy <bpurvy at gmail.com <mailto:bpurvy at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Even when they actually had the future up and running, they spurned it:
>>> 
>>> Minitel. It caught on, the French loved it, and the PTT still failed to capitalize on it.
>>> 
>>> With friends like PTTs, OSI didn't need any enemies.
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 10:25?AM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>> Yes, the PTTs had no idea what was coming.  As late as the late 1980s, I had people telling me that the amount of data traffic would never exceed the amount voice traffic. (!!) You could only wonder what they were smoking!  ;-)
>>>> 
>>>> Also, recent delving into the old papers makes it clear the degree to which the PTTs thwarted the development of comparable networks in Europe, e.g., EIN and EURONET.
>>>> 
>>>> > On Mar 15, 2024, at 11:45, Daniele Bovio via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>>>> > 
>>>> > David,
>>>> > One of the major problems at the time was that the PTTs planned to charge
>>>> > the X.25 traffic by volume, and this would have slowed down the development
>>>> > of applications enormously, as nobody could have afforded to send images,
>>>> > sound and videos over the network at an affordable price.
>>>> > The other issue was that X.25 was limited to E1/DS1 (2Mb), and that was a
>>>> > severe limitation.
>>>> > Of course prices would have decreased for packet switched networks as well
>>>> > after the monopolies fell for good at the end of the 90, and probably some
>>>> > other X. would have been invented to overcome the E1 limitation of X.25, but
>>>> > I believe it would have been an uphill road all the way.
>>>> > 
>>>> > Cheers
>>>> > 
>>>> > Daniele
>>>> > 
>>>> > 
>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>> > From: Internet-history [mailto:internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org>] On
>>>> > Behalf Of David Sitman via Internet-history
>>>> > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 12:19 PM
>>>> > To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>>>> > Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
>>>> > 
>>>> > In my talk at the EARN 40th Anniversary Conference in Athens in April I
>>>> > would like to speculate a bit about what the world would be like today if
>>>> > OSI had won the "Protocol Wars".
>>>> > In 1986, it was a foregone conclusion that EARN would migrate to OSI in the
>>>> > near future. However, when I began my international activity in 1991, OSI
>>>> > was discussed as a promise that had gone largely unfulfilled and EARN
>>>> > members were actively supporting TCP/IP networks. It seemed obvious why
>>>> > TCP/IP had prevailed.
>>>> > Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
>>>> > networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space and
>>>> > security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a meme?
>>>> > I would be very grateful for any thoughts about this.
>>>> > 
>>>> > Thanks,
>>>> > David Sitman
>>>> > --
>>>> > 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 bpurvy at gmail.com  Sat Mar 16 18:09:35 2024
From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy)
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:09:35 -0700
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate realiv
In-Reply-To: <B7580782-1FC3-4A03-A397-908AC6B2A6DF@comcast.net>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <041701da76ef$cdb2cf40$69186dc0$@aol.com>
 <7038C6B8-45DF-4416-A435-8E40E43F0E32@comcast.net>
 <CAFq6nVEv+Z8Zo84kDrD0Cpk-=VX0vUNDQBNWb2we4nFBLchn+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CD1860FF-2054-439A-9846-C83567F5EA60@comcast.net>
 <CAFq6nVHrVg+svTLRUqmYEMASrZn3eA4geQbyeM5eXM87LPk1FQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <B7580782-1FC3-4A03-A397-908AC6B2A6DF@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CAFq6nVEo+d-HbX3ASk5O=Ayj6sDCL0=OQZjGw=9pxNGF7Jenew@mail.gmail.com>

I said what I said. You are to conclude whatever you like.

On Sat, Mar 16, 2024, 5:04 PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:

> As I recall, Videotex was in the works in SGVIII when the Europeans
> hatched the agreement to ditch the CCITT Reference Model effort and CCITT
> would develop jointly with ISO, around 1980 or 82. (a big mistake as I have
> said). SGVIII basically laid out their header format and drew lines where
> they wanted layers.
>
> Of course, they didn?t want a Transport Protocol (or one they could
> ignore) because Videotex would be outside their monopoly and subject to
> competition, hence TP0. They also didn?t want anything to do with
> Presentation or the Application Layer.  They were the ones advocating for
> an API at Session Layer that when they got done with it had nothing to do
> with creating Sessions. Actually, giving SGVIII the Session Layer may have
> been part of the deal. It wasn?t a good idea but then I haven?t seen
> anything from ITU that was a good idea.
>
> WAP was especially hilarious. The original Videotex was killed by
> technology moving faster than they thought, which was basically what killed
> WAP. You would think they would learn. But then I have always said that ITU
> plans for a window of opportunity 15 minutes in the future.
>
> By your logic, am I to conclude that anything the PTTs backed was OSI?
>
> On Mar 16, 2024, at 19:45, Bob Purvy <bpurvy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Minitel had nothing to do with OSI.
>
> except both were heavily backed by one or more PTTs
>
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 4:22?PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The PTTs were still stuck in the 20 year turnover of equipment and it was
>> changing lot faster.
>>
>> Minitel had nothing to do with OSI. It was already in the works when it
>> started. That was how the Session Layer got stolen and why there was TP0.
>>
>> What is even funnier was WAP was Videotex all over again and just as bad
>> the second time around.
>>
>> On Mar 16, 2024, at 18:17, Bob Purvy <bpurvy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Even when they actually *had* the future up and running, they spurned it:
>>
>> Minitel. It caught on, the French loved it, and the PTT still failed to
>> capitalize on it.
>>
>> With friends like PTTs, OSI didn't need any enemies.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 10:25?AM John Day via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, the PTTs had no idea what was coming.  As late as the late 1980s, I
>>> had people telling me that the amount of data traffic would never exceed
>>> the amount voice traffic. (!!) You could only wonder what they were
>>> smoking!  ;-)
>>>
>>> Also, recent delving into the old papers makes it clear the degree to
>>> which the PTTs thwarted the development of comparable networks in Europe,
>>> e.g., EIN and EURONET.
>>>
>>> > On Mar 15, 2024, at 11:45, Daniele Bovio via Internet-history <
>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > David,
>>> > One of the major problems at the time was that the PTTs planned to
>>> charge
>>> > the X.25 traffic by volume, and this would have slowed down the
>>> development
>>> > of applications enormously, as nobody could have afforded to send
>>> images,
>>> > sound and videos over the network at an affordable price.
>>> > The other issue was that X.25 was limited to E1/DS1 (2Mb), and that
>>> was a
>>> > severe limitation.
>>> > Of course prices would have decreased for packet switched networks as
>>> well
>>> > after the monopolies fell for good at the end of the 90, and probably
>>> some
>>> > other X. would have been invented to overcome the E1 limitation of
>>> X.25, but
>>> > I believe it would have been an uphill road all the way.
>>> >
>>> > Cheers
>>> >
>>> > Daniele
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: Internet-history [mailto:
>>> internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On
>>> > Behalf Of David Sitman via Internet-history
>>> > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 12:19 PM
>>> > To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> > Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
>>> >
>>> > In my talk at the EARN 40th Anniversary Conference in Athens in April I
>>> > would like to speculate a bit about what the world would be like today
>>> if
>>> > OSI had won the "Protocol Wars".
>>> > In 1986, it was a foregone conclusion that EARN would migrate to OSI
>>> in the
>>> > near future. However, when I began my international activity in 1991,
>>> OSI
>>> > was discussed as a promise that had gone largely unfulfilled and EARN
>>> > members were actively supporting TCP/IP networks. It seemed obvious why
>>> > TCP/IP had prevailed.
>>> > Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
>>> > networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address
>>> space and
>>> > security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a
>>> meme?
>>> > I would be very grateful for any thoughts about this.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > David Sitman
>>> > --
>>> > 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 gnu at toad.com  Sat Mar 16 19:30:56 2024
From: gnu at toad.com (John Gilmore)
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:30:56 -0700
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality: settlements
In-Reply-To: <3D44C6AD-E12B-459F-AB66-D6646B801B00@icloud.com> 
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEf-zriXMguOW=Bp+WoJFvY_iJ8PowrEGcW=ZweOcrUeRTCL2Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <3D44C6AD-E12B-459F-AB66-D6646B801B00@icloud.com>
Message-ID: <26603.1710642656@hop.toad.com>

Greg Skinner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> imho, what made the Internet a resounding success was the "flat rate
> and sender keeps all cost nature" of connection -- i.e. the lack of
> "settlements" for traffic transited between interconnected networks as
> is the case with the PSTN and was the case with the interconnected X
> networks...  there was A Very Pivotal Moment in Internet history
> where... that almost didn't happen ...

This was something that Mitch Kapor was concerned about too.

Shortly after forming EFF, Mitch joined the Commercial Internet Exchange
and became its Chairman.  This was largely to understand the issues
among the tiny new commercial ISPs, around Acceptable Use Policies and
settlements, and to help the nascent ISP industry make some good
choices.  Here's a note that he sent to com-priv in April 1992, noting
that the CIX had adopted a "no settlements" policy for the interim, and
asking to learn more about how settlements had worked in other networks.
Dave Farber forwarded this inquiry to his Interesting-People list on the
same day.

At the time, CIX had 7 small members.  In the following months, Mitch
also helped to cross-connect CIX with ANS (which ran NSFnet), allowing
the NSFnet regionals to use ANS as an access network to reach the
customers of CIX members (like me on Alternet).  See the excerpt from
his June 1992 INET speech, appended below.

	John

Date: Sun, 5 Apr 92 11:27:08 EDT
From: farber at central.cis.upenn.edu (David J. Farber)
Message-Id: <9204051527.AA01784 at pcpond.cis.upenn.edu>
To: interesting_people at dsl.cis.upenn.edu
Subject: Request for Assistance

Begin forwarded message:

Received-Date: Sun, 5 Apr 92 10:07:50 EDT
Posted-Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 09:55:48 -0400
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 09:55:48 -0400
To: com-priv at psi.com
From: mkapor at eff.org (Mitch Kapor)
Subject: Request for Assistance

Request for assistance:

I am interested in developing a better understanding of the economics of
interchange ("settlements") between networking carriers on the Internet. 

There has been much casual, sometimes heated, conversation on the subject
but I have not seen anything yet which persuades me that we even have the
basic Internet settlements problem well-framed, much less that any workable
model is at hand.   Further, given the uneven movement from subsidized to
self-supporting networks, it becomes even harder to imagine which set of
arrangements approaches economic efficiency. (This is a principal reason
why the CIX has adopted a "no settlements" policy for now.)

Nonetheless,  it is becoming apparent (to me, at least) that the entire
community needs to have a principled way to make sure, in a world of
interconnected carriers, that no party unfairly bears costs.  As an initial
step, I would greatly appreciate pointers to experts, organizations, and
printed matter on the logic and practice of settlements in telephone
networks, electronic funds transfer systems, EDI, or other in
infrastructures, as well as generally relevant material from economics.  

Material of a tutorial or general background nature is preferred.   

 


Thanks.


Mitch Kapor mkapor at eff.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Chairman, Commercial Internet Exchange
(affiliations for purposes of identification only)

 --------

(Here's a relevant excerpt from Mitch's later June 1992 speech at INET 92:)

I also serve as Chairman of the Commercial Internet Exchange, or CIX, a
not for profit trade association of commercial Internet providers in the
U.S.  and Europe.  CIX has 7 members, all interconnected, all exchanging
traffic with one another without any Acceptable Use Policy.  I was
partly responsible for recent ANS-CIX interconnection by which
U.S. mid-level, regional networks can use ANS as transit network to
connect with CIX.  ANS operates the NSFNET national backbone in the U.S.
With this important first step accomplished, we are now working toward
broadening CIX membership and getting the commercial part of ANS to
join.


From vgcerf at gmail.com  Sat Mar 16 22:22:06 2024
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:22:06 -0700
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality: settlements
In-Reply-To: <26603.1710642656@hop.toad.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEf-zriXMguOW=Bp+WoJFvY_iJ8PowrEGcW=ZweOcrUeRTCL2Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <3D44C6AD-E12B-459F-AB66-D6646B801B00@icloud.com>
 <26603.1710642656@hop.toad.com>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_WmtFzzndG_-2TiUxBbqJd04nHu_WX1O7K=6h0stH1YVA@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for sharing that, John - it is really a testament to the Internet
community that sought to make end/end connectivity a benefit for everyone
and to leadership like Mitch Kapor's among many others.

vint


On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 7:31?PM John Gilmore via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Greg Skinner via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> wrote:
> > imho, what made the Internet a resounding success was the "flat rate
> > and sender keeps all cost nature" of connection -- i.e. the lack of
> > "settlements" for traffic transited between interconnected networks as
> > is the case with the PSTN and was the case with the interconnected X
> > networks...  there was A Very Pivotal Moment in Internet history
> > where... that almost didn't happen ...
>
> This was something that Mitch Kapor was concerned about too.
>
> Shortly after forming EFF, Mitch joined the Commercial Internet Exchange
> and became its Chairman.  This was largely to understand the issues
> among the tiny new commercial ISPs, around Acceptable Use Policies and
> settlements, and to help the nascent ISP industry make some good
> choices.  Here's a note that he sent to com-priv in April 1992, noting
> that the CIX had adopted a "no settlements" policy for the interim, and
> asking to learn more about how settlements had worked in other networks.
> Dave Farber forwarded this inquiry to his Interesting-People list on the
> same day.
>
> At the time, CIX had 7 small members.  In the following months, Mitch
> also helped to cross-connect CIX with ANS (which ran NSFnet), allowing
> the NSFnet regionals to use ANS as an access network to reach the
> customers of CIX members (like me on Alternet).  See the excerpt from
> his June 1992 INET speech, appended below.
>
>         John
>
> Date: Sun, 5 Apr 92 11:27:08 EDT
> From: farber at central.cis.upenn.edu (David J. Farber)
> Message-Id: <9204051527.AA01784 at pcpond.cis.upenn.edu>
> To: interesting_people at dsl.cis.upenn.edu
> Subject: Request for Assistance
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> Received-Date: Sun, 5 Apr 92 10:07:50 EDT
> Posted-Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 09:55:48 -0400
> Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 09:55:48 -0400
> To: com-priv at psi.com
> From: mkapor at eff.org (Mitch Kapor)
> Subject: Request for Assistance
>
> Request for assistance:
>
> I am interested in developing a better understanding of the economics of
> interchange ("settlements") between networking carriers on the Internet.
>
> There has been much casual, sometimes heated, conversation on the subject
> but I have not seen anything yet which persuades me that we even have the
> basic Internet settlements problem well-framed, much less that any workable
> model is at hand.   Further, given the uneven movement from subsidized to
> self-supporting networks, it becomes even harder to imagine which set of
> arrangements approaches economic efficiency. (This is a principal reason
> why the CIX has adopted a "no settlements" policy for now.)
>
> Nonetheless,  it is becoming apparent (to me, at least) that the entire
> community needs to have a principled way to make sure, in a world of
> interconnected carriers, that no party unfairly bears costs.  As an initial
> step, I would greatly appreciate pointers to experts, organizations, and
> printed matter on the logic and practice of settlements in telephone
> networks, electronic funds transfer systems, EDI, or other in
> infrastructures, as well as generally relevant material from economics.
>
> Material of a tutorial or general background nature is preferred.
>
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> Mitch Kapor mkapor at eff.org
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> Chairman, Commercial Internet Exchange
> (affiliations for purposes of identification only)
>
>  --------
>
> (Here's a relevant excerpt from Mitch's later June 1992 speech at INET 92:)
>
> I also serve as Chairman of the Commercial Internet Exchange, or CIX, a
> not for profit trade association of commercial Internet providers in the
> U.S.  and Europe.  CIX has 7 members, all interconnected, all exchanging
> traffic with one another without any Acceptable Use Policy.  I was
> partly responsible for recent ANS-CIX interconnection by which
> U.S. mid-level, regional networks can use ANS as transit network to
> connect with CIX.  ANS operates the NSFNET national backbone in the U.S.
> With this important first step accomplished, we are now working toward
> broadening CIX membership and getting the commercial part of ANS to
> join.
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From julf at Julf.com  Sun Mar 17 02:00:31 2024
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 10:00:31 +0100
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate realiv
In-Reply-To: <CAFq6nVEv+Z8Zo84kDrD0Cpk-=VX0vUNDQBNWb2we4nFBLchn+Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <041701da76ef$cdb2cf40$69186dc0$@aol.com>
 <7038C6B8-45DF-4416-A435-8E40E43F0E32@comcast.net>
 <CAFq6nVEv+Z8Zo84kDrD0Cpk-=VX0vUNDQBNWb2we4nFBLchn+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49419afb-ef40-48c7-9ef0-9df6acc49a73@Julf.com>

I mostly share your views on PTT:s, but in the case of Minitel, France
Telecom would actually have done much more with it, but was stopped
by strong government lobbying by the traditional publishing industry
(who feared the loss of small ads).

	Julf


On 16/03/2024 23:17, Bob Purvy via Internet-history wrote:
> Even when they actually *had* the future up and running, they spurned it:
> 
> Minitel. It caught on, the French loved it, and the PTT still failed to
> capitalize on it.
> 
> With friends like PTTs, OSI didn't need any enemies.
> 
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 10:25?AM John Day via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>> Yes, the PTTs had no idea what was coming.  As late as the late 1980s, I
>> had people telling me that the amount of data traffic would never exceed
>> the amount voice traffic. (!!) You could only wonder what they were
>> smoking!  ;-)
>>
>> Also, recent delving into the old papers makes it clear the degree to
>> which the PTTs thwarted the development of comparable networks in Europe,
>> e.g., EIN and EURONET.
>>
>>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 11:45, Daniele Bovio via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> David,
>>> One of the major problems at the time was that the PTTs planned to charge
>>> the X.25 traffic by volume, and this would have slowed down the
>> development
>>> of applications enormously, as nobody could have afforded to send images,
>>> sound and videos over the network at an affordable price.
>>> The other issue was that X.25 was limited to E1/DS1 (2Mb), and that was a
>>> severe limitation.
>>> Of course prices would have decreased for packet switched networks as
>> well
>>> after the monopolies fell for good at the end of the 90, and probably
>> some
>>> other X. would have been invented to overcome the E1 limitation of X.25,
>> but
>>> I believe it would have been an uphill road all the way.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Daniele
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Internet-history [mailto:internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org]
>> On
>>> Behalf Of David Sitman via Internet-history
>>> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 12:19 PM
>>> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
>>>
>>> In my talk at the EARN 40th Anniversary Conference in Athens in April I
>>> would like to speculate a bit about what the world would be like today if
>>> OSI had won the "Protocol Wars".
>>> In 1986, it was a foregone conclusion that EARN would migrate to OSI in
>> the
>>> near future. However, when I began my international activity in 1991, OSI
>>> was discussed as a promise that had gone largely unfulfilled and EARN
>>> members were actively supporting TCP/IP networks. It seemed obvious why
>>> TCP/IP had prevailed.
>>> Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
>>> networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space
>> and
>>> security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a
>> meme?
>>> I would be very grateful for any thoughts about this.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> David Sitman
>>> --
>>> 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 bpurvy at gmail.com  Sun Mar 17 08:18:40 2024
From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy)
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 08:18:40 -0700
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate realiv
In-Reply-To: <49419afb-ef40-48c7-9ef0-9df6acc49a73@Julf.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <041701da76ef$cdb2cf40$69186dc0$@aol.com>
 <7038C6B8-45DF-4416-A435-8E40E43F0E32@comcast.net>
 <CAFq6nVEv+Z8Zo84kDrD0Cpk-=VX0vUNDQBNWb2we4nFBLchn+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <49419afb-ef40-48c7-9ef0-9df6acc49a73@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <CAFq6nVFXh5arVw_HugNDm9j7J=9QLD5ycW5Tepv+UECb60gUrQ@mail.gmail.com>

Interesting. My own reading had them horrified at all the things people
were doing that they'd never intended, e.g. dating sites, organizing
student protests, etc. I saw one in 1989. Even then, it was pretty nice.

On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 2:00?AM Johan Helsingius via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> I mostly share your views on PTT:s, but in the case of Minitel, France
> Telecom would actually have done much more with it, but was stopped
> by strong government lobbying by the traditional publishing industry
> (who feared the loss of small ads).
>
>         Julf
>
>
> On 16/03/2024 23:17, Bob Purvy via Internet-history wrote:
> > Even when they actually *had* the future up and running, they spurned it:
> >
> > Minitel. It caught on, the French loved it, and the PTT still failed to
> > capitalize on it.
> >
> > With friends like PTTs, OSI didn't need any enemies.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 10:25?AM John Day via Internet-history <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, the PTTs had no idea what was coming.  As late as the late 1980s, I
> >> had people telling me that the amount of data traffic would never exceed
> >> the amount voice traffic. (!!) You could only wonder what they were
> >> smoking!  ;-)
> >>
> >> Also, recent delving into the old papers makes it clear the degree to
> >> which the PTTs thwarted the development of comparable networks in
> Europe,
> >> e.g., EIN and EURONET.
> >>
> >>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 11:45, Daniele Bovio via Internet-history <
> >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> David,
> >>> One of the major problems at the time was that the PTTs planned to
> charge
> >>> the X.25 traffic by volume, and this would have slowed down the
> >> development
> >>> of applications enormously, as nobody could have afforded to send
> images,
> >>> sound and videos over the network at an affordable price.
> >>> The other issue was that X.25 was limited to E1/DS1 (2Mb), and that
> was a
> >>> severe limitation.
> >>> Of course prices would have decreased for packet switched networks as
> >> well
> >>> after the monopolies fell for good at the end of the 90, and probably
> >> some
> >>> other X. would have been invented to overcome the E1 limitation of
> X.25,
> >> but
> >>> I believe it would have been an uphill road all the way.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>>
> >>> Daniele
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Internet-history [mailto:
> internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org]
> >> On
> >>> Behalf Of David Sitman via Internet-history
> >>> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 12:19 PM
> >>> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> >>> Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
> >>>
> >>> In my talk at the EARN 40th Anniversary Conference in Athens in April I
> >>> would like to speculate a bit about what the world would be like today
> if
> >>> OSI had won the "Protocol Wars".
> >>> In 1986, it was a foregone conclusion that EARN would migrate to OSI in
> >> the
> >>> near future. However, when I began my international activity in 1991,
> OSI
> >>> was discussed as a promise that had gone largely unfulfilled and EARN
> >>> members were actively supporting TCP/IP networks. It seemed obvious why
> >>> TCP/IP had prevailed.
> >>> Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of computer
> >>> networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would address space
> >> and
> >>> security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have become a
> >> meme?
> >>> I would be very grateful for any thoughts about this.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> David Sitman
> >>> --
> >>> 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 julf at Julf.com  Sun Mar 17 09:16:23 2024
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:16:23 +0100
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate realiv
In-Reply-To: <CAFq6nVFXh5arVw_HugNDm9j7J=9QLD5ycW5Tepv+UECb60gUrQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <041701da76ef$cdb2cf40$69186dc0$@aol.com>
 <7038C6B8-45DF-4416-A435-8E40E43F0E32@comcast.net>
 <CAFq6nVEv+Z8Zo84kDrD0Cpk-=VX0vUNDQBNWb2we4nFBLchn+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <49419afb-ef40-48c7-9ef0-9df6acc49a73@Julf.com>
 <CAFq6nVFXh5arVw_HugNDm9j7J=9QLD5ycW5Tepv+UECb60gUrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <275278bc-abe0-4006-8411-e1d1e21d18a5@Julf.com>

They seemed totally OK with Minitel Rose, probably the most popular
service... :)

	Julf


On 17/03/2024 16:18, Bob Purvy wrote:
> Interesting. My own reading had them horrified at all the things people 
> were doing that they'd never intended, e.g. dating sites, organizing 
> student protests, etc. I saw one in 1989. Even then, it was pretty nice.
> 
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 2:00?AM Johan Helsingius via Internet-history 
> <internet-history at elists.isoc.org 
> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
> 
>     I mostly share your views on PTT:s, but in the case of Minitel, France
>     Telecom would actually have done much more with it, but was stopped
>     by strong government lobbying by the traditional publishing industry
>     (who feared the loss of small ads).
> 
>      ? ? ? ? Julf
> 
> 
>     On 16/03/2024 23:17, Bob Purvy via Internet-history wrote:
>      > Even when they actually *had* the future up and running, they
>     spurned it:
>      >
>      > Minitel. It caught on, the French loved it, and the PTT still
>     failed to
>      > capitalize on it.
>      >
>      > With friends like PTTs, OSI didn't need any enemies.
>      >
>      > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 10:25?AM John Day via Internet-history <
>      > internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>     <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>      >
>      >> Yes, the PTTs had no idea what was coming.? As late as the late
>     1980s, I
>      >> had people telling me that the amount of data traffic would
>     never exceed
>      >> the amount voice traffic. (!!) You could only wonder what they were
>      >> smoking!? ;-)
>      >>
>      >> Also, recent delving into the old papers makes it clear the
>     degree to
>      >> which the PTTs thwarted the development of comparable networks
>     in Europe,
>      >> e.g., EIN and EURONET.
>      >>
>      >>> On Mar 15, 2024, at 11:45, Daniele Bovio via Internet-history <
>      >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>     <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>      >>>
>      >>> David,
>      >>> One of the major problems at the time was that the PTTs planned
>     to charge
>      >>> the X.25 traffic by volume, and this would have slowed down the
>      >> development
>      >>> of applications enormously, as nobody could have afforded to
>     send images,
>      >>> sound and videos over the network at an affordable price.
>      >>> The other issue was that X.25 was limited to E1/DS1 (2Mb), and
>     that was a
>      >>> severe limitation.
>      >>> Of course prices would have decreased for packet switched
>     networks as
>      >> well
>      >>> after the monopolies fell for good at the end of the 90, and
>     probably
>      >> some
>      >>> other X. would have been invented to overcome the E1 limitation
>     of X.25,
>      >> but
>      >>> I believe it would have been an uphill road all the way.
>      >>>
>      >>> Cheers
>      >>>
>      >>> Daniele
>      >>>
>      >>>
>      >>> -----Original Message-----
>      >>> From: Internet-history
>     [mailto:internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org
>     <mailto:internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org>]
>      >> On
>      >>> Behalf Of David Sitman via Internet-history
>      >>> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2024 12:19 PM
>      >>> To: internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>     <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>      >>> Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate reality
>      >>>
>      >>> In my talk at the EARN 40th Anniversary Conference in Athens in
>     April I
>      >>> would like to speculate a bit about what the world would be
>     like today if
>      >>> OSI had won the "Protocol Wars".
>      >>> In 1986, it was a foregone conclusion that EARN would migrate
>     to OSI in
>      >> the
>      >>> near future. However, when I began my international activity in
>     1991, OSI
>      >>> was discussed as a promise that had gone largely unfulfilled
>     and EARN
>      >>> members were actively supporting TCP/IP networks. It seemed
>     obvious why
>      >>> TCP/IP had prevailed.
>      >>> Would we have seen the same rapid and universal adoption of
>     computer
>      >>> networking with OSI? Could the Web have flourished? Would
>     address space
>      >> and
>      >>> security issues be alleviated? Would "OSI on Everything" have
>     become a
>      >> meme?
>      >>> I would be very grateful for any thoughts about this.
>      >>>
>      >>> Thanks,
>      >>> David Sitman
>      >>> --
>      >>> 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
>     <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
>     <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
>     <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
>     <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
> 


From johnl at iecc.com  Sun Mar 17 09:31:08 2024
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 17 Mar 2024 12:31:08 -0400
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate realiv
In-Reply-To: <49419afb-ef40-48c7-9ef0-9df6acc49a73@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <20240317163109.7406F858AA08@ary.qy>

It appears that Johan Helsingius via Internet-history <julf at Julf.com> said:
>I mostly share your views on PTT:s, but in the case of Minitel, France
>Telecom would actually have done much more with it, but was stopped
>by strong government lobbying by the traditional publishing industry
>(who feared the loss of small ads).

Turns out the publishers were right.

R's,
John


From ocl at gih.com  Sun Mar 17 15:30:18 2024
From: ocl at gih.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=C3=A9pin-Leblond?=)
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:30:18 +0000
Subject: [ih] Minitel (was: Re:  OSI and alternate realiv )
In-Reply-To: <CAFq6nVEv+Z8Zo84kDrD0Cpk-=VX0vUNDQBNWb2we4nFBLchn+Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <041701da76ef$cdb2cf40$69186dc0$@aol.com>
 <7038C6B8-45DF-4416-A435-8E40E43F0E32@comcast.net>
 <CAFq6nVEv+Z8Zo84kDrD0Cpk-=VX0vUNDQBNWb2we4nFBLchn+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9cb89431-9771-48f4-9eb7-5f72849eed38@gih.com>



On 16/03/2024 22:17, Bob Purvy via Internet-history wrote:
> Even when they actually*had*  the future up and running, they spurned it:
>
> Minitel. It caught on, the French loved it, and the PTT still failed to
> capitalize on it.

France Telecom made an absolute killing with it - with hundreds of 
millions of yearly revenue for several years. The main asset (initially) 
which eventually turned into a disadvantage was that it was using 
Videotex, a display technology that was invented in the 70s which 
allowed for rudimentary graphics at a low cost.
When the World Wide Web arrived, its display capabilities vastly 
overwhelmed the capabilities of Minitel, besides it being much cheaper 
to use the Internet than Minitel. As people started owning computers, 
software for connecting to Minitel was flimsy and connecting to Minitel 
services at 1200/75 baud was flimsy and unreliable since the most 
commonly used modem was US Robotics which evolved from Courier -> 
Courier HST -> Sportster going from V.32 to V.90.

But the people at France Telecom still thought Minitel was better than 
Internet. I had a private meeting at 103 Rue de Grenelle, France 
Telecom's Headquarters in Paris, in 1997, where the heads of France 
Telecom, TransPac and VTCOM (the multimedia arm of France Telecom at the 
time) laughed at my presentation in relation to the Internet because "it 
is in English, people need a computer and it is not sustainable" - with 
the joke being "you are kidding yourself if you can make money with 
something that you are giving for free" - the open joke being on "Les 
Am?ricains" who were obviously going to hit a brick wall and come back 
to a more sustainable model like Minitel.

They only understood that Minitel had lived its day in 2012. By then all 
the people I had spoken to had retired. I guess Minitel did live longer 
than I expected.

Kindest regards,

Olivier


From vint at google.com  Sun Mar 17 15:42:40 2024
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:42:40 -0400
Subject: [ih] Minitel (was: Re: OSI and alternate realiv )
In-Reply-To: <9cb89431-9771-48f4-9eb7-5f72849eed38@gih.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <041701da76ef$cdb2cf40$69186dc0$@aol.com>
 <7038C6B8-45DF-4416-A435-8E40E43F0E32@comcast.net>
 <CAFq6nVEv+Z8Zo84kDrD0Cpk-=VX0vUNDQBNWb2we4nFBLchn+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <9cb89431-9771-48f4-9eb7-5f72849eed38@gih.com>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggdrx8-_NU=bHBMS89ECd_WiHndTG3JPA3sAOPrX702HSw@mail.gmail.com>

In 1983, we launched MCI Mail and I tried to persuade Minitel to
interconnect so people in France could reach our users. They flay refused.

v


On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 6:30?PM Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond via
Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 16/03/2024 22:17, Bob Purvy via Internet-history wrote:
> > Even when they actually*had*  the future up and running, they spurned it:
> >
> > Minitel. It caught on, the French loved it, and the PTT still failed to
> > capitalize on it.
>
> France Telecom made an absolute killing with it - with hundreds of
> millions of yearly revenue for several years. The main asset (initially)
> which eventually turned into a disadvantage was that it was using
> Videotex, a display technology that was invented in the 70s which
> allowed for rudimentary graphics at a low cost.
> When the World Wide Web arrived, its display capabilities vastly
> overwhelmed the capabilities of Minitel, besides it being much cheaper
> to use the Internet than Minitel. As people started owning computers,
> software for connecting to Minitel was flimsy and connecting to Minitel
> services at 1200/75 baud was flimsy and unreliable since the most
> commonly used modem was US Robotics which evolved from Courier ->
> Courier HST -> Sportster going from V.32 to V.90.
>
> But the people at France Telecom still thought Minitel was better than
> Internet. I had a private meeting at 103 Rue de Grenelle, France
> Telecom's Headquarters in Paris, in 1997, where the heads of France
> Telecom, TransPac and VTCOM (the multimedia arm of France Telecom at the
> time) laughed at my presentation in relation to the Internet because "it
> is in English, people need a computer and it is not sustainable" - with
> the joke being "you are kidding yourself if you can make money with
> something that you are giving for free" - the open joke being on "Les
> Am?ricains" who were obviously going to hit a brick wall and come back
> to a more sustainable model like Minitel.
>
> They only understood that Minitel had lived its day in 2012. By then all
> the people I had spoken to had retired. I guess Minitel did live longer
> than I expected.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
> --
> 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 brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sun Mar 17 16:04:19 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 12:04:19 +1300
Subject: [ih] Minitel (was: Re: OSI and alternate realiv )
In-Reply-To: <9cb89431-9771-48f4-9eb7-5f72849eed38@gih.com>
References: <CAHbKQ5BgsWs9dvTPWV9=1_fCL=1SdSNDRM9ufCTQuzO0UvgfdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <041701da76ef$cdb2cf40$69186dc0$@aol.com>
 <7038C6B8-45DF-4416-A435-8E40E43F0E32@comcast.net>
 <CAFq6nVEv+Z8Zo84kDrD0Cpk-=VX0vUNDQBNWb2we4nFBLchn+Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <9cb89431-9771-48f4-9eb7-5f72849eed38@gih.com>
Message-ID: <b342a5d5-5bb0-3558-d4cd-7171c3b627f4@gmail.com>

A perfect explanation, Olivier. The attitude of FT that you
describe was exactly my experience.

I had enough French colleagues and residents of nearby France in
my group at CERN that we had to look seriously at Minitel, but it
quickly became clear that its dependency on Videotex and on a single
monopoly carrier made it a non-starter.

On the other hand, it clearly demonstrated many use cases for
the Web among the general public, and that was useful.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 18-Mar-24 11:30, Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond via Internet-history wrote:
> 
> 
> On 16/03/2024 22:17, Bob Purvy via Internet-history wrote:
>> Even when they actually*had*  the future up and running, they spurned it:
>>
>> Minitel. It caught on, the French loved it, and the PTT still failed to
>> capitalize on it.
> 
> France Telecom made an absolute killing with it - with hundreds of
> millions of yearly revenue for several years. The main asset (initially)
> which eventually turned into a disadvantage was that it was using
> Videotex, a display technology that was invented in the 70s which
> allowed for rudimentary graphics at a low cost.
> When the World Wide Web arrived, its display capabilities vastly
> overwhelmed the capabilities of Minitel, besides it being much cheaper
> to use the Internet than Minitel. As people started owning computers,
> software for connecting to Minitel was flimsy and connecting to Minitel
> services at 1200/75 baud was flimsy and unreliable since the most
> commonly used modem was US Robotics which evolved from Courier ->
> Courier HST -> Sportster going from V.32 to V.90.
> 
> But the people at France Telecom still thought Minitel was better than
> Internet. I had a private meeting at 103 Rue de Grenelle, France
> Telecom's Headquarters in Paris, in 1997, where the heads of France
> Telecom, TransPac and VTCOM (the multimedia arm of France Telecom at the
> time) laughed at my presentation in relation to the Internet because "it
> is in English, people need a computer and it is not sustainable" - with
> the joke being "you are kidding yourself if you can make money with
> something that you are giving for free" - the open joke being on "Les
> Am?ricains" who were obviously going to hit a brick wall and come back
> to a more sustainable model like Minitel.
> 
> They only understood that Minitel had lived its day in 2012. By then all
> the people I had spoken to had retired. I guess Minitel did live longer
> than I expected.
> 
> Kindest regards,
> 
> Olivier

From jklensin at gmail.com  Thu Mar 21 07:25:14 2024
From: jklensin at gmail.com (John Klensin)
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 10:25:14 -0400
Subject: [ih] OSI and alternate realiv
In-Reply-To: <20240317163109.7406F858AA08@ary.qy>
References: <49419afb-ef40-48c7-9ef0-9df6acc49a73@Julf.com>
 <20240317163109.7406F858AA08@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <CAC-QkAAoYNz0+1m3_ZWP5s4by9EGrefwPqBU3oR3ucCb5MY0RA@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry... I should have made it clear in that over-long note that I have
little or no disagreement with most of the comments about the degree to
which then-OSI, and the organizations and structures surrounding it, were
in trouble back then and why the Internet technologies won out.    My
extended speculation was only about how much different things would be
today had those technologies and the associated organizations and
administrative arrangements lasted much longer _and_ to the degree to which
we have ended up adopting ideas and practices that are not very different
from what "they" seemed to be pushing and we were denouncing in the late
1980s.

    john

On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 12:31?PM John Levine via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> It appears that Johan Helsingius via Internet-history <julf at Julf.com>
> said:
> >I mostly share your views on PTT:s, but in the case of Minitel, France
> >Telecom would actually have done much more with it, but was stopped
> >by strong government lobbying by the traditional publishing industry
> >(who feared the loss of small ads).
>
> Turns out the publishers were right.
>
> R's,
> John
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From vgcerf at gmail.com  Sun Mar 31 09:40:41 2024
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 12:40:41 -0400
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>

The founder of INTEROP and former IAB member (1990?-1994) passed away 30
March 2024.

http://lynch.com/Dan_Lynch/Welcome.html

He built a fire under the Internet, helping to propel its commercialization
and spread beyond the US. He played an integral role in its development as
the computer center director at SRI International and later USC-ISI before
founding INTEROP.

I will miss him but will be forever grateful for his enthusiastic embrace
of the Internet and its applications.

vint


From lk at cs.ucla.edu  Sun Mar 31 09:51:32 2024
From: lk at cs.ucla.edu (Leonard Kleinrock)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 09:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1642279751.55313591.1711903892184.JavaMail.zimbra@mail.cs.ucla.edu>

This is a sad loss. Dan was a key figure in the growth and dissemination of the Internet. I remember the convention halls full of yellow coax connecting the army of computers that came to show their compatibility to the Internet of the day. He was a key figure in our history. 
He will be missed. 
Len 
Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 31, 2024, at 9:41?AM, vinton cerf via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> ?The founder of INTEROP and former IAB member (1990?-1994) passed away 30
> March 2024.
> 
> http://lynch.com/Dan_Lynch/Welcome.html
> 
> He built a fire under the Internet, helping to propel its commercialization
> and spread beyond the US. He played an integral role in its development as
> the computer center director at SRI International and later USC-ISI before
> founding INTEROP.
> 
> I will miss him but will be forever grateful for his enthusiastic embrace
> of the Internet and its applications.
> 
> vint
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history

From bob.hinden at gmail.com  Sun Mar 31 10:09:44 2024
From: bob.hinden at gmail.com (Bob Hinden)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 10:09:44 -0700
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CF165135-19BC-4FD5-991C-804E4EDCE8C2@gmail.com>

Vint,

Very sorry to hear.   He is missed.

Bob



> On Mar 31, 2024, at 9:40?AM, vinton cerf via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> The founder of INTEROP and former IAB member (1990?-1994) passed away 30
> March 2024.
> 
> http://lynch.com/Dan_Lynch/Welcome.html
> 
> He built a fire under the Internet, helping to propel its commercialization
> and spread beyond the US. He played an integral role in its development as
> the computer center director at SRI International and later USC-ISI before
> founding INTEROP.
> 
> I will miss him but will be forever grateful for his enthusiastic embrace
> of the Internet and its applications.
> 
> vint
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history



From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sun Mar 31 10:57:32 2024
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 10:57:32 -0700
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e5fde4b2-2f06-4511-bfa9-88555913707a@dcrocker.net>

On 3/31/2024 9:40 AM, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> The founder of INTEROP and former IAB member (1990?-1994) passed away 30
> March 2024.


Within the Internet community of those days, it was more than clear just 
how important Dan's contribution was, to the rapid deployment and use of 
a commercial Internet. Outside of the community, I think his role of 
aggressively facilitating the technology transfer has been largely missed.

Within the community, direct interoperability testing among 
implementations -- rather than bench-based 'compliance' testing of 
individual implementations -- had been established for many years. It 
was already an integral part of getting new protocols and services 
running widely.

But how to inculcate a larger commercial world of highly independent 
providers, to such a very unfamiliar practice? This is what Dan 
achieved, with a continuing series of events that had presentations 
required to provide serious education, and exhibits required to operate 
on the show network.

The events embodied the goal of 'rough consensus and running code'. At 
scale. And with an enormous sense of fun.

d/

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


From jmamodio at gmail.com  Sun Mar 31 10:59:20 2024
From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 12:59:20 -0500
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMzo+1ZjPLfdzW3vSRCh=4vBYLoErQjK0WA_VWjL=amEo-f7JQ@mail.gmail.com>

Very sad news, my condolences to family and friends

Jorge


On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 11:41?AM vinton cerf via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> The founder of INTEROP and former IAB member (1990?-1994) passed away 30
> March 2024.
>
> http://lynch.com/Dan_Lynch/Welcome.html
>
> He built a fire under the Internet, helping to propel its commercialization
> and spread beyond the US. He played an integral role in its development as
> the computer center director at SRI International and later USC-ISI before
> founding INTEROP.
>
> I will miss him but will be forever grateful for his enthusiastic embrace
> of the Internet and its applications.
>
> vint
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


From geoff at iconia.com  Sun Mar 31 11:22:33 2024
From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 11:22:33 -0700
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEf-zrj8uK8nU0nUmrSHGeAf0MAusfJ1qmkvVDB7baJYDXxjMw@mail.gmail.com>

Dan was the kind hearted soul who gave this teenage hacker his (first
ARPANET) account of GEOFF at SRI-AI and then a building pass to come and go at
all hours.

This was in the early 70's when Tenex 1.31 pretty much "ruled" the net and
Dan was a true master at the operating systems internals, most specifically
the scheduler, memory management and file system where he
relentlessly tinkered, refined and enhanced them (this was the time of CORE
memories and bryant swapping drums. :)

In these days the timesharing systems were not so reliable with almost
daily crashes and even weekly/monthly entire file system wipe outs not
uncommon (especially with SRI-AI's TV-A-TO-D hw interface that would
occasionally "spray" the file system with a camera image)... when the Tenex
system would reboot it would run a program called CHECKDISK that would
verify the integrity of the file system before letting users log on... this
was a most time consuming task that went sequentially though the file
system, but Dan sped this process up by having CHECKDISK create a fork (nee
a "process") for each disk drive to run in parallel greatly speeding the
process up.

a memorable Dan Lynch annicdote:

Dan had a TI Silent 700 ASR thermal printer Data Terminal (300 baud) in his
SRI office and was an ardent TECO user... IIRC there was one 1 or 2
"display"/"crt" terminals connected to the SRI-AI KA-10 but they were
"dumb" and were essentially just glass tty's.  Douglas Engelbart's
neighboring SRI-ARC group was in the process of evaluating various CRT
terminals to replace their home grown XCORE display system that was used
for DNLS.  yours truly couldn't "believe" that no one at SRI-AI was using
any type of display editing (in contrast to yours truly's first text
editing experience was with Pentti Kanerva's TVEDIT over at Pat Suppes
IMSSS at Stanford).  SRI-AI's staff were connected to the mainframe with
Teletypes (at 110 baud) or these TI 300 baud thermal printing terminals...
So one day yours truly borrowed one of the "smart" CRT terminals Douglas
Engelbart's group was considering (a Datamedia) and wheeled it into the
K2079 machine room (that everyone would traverse thru to get to the line
printer) and showed off TVEDIT... including Dan, whose response was "people
around here don't like things like that"... BUT everyone else who saw it
resoundly said "how can we get that?" to which yours truly said: go talk to
Dan....  and so it was that by the end of the week a half dozen or so
Datamedia terminals were on order... and as they say: the rest is/was
history :D

geoff


On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 9:41?AM vinton cerf via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> The founder of INTEROP and former IAB member (1990?-1994) passed away 30
> March 2024.
>
> http://lynch.com/Dan_Lynch/Welcome.html
>
> He built a fire under the Internet, helping to propel its commercialization
> and spread beyond the US. He played an integral role in its development as
> the computer center director at SRI International and later USC-ISI before
> founding INTEROP.
>
> I will miss him but will be forever grateful for his enthusiastic embrace
> of the Internet and its applications.
>
> vint
> --
> 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 steve at shinkuro.com  Sun Mar 31 11:29:14 2024
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 14:29:14 -0400
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <CAEf-zrj8uK8nU0nUmrSHGeAf0MAusfJ1qmkvVDB7baJYDXxjMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEf-zrj8uK8nU0nUmrSHGeAf0MAusfJ1qmkvVDB7baJYDXxjMw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABf5zv+EL++o1xD4c-NEqoXsqWFrHzQWJWwtOpMVqf_dszyOBg@mail.gmail.com>

Geoff's short note says three strikingly important things.

   1. Geoff was the kind of kid who was fascinated with computers and found
   a way to hang around them.  (I was one of them too some years earlier.)

   2. Dan was the kind of manager who recognized, appreciated and nurtured
   kids like that.

   3. The environment was sufficiently permissive for Dan to be able to do
   that.  Things tightened up considerably a few years later.  But the advent
   of personal computers opened the computer world to nearly everybody.
   However, in the early days, the openness of the university and research
   computing centers made it possible for kids like Geoff to get involved.

Steve


On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 2:23?PM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via
Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Dan was the kind hearted soul who gave this teenage hacker his (first
> ARPANET) account of GEOFF at SRI-AI and then a building pass to come and go
> at
> all hours.
>
> This was in the early 70's when Tenex 1.31 pretty much "ruled" the net and
> Dan was a true master at the operating systems internals, most specifically
> the scheduler, memory management and file system where he
> relentlessly tinkered, refined and enhanced them (this was the time of CORE
> memories and bryant swapping drums. :)
>
> In these days the timesharing systems were not so reliable with almost
> daily crashes and even weekly/monthly entire file system wipe outs not
> uncommon (especially with SRI-AI's TV-A-TO-D hw interface that would
> occasionally "spray" the file system with a camera image)... when the Tenex
> system would reboot it would run a program called CHECKDISK that would
> verify the integrity of the file system before letting users log on... this
> was a most time consuming task that went sequentially though the file
> system, but Dan sped this process up by having CHECKDISK create a fork (nee
> a "process") for each disk drive to run in parallel greatly speeding the
> process up.
>
> a memorable Dan Lynch annicdote:
>
> Dan had a TI Silent 700 ASR thermal printer Data Terminal (300 baud) in his
> SRI office and was an ardent TECO user... IIRC there was one 1 or 2
> "display"/"crt" terminals connected to the SRI-AI KA-10 but they were
> "dumb" and were essentially just glass tty's.  Douglas Engelbart's
> neighboring SRI-ARC group was in the process of evaluating various CRT
> terminals to replace their home grown XCORE display system that was used
> for DNLS.  yours truly couldn't "believe" that no one at SRI-AI was using
> any type of display editing (in contrast to yours truly's first text
> editing experience was with Pentti Kanerva's TVEDIT over at Pat Suppes
> IMSSS at Stanford).  SRI-AI's staff were connected to the mainframe with
> Teletypes (at 110 baud) or these TI 300 baud thermal printing terminals...
> So one day yours truly borrowed one of the "smart" CRT terminals Douglas
> Engelbart's group was considering (a Datamedia) and wheeled it into the
> K2079 machine room (that everyone would traverse thru to get to the line
> printer) and showed off TVEDIT... including Dan, whose response was "people
> around here don't like things like that"... BUT everyone else who saw it
> resoundly said "how can we get that?" to which yours truly said: go talk to
> Dan....  and so it was that by the end of the week a half dozen or so
> Datamedia terminals were on order... and as they say: the rest is/was
> history :D
>
> geoff
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 9:41?AM vinton cerf via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> > The founder of INTEROP and former IAB member (1990?-1994) passed away 30
> > March 2024.
> >
> > http://lynch.com/Dan_Lynch/Welcome.html
> >
> > He built a fire under the Internet, helping to propel its
> commercialization
> > and spread beyond the US. He played an integral role in its development
> as
> > the computer center director at SRI International and later USC-ISI
> before
> > founding INTEROP.
> >
> > I will miss him but will be forever grateful for his enthusiastic embrace
> > of the Internet and its applications.
> >
> > vint
> > --
> > 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
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>


-- 
Sent by a Verified
[image: Sent by a Verified sender]
<https://wallet.unumid.co/authenticate?referralCode=tcp16fM4W47y>
sender


From geoff at iconia.com  Sun Mar 31 11:36:49 2024
From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 11:36:49 -0700
Subject: [ih] Remembering Dan Lynch: "Up From the Computer Underground" (NYT
 August 27, 1993)
Message-ID: <CAEf-zrg1+FFb-XDod6JC0ZDhVHY_v-_tPbDV4zCyHWi0LGmPuA@mail.gmail.com>

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 26? The bustling Interop computer-network trade show,
running here through Friday, was once the sole province of hackers in jeans
interested in fashioning ways to make the gear of different manufacturers
work together.

But in recent years, marketing vice presidents in suits have become a
reliable staple, demonstrating how the Internet -- a global collection of
computer networks on which the show is based -- has transcended the techie
underground to become one of the world's largest computer exhibitions.

Like the personal computer industry, which left its hobbyist roots for
venture capital and corporate board rooms a decade ago, the nerdy world of
computer networks has finally arrived on Main Street.

The first Interop Workshop, attended by 300 people in 1986, was run almost
entirely by volunteers, many with ponytails, who rolled out the cables and
programmed the specialized computers that are the backbone for modern data
networks. Doubling in Size

But the exhibition has doubled in size each year since that first
gathering. This year, it attracted 65,000 people, few of them with long
hair. The show, now a remarkably successful commercial venture, is a forest
of green and yellow cables dangling from the high ceilings, linking more
than 6,000 computers on the floor.

"Interop is the plumbing exhibition for the information age," said Tom
Hargadon, an industry analyst at the Inside Report on New Media in Redwood
City, Calif.

Next year the exhibition will have grown too large for San Francisco and
will move to Las Vegas, Nev., the site of the nation's largest trade shows.

Interop has exploded, driven by the once-radical notion of its founder,
Daniel C. Lynch, that all the industry's data networking gear should
communicate. By breaking down the walls between proprietary vendors and
forcing them to adhere to a single industry standard known as TCP/IP -- the
common language spoken by all computers connected to the Internet -- Mr.
Lynch, 52, has helped pave the way for the commercial Internet. An arcane
specialty when he started, Internet is now sweeping through new markets
ranging from the telephone to cable television.

The service providers and hardware manufacturers that have created Internet
make up a $2 billion business, Mr. Lynch said. The Internet itself, which
has approximately 15 million users and 1,776,000 computers in 137
countries, has become a powerful political and economic force.

Mr. Lynch sold Interop for an undisclosed sum two years ago to Ziff-Davis
Communications the nation's largest publisher of computer magazines, which
will merge it with a rival show, Network World, next year. But Mr. Lynch
still manages the show as founder and chairman.

When Mr. Lynch founded the show, he was an unemployed computer network
engineer. In the 1970's, he managed the computer network connections for
SRI International Inc., a Government-oriented research center in Menlo
Park, Calif. SRI was one of the original sites for the pioneering ARPAnet,
the forerunner of today's global Internet.

On his first day at SRI, Mr. Lynch said, he caught a glimpse of the
potential of computer networks, a vision of a national data highway that
has since captured the attention of millions of Americans, including
President Clinton.

"It gave me a chill," Mr. Lynch said. "I saw computer networks as something
that could make society dramatically different."

But in the 1970's and 1980's, networking was expensive and a specialty
accessible to only a few computer hackers dedicated to managing the
networks.

When Mr. Lynch found himself without a job in the mid-1980's, he struck on
the idea of an exhibition as a way to assemble all the data networking
companies in one location so that he could look for a job as a marketing
vice president.

By the final day of the first conference, he was visibly worried because no
one had offered him a job. Then, at one session, he said, someone stood up
and said, "We know what you're trying to do, but what you should do is run
this conference for the whole industry." Everyone in the room cheered. Mr.
Lynch agreed, starting the annual conference with a Mastercard, a Visa and
a loan of $50,000. "He's a wild man," said Geoff Goodfellow, chairman of
the RadioMail Corporation, a San Mateo, Calif., company that offers a
wireless electronic mail service. "He's like a maypole around which all the
companies weave their spider web networks."

At this year's Interop, the big news involved some of the nation's largest
high-tech companies. The Sprint Corporation, for example, announced that it
would begin offering a new high-speed data protocol designed to provide
support for future multimedia applications.

In control rooms cluttered with dozens of computer terminals and work
stations above the show's floor today, Mr. Lynch acknowledged that Interop
had changed dramatically in seven years.

"It's true," he said, as he watched the volunteer engineers maintaining the
network he created. "This is the only place at the show where you find
people in T-shirts anymore."

https://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/27/business/up-from-the-computer-underground.html
-or-
https://web.archive.org/web/20150526094401/https://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/27/business/up-from-the-computer-underground.html

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


From karl at iwl.com  Sun Mar 31 12:45:42 2024
From: karl at iwl.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 12:45:42 -0700
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b732b2dd-a2a0-437d-8c1e-a8c45a1cc3b7@iwl.com>

Dan was a great person.

My wife worked for him at ACE and I worked with him for the better part 
of a decade and a half via the Interop show network.

We have lots of great stories about Dan - many of which are 
non-technical and some, perhaps, even a tad colored (Dan was always 
surrounded by a cloud of beautiful women) - but those stories can wait 
for another time.

In our stalled History of the Internet (1965-1995) project we had (and 
still have) plans to do several short episodes on Dan, ACE, and the 
impact of the Interop shownet on the growth of the Internet [it was an 
invaluable metronome that drove us to get things working with one 
another], on people [such as my wife and I meeting via Dan, and getting 
married], and just a plain lot of fun.

One of the earliest major successes of the show and Dan's efforts was 
the maturation of twisted-pair ethernet.? The show net was also often 
the first place where many router or switch devices ever met a complex 
topology with lots of alternative patch choices.? (And it is little 
known, but convention centers are not cooled during setup - so we ended 
up heat stressing a lot of equipment, especially at the Las Vegas shows, 
where the convention center temperatures got far above the 120F level 
until the morning of the show.)

Most people saw the glitzy show net as a result but few saw the almost 
continuous efforts, done under Dan's watch, between shows to design 
(often at my house), pre-build (in ever larger warehouses), ship (I know 
that once our gear, which does not include vendor gear, took 46 full 
sized trucks to haul from the warehouse to the venue - we seriously 
considered buying a C130 aircraft), deploy (we often covered much of a 
city, such as Las Vegas, in addition to filling a convention center - 
under very tight deadlines), operated, and then removed.)

Dan was always ready to provide whatever was needed to make it happen.? 
Sometimes that was a warehouse, often it was tools. Sometimes it was 
just a moment to relax:? One of the first things we would do is figure 
out Dan's hotel room number - we put rather massive bar bills on his tab 
- and he never once mentioned it, much less complained.

Dan covered for us - because we were always operating on the edge, often 
physically - we managed to get permission (or at least avoid being 
arrested) when we did things like running fibers through railroad 
tunnels in Atlanta or setting up rooftop-to-rooftop laser links between 
locations across Las Vegas.

Dan's shownet trained hundreds of electricians in the arts of network 
wiring (starting with the lesson that it is not nice to cut and attempt 
to splice yellow-hose Ethernet.)

There is no way to overstate the contribution of Dan and his Interop 
vision on the expansion of the Internet.? We used to hold TCP/IP 
bakeoffs, but those were small potatoes to the fire that Dan, ACE, and 
Interop put under actual, demonstrable interoperability of different 
implementations, different products, and different technologies.? 
Today's Internet world where one can generally expect things to plug-in, 
turn-on, and work happened largely because of Dan.

Unlike a typical trade show, the Interop show net floor one could 
generally find the people who wrote relevant RFCs and we could figure 
out problems and solutions on the spot.? (I remember once when we were 
deploying FDDI? [at a show in San Francisco] and a bug was found in the 
specifications [by one of our show team crew, Merike K.] and solutions 
were developed among the specifiers and developers, and deployed within 
a few hours.

Dan encouraged my wife to start a company to test the resilience of 
network code and products under real world conditions. (The company is 
still going fine and we are still finding lots of reasons to validate 
Dan's concerns.)

In Monterey, at one of the early TCP/IP Interoperability gatherings - 
around 1987 - I remember overhearing Dan and Craig P. having lunch and 
discussing network control and management.? From that came the push to 
develop protocols like SNMP (and HEMS and CMOT) and instrumentation MIBs.

My wife had been planning to go up to do another video interview with 
him.? Sigh.

At least we got a few hours talking with him on video maybe seven to ten 
years ago.

I don't know how many have seen the Linda Fefferman film of Interop in 
1993 - Dan has a cameo role (as do I):

https://youtu.be/SMkKIaHee4c

 ??? ??? --karl--




From craig at tereschau.net  Sun Mar 31 13:39:16 2024
From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2024 14:39:16 -0600
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <b732b2dd-a2a0-437d-8c1e-a8c45a1cc3b7@iwl.com>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b732b2dd-a2a0-437d-8c1e-a8c45a1cc3b7@iwl.com>
Message-ID: <CAHQj4Cdaj_fS5iAY4B9n23aRnpwTc1c7+G7pEFH0r+GfAnm6pw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 1:45?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Dan was a great person.
>
> ...
> In Monterey, at one of the early TCP/IP Interoperability gatherings -
> around 1987 - I remember overhearing Dan and Craig P. having lunch and
> discussing network control and management.  From that came the push to
> develop protocols like SNMP (and HEMS and CMOT) and instrumentation MIBs.


That kind of interaction is what I remember best about Dan.  Somehow,
whenever we were in the same town, he and I usually managed to find a few
minutes (or in rare cases, a meal) for a quiet discussion.  Usually Dan
helping (mentoring) me -- I'd see a technical challenge or issue and be
trying to figure out how to get it fixed.  Dan would invariably have wisdom
to impart and encouragement too.

I like to think I sometimes returned the favor.  At the 2nd Monterrey
conference, Dan was trying to figure out a better name for his
workshop/conference and was running some names past me.  I liked one of
them and so, as we parted, I said "See you at InterOp!"

Craig


From chonkn at gmail.com  Sun Mar 31 14:36:01 2024
From: chonkn at gmail.com (kilnam chon)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 06:36:01 +0900
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <CAHQj4Cdaj_fS5iAY4B9n23aRnpwTc1c7+G7pEFH0r+GfAnm6pw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b732b2dd-a2a0-437d-8c1e-a8c45a1cc3b7@iwl.com>
 <CAHQj4Cdaj_fS5iAY4B9n23aRnpwTc1c7+G7pEFH0r+GfAnm6pw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJBN=-JysbaepyuW8vxjkbxRNsfJ+7LDBzc4NfGF9J1=fD9xzw@mail.gmail.com>

My condolences to dan's family,
we will miss him.

chon

On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 5:39?AM Craig Partridge via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 1:45?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> > Dan was a great person.
> >
> > ...
> > In Monterey, at one of the early TCP/IP Interoperability gatherings -
> > around 1987 - I remember overhearing Dan and Craig P. having lunch and
> > discussing network control and management.  From that came the push to
> > develop protocols like SNMP (and HEMS and CMOT) and instrumentation MIBs.
>
>
> That kind of interaction is what I remember best about Dan.  Somehow,
> whenever we were in the same town, he and I usually managed to find a few
> minutes (or in rare cases, a meal) for a quiet discussion.  Usually Dan
> helping (mentoring) me -- I'd see a technical challenge or issue and be
> trying to figure out how to get it fixed.  Dan would invariably have wisdom
> to impart and encouragement too.
>
> I like to think I sometimes returned the favor.  At the 2nd Monterrey
> conference, Dan was trying to figure out a better name for his
> workshop/conference and was running some names past me.  I liked one of
> them and so, as we parted, I said "See you at InterOp!"
>
> Craig
> --
> 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 Mar 31 15:49:30 2024
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 11:49:30 +1300
Subject: [ih] World Wide Web at 35 | CERN
Message-ID: <ce3947ea-cb8c-45a6-bd25-547df609a1c9@gmail.com>

https://home.cern/news/news/computing/world-wide-web-35

Regards
    Brian Carpenter


From b_a_denny at yahoo.com  Sun Mar 31 22:50:33 2024
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 05:50:33 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] Dan Lynch has passed away
In-Reply-To: <CAHQj4Cdaj_fS5iAY4B9n23aRnpwTc1c7+G7pEFH0r+GfAnm6pw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAFtm_VEkFjLcwY1FOwy7LwHZK+FFE7=JzBgdzVby-uSMJ6mjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b732b2dd-a2a0-437d-8c1e-a8c45a1cc3b7@iwl.com>
 <CAHQj4Cdaj_fS5iAY4B9n23aRnpwTc1c7+G7pEFH0r+GfAnm6pw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <678014579.3935897.1711950633508@mail.yahoo.com>

 I never went to InterOp but I kinda remember Jim Mathis telling me about it starting. Wasn't it originally called TCP Bake Off?
Very sad to hear about his passing.? Condolences to all his family and friends.
barbara?
    On Sunday, March 31, 2024 at 01:39:39 PM PDT, Craig Partridge via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:  
 
 On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 1:45?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Dan was a great person.
>
> ...
> In Monterey, at one of the early TCP/IP Interoperability gatherings -
> around 1987 - I remember overhearing Dan and Craig P. having lunch and
> discussing network control and management.? From that came the push to
> develop protocols like SNMP (and HEMS and CMOT) and instrumentation MIBs.


That kind of interaction is what I remember best about Dan.? Somehow,
whenever we were in the same town, he and I usually managed to find a few
minutes (or in rare cases, a meal) for a quiet discussion.? Usually Dan
helping (mentoring) me -- I'd see a technical challenge or issue and be
trying to figure out how to get it fixed.? Dan would invariably have wisdom
to impart and encouragement too.

I like to think I sometimes returned the favor.? At the 2nd Monterrey
conference, Dan was trying to figure out a better name for his
workshop/conference and was running some names past me.? I liked one of
them and so, as we parted, I said "See you at InterOp!"

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