From el at lisse.na  Fri Dec 12 22:59:43 2025
From: el at lisse.na (Eberhard W Lisse)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2025 08:59:43 +0200
Subject: [ih] Floppy/Stiffy Disks
Message-ID: <d617b054-a687-45bb-82f3-b49c5600ae52@Spark>

Hi,

a distant in-law recently found a bunch of disks from the early 90's on which they started a memoir and wonder how to get to them again.

This is obviously of general interest, and so wonder whether anyone here on the list has contacts or information in this regard. Which computer museum might still be able to read stiffies/floppies (I assume MS-DOS or early Windows)?

If one could get the files off, the next thing would be to translate them into anything currently readable such as MarkDown, but that depends obviously on the file format.


greetings, el


--
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (retired)
el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht \ / If this email is signed with GPG/PGP
10007, Namibia ;____/ Sect 20 of Act No. 4 of 2019 may apply


From el at lisse.na  Sat Dec 13 02:20:52 2025
From: el at lisse.na (Eberhard W Lisse)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2025 12:20:52 +0200
Subject: [ih] Floppy/Stiffy Disks
In-Reply-To: <45BF40F7-AC0F-4829-BAFC-CF75130B3A3C@strayalpha.com>
References: <d617b054-a687-45bb-82f3-b49c5600ae52@Spark>
 <45BF40F7-AC0F-4829-BAFC-CF75130B3A3C@strayalpha.com>
Message-ID: <2693413a-c40e-453c-9da3-5d065df5be8c@Spark>

I was thinking many Internet History related documents might face the same fate, but you are the boss :-)-O

el

--
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 13, 2025 at 09:43 +0200, Joe Touch <touch at strayalpha.com>, wrote:
> This topic is out of scope for this list.
>
> Please limit posts to discussions of Internet history.
>
> Joe / list owner
>
> > On Dec 12, 2025, at 11:00?PM, Eberhard W Lisse via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > a distant in-law recently found a bunch of disks from the early 90's on which they started a memoir and wonder how to get to them again.
> >
> > This is obviously of general interest, and so wonder whether anyone here on the list has contacts or information in this regard. Which computer museum might still be able to read stiffies/floppies (I assume MS-DOS or early Windows)?
> >
> > If one could get the files off, the next thing would be to translate them into anything currently readable such as MarkDown, but that depends obviously on the file format.
> >
> >
> > greetings, el
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (retired)
> > el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
> > PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht \ / If this email is signed with GPG/PGP
> > 10007, Namibia ;____/ Sect 20 of Act No. 4 of 2019 may apply
> > --
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > -
> > Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history


From scott.brim at gmail.com  Sat Dec 13 04:52:00 2025
From: scott.brim at gmail.com (Scott Brim)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2025 07:52:00 -0500
Subject: [ih] Floppy/Stiffy Disks
In-Reply-To: <d617b054-a687-45bb-82f3-b49c5600ae52@Spark>
References: <d617b054-a687-45bb-82f3-b49c5600ae52@Spark>
Message-ID: <CAPv4CP-2j11K6OU-8kJwkzKN84cHoEuM3HjLBkEmwCp=2X96Vw@mail.gmail.com>

You can buy a 3.5" dish reader fairly cheaply. However their bits eroded
pretty quickly so you may not be able to recover much useful without
special equipment. It's worth trying.


From awisoc at sunnyside.com  Sat Dec 13 07:23:57 2025
From: awisoc at sunnyside.com (Al Whaley)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2025 07:23:57 -0800
Subject: [ih] Floppy/Stiffy Disks
In-Reply-To: <d617b054-a687-45bb-82f3-b49c5600ae52@Spark>
References: <d617b054-a687-45bb-82f3-b49c5600ae52@Spark>
Message-ID: <3038bb3d-9ffd-4351-b037-3664b1a142ec@sunnyside.com>

I trip over these 3.5" discs pretty often and generally find them 
readable.? If the disc has been sitting in someone's car, then that 
would be different. It is possible to find USB readers pretty easily.? 
It's a bit harder to find a MAC USB unit, and I find useful to have 
both, though not essential.? Early MACs used 400KB and 800KB formats 
with variable speed rotation and GCR encoding, and yes, those were 3.5 
inch discs - the same physical discs used for PCs (DD, not HD), but 
definitely not the PC recording format.? Reading those today would 
require special or rather hard-to-find equipment, but Apple switched to 
PC format in 1988 IIRC so a disc from the 90s shouldn't be a problem, 
unless the MAC in question was older.? You didn't mention what computer 
wrote the discs...? I do my disc reading of 1.44MB discs on a Linux 
box.? The tools there are superb, and I can copy the data off raw and 
then do a virtual mount of the 'disc' file in whatever format I need 
to.? A friend's old MAC discs from the mid 90s couldn't be read anymore 
by a MAC as the file system was no longer supported, but the Linux box 
had tools that I could use after I got the raw data copied off.

It's better with old discs, floppy or hard drives, if the unit might be 
marginal, to copy the data off sequentially on? Linux box so there's not 
a lot of seeking (dd command).? The chance of getting the data that way 
is much higher.? (For hard discs though there are special Linux tools, 
better than dd.)

Good luck.

On 12/12/2025 22:59, Eberhard W Lisse via Internet-history wrote:
> Hi,
>
> a distant in-law recently found a bunch of disks from the early 90's on which they started a memoir and wonder how to get to them again.
>
> This is obviously of general interest, and so wonder whether anyone here on the list has contacts or information in this regard. Which computer museum might still be able to read stiffies/floppies (I assume MS-DOS or early Windows)?
>
> If one could get the files off, the next thing would be to translate them into anything currently readable such as MarkDown, but that depends obviously on the file format.
>
>
> greetings, el
>
>
> --
> Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (retired)
> el at lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
> PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht \ / If this email is signed with GPG/PGP
> 10007, Namibia ;____/ Sect 20 of Act No. 4 of 2019 may apply


From mcguire at lssmuseum.org  Sat Dec 13 08:00:12 2025
From: mcguire at lssmuseum.org (Dave McGuire)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2025 11:00:12 -0500
Subject: [ih] Floppy/Stiffy Disks
In-Reply-To: <CAPv4CP-2j11K6OU-8kJwkzKN84cHoEuM3HjLBkEmwCp=2X96Vw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d617b054-a687-45bb-82f3-b49c5600ae52@Spark>
 <CAPv4CP-2j11K6OU-8kJwkzKN84cHoEuM3HjLBkEmwCp=2X96Vw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <30115d4c-485a-4828-a9f9-b05c1d518ff2@lssmuseum.org>

On 12/13/25 07:52, Scott Brim via Internet-history wrote:
> You can buy a 3.5" dish reader fairly cheaply. However their bits eroded
> pretty quickly so you may not be able to recover much useful without
> special equipment. It's worth trying.

   We read and image floppy disks at LSSM all the time, in addition to 
removable disk packs, 9-track and cartridge tapes, etc.  Our results are 
generally positive.

   It may seem counterintuitive, but generally speaking, 3.5" disks have 
proven to be far less reliable than the earlier 5.25", and 5.25" in turn 
are less reliable than the much older 8".  I attribute this to the 
ramp-up in production and profit margin pressure associated with the 
rapid consumer adoption of these technologies.  3.5" disks were made in 
far greater volumes than 5.25" and 8".  The consumerization went so far 
that, in the end, one could even purchase 3.5" diskettes in supermarkets 
and drugstores.

   We regularly read 8" disks written in the 1970s, and regularly fail 
to read 3.5" disks written in the 2000s.

   Based on our experience here, I'd say it's worth a try.

              -Dave McGuire, LSSM

-- 
Dave McGuire
President/Curator, Large Scale Systems Museum
New Kensington, PA


From el at lisse.na  Sat Dec 13 08:20:57 2025
From: el at lisse.na (Eberhard W Lisse)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2025 18:20:57 +0200
Subject: [ih] Floppy/Stiffy Disks
In-Reply-To: <30115d4c-485a-4828-a9f9-b05c1d518ff2@lssmuseum.org>
References: <d617b054-a687-45bb-82f3-b49c5600ae52@Spark>
 <CAPv4CP-2j11K6OU-8kJwkzKN84cHoEuM3HjLBkEmwCp=2X96Vw@mail.gmail.com>
 <30115d4c-485a-4828-a9f9-b05c1d518ff2@lssmuseum.org>
Message-ID: <b14c8b94-c45f-4c34-8f80-e98de9113a81@Spark>

Thanks all.

el

--
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 13, 2025 at 18:00 +0200, Dave McGuire via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>, wrote:

> On 12/13/25 07:52, Scott Brim via Internet-history wrote:
>
> > You can buy a 3.5" dish reader fairly cheaply. However their bits eroded
> > pretty quickly so you may not be able to recover much useful without
> > special equipment. It's worth trying.
> >
>
> We read and image floppy disks at LSSM all the time, in addition to
> removable disk packs, 9-track and cartridge tapes, etc. Our results are
> generally positive.
>
> It may seem counterintuitive, but generally speaking, 3.5" disks have
> proven to be far less reliable than the earlier 5.25", and 5.25" in turn
> are less reliable than the much older 8". I attribute this to the
> ramp-up in production and profit margin pressure associated with the
> rapid consumer adoption of these technologies. 3.5" disks were made in
> far greater volumes than 5.25" and 8". The consumerization went so far
> that, in the end, one could even purchase 3.5" diskettes in supermarkets
> and drugstores.
>
> We regularly read 8" disks written in the 1970s, and regularly fail
> to read 3.5" disks written in the 2000s.
>
> Based on our experience here, I'd say it's worth a try.
>
> -Dave McGuire, LSSM
>
> --
> Dave McGuire
> President/Curator, Large Scale Systems Museum
> New Kensington, PA
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sat Dec 13 12:03:44 2025
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2025 20:03:44 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] First ARPANET Link Put Into Service: November 21, 1969
In-Reply-To: <CABf5zvL6k-UhXaNqdymhbCe1JnuSqA+QnSr8HLw2D_RCRrswUw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1a9618f5-e648-4fc2-88f4-fafb737b16f7@3kitty.org>
 <A9642D7D-1F11-4135-A84F-B80B0EB1A8AD@shinkuro.com>
 <CABf5zvL6k-UhXaNqdymhbCe1JnuSqA+QnSr8HLw2D_RCRrswUw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <725a9e08-c66f-47a8-8ae3-20033587ada5@dcrocker.net>

On 11/24/2025 2:25 AM, Steve Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
> When
> email first became operational, he wrote a TECO program to read email.


This being a history list, it's worth noting that this was RD and is 
credited as the first purpose-built per-message reading and handling 
application.? (Tenex already had readmail, which just dumped out 
everything in the inbox file since the last time readmail had been run.)

RD functionality was re-implemented, producing two new versions. One, by 
Marty Yonke was BananaRD.? (Banana was a community slang term for 
spiffy, as I recall).

Very shortly after that and derived from the same code base, John Vittal 
released MSG, which was the first application to have a reply (answer) 
function, which allowed very quick and easy email exchanges.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker

Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social



From geoff at iconia.com  Sat Dec 13 13:37:53 2025
From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2025 14:37:53 -0700
Subject: [ih] First ARPANET Link Put Into Service: November 21, 1969
In-Reply-To: <725a9e08-c66f-47a8-8ae3-20033587ada5@dcrocker.net>
References: <1a9618f5-e648-4fc2-88f4-fafb737b16f7@3kitty.org>
 <A9642D7D-1F11-4135-A84F-B80B0EB1A8AD@shinkuro.com>
 <CABf5zvL6k-UhXaNqdymhbCe1JnuSqA+QnSr8HLw2D_RCRrswUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <725a9e08-c66f-47a8-8ae3-20033587ada5@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <CAEf-zrj+zGE=RCwH7R2L_npX47wG+tNTOL5ZSks_WA4O_4Zhhw@mail.gmail.com>

IIRC, both Marty Yonke's BananaRD and John Vittal's
MSG re-implemented/re-programmed RD (from TECO) in the SAIL programming
language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAIL_(programming_language)

On Sat, Dec 13, 2025 at 1:04?PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> On 11/24/2025 2:25 AM, Steve Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
> > When
> > email first became operational, he wrote a TECO program to read email.
>
>
> This being a history list, it's worth noting that this was RD and is
> credited as the first purpose-built per-message reading and handling
> application.  (Tenex already had readmail, which just dumped out
> everything in the inbox file since the last time readmail had been run.)
>
> RD functionality was re-implemented, producing two new versions. One, by
> Marty Yonke was BananaRD.  (Banana was a community slang term for
> spiffy, as I recall).
>
> Very shortly after that and derived from the same code base, John Vittal
> released MSG, which was the first application to have a reply (answer)
> function, which allowed very quick and easy email exchanges.
>
> d/
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
> bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
> mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>
>

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


From b_a_denny at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 13 14:30:36 2025
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2025 22:30:36 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] First ARPANET Link Put Into Service: November 21, 1969
In-Reply-To: <231848365.472428.1763932529723@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <1a9618f5-e648-4fc2-88f4-fafb737b16f7@3kitty.org>
 <A9642D7D-1F11-4135-A84F-B80B0EB1A8AD@shinkuro.com>
 <231848365.472428.1763932529723@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <44741178.546814.1765665036147@mail.yahoo.com>

 Just to update everyone about this action item. I have made contact with Marc Weber recently and he forwarded my inquiry to the colleague who does "This Day in History" at CHM.? Waiting to hear more (Marc suspects it might just be a typo).
barbara
    On Sunday, November 23, 2025 at 01:15:29 PM PST, Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com> wrote:  
 
  I need to contact Marc Weber about something else.? I know he is really busy right now as I saw him at the CHM Pixar event last week.? If we don't hear an answer to your question soon, I will send him email.
BTW,? I found the Pixar panel interesting.? Here is a link.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_c9CmnG3UzE
barbara
    On Sunday, November 23, 2025 at 01:05:20 PM PST, Steve Crocker via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:  
 
 After seeing the back and forth on this thread, I now think 21 Nov 1969 was when Larry Roberts came to UCLA.? I'll try to check with Kleinrock.

Steve

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 23, 2025, at 3:48?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> ?Perhaps someone in the Bay Area can go to CHM and ask what actually happened on November 21, 1969...?? /Jack
> 
>> On 11/23/25 12:22, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
>>? Here is Don Nielson's response to my inquiry.? I did cut out the first paragraph as it only was for me. There is a typo regarding the 1972 ICC meeting.
>> barbara
>>? ? ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Don Nielson <nielsonz at pacbell.net>To: Barbara Denny <b_a_denny at yahoo.com>Sent: Friday, November 21, 2025 at 10:05:40 PM PSTSubject: Re: Fw: [ih] First ARPANET Link Put Into Service: November 21, 1969
>>? "*** paragraph deleted*****
>>? ? I'm certain about the following:
>>? ? 1.? First ARPANET connection - Between Bill Duvall at SRI and Charlie Kline of UCLA
>>? ? ? on what has been accepted as 29 Oct 1969.? I tried my best to confirm the date
>>? ? ? while this date was being pushed by Len Kleinrock of UCLA. Even I and Marc Weber
>>? ? ? the CHM dug into Engelbart's dinky handwritten notebooks and other stuff on file at
>>? ? ? Stanford. As far as we could tell, nothing was noted on the SRI end, indicating no big
>>? ? ? deal at the time.? So, what has come to be accepted derives from a brief jot on Charlie's
>>? ? ? scratchpad:? "22:30? Talked to SRI Host to Host". Charlie and Bill are still around
>>? ? ? and have confirmed and elaborated on the incident, being quoted in some places.
>>? 2. ARPANET demo at the International Computer Communication Conference in WDC
>>? ? ? of NCP in Oct 19723.
>>? 3. First 2-net demo of TCP was on 27 Aug 1976.? PRNET and ARPANET.
>>? 4. First 3-net demo of TCP was on 22 Nov 1977.? PRNET, SATNET, and ARPANET.
>>? ? All this is easily available so 21 Nov 1969 seems an aberration by someone.
>>? Take good care,? Don
>>? ? ? On 11/21/25 10:14 AM, Barbara Denny wrote:
>>? ? ? Hi Don
>>? Hope you are doing well.? This came up on the internet history list.? I am wondering if you could shed some insight on the log.
>>? Hope you have a good holiday.
>>? barbara
>>? ? ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Vint Cerf via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> To: Jack Haverty <jack at 3kitty.org> Cc: "internet-history at elists.isoc.org" <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2025 at 09:50:33 AM PST Subject: Re: [ih] First ARPANET Link Put Into Service: November 21, 1969
>>? ? crocker and I were wondering the same thing off the list.
>>? v
>>? ? ? On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 12:49?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
>>? internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>? ? > Can anyone explain why the article says "What Happened on November 21st"
>>? > but the image of the "First ARPANET IMP log" shows "29 OCT"? /Jack
>>? >
>>? > On 11/21/25 09:37, vinton cerf via Internet-history wrote:
>>? > > there are so many milestone dates....
>>? > >
>>? > > v
>>? > >
>>? > >
>>? > >
>>? > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 12:03?PM Frantisek Borsik via Internet-history <
>>? > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>? > >
>>? > >> Happy birthday to the Internet!
>>? > >>
>>? > >> https://www.computerhistory.org/tdih/november/21/
>>? > >>
>>? > >> All the best,
>>? > >>
>>? > >> Frank
>>? > >>
>>? > >> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>>? > >>
>>? > >>
>>? > >> *In loving memory of Dave T?ht: *1965-2025
>>? > >>
>>? > >> https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/
>> 
>>? ? ? ? ? 
> 
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> <OpenPGP_signature.asc>
-- 
Internet-history mailing list
Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
-
Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
    

From jack at 3kitty.org  Wed Dec 17 14:17:14 2025
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 14:17:14 -0800
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
Message-ID: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>

The January/February 2026 issue of Foreign Affairs contains an article 
titled "How China Wins The Future".? Part of it discusses the Internet 
(section titled "Hardwire and Hard Power"), and their initiatives to 
create a replacement for TCP/IP and deploy the new technology of "New 
IP", to solve the perceived problem that today's Internet won't meet the 
needs of the future.

This reminded me of the efforts in the 1960s/70s which created the 
Internet, with TCP serving as the mechanism to solve the problem of how 
to interconnect the numerous different kinds of networks that were 
popping up all over.

While the future is interesting to discuss and debate, this list is 
about History.? I'm curious about what people think about how we got 
from the 1960s to 2026.

Here's my thoughts -- based of course only on my personal experience.? 
I'd love to know what I got wrong or missed.

- 1960s: Licklider creates his vision of Intergalactic Network; ARPA 
creates the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO), which 
initiates the creation of ARPANET.

- 1970s: ARPANET expanded; additional network mechanisms developed 
(SATNET), need for interconnectivity among disjoint networks motivates 
creation of TCP; ARPANET expands rapidly.

- 1980s: TCP implemented in multiple systems; US DoD declares it as a 
Standard and requires it to be present in military procurements; NBS 
(NIST) creates program to certify implementations; government efforts 
drive existing network (ARPANET) and all host systems to be converted 
from NCP to TCP on 1/1/1983; NSF expands use of Internet into 
non-military environments, and fosters the creation of the first 
self-supporting Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

- 1980s: LANs become pervasive; workstations and PCs emerge as 
alternatives to older mainframe systems; notion of "an internet" becomes 
popular; multiple companies (Novell, Xerox, IBM, Banyan, DEC, ...) 
create their own architectures, incompatible with others. ?OSI continues 
to define yet another architecture intended to become a worldwide 
standard; ISPs proliferate.

- 1980s: US government embraces COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) policy, 
which encourages the development of commercial products for use in the 
TCP environment;? corporate representatives from tech companies begin to 
participate in Internet technology development and standardization 
efforts (IETF); DoD limits funding of custom systems and research in 
favor of using commercial products

- 1990s: Commercial users, and the public, get tired of waiting for the 
internet wars to end, notice that TCP technology is available, can be 
observed to work, and can solve their immediate IT problems; the TCP 
Internet grows rapidly in the general public worldwide; corporations 
deploy private "intranets" using TCP products; all competing internet 
architectures fade into oblivion

- 1990s: next generation protocol (IP V6) developed to address 
limitations of older TCP architecture; draft standard for next 
generation TCP (V6) created in 1998

- 1990s?: technology development efforts abandon the role of 
orchestrating replacement of old technology "in the field" with newer 
versions that remove vulnerabilities or introduce additional 
functionality.? Technologies in the Internet are now developed, and 
"standardized", and then "put on the shelf" for others to find and use

- 2017: full standard for next generation TCP (V6) defined; 
implementations are in use, but many systems continue to use older TCP (V4)

- 2026: after 30+ years, existing Internet has not yet successfully 
supplanted old V4 TCP with slightly newer V6 TCP;? many unsolved issues 
remain in areas of concern, such as spam, cybercrime, identity theft, 
intellectual property protection, "phishing", and others, not addressed 
even by the newer V6 architecture; US, EU, and other governments seem to 
avoid involvement in researching or orchestrating further technology 
development to counter such problems.? ?Corporate efforts seem to be 
continuing to create competing "silos" of technology, hoping to be the 
winner in the marketplace.

- 2026: China creates initiative to define a "New IP" to meet the needs 
of the future; begins deployment of associated new technology in 
countries which have embraced the initiative.

Your thoughts?
/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/20251217/9b5a215b/attachment.asc>

From clemc at ccc.com  Wed Dec 17 14:54:48 2025
From: clemc at ccc.com (Clem Cole)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 17:54:48 -0500
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <CAC20D2PsWE0AqJ7Ou-9=vD=kJ+i4GjkO51m+riWHuxmgt=j3jA@mail.gmail.com>

Jack, an interesting set of observations.  Examining the history of the
Internet as it now stands tells us something important.   Ultimately,
Metcalfe's law is the driver, and the observation that "*Simple Economics
always beats Sophisticated Design*" suggests that the Chinese New IP is
unlikely to succeed on its own. Please take a look at our shared experience
with IPv6.  There was never an economic argument for switching, and because
of Metcalfe's law, most sites were elsewhere (on IPv4).

At the time, I said that if ISPs offered a meaningful discount to switch to
IPv6 and were led to believe that managing an IPv6-based network might be
cheaper for them, then there was a reason to switch.  But for consumers,
since NAT provides a mechanism that allows users to avoid exhausting IPv4
addresses and the in-place network with its related (desirable) content (to
which they are already connected), continues to grow, why would they switch?

We should not ignore the creation of "New IP."  However, history has shown
that for "New IP" to succeed, developers must create a substantial amount
of attractive content that can only be accessed through it.  To break the
current economics, another force (such as a decree) might be possible. The
authorities in China's government may adopt the view that China is large
enough to build its own network and seek to replace the content its
population receives from the current IPv4 network in a manner that is
meaningful to its people.

On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 5:17?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> The January/February 2026 issue of Foreign Affairs contains an article
> titled "How China Wins The Future".  Part of it discusses the Internet
> (section titled "Hardwire and Hard Power"), and their initiatives to
> create a replacement for TCP/IP and deploy the new technology of "New
> IP", to solve the perceived problem that today's Internet won't meet the
> needs of the future.
>
> This reminded me of the efforts in the 1960s/70s which created the
> Internet, with TCP serving as the mechanism to solve the problem of how
> to interconnect the numerous different kinds of networks that were
> popping up all over.
>
> While the future is interesting to discuss and debate, this list is
> about History.  I'm curious about what people think about how we got
> from the 1960s to 2026.
>
> Here's my thoughts -- based of course only on my personal experience.
> I'd love to know what I got wrong or missed.
>
> - 1960s: Licklider creates his vision of Intergalactic Network; ARPA
> creates the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO), which
> initiates the creation of ARPANET.
>
> - 1970s: ARPANET expanded; additional network mechanisms developed
> (SATNET), need for interconnectivity among disjoint networks motivates
> creation of TCP; ARPANET expands rapidly.
>
> - 1980s: TCP implemented in multiple systems; US DoD declares it as a
> Standard and requires it to be present in military procurements; NBS
> (NIST) creates program to certify implementations; government efforts
> drive existing network (ARPANET) and all host systems to be converted
> from NCP to TCP on 1/1/1983; NSF expands use of Internet into
> non-military environments, and fosters the creation of the first
> self-supporting Internet Service Providers (ISPs).
>
> - 1980s: LANs become pervasive; workstations and PCs emerge as
> alternatives to older mainframe systems; notion of "an internet" becomes
> popular; multiple companies (Novell, Xerox, IBM, Banyan, DEC, ...)
> create their own architectures, incompatible with others.  OSI continues
> to define yet another architecture intended to become a worldwide
> standard; ISPs proliferate.
>
> - 1980s: US government embraces COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) policy,
> which encourages the development of commercial products for use in the
> TCP environment;  corporate representatives from tech companies begin to
> participate in Internet technology development and standardization
> efforts (IETF); DoD limits funding of custom systems and research in
> favor of using commercial products
>
> - 1990s: Commercial users, and the public, get tired of waiting for the
> internet wars to end, notice that TCP technology is available, can be
> observed to work, and can solve their immediate IT problems; the TCP
> Internet grows rapidly in the general public worldwide; corporations
> deploy private "intranets" using TCP products; all competing internet
> architectures fade into oblivion
>
> - 1990s: next generation protocol (IP V6) developed to address
> limitations of older TCP architecture; draft standard for next
> generation TCP (V6) created in 1998
>
> - 1990s?: technology development efforts abandon the role of
> orchestrating replacement of old technology "in the field" with newer
> versions that remove vulnerabilities or introduce additional
> functionality.  Technologies in the Internet are now developed, and
> "standardized", and then "put on the shelf" for others to find and use
>
> - 2017: full standard for next generation TCP (V6) defined;
> implementations are in use, but many systems continue to use older TCP (V4)
>
> - 2026: after 30+ years, existing Internet has not yet successfully
> supplanted old V4 TCP with slightly newer V6 TCP;  many unsolved issues
> remain in areas of concern, such as spam, cybercrime, identity theft,
> intellectual property protection, "phishing", and others, not addressed
> even by the newer V6 architecture; US, EU, and other governments seem to
> avoid involvement in researching or orchestrating further technology
> development to counter such problems.   Corporate efforts seem to be
> continuing to create competing "silos" of technology, hoping to be the
> winner in the marketplace.
>
> - 2026: China creates initiative to define a "New IP" to meet the needs
> of the future; begins deployment of associated new technology in
> countries which have embraced the initiative.
>
> Your thoughts?
> /Jack Haverty
>
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>


From craig at tereschau.net  Wed Dec 17 15:14:11 2025
From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 16:14:11 -0700
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <CAHQj4Cd8mqGWME5Uh4bhytWbZCgtVExG-udJ4LxPF_+eXMBYBA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Jack:

Much of the short summary seems roughly right to me.  I'd suggest, however,
that the following misses a lot:


> - 1980s: US government embraces COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) policy,
> which encourages the development of commercial products for use in the
> TCP environment;  corporate representatives from tech companies begin to
> participate in Internet technology development and standardization
> efforts (IETF); DoD limits funding of custom systems and research in
> favor of using commercial products
>
> - 1990s: Commercial users, and the public, get tired of waiting for the
> internet wars to end, notice that TCP technology is available, can be
> observed to work, and can solve their immediate IT problems; the TCP
> Internet grows rapidly in the general public worldwide; corporations
> deploy private "intranets" using TCP products; all competing internet
> architectures fade into oblivion
>

Specifically, between late 1987 and 1993, so straddling the decade boundary
there were an intense 5ish years in which TCP/IP crashed through a bunch of
scaling/deployment/commercialization issues.  (Matured from a network that
could support a few tens of thousands of users to one that could support
billions).   That period saw the first working congestion control (VJCC -
the one everyone now gripes suffers bufferbloat, but it effectively fixed
congestion control for two decades), BGP replacing EGP (which failed early
and messily), IS-IS and OSPF (the intra-domain routing protocols such as
RIP did poorly), DHCP (RARP didn't cut it...), IPsec (ability to have
secure tunnels), as well as things like MIME (fixed email to work with
international character sets -- and, bonus, gave us graphics and proper
attachments).  The community by 1993 was also well on its way to solve
TCP's challenges on gigabit speed links.

This flood of solutions meant that when commercial users and the public
"tired of the internet wars to end" (and frankly, I think most folks
weren't even aware protocol wars existed until they concluded a corporate
Netware infrastructure no longer met their needs), when they looked, there
was one solution that (a) had 90% of what they needed; (b) demonstrably
worked at massive scale; and (c) didn't lock them into a vendor (e.g.
DECNet was close, but...).  Specifically (a) and (b) were not true in 1987
of TCP/IP but very much were true by 1993.

I've argued elsewhere (a paper on Internet Governance published years ago
in IEEE Annals) that as the Internet dramatically matured in this short
period, the understanding of that maturation propagated unevenly through
the technical and policy worlds, in ways that caused stresses.


Craig

-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.


From karl at iwl.com  Wed Dec 17 17:31:15 2025
From: karl at iwl.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 17:31:15 -0800
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <4339f224-df28-47b8-bf3f-0dd44c9573a2@iwl.com>

Wow, you ask a hard question.

We each have our own views of what happened.? It is probably safe to 
assert that no one had a synoptic view, much less had a clear vision of 
where things were going to end up.

Several years ago my wife and I came across some really awful materials 
about the development of the internet.? We realized that we had a rather 
deeper knowledge of things, and a fair web of contacts with people who 
did things.

We (my wife and I) are both aspiring story tellers.? (We have both 
worked in theatre and remain active supporters of the performing arts.)? 
So we took a leap - despite a lack of knowledge about "how to do it" we 
bought cameras, microphones, editing tools, etc and we set forth to 
collect interviews.? We have learned how much we did not know about 
making videos and recording voice.? And we have learned even more about 
how much we don't know about how the Internet came to be.

We did not, and still do not, want to make a history of technology.? Our 
interest is in the process of creation and invention, and not always of 
ideas that succeeded - failure is as much a part of the story we want to 
tell.? We are intrigued by how ideas strive and compete for the light, 
some successfully, some not.? And we are intrigued by the emotional ride 
- the joys, the pains, even the tears - that happened along the way.? In 
other words, our interest is in people, not so much in technology.? (One 
of my personal goals is to express to younger generations that the 
Internet is not complete - that newcomers can add to the edifice. I also 
want to illuminate the many people who are largely overlooked - I have 
in my mind's eye how Lauren Gunderson illuminated the work of Henrietta 
Swan Leavit in Gunderson's?wonderful work "Silent Sky".)

At the moment we have only a dozen or so interviews - some are quite 
long (I think one is something like six hours!!) We got distracted a few 
years ago, so we have not done much recently, and our raw materials are 
mostly still in the form of raw, unedited takes (with copies in several 
locations.)? We have noticed that over the last few years that people 
have become far more reluctant to do interviews.

Our intent was to edit that mass of material down into "our version" of 
the story.

But we know that others have different versions.

We plan to make the raw materials available to all - that is to all 
except those we consider commercial hacks (we use a creative commons 
license that allows attributed non-commercial use - we would create 
specific licenses for those commercial users with whom we feel 
comfortable. At least one person we interviewed has required that we use 
and republish his material under a public domain dedication.? And in at 
least one case we have been requested to not publish some of that 
person's statements until after that person's death.)

We did create a few videos - mostly to show ourselves how much we have 
to learn about making documentary materials.? To put it mildly, our 
videos are sometimes technically quite bad.

We did not want to tell a grand monumental story; rather we want to 
speak in short - five to seven minute - episodes that focus on a 
specific point.? Our roadmap projected more than 250 videos!!

What little we have published is up on the web.? And we say quite 
clearly that we are biased, that we are telling our point of view and 
that others will have quite different perceptions.??Kurosawa's film 
"Roshomon" is our model that "truth" is often quite subjective.

Here's the URL to our series introduction (and to the website in 
total).? As you will see, we have not published very much (I think we 
have published only four videos so far), and as technical efforts, our 
videos reflect that we are learning our way and making plenty of mistakes.

I do not know if we have the energy to resume doing interviews and 
telling the story.? But if we don't someone else will, and almost 
certainly with less awareness of the personal and emotional aspirations, 
efforts, and costs.

https://www.history-of-the-internet.org/videos/series-intro/

 ? ? ? ? --karl--


On 12/17/25 2:17 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote
> The January/February 2026 issue of Foreign Affairs contains an article 
> titled "How China Wins The Future".? Part of it discusses the Internet 
> (section titled "Hardwire and Hard Power"), and their initiatives to 
> create a replacement for TCP/IP and deploy the new technology of "New 
> IP", to solve the perceived problem that today's Internet won't meet 
> the needs of the future.
>
> This reminded me of the efforts in the 1960s/70s which created the 
> Internet, with TCP serving as the mechanism to solve the problem of 
> how to interconnect the numerous different kinds of networks that were 
> popping up all over.
>
> While the future is interesting to discuss and debate, this list is 
> about History.? I'm curious about what people think about how we got 
> from the 1960s to 2026.
>
> Here's my thoughts -- based of course only on my personal experience.? 
> I'd love to know what I got wrong or missed.
>
> - 1960s: Licklider creates his vision of Intergalactic Network; ARPA 
> creates the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO), which 
> initiates the creation of ARPANET.
>
> - 1970s: ARPANET expanded; additional network mechanisms developed 
> (SATNET), need for interconnectivity among disjoint networks motivates 
> creation of TCP; ARPANET expands rapidly.
>
> - 1980s: TCP implemented in multiple systems; US DoD declares it as a 
> Standard and requires it to be present in military procurements; NBS 
> (NIST) creates program to certify implementations; government efforts 
> drive existing network (ARPANET) and all host systems to be converted 
> from NCP to TCP on 1/1/1983; NSF expands use of Internet into 
> non-military environments, and fosters the creation of the first 
> self-supporting Internet Service Providers (ISPs).
>
> - 1980s: LANs become pervasive; workstations and PCs emerge as 
> alternatives to older mainframe systems; notion of "an internet" 
> becomes popular; multiple companies (Novell, Xerox, IBM, Banyan, DEC, 
> ...) create their own architectures, incompatible with others. ?OSI 
> continues to define yet another architecture intended to become a 
> worldwide standard; ISPs proliferate.
>
> - 1980s: US government embraces COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) 
> policy, which encourages the development of commercial products for 
> use in the TCP environment;? corporate representatives from tech 
> companies begin to participate in Internet technology development and 
> standardization efforts (IETF); DoD limits funding of custom systems 
> and research in favor of using commercial products
>
> - 1990s: Commercial users, and the public, get tired of waiting for 
> the internet wars to end, notice that TCP technology is available, can 
> be observed to work, and can solve their immediate IT problems; the 
> TCP Internet grows rapidly in the general public worldwide; 
> corporations deploy private "intranets" using TCP products; all 
> competing internet architectures fade into oblivion
>
> - 1990s: next generation protocol (IP V6) developed to address 
> limitations of older TCP architecture; draft standard for next 
> generation TCP (V6) created in 1998
>
> - 1990s?: technology development efforts abandon the role of 
> orchestrating replacement of old technology "in the field" with newer 
> versions that remove vulnerabilities or introduce additional 
> functionality.? Technologies in the Internet are now developed, and 
> "standardized", and then "put on the shelf" for others to find and use
>
> - 2017: full standard for next generation TCP (V6) defined; 
> implementations are in use, but many systems continue to use older TCP 
> (V4)
>
> - 2026: after 30+ years, existing Internet has not yet successfully 
> supplanted old V4 TCP with slightly newer V6 TCP; many unsolved issues 
> remain in areas of concern, such as spam, cybercrime, identity theft, 
> intellectual property protection, "phishing", and others, not 
> addressed even by the newer V6 architecture; US, EU, and other 
> governments seem to avoid involvement in researching or orchestrating 
> further technology development to counter such problems.? ?Corporate 
> efforts seem to be continuing to create competing "silos" of 
> technology, hoping to be the winner in the marketplace.
>
> - 2026: China creates initiative to define a "New IP" to meet the 
> needs of the future; begins deployment of associated new technology in 
> countries which have embraced the initiative.
>
> Your thoughts?
> /Jack Haverty
>
>
>


From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Wed Dec 17 20:55:23 2025
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 17:55:23 +1300
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>

Cutting to the chase:

On 18-Dec-25 11:17, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
...
  
> - 2026: China creates initiative to define a "New IP" to meet the needs
> of the future; begins deployment of associated new technology in
> countries which have embraced the initiative.

I don't think so. So far, "New IP" has no discernible traction. The term
has been around since October 2019 to my personal knowledge, but there's no
open technology behind the phrase.

We may well see attempts to deploy detnet (deterministic networking) soon;
at least it has a bunch of RFCs. I also expect some real-world use of AI LLMs
for network management, traffic engineering, etc. quite soon.

Of course China will be part of it all; why not?

    Brian


From karl at iwl.com  Wed Dec 17 21:11:01 2025
From: karl at iwl.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 21:11:01 -0800
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>

I largely agree with the assessment about China's New IP.

However a couple of points:

1. There may be good ideas in NewIP.? Let's look for those ideas and 
consider whether they can be adopted to the exiting Internet world.

2. China has backed off on its "Belt and Road" and "New Silk Road" 
activities, but they could well resume.? Those activities involve a lot 
of funding for projects in "Southern" nations around the world.? As such 
China has a lever to induce adherence to NewIP - and a big company 
willing to provide the technology - Huawei. This is a bigger lever to 
induce adoption than was ever held by IPv6, or by ISO/OSI via GOSIP, 
MAP, and TOP.

In a larger sense, our world of protocols is slowly becoming 
irrelevant.? We have seen how telco's have adopted protocol service 
interfaces from the IP world and replaced the underlying machinery.? So 
far this has been at roughly the IP-to-whatever-is-under-IP boundary, 
but it can creep upwards.

My point in that paragraph above is that from the point of view of many 
consumers/users of the Internet the world is less end-to-end principle 
of IP packets and more about people's favorite applications working 
(without regard for the quality or elegance of the underlying protocol 
plumbing.)

That change in perspective makes it a lot easier to slide in a new 
protocol family, like NewIP.

There is another force that may be simply a figment of my imagination: 
20+ years ago there was a definite international resentment of US 
hegemony over the Internet.? That resentment has, I believe, quite 
properly faded.? But I fear that it may have left some lingering traces 
that could well become inflamed due to the actions of the present US 
government.

 ? ? ? ? --karl--


On 12/17/25 8:55 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
> Cutting to the chase:
>
> On 18-Dec-25 11:17, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> ...
>
>> - 2026: China creates initiative to define a "New IP" to meet the needs
>> of the future; begins deployment of associated new technology in
>> countries which have embraced the initiative.
>
> I don't think so. So far, "New IP" has no discernible traction. The term
> has been around since October 2019 to my personal knowledge, but 
> there's no
> open technology behind the phrase.
>
> We may well see attempts to deploy detnet (deterministic networking) 
> soon;
> at least it has a bunch of RFCs. I also expect some real-world use of 
> AI LLMs
> for network management, traffic engineering, etc. quite soon.
>
> Of course China will be part of it all; why not?
>
> ?? Brian


From julf at Julf.com  Thu Dec 18 00:15:19 2025
From: julf at Julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 09:15:19 +0100
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
Message-ID: <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>

On 18/12/2025 6:11 am, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
> My point in that paragraph above is that from the point of view of many
> consumers/users of the Internet the world is less end-to-end principle
> of IP packets and more about people's favorite applications working
> (without regard for the quality or elegance of the underlying protocol
> plumbing.)

Indeed, and isn't that what is happening with Google, Apple and
Microsoft that have gotten to the point where they control the
full path from app to cloud service, and have already started
introducing new protocols (such as QUIC) and their own name
services etc.?

	Julf



From vint at google.com  Thu Dec 18 02:21:05 2025
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 05:21:05 -0500
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>

Jack's summary and others seem to neglect the impact of the Web, but
perhaps the intentional focus was only on the network layers (TCP/IP,
QUIC/UDP)? It would be hard to explain the success of the Internet without
the HTTP addition in the early 1990s.

v




On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 3:15?AM Johan Helsingius via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> On 18/12/2025 6:11 am, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
> > My point in that paragraph above is that from the point of view of many
> > consumers/users of the Internet the world is less end-to-end principle
> > of IP packets and more about people's favorite applications working
> > (without regard for the quality or elegance of the underlying protocol
> > plumbing.)
>
> Indeed, and isn't that what is happening with Google, Apple and
> Microsoft that have gotten to the point where they control the
> full path from app to cloud service, and have already started
> introducing new protocols (such as QUIC) and their own name
> services etc.?
>
>         Julf
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=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 elmi at 4ever.de  Thu Dec 18 02:29:49 2025
From: elmi at 4ever.de (Elmar K. Bins)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 11:29:49 +0100
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <aUPXndSDBewn9Sh8@noir.de>

internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Vint Cerf via Internet-history) wrote:

> Jack's summary and others seem to neglect the impact of the Web, but
> perhaps the intentional focus was only on the network layers (TCP/IP,
> QUIC/UDP)? It would be hard to explain the success of the Internet without
> the HTTP addition in the early 1990s.

Exactly, which in turn allowed the user base to change dramatically (from
technically interested fellows inventing things to the public at large,
doomscrolling). No "normal" Internet user cares at all about how this
functions, as long as it does. (See IPv6 adoption.)

The users' focus is on applications (well, it actually isn't, but speaking
technically), not protocols. And the applications change, too (email anyone?)

The focus of the IETF and other inventors is on making those applications work
smoothly, and that is where protocol progress originates from.
Well, except for the exceptions where nerds get excited ;-)

E.


From ajs at crankycanuck.ca  Thu Dec 18 06:52:55 2025
From: ajs at crankycanuck.ca (Andrew Sullivan)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 09:52:55 -0500
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s to
 2025)
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>

Dear colleagues,

On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 05:21:05AM -0500, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> It would be hard to explain the success of the Internet without
>the HTTP addition in the early 1990s.

I think that is fair, but it may also be true that the introduction of the web sowed the seeds for the current anti-network backlash we see so widely.  I would argue that whereas much of the Internet tended towards decentralized management and operation, the web had two features that promoted centralization:

1.  The introduction of URLs/URIs made the identity of a site (the host part of an http URL) really important and encouraged the identification with trademarks.  In the very early commercial Internet, people often had experience of both the web and of Usenet.  The latter was much less linked to domain names, because one generally received the news from a local store of it rather than by going to the servers operated by whoever had posted the news article.

2.  Because advertising emerged early as a way to support web sites, there came to be a very strong incentive for website operators to try to "keep you on the site."  That many measures of a web site's importance or effectiveness continue to depend on an "engagement" score that is at least partially defined by how long someone stays on the site reflects that bias.  Or, to think of this another way, if the web had worked by distributing copies of data around the Internet, and that data were somehow fetched through addresses that came from (say) cryptographic tokens identifying the content in some sort of grand Dewey decimal (or LC, I don't care the version!) catalogue of information, the very idea of "sites" would not have been established and the centralizing feature wouldn't have been there.

It would seem that once there was an environment that encouraged resource centralization, it was all but guaranteed that commercial interests would tend to drive that toward  monopoly or near-monopoly.  And, given the prevailing views about antitrust in the most important jurisdiction for the web's emergence, we were all but fated to have the current misgivings so many express about the Internet.  In other words, the web was the necessary ingredient for the Internet's massive expansion but also the seed for its demise, and once we had the web there just wasn't a way to avoid the kind of decline that Zittrain[*] warned about.

Now, I don't know that I fully buy this story, but lately I've been having a hard time talking myself out of it, so I thought I'd see what others think.

Best regards,

A

[*]Jonathan L. Zittrain, _The Future of the Internet--And How to Stop It_ (Yale Univ. Press & Penguin UK 2008).

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at crankycanuck.ca


From vint at google.com  Thu Dec 18 07:11:30 2025
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 10:11:30 -0500
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggf256bkWssaOtWr8pxAC-5a0eKowZM2Owzqu0rZv+F98g@mail.gmail.com>

I generally agree with this analysis, Andrew. Economy of scale has been a
significant driver. First mover or tipping point dynamics add a second
factor. "home page" concepts of the early Web cemented the notion of what
I'll call "Web Identity".  USENET was quite different and more distributed
but it is possible it would never have scaled to the size of today's Web.

v


On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 9:53?AM Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 05:21:05AM -0500, Vint Cerf via Internet-history
> wrote:
> > It would be hard to explain the success of the Internet without
> >the HTTP addition in the early 1990s.
>
> I think that is fair, but it may also be true that the introduction of the
> web sowed the seeds for the current anti-network backlash we see so
> widely.  I would argue that whereas much of the Internet tended towards
> decentralized management and operation, the web had two features that
> promoted centralization:
>
> 1.  The introduction of URLs/URIs made the identity of a site (the host
> part of an http URL) really important and encouraged the identification
> with trademarks.  In the very early commercial Internet, people often had
> experience of both the web and of Usenet.  The latter was much less linked
> to domain names, because one generally received the news from a local store
> of it rather than by going to the servers operated by whoever had posted
> the news article.
>
> 2.  Because advertising emerged early as a way to support web sites, there
> came to be a very strong incentive for website operators to try to "keep
> you on the site."  That many measures of a web site's importance or
> effectiveness continue to depend on an "engagement" score that is at least
> partially defined by how long someone stays on the site reflects that
> bias.  Or, to think of this another way, if the web had worked by
> distributing copies of data around the Internet, and that data were somehow
> fetched through addresses that came from (say) cryptographic tokens
> identifying the content in some sort of grand Dewey decimal (or LC, I don't
> care the version!) catalogue of information, the very idea of "sites" would
> not have been established and the centralizing feature wouldn't have been
> there.
>
> It would seem that once there was an environment that encouraged resource
> centralization, it was all but guaranteed that commercial interests would
> tend to drive that toward  monopoly or near-monopoly.  And, given the
> prevailing views about antitrust in the most important jurisdiction for the
> web's emergence, we were all but fated to have the current misgivings so
> many express about the Internet.  In other words, the web was the necessary
> ingredient for the Internet's massive expansion but also the seed for its
> demise, and once we had the web there just wasn't a way to avoid the kind
> of decline that Zittrain[*] warned about.
>
> Now, I don't know that I fully buy this story, but lately I've been having
> a hard time talking myself out of it, so I thought I'd see what others
> think.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> [*]Jonathan L. Zittrain, _The Future of the Internet--And How to Stop It_
> (Yale Univ. Press & Penguin UK 2008).
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at crankycanuck.ca
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=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 galmes at tamu.edu  Thu Dec 18 08:54:25 2025
From: galmes at tamu.edu (Guy Almes)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 11:54:25 -0500
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025 (role of NCAR and other labs)
In-Reply-To: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <2d24492b-b261-415d-bebd-69c14050f77a@tamu.edu>

Jack,
   This is all so valuable.  It touches on the community to be 
connected, but aims primarily at the evolution of technical foundations.
   I'm going to aim at the community part, based in part on a recent 
news story.

On 12/17/25 5:17 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> The January/February 2026 issue of Foreign Affairs contains an article
> titled "How China Wins The Future".? ...
> 
> Here's my thoughts -- based of course only on my personal experience.
> I'd love to know what I got wrong or missed.
> 
> - 1960s: Licklider creates his vision of Intergalactic Network; ARPA
> creates the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO), which
> initiates the creation of ARPANET.
Note that it starts with a community to be connected.  For Licklider, it 
was ARPA and the community of scientists funded by ARPA.  This could be 
trivialized by focusing on the menagerie of computer terminals and 
modems that Lick had to log in to various computers, but it was surely 
deeper.  One historic healthy outcome of the postwar United States was 
the rise of systematic federal funding of science.  Whether researchers 
in various fields were aware of it, there was a rapidly emerging science 
community that shared federal funding, but also shared a growing need 
for effective collaboration among scientists in various disciplines and 
various localities.
   Reflecting on the impact of this on the American and international 
university research communities, I'd sometimes playfully note that the 
US research university community was actually a very odd highly 
decentralized organization.
   (At a meeting of networking leaders in Ireland circa 2001, a speaker 
noted that there were elements of this present in the medieval 
university world.  Patterns such as sending your best students to get 
their advanced degrees in other universities and such as everyone 
speaking a common second language (Latin then, English now), were 
significant.  But I'll return to the special energy behind the postwar 
situation.)
   One special player in this is NCAR.
   I am not an expert on NCAR and would very much like to hear from 
others who know more about the role it played and is playing.

   In 1987, when I was at Rice University cobbling together one of the 
NSFnet-related "regional networks", we were suffering from a highly 
congested 56kb/s ARPAnet while waiting for the promised T1-based NSFnet 
Backbone.  So, to complement our ARPAnet connection, NSF kindly set up a 
56kb/s connection of the prototype Fuzzball-based NSFnet backbone.  The 
specific connection was to the backbone node at NCAR in Boulder, 
Colorado.  I had not been aware of NCAR much, but as this intense period 
of Internet building continued, I became more and more aware of it.
   Evidently, NCAR was a creature of UCAR, the University Corporation 
for Atmospheric Research.  UCAR, in turn, was a creature of atmospheric 
science departments from across the country.  I do not pretend to 
understand the bureaucratic details, but a few things were clear:
<> these departments and researchers had a deep need to share data, 
computational resources, and other infrastructure, even acting on this 
in 1960, when computer networks were not on the horizon.
<> NCAR has a neat campus "sort of" in Boulder, but on the top of a mesa 
and not even convenient to get at from Boulder, never mind any other 
university in the country.  Its physical situation almost cried out for 
a network.
<> It served as a sort of NSF Supercomputer Center even before there was 
an NSF Supercomputer Center program, even anticipating the 1983 Lax Report.
<> It seemed to have deeply understood the strategic value of 
collaboration among atmospheric science departments at a large number of 
universities.
<> Among other things, this meant that NCAR was a natural contributor 
and beneficiary of the use of computing and computer networking in 
connecting a nationwide and worldwide atmospheric science community.
<> It also fostered the UCAR Unidata project, which used the Internet to 
share atmospheric data across universities and labs across the country.
<> I suspect that the 1950s International Geophysical Year had a role in 
creating UCAR and NCAR.  Oh, and also Sputnik, but that's another story.

   Let me stop there.
   My narrow request is for a better understanding of how NCAR emerged 
and how it began to contribute to networking even before any modern 
computer networks existed.
   My broader request is for other examples of how specific scientific 
communities with their need for effective collaboration and sharing of 
data and resources helped create the motivation for building the 
Internet, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s.  So community pull as a 
complement to our usual story of technology push.
	-- Guy


From craig at tereschau.net  Thu Dec 18 09:09:59 2025
From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 10:09:59 -0700
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025 (role of NCAR and other labs)
In-Reply-To: <2d24492b-b261-415d-bebd-69c14050f77a@tamu.edu>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <2d24492b-b261-415d-bebd-69c14050f77a@tamu.edu>
Message-ID: <CAHQj4Cfgw7cVVM4y84SV8_5gEwnxk+UxQxL7W0nUNpqAX-FzfA@mail.gmail.com>

UCAR had the contract from NSF to operate CSNET (stated perhaps more
clearly, CSNET, predecessor /partial-prototype to NSF regionals, was
overseen by UCAR).
Craig

On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 9:54?AM Guy Almes via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Jack,
>    This is all so valuable.  It touches on the community to be
> connected, but aims primarily at the evolution of technical foundations.
>    I'm going to aim at the community part, based in part on a recent
> news story.
>
> On 12/17/25 5:17 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> > The January/February 2026 issue of Foreign Affairs contains an article
> > titled "How China Wins The Future".  ...
> >
> > Here's my thoughts -- based of course only on my personal experience.
> > I'd love to know what I got wrong or missed.
> >
> > - 1960s: Licklider creates his vision of Intergalactic Network; ARPA
> > creates the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO), which
> > initiates the creation of ARPANET.
> Note that it starts with a community to be connected.  For Licklider, it
> was ARPA and the community of scientists funded by ARPA.  This could be
> trivialized by focusing on the menagerie of computer terminals and
> modems that Lick had to log in to various computers, but it was surely
> deeper.  One historic healthy outcome of the postwar United States was
> the rise of systematic federal funding of science.  Whether researchers
> in various fields were aware of it, there was a rapidly emerging science
> community that shared federal funding, but also shared a growing need
> for effective collaboration among scientists in various disciplines and
> various localities.
>    Reflecting on the impact of this on the American and international
> university research communities, I'd sometimes playfully note that the
> US research university community was actually a very odd highly
> decentralized organization.
>    (At a meeting of networking leaders in Ireland circa 2001, a speaker
> noted that there were elements of this present in the medieval
> university world.  Patterns such as sending your best students to get
> their advanced degrees in other universities and such as everyone
> speaking a common second language (Latin then, English now), were
> significant.  But I'll return to the special energy behind the postwar
> situation.)
>    One special player in this is NCAR.
>    I am not an expert on NCAR and would very much like to hear from
> others who know more about the role it played and is playing.
>
>    In 1987, when I was at Rice University cobbling together one of the
> NSFnet-related "regional networks", we were suffering from a highly
> congested 56kb/s ARPAnet while waiting for the promised T1-based NSFnet
> Backbone.  So, to complement our ARPAnet connection, NSF kindly set up a
> 56kb/s connection of the prototype Fuzzball-based NSFnet backbone.  The
> specific connection was to the backbone node at NCAR in Boulder,
> Colorado.  I had not been aware of NCAR much, but as this intense period
> of Internet building continued, I became more and more aware of it.
>    Evidently, NCAR was a creature of UCAR, the University Corporation
> for Atmospheric Research.  UCAR, in turn, was a creature of atmospheric
> science departments from across the country.  I do not pretend to
> understand the bureaucratic details, but a few things were clear:
> <> these departments and researchers had a deep need to share data,
> computational resources, and other infrastructure, even acting on this
> in 1960, when computer networks were not on the horizon.
> <> NCAR has a neat campus "sort of" in Boulder, but on the top of a mesa
> and not even convenient to get at from Boulder, never mind any other
> university in the country.  Its physical situation almost cried out for
> a network.
> <> It served as a sort of NSF Supercomputer Center even before there was
> an NSF Supercomputer Center program, even anticipating the 1983 Lax Report.
> <> It seemed to have deeply understood the strategic value of
> collaboration among atmospheric science departments at a large number of
> universities.
> <> Among other things, this meant that NCAR was a natural contributor
> and beneficiary of the use of computing and computer networking in
> connecting a nationwide and worldwide atmospheric science community.
> <> It also fostered the UCAR Unidata project, which used the Internet to
> share atmospheric data across universities and labs across the country.
> <> I suspect that the 1950s International Geophysical Year had a role in
> creating UCAR and NCAR.  Oh, and also Sputnik, but that's another story.
>
>    Let me stop there.
>    My narrow request is for a better understanding of how NCAR emerged
> and how it began to contribute to networking even before any modern
> computer networks existed.
>    My broader request is for other examples of how specific scientific
> communities with their need for effective collaboration and sharing of
> data and resources helped create the motivation for building the
> Internet, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s.  So community pull as a
> complement to our usual story of technology push.
>         -- Guy
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>


-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.


From aam3sendonly at gmail.com  Thu Dec 18 10:22:12 2025
From: aam3sendonly at gmail.com (Alexander McKenzie)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 13:22:12 -0500
Subject: [ih] Fw: History from 1960s to 2025 (role of NCAR and other
 labs)
In-Reply-To: <151317743.1970639.1766080526982@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <2d24492b-b261-415d-bebd-69c14050f77a@tamu.edu>
 <CAHQj4Cfgw7cVVM4y84SV8_5gEwnxk+UxQxL7W0nUNpqAX-FzfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <151317743.1970639.1766080526982@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAMusaY-q73CJKUAk_YwTioUHO7AC0n3uWr9Nq3fa3ihCd0dCtw@mail.gmail.com>

I think an interesting question is " *Why* did UCAR have the contract from
NSF to operate (oversee) CSNET?" It is my understanding that NSF wanted to
award a contract to BBN (because BBN was already operating ARPAnet) to
operate CSNET, but that NSF rules did not allow giving (or made it
extremely difficult to give) a contract to a commercial company to build or
operate anything; NSF's charter was to sponsor research at "research
institutions."  UCAR was a "research institution" that already was
receiving NSF funding and was agreeable to do networking research for NSF
by writing a contract to a commercial company after going through the
official procurement process of soliciting and evaluating proposals. Being
from BBN, I like to believe BBN's proposal to UCAR was the best on its
merits, but it is possible selection pressure was exhibited by NSF; maybe
someone closer to the process can explain more.  But I assume NSF had
several institutions other than UCAR that could have been asked to work on
this problem, so the above summary of the procedure doesn't answer the "Why
UCAR?" question.

Cheers,
Alex

On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 12:55?PM Alex McKenzie <amckenzie3 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> *From:* Craig Partridge via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> *To:* Guy Almes <galmes at tamu.edu>
> *Cc:* "internet-history at elists.isoc.org" <internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> >
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2025 at 12:10:20 PM EST
> *Subject:* Re: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025 (role of NCAR and other
> labs)
>
> UCAR had the contract from NSF to operate CSNET (stated perhaps more
> clearly, CSNET, predecessor /partial-prototype to NSF regionals, was
> overseen by UCAR).
> Craig
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 9:54?AM Guy Almes via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> > Jack,
> >    This is all so valuable.  It touches on the community to be
> > connected, but aims primarily at the evolution of technical foundations.
> >    I'm going to aim at the community part, based in part on a recent
> > news story.
> >
> > On 12/17/25 5:17 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> > > The January/February 2026 issue of Foreign Affairs contains an article
> > > titled "How China Wins The Future".  ...
> > >
> > > Here's my thoughts -- based of course only on my personal experience.
> > > I'd love to know what I got wrong or missed.
> > >
> > > - 1960s: Licklider creates his vision of Intergalactic Network; ARPA
> > > creates the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO), which
> > > initiates the creation of ARPANET.
> > Note that it starts with a community to be connected.  For Licklider, it
> > was ARPA and the community of scientists funded by ARPA.  This could be
> > trivialized by focusing on the menagerie of computer terminals and
> > modems that Lick had to log in to various computers, but it was surely
> > deeper.  One historic healthy outcome of the postwar United States was
> > the rise of systematic federal funding of science.  Whether researchers
> > in various fields were aware of it, there was a rapidly emerging science
> > community that shared federal funding, but also shared a growing need
> > for effective collaboration among scientists in various disciplines and
> > various localities.
> >    Reflecting on the impact of this on the American and international
> > university research communities, I'd sometimes playfully note that the
> > US research university community was actually a very odd highly
> > decentralized organization.
> >    (At a meeting of networking leaders in Ireland circa 2001, a speaker
> > noted that there were elements of this present in the medieval
> > university world.  Patterns such as sending your best students to get
> > their advanced degrees in other universities and such as everyone
> > speaking a common second language (Latin then, English now), were
> > significant.  But I'll return to the special energy behind the postwar
> > situation.)
> >    One special player in this is NCAR.
> >    I am not an expert on NCAR and would very much like to hear from
> > others who know more about the role it played and is playing.
> >
> >    In 1987, when I was at Rice University cobbling together one of the
> > NSFnet-related "regional networks", we were suffering from a highly
> > congested 56kb/s ARPAnet while waiting for the promised T1-based NSFnet
> > Backbone.  So, to complement our ARPAnet connection, NSF kindly set up a
> > 56kb/s connection of the prototype Fuzzball-based NSFnet backbone.  The
> > specific connection was to the backbone node at NCAR in Boulder,
> > Colorado.  I had not been aware of NCAR much, but as this intense period
> > of Internet building continued, I became more and more aware of it.
> >    Evidently, NCAR was a creature of UCAR, the University Corporation
> > for Atmospheric Research.  UCAR, in turn, was a creature of atmospheric
> > science departments from across the country.  I do not pretend to
> > understand the bureaucratic details, but a few things were clear:
> > <> these departments and researchers had a deep need to share data,
> > computational resources, and other infrastructure, even acting on this
> > in 1960, when computer networks were not on the horizon.
> > <> NCAR has a neat campus "sort of" in Boulder, but on the top of a mesa
> > and not even convenient to get at from Boulder, never mind any other
> > university in the country.  Its physical situation almost cried out for
> > a network.
> > <> It served as a sort of NSF Supercomputer Center even before there was
> > an NSF Supercomputer Center program, even anticipating the 1983 Lax
> Report.
> > <> It seemed to have deeply understood the strategic value of
> > collaboration among atmospheric science departments at a large number of
> > universities.
> > <> Among other things, this meant that NCAR was a natural contributor
> > and beneficiary of the use of computing and computer networking in
> > connecting a nationwide and worldwide atmospheric science community.
> > <> It also fostered the UCAR Unidata project, which used the Internet to
> > share atmospheric data across universities and labs across the country.
> > <> I suspect that the 1950s International Geophysical Year had a role in
> > creating UCAR and NCAR.  Oh, and also Sputnik, but that's another story.
> >
> >    Let me stop there.
> >    My narrow request is for a better understanding of how NCAR emerged
> > and how it began to contribute to networking even before any modern
> > computer networks existed.
> >    My broader request is for other examples of how specific scientific
> > communities with their need for effective collaboration and sharing of
> > data and resources helped create the motivation for building the
> > Internet, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s.  So community pull as a
> > complement to our usual story of technology push.
> >        -- Guy
> > --
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > -
> > Unsubscribe:
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> >
>
>
> --
> *****
> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
> mailing lists.
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>


From craig at tereschau.net  Thu Dec 18 10:36:02 2025
From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 11:36:02 -0700
Subject: [ih] Fw: History from 1960s to 2025 (role of NCAR and other
 labs)
In-Reply-To: <CAMusaY-q73CJKUAk_YwTioUHO7AC0n3uWr9Nq3fa3ihCd0dCtw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <2d24492b-b261-415d-bebd-69c14050f77a@tamu.edu>
 <CAHQj4Cfgw7cVVM4y84SV8_5gEwnxk+UxQxL7W0nUNpqAX-FzfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <151317743.1970639.1766080526982@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAMusaY-q73CJKUAk_YwTioUHO7AC0n3uWr9Nq3fa3ihCd0dCtw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHQj4CeYAPpdTBrKmvdpKgBNNthgcupt1-YuQROCkSBeEcingA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Alex:

I don't know the full sequence as I joined the CSNET technical team after
BBN took over.  But the rough background, as I understand it is:


   - Initially, NSF awarded CSNET to someone (I'm guessing UCAR) to oversee
   two sites that created the initial CSNET - there were machines on both
   sides of the US (I think one at Rand  on the west -- don't recall if east
   coast was UDel or somewhere else -- Wisconsin was also involved?).
   - That divided management got CSNET up and going but proved
   operationally painful and so it was decided to consolidate the contract
   with one experienced corporate provider -- which ended up being BBN (and it
   may have been BBN had been considered in the earlier round, per your note
   -- I don't know).
   - The CSNET machines were shipped from the two sites to BBN, which then
   operated CSNET for the rest of its lifetime.

Craig

On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 11:22?AM Alexander McKenzie via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> I think an interesting question is " *Why* did UCAR have the contract from
> NSF to operate (oversee) CSNET?" It is my understanding that NSF wanted to
> award a contract to BBN (because BBN was already operating ARPAnet) to
> operate CSNET, but that NSF rules did not allow giving (or made it
> extremely difficult to give) a contract to a commercial company to build or
> operate anything; NSF's charter was to sponsor research at "research
> institutions."  UCAR was a "research institution" that already was
> receiving NSF funding and was agreeable to do networking research for NSF
> by writing a contract to a commercial company after going through the
> official procurement process of soliciting and evaluating proposals. Being
> from BBN, I like to believe BBN's proposal to UCAR was the best on its
> merits, but it is possible selection pressure was exhibited by NSF; maybe
> someone closer to the process can explain more.  But I assume NSF had
> several institutions other than UCAR that could have been asked to work on
> this problem, so the above summary of the procedure doesn't answer the "Why
> UCAR?" question.
>
> Cheers,
> Alex
>
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 12:55?PM Alex McKenzie <amckenzie3 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > ----- Forwarded Message -----
> > *From:* Craig Partridge via Internet-history <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> > *To:* Guy Almes <galmes at tamu.edu>
> > *Cc:* "internet-history at elists.isoc.org" <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > >
> > *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2025 at 12:10:20 PM EST
> > *Subject:* Re: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025 (role of NCAR and other
> > labs)
> >
> > UCAR had the contract from NSF to operate CSNET (stated perhaps more
> > clearly, CSNET, predecessor /partial-prototype to NSF regionals, was
> > overseen by UCAR).
> > Craig
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 9:54?AM Guy Almes via Internet-history <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Jack,
> > >    This is all so valuable.  It touches on the community to be
> > > connected, but aims primarily at the evolution of technical
> foundations.
> > >    I'm going to aim at the community part, based in part on a recent
> > > news story.
> > >
> > > On 12/17/25 5:17 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> > > > The January/February 2026 issue of Foreign Affairs contains an
> article
> > > > titled "How China Wins The Future".  ...
> > > >
> > > > Here's my thoughts -- based of course only on my personal experience.
> > > > I'd love to know what I got wrong or missed.
> > > >
> > > > - 1960s: Licklider creates his vision of Intergalactic Network; ARPA
> > > > creates the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO), which
> > > > initiates the creation of ARPANET.
> > > Note that it starts with a community to be connected.  For Licklider,
> it
> > > was ARPA and the community of scientists funded by ARPA.  This could be
> > > trivialized by focusing on the menagerie of computer terminals and
> > > modems that Lick had to log in to various computers, but it was surely
> > > deeper.  One historic healthy outcome of the postwar United States was
> > > the rise of systematic federal funding of science.  Whether researchers
> > > in various fields were aware of it, there was a rapidly emerging
> science
> > > community that shared federal funding, but also shared a growing need
> > > for effective collaboration among scientists in various disciplines and
> > > various localities.
> > >    Reflecting on the impact of this on the American and international
> > > university research communities, I'd sometimes playfully note that the
> > > US research university community was actually a very odd highly
> > > decentralized organization.
> > >    (At a meeting of networking leaders in Ireland circa 2001, a speaker
> > > noted that there were elements of this present in the medieval
> > > university world.  Patterns such as sending your best students to get
> > > their advanced degrees in other universities and such as everyone
> > > speaking a common second language (Latin then, English now), were
> > > significant.  But I'll return to the special energy behind the postwar
> > > situation.)
> > >    One special player in this is NCAR.
> > >    I am not an expert on NCAR and would very much like to hear from
> > > others who know more about the role it played and is playing.
> > >
> > >    In 1987, when I was at Rice University cobbling together one of the
> > > NSFnet-related "regional networks", we were suffering from a highly
> > > congested 56kb/s ARPAnet while waiting for the promised T1-based NSFnet
> > > Backbone.  So, to complement our ARPAnet connection, NSF kindly set up
> a
> > > 56kb/s connection of the prototype Fuzzball-based NSFnet backbone.  The
> > > specific connection was to the backbone node at NCAR in Boulder,
> > > Colorado.  I had not been aware of NCAR much, but as this intense
> period
> > > of Internet building continued, I became more and more aware of it.
> > >    Evidently, NCAR was a creature of UCAR, the University Corporation
> > > for Atmospheric Research.  UCAR, in turn, was a creature of atmospheric
> > > science departments from across the country.  I do not pretend to
> > > understand the bureaucratic details, but a few things were clear:
> > > <> these departments and researchers had a deep need to share data,
> > > computational resources, and other infrastructure, even acting on this
> > > in 1960, when computer networks were not on the horizon.
> > > <> NCAR has a neat campus "sort of" in Boulder, but on the top of a
> mesa
> > > and not even convenient to get at from Boulder, never mind any other
> > > university in the country.  Its physical situation almost cried out for
> > > a network.
> > > <> It served as a sort of NSF Supercomputer Center even before there
> was
> > > an NSF Supercomputer Center program, even anticipating the 1983 Lax
> > Report.
> > > <> It seemed to have deeply understood the strategic value of
> > > collaboration among atmospheric science departments at a large number
> of
> > > universities.
> > > <> Among other things, this meant that NCAR was a natural contributor
> > > and beneficiary of the use of computing and computer networking in
> > > connecting a nationwide and worldwide atmospheric science community.
> > > <> It also fostered the UCAR Unidata project, which used the Internet
> to
> > > share atmospheric data across universities and labs across the country.
> > > <> I suspect that the 1950s International Geophysical Year had a role
> in
> > > creating UCAR and NCAR.  Oh, and also Sputnik, but that's another
> story.
> > >
> > >    Let me stop there.
> > >    My narrow request is for a better understanding of how NCAR emerged
> > > and how it began to contribute to networking even before any modern
> > > computer networks existed.
> > >    My broader request is for other examples of how specific scientific
> > > communities with their need for effective collaboration and sharing of
> > > data and resources helped create the motivation for building the
> > > Internet, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s.  So community pull as a
> > > complement to our usual story of technology push.
> > >        -- Guy
> > > --
> > > Internet-history mailing list
> > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > > -
> > > Unsubscribe:
> > >
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *****
> > Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
> > mailing lists.
> >
> > --
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > -
> > Unsubscribe:
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> >
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>


-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.


From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Thu Dec 18 12:02:46 2025
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 09:02:46 +1300
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <aUPXndSDBewn9Sh8@noir.de>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aUPXndSDBewn9Sh8@noir.de>
Message-ID: <37d703cc-246f-4bf8-90c7-56f7e5b41d13@gmail.com>

On 18-Dec-25 23:29, Elmar K. Bins via Internet-history wrote:
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Vint Cerf via Internet-history) wrote:
> 
>> Jack's summary and others seem to neglect the impact of the Web, but
>> perhaps the intentional focus was only on the network layers (TCP/IP,
>> QUIC/UDP)? It would be hard to explain the success of the Internet without
>> the HTTP addition in the early 1990s.
> 
> Exactly, which in turn allowed the user base to change dramatically (from
> technically interested fellows inventing things to the public at large,
> doomscrolling). No "normal" Internet user cares at all about how this
> functions, as long as it does. (See IPv6 adoption.)

At one point I started referring to the Web as "the fluff on top of the
Internet", especially when I wanted to catch the attention of
Tim Berners-Lee while we worked in the same building at CERN. There
really is a difference between the Internet viewed as a plumbing system
and the Internet viewed as an information infrastructure. And that is
fundamentally why we have the W3C as well as the IETF.

This list is mainly inhabited by plumbers.

     Brian

> 
> The users' focus is on applications (well, it actually isn't, but speaking
> technically), not protocols. And the applications change, too (email anyone?)
> 
> The focus of the IETF and other inventors is on making those applications work
> smoothly, and that is where protocol progress originates from.
> Well, except for the exceptions where nerds get excited ;-)
> 
> E.


From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Thu Dec 18 12:16:57 2025
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 09:16:57 +1300
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggf256bkWssaOtWr8pxAC-5a0eKowZM2Owzqu0rZv+F98g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <CAHxHggf256bkWssaOtWr8pxAC-5a0eKowZM2Owzqu0rZv+F98g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fad34a18-99e7-4c30-be9c-461f32f22d1d@gmail.com>

Yes. Up-levelling a bit, unregulated markets always lead to monopolies or
cartels unless there is effective anti-trust regulation. The Internet has
always been an unregulated market -- originally because no politicians
or regulators even knew it existed, and later because they had no idea
how it worked and in particular how it simply ignored international
boundaries. So we ended up with near-monopolies both in the plumbing
(the "Tier 1" carriers, CDNs, the namespace, cloud hosting, etc.) and
in the fluff (search engines, on-line markets, social media, etc.).

Here's a counterfactual question: what would have happened if the
whole Clinton/Gore/Magaziner commercialization project had never
taken place?

Regards/Ng? mihi
    Brian Carpenter

On 19-Dec-25 04:11, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> I generally agree with this analysis, Andrew. Economy of scale has been a
> significant driver. First mover or tipping point dynamics add a second
> factor. "home page" concepts of the early Web cemented the notion of what
> I'll call "Web Identity".  USENET was quite different and more distributed
> but it is possible it would never have scaled to the size of today's Web.
> 
> v
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 9:53?AM Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 05:21:05AM -0500, Vint Cerf via Internet-history
>> wrote:
>>> It would be hard to explain the success of the Internet without
>>> the HTTP addition in the early 1990s.
>>
>> I think that is fair, but it may also be true that the introduction of the
>> web sowed the seeds for the current anti-network backlash we see so
>> widely.  I would argue that whereas much of the Internet tended towards
>> decentralized management and operation, the web had two features that
>> promoted centralization:
>>
>> 1.  The introduction of URLs/URIs made the identity of a site (the host
>> part of an http URL) really important and encouraged the identification
>> with trademarks.  In the very early commercial Internet, people often had
>> experience of both the web and of Usenet.  The latter was much less linked
>> to domain names, because one generally received the news from a local store
>> of it rather than by going to the servers operated by whoever had posted
>> the news article.
>>
>> 2.  Because advertising emerged early as a way to support web sites, there
>> came to be a very strong incentive for website operators to try to "keep
>> you on the site."  That many measures of a web site's importance or
>> effectiveness continue to depend on an "engagement" score that is at least
>> partially defined by how long someone stays on the site reflects that
>> bias.  Or, to think of this another way, if the web had worked by
>> distributing copies of data around the Internet, and that data were somehow
>> fetched through addresses that came from (say) cryptographic tokens
>> identifying the content in some sort of grand Dewey decimal (or LC, I don't
>> care the version!) catalogue of information, the very idea of "sites" would
>> not have been established and the centralizing feature wouldn't have been
>> there.
>>
>> It would seem that once there was an environment that encouraged resource
>> centralization, it was all but guaranteed that commercial interests would
>> tend to drive that toward  monopoly or near-monopoly.  And, given the
>> prevailing views about antitrust in the most important jurisdiction for the
>> web's emergence, we were all but fated to have the current misgivings so
>> many express about the Internet.  In other words, the web was the necessary
>> ingredient for the Internet's massive expansion but also the seed for its
>> demise, and once we had the web there just wasn't a way to avoid the kind
>> of decline that Zittrain[*] warned about.
>>
>> Now, I don't know that I fully buy this story, but lately I've been having
>> a hard time talking myself out of it, so I thought I'd see what others
>> think.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> A
>>
>> [*]Jonathan L. Zittrain, _The Future of the Internet--And How to Stop It_
>> (Yale Univ. Press & Penguin UK 2008).
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs at crankycanuck.ca
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> -
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>>
> 
> 

From jeanjour at comcast.net  Thu Dec 18 12:21:09 2025
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 15:21:09 -0500
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <37d703cc-246f-4bf8-90c7-56f7e5b41d13@gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aUPXndSDBewn9Sh8@noir.de> <37d703cc-246f-4bf8-90c7-56f7e5b41d13@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D9B6E884-0D28-433C-86CE-81F51929CF35@comcast.net>

And some of us thought, it was the continuation of building a resource-sharing network.  ;-)

(Although I have heard some say that it was patterned after the PSTN, but I don?t believe it.)

> On Dec 18, 2025, at 15:02, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> On 18-Dec-25 23:29, Elmar K. Bins via Internet-history wrote:
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Vint Cerf via Internet-history) wrote:
>>> Jack's summary and others seem to neglect the impact of the Web, but
>>> perhaps the intentional focus was only on the network layers (TCP/IP,
>>> QUIC/UDP)? It would be hard to explain the success of the Internet without
>>> the HTTP addition in the early 1990s.
>> Exactly, which in turn allowed the user base to change dramatically (from
>> technically interested fellows inventing things to the public at large,
>> doomscrolling). No "normal" Internet user cares at all about how this
>> functions, as long as it does. (See IPv6 adoption.)
> 
> At one point I started referring to the Web as "the fluff on top of the
> Internet", especially when I wanted to catch the attention of
> Tim Berners-Lee while we worked in the same building at CERN. There
> really is a difference between the Internet viewed as a plumbing system
> and the Internet viewed as an information infrastructure. And that is
> fundamentally why we have the W3C as well as the IETF.
> 
> This list is mainly inhabited by plumbers.
> 
>    Brian
> 
>> The users' focus is on applications (well, it actually isn't, but speaking
>> technically), not protocols. And the applications change, too (email anyone?)
>> The focus of the IETF and other inventors is on making those applications work
>> smoothly, and that is where protocol progress originates from.
>> Well, except for the exceptions where nerds get excited ;-)
>> E.
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history



From craig at tereschau.net  Thu Dec 18 12:31:29 2025
From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 13:31:29 -0700
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <37d703cc-246f-4bf8-90c7-56f7e5b41d13@gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aUPXndSDBewn9Sh8@noir.de> <37d703cc-246f-4bf8-90c7-56f7e5b41d13@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHQj4CeZ-YT5ft9BCunq1Q7ooPKJUQnbN-h5QrbPBzFf-o4Y9Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 1:02?PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

>
> This list is mainly inhabited by plumbers.
>
>
I have been guilty of terming those of us who work on lower network layers
as plumbers.  But I also cannot resist that one possible extrapolation is
that Tim built commodes. :-)

Craig


-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.


From steve at shinkuro.com  Thu Dec 18 12:52:17 2025
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 15:52:17 -0500
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <CAHQj4CeZ-YT5ft9BCunq1Q7ooPKJUQnbN-h5QrbPBzFf-o4Y9Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aUPXndSDBewn9Sh8@noir.de> <37d703cc-246f-4bf8-90c7-56f7e5b41d13@gmail.com>
 <CAHQj4CeZ-YT5ft9BCunq1Q7ooPKJUQnbN-h5QrbPBzFf-o4Y9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABf5zvJgf6sDAtd7o-B5hToUfXApmu34cuoFf4P=bGqC-k0X7w@mail.gmail.com>

The next IETF tee shirt should read "Proud to be a plumber"

On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 3:31?PM Craig Partridge via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 1:02?PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > This list is mainly inhabited by plumbers.
> >
> >
> I have been guilty of terming those of us who work on lower network layers
> as plumbers.  But I also cannot resist that one possible extrapolation is
> that Tim built commodes. :-)
>
> Craig
>
>
> --
> *****
> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
> mailing lists.
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>


-- 
Sent by a Verified

sender


From galmes at tamu.edu  Thu Dec 18 13:32:13 2025
From: galmes at tamu.edu (Guy Almes)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 16:32:13 -0500
Subject: [ih] Fw: History from 1960s to 2025 (role of NCAR and other
 labs)
In-Reply-To: <CAHQj4CeYAPpdTBrKmvdpKgBNNthgcupt1-YuQROCkSBeEcingA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <2d24492b-b261-415d-bebd-69c14050f77a@tamu.edu>
 <CAHQj4Cfgw7cVVM4y84SV8_5gEwnxk+UxQxL7W0nUNpqAX-FzfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <151317743.1970639.1766080526982@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAMusaY-q73CJKUAk_YwTioUHO7AC0n3uWr9Nq3fa3ihCd0dCtw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHQj4CeYAPpdTBrKmvdpKgBNNthgcupt1-YuQROCkSBeEcingA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3aaad469-d850-4c92-afff-67a22e3b2765@tamu.edu>

Craig et al.,
   This 
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-decry-trumps-plan-to-kill-crucial-atmospheric-science-center/> 
from Scientific American confirms the news story I referred to in my 
initial post.
   Polite language doesn't suffice to express my opinion of the 
administration's move.
   But this list is about history, not politics.

   As I shared with another person, I like it when my politics is 
informed by historical insight.  I am skeptical when my historical 
insights are informed by my politics.

   I do look forward to other contributions to the thread.
   While I concur with the emphasis on "plumbing", you cannot (IMHO) 
understand the rise of the Internet without understanding its 
relationship with the research university/lab world.
	-- Guy

On 12/18/25 1:36 PM, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote:
> Hi Alex:
> 
> I don't know the full sequence as I joined the CSNET technical team after
> BBN took over.  But the rough background, as I understand it is:
> 
> 
>     - Initially, NSF awarded CSNET to someone (I'm guessing UCAR) to oversee
>     two sites that created the initial CSNET - there were machines on both
>     sides of the US (I think one at Rand  on the west -- don't recall if east
>     coast was UDel or somewhere else -- Wisconsin was also involved?).
>     - That divided management got CSNET up and going but proved
>     operationally painful and so it was decided to consolidate the contract
>     with one experienced corporate provider -- which ended up being BBN (and it
>     may have been BBN had been considered in the earlier round, per your note
>     -- I don't know).
>     - The CSNET machines were shipped from the two sites to BBN, which then
>     operated CSNET for the rest of its lifetime.
> 
> Craig
> 
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 11:22?AM Alexander McKenzie via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>> I think an interesting question is " *Why* did UCAR have the contract from
>> NSF to operate (oversee) CSNET?" It is my understanding that NSF wanted to
>> award a contract to BBN (because BBN was already operating ARPAnet) to
>> operate CSNET, but that NSF rules did not allow giving (or made it
>> extremely difficult to give) a contract to a commercial company to build or
>> operate anything; NSF's charter was to sponsor research at "research
>> institutions."  UCAR was a "research institution" that already was
>> receiving NSF funding and was agreeable to do networking research for NSF
>> by writing a contract to a commercial company after going through the
>> official procurement process of soliciting and evaluating proposals. Being
>> from BBN, I like to believe BBN's proposal to UCAR was the best on its
>> merits, but it is possible selection pressure was exhibited by NSF; maybe
>> someone closer to the process can explain more.  But I assume NSF had
>> several institutions other than UCAR that could have been asked to work on
>> this problem, so the above summary of the procedure doesn't answer the "Why
>> UCAR?" question.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alex
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 12:55?PM Alex McKenzie <amckenzie3 at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Forwarded Message -----
>> > *From:* Craig Partridge via Internet-history <
>> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>> > *To:* Guy Almes <galmes at tamu.edu>
>> > *Cc:* "internet-history at elists.isoc.org" <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> > >
>> > *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2025 at 12:10:20 PM EST
>> > *Subject:* Re: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025 (role of NCAR and other
>> > labs)
>> >
>> > UCAR had the contract from NSF to operate CSNET (stated perhaps more
>> > clearly, CSNET, predecessor /partial-prototype to NSF regionals, was
>> > overseen by UCAR).
>> > Craig
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 9:54?AM Guy Almes via Internet-history <
>> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Jack,
>> > >    This is all so valuable.  It touches on the community to be
>> > > connected, but aims primarily at the evolution of technical
>> foundations.
>> > >    I'm going to aim at the community part, based in part on a recent
>> > > news story.
>> > >
>> > > On 12/17/25 5:17 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
>> > > > The January/February 2026 issue of Foreign Affairs contains an
>> article
>> > > > titled "How China Wins The Future".  ...
>> > > >
>> > > > Here's my thoughts -- based of course only on my personal experience.
>> > > > I'd love to know what I got wrong or missed.
>> > > >
>> > > > - 1960s: Licklider creates his vision of Intergalactic Network; ARPA
>> > > > creates the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO), which
>> > > > initiates the creation of ARPANET.
>> > > Note that it starts with a community to be connected.  For Licklider,
>> it
>> > > was ARPA and the community of scientists funded by ARPA.  This could be
>> > > trivialized by focusing on the menagerie of computer terminals and
>> > > modems that Lick had to log in to various computers, but it was surely
>> > > deeper.  One historic healthy outcome of the postwar United States was
>> > > the rise of systematic federal funding of science.  Whether researchers
>> > > in various fields were aware of it, there was a rapidly emerging
>> science
>> > > community that shared federal funding, but also shared a growing need
>> > > for effective collaboration among scientists in various disciplines and
>> > > various localities.
>> > >    Reflecting on the impact of this on the American and international
>> > > university research communities, I'd sometimes playfully note that the
>> > > US research university community was actually a very odd highly
>> > > decentralized organization.
>> > >    (At a meeting of networking leaders in Ireland circa 2001, a speaker
>> > > noted that there were elements of this present in the medieval
>> > > university world.  Patterns such as sending your best students to get
>> > > their advanced degrees in other universities and such as everyone
>> > > speaking a common second language (Latin then, English now), were
>> > > significant.  But I'll return to the special energy behind the postwar
>> > > situation.)
>> > >    One special player in this is NCAR.
>> > >    I am not an expert on NCAR and would very much like to hear from
>> > > others who know more about the role it played and is playing.
>> > >
>> > >    In 1987, when I was at Rice University cobbling together one of the
>> > > NSFnet-related "regional networks", we were suffering from a highly
>> > > congested 56kb/s ARPAnet while waiting for the promised T1-based NSFnet
>> > > Backbone.  So, to complement our ARPAnet connection, NSF kindly set up
>> a
>> > > 56kb/s connection of the prototype Fuzzball-based NSFnet backbone.  The
>> > > specific connection was to the backbone node at NCAR in Boulder,
>> > > Colorado.  I had not been aware of NCAR much, but as this intense
>> period
>> > > of Internet building continued, I became more and more aware of it.
>> > >    Evidently, NCAR was a creature of UCAR, the University Corporation
>> > > for Atmospheric Research.  UCAR, in turn, was a creature of atmospheric
>> > > science departments from across the country.  I do not pretend to
>> > > understand the bureaucratic details, but a few things were clear:
>> > > <> these departments and researchers had a deep need to share data,
>> > > computational resources, and other infrastructure, even acting on this
>> > > in 1960, when computer networks were not on the horizon.
>> > > <> NCAR has a neat campus "sort of" in Boulder, but on the top of a
>> mesa
>> > > and not even convenient to get at from Boulder, never mind any other
>> > > university in the country.  Its physical situation almost cried out for
>> > > a network.
>> > > <> It served as a sort of NSF Supercomputer Center even before there
>> was
>> > > an NSF Supercomputer Center program, even anticipating the 1983 Lax
>> > Report.
>> > > <> It seemed to have deeply understood the strategic value of
>> > > collaboration among atmospheric science departments at a large number
>> of
>> > > universities.
>> > > <> Among other things, this meant that NCAR was a natural contributor
>> > > and beneficiary of the use of computing and computer networking in
>> > > connecting a nationwide and worldwide atmospheric science community.
>> > > <> It also fostered the UCAR Unidata project, which used the Internet
>> to
>> > > share atmospheric data across universities and labs across the country.
>> > > <> I suspect that the 1950s International Geophysical Year had a role
>> in
>> > > creating UCAR and NCAR.  Oh, and also Sputnik, but that's another
>> story.
>> > >
>> > >    Let me stop there.
>> > >    My narrow request is for a better understanding of how NCAR emerged
>> > > and how it began to contribute to networking even before any modern
>> > > computer networks existed.
>> > >    My broader request is for other examples of how specific scientific
>> > > communities with their need for effective collaboration and sharing of
>> > > data and resources helped create the motivation for building the
>> > > Internet, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s.  So community pull as a
>> > > complement to our usual story of technology push.
>> > >        -- Guy
>> > > --
>> > > Internet-history mailing list
>> > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv! 
> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$>
>> > > -
>> > > Unsubscribe:
>> > >
>> >
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/ 
> form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b? 
> The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!! 
> KwNVnqRv! 
> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$>
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > *****
>> > Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
>> > mailing lists.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Internet-history mailing list
>> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv! 
> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$>
>> > -
>> > Unsubscribe:
>> >
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/ 
> form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b? 
> The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!! 
> KwNVnqRv! 
> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$>
>> >
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv! 
> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$>
>> -
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/ 
> form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b? 
> The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!! 
> KwNVnqRv! 
> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$>
>>
> 
> 
> -- 
> *****
> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
> mailing lists.
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv! 
> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$>
> -
> Unsubscribe:https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/ 
> form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b? 
> The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!! 
> KwNVnqRv! 
> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$>
> 



From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Thu Dec 18 14:01:14 2025
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 11:01:14 +1300
Subject: [ih] Fw: History from 1960s to 2025 (role of NCAR and other
 labs)
In-Reply-To: <3aaad469-d850-4c92-afff-67a22e3b2765@tamu.edu>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <2d24492b-b261-415d-bebd-69c14050f77a@tamu.edu>
 <CAHQj4Cfgw7cVVM4y84SV8_5gEwnxk+UxQxL7W0nUNpqAX-FzfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <151317743.1970639.1766080526982@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAMusaY-q73CJKUAk_YwTioUHO7AC0n3uWr9Nq3fa3ihCd0dCtw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHQj4CeYAPpdTBrKmvdpKgBNNthgcupt1-YuQROCkSBeEcingA@mail.gmail.com>
 <3aaad469-d850-4c92-afff-67a22e3b2765@tamu.edu>
Message-ID: <3f6ffb35-cbbd-4a7b-8863-80b4bbe1a699@gmail.com>

>    While I concur with the emphasis on "plumbing", you cannot (IMHO) 
> understand the rise of the Internet without understanding its 
> relationship with the research university/lab world.

Of course. As the chief plumber at CERN in the early 1990s, I recall
dealing literally with plumbing problems on at least two occasions:
once when some cable ducts on-site were invaded by the roots of poplar
trees, and the second when a duct alongside a French road connecting
our two sites was flooded, shorting out all the copper cables. Both
times, I wasn't literally down the hole, but when your customers
are angry Nobel prize winners, you have to at least be on the side of
the road encouraging the people who are down the hole.

But to your point, we took pride at CERN in our part in building
out the network along with innumerable academic and research partners
throughout Europe.

Regards/Ng? mihi
    Brian Carpenter

On 19-Dec-25 10:32, Guy Almes via Internet-history wrote:
> Craig et al.,
>     This
> <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-decry-trumps-plan-to-kill-crucial-atmospheric-science-center/>
> from Scientific American confirms the news story I referred to in my
> initial post.
>     Polite language doesn't suffice to express my opinion of the
> administration's move.
>     But this list is about history, not politics.
> 
>     As I shared with another person, I like it when my politics is
> informed by historical insight.  I am skeptical when my historical
> insights are informed by my politics.
> 
>     I do look forward to other contributions to the thread.
>     While I concur with the emphasis on "plumbing", you cannot (IMHO)
> understand the rise of the Internet without understanding its
> relationship with the research university/lab world.
> 	-- Guy
> 
> On 12/18/25 1:36 PM, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote:
>> Hi Alex:
>>
>> I don't know the full sequence as I joined the CSNET technical team after
>> BBN took over.  But the rough background, as I understand it is:
>>
>>
>>      - Initially, NSF awarded CSNET to someone (I'm guessing UCAR) to oversee
>>      two sites that created the initial CSNET - there were machines on both
>>      sides of the US (I think one at Rand  on the west -- don't recall if east
>>      coast was UDel or somewhere else -- Wisconsin was also involved?).
>>      - That divided management got CSNET up and going but proved
>>      operationally painful and so it was decided to consolidate the contract
>>      with one experienced corporate provider -- which ended up being BBN (and it
>>      may have been BBN had been considered in the earlier round, per your note
>>      -- I don't know).
>>      - The CSNET machines were shipped from the two sites to BBN, which then
>>      operated CSNET for the rest of its lifetime.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 11:22?AM Alexander McKenzie via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I think an interesting question is " *Why* did UCAR have the contract from
>>> NSF to operate (oversee) CSNET?" It is my understanding that NSF wanted to
>>> award a contract to BBN (because BBN was already operating ARPAnet) to
>>> operate CSNET, but that NSF rules did not allow giving (or made it
>>> extremely difficult to give) a contract to a commercial company to build or
>>> operate anything; NSF's charter was to sponsor research at "research
>>> institutions."  UCAR was a "research institution" that already was
>>> receiving NSF funding and was agreeable to do networking research for NSF
>>> by writing a contract to a commercial company after going through the
>>> official procurement process of soliciting and evaluating proposals. Being
>>> from BBN, I like to believe BBN's proposal to UCAR was the best on its
>>> merits, but it is possible selection pressure was exhibited by NSF; maybe
>>> someone closer to the process can explain more.  But I assume NSF had
>>> several institutions other than UCAR that could have been asked to work on
>>> this problem, so the above summary of the procedure doesn't answer the "Why
>>> UCAR?" question.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Alex
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 12:55?PM Alex McKenzie <amckenzie3 at yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Forwarded Message -----
>>>> *From:* Craig Partridge via Internet-history <
>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>>>> *To:* Guy Almes <galmes at tamu.edu>
>>>> *Cc:* "internet-history at elists.isoc.org" <
>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>>>
>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2025 at 12:10:20 PM EST
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025 (role of NCAR and other
>>>> labs)
>>>>
>>>> UCAR had the contract from NSF to operate CSNET (stated perhaps more
>>>> clearly, CSNET, predecessor /partial-prototype to NSF regionals, was
>>>> overseen by UCAR).
>>>> Craig
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 9:54?AM Guy Almes via Internet-history <
>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jack,
>>>>>     This is all so valuable.  It touches on the community to be
>>>>> connected, but aims primarily at the evolution of technical
>>> foundations.
>>>>>     I'm going to aim at the community part, based in part on a recent
>>>>> news story.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/17/25 5:17 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>>> The January/February 2026 issue of Foreign Affairs contains an
>>> article
>>>>>> titled "How China Wins The Future".  ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's my thoughts -- based of course only on my personal experience.
>>>>>> I'd love to know what I got wrong or missed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - 1960s: Licklider creates his vision of Intergalactic Network; ARPA
>>>>>> creates the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO), which
>>>>>> initiates the creation of ARPANET.
>>>>> Note that it starts with a community to be connected.  For Licklider,
>>> it
>>>>> was ARPA and the community of scientists funded by ARPA.  This could be
>>>>> trivialized by focusing on the menagerie of computer terminals and
>>>>> modems that Lick had to log in to various computers, but it was surely
>>>>> deeper.  One historic healthy outcome of the postwar United States was
>>>>> the rise of systematic federal funding of science.  Whether researchers
>>>>> in various fields were aware of it, there was a rapidly emerging
>>> science
>>>>> community that shared federal funding, but also shared a growing need
>>>>> for effective collaboration among scientists in various disciplines and
>>>>> various localities.
>>>>>     Reflecting on the impact of this on the American and international
>>>>> university research communities, I'd sometimes playfully note that the
>>>>> US research university community was actually a very odd highly
>>>>> decentralized organization.
>>>>>     (At a meeting of networking leaders in Ireland circa 2001, a speaker
>>>>> noted that there were elements of this present in the medieval
>>>>> university world.  Patterns such as sending your best students to get
>>>>> their advanced degrees in other universities and such as everyone
>>>>> speaking a common second language (Latin then, English now), were
>>>>> significant.  But I'll return to the special energy behind the postwar
>>>>> situation.)
>>>>>     One special player in this is NCAR.
>>>>>     I am not an expert on NCAR and would very much like to hear from
>>>>> others who know more about the role it played and is playing.
>>>>>
>>>>>     In 1987, when I was at Rice University cobbling together one of the
>>>>> NSFnet-related "regional networks", we were suffering from a highly
>>>>> congested 56kb/s ARPAnet while waiting for the promised T1-based NSFnet
>>>>> Backbone.  So, to complement our ARPAnet connection, NSF kindly set up
>>> a
>>>>> 56kb/s connection of the prototype Fuzzball-based NSFnet backbone.  The
>>>>> specific connection was to the backbone node at NCAR in Boulder,
>>>>> Colorado.  I had not been aware of NCAR much, but as this intense
>>> period
>>>>> of Internet building continued, I became more and more aware of it.
>>>>>     Evidently, NCAR was a creature of UCAR, the University Corporation
>>>>> for Atmospheric Research.  UCAR, in turn, was a creature of atmospheric
>>>>> science departments from across the country.  I do not pretend to
>>>>> understand the bureaucratic details, but a few things were clear:
>>>>> <> these departments and researchers had a deep need to share data,
>>>>> computational resources, and other infrastructure, even acting on this
>>>>> in 1960, when computer networks were not on the horizon.
>>>>> <> NCAR has a neat campus "sort of" in Boulder, but on the top of a
>>> mesa
>>>>> and not even convenient to get at from Boulder, never mind any other
>>>>> university in the country.  Its physical situation almost cried out for
>>>>> a network.
>>>>> <> It served as a sort of NSF Supercomputer Center even before there
>>> was
>>>>> an NSF Supercomputer Center program, even anticipating the 1983 Lax
>>>> Report.
>>>>> <> It seemed to have deeply understood the strategic value of
>>>>> collaboration among atmospheric science departments at a large number
>>> of
>>>>> universities.
>>>>> <> Among other things, this meant that NCAR was a natural contributor
>>>>> and beneficiary of the use of computing and computer networking in
>>>>> connecting a nationwide and worldwide atmospheric science community.
>>>>> <> It also fostered the UCAR Unidata project, which used the Internet
>>> to
>>>>> share atmospheric data across universities and labs across the country.
>>>>> <> I suspect that the 1950s International Geophysical Year had a role
>>> in
>>>>> creating UCAR and NCAR.  Oh, and also Sputnik, but that's another
>>> story.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Let me stop there.
>>>>>     My narrow request is for a better understanding of how NCAR emerged
>>>>> and how it began to contribute to networking even before any modern
>>>>> computer networks existed.
>>>>>     My broader request is for other examples of how specific scientific
>>>>> communities with their need for effective collaboration and sharing of
>>>>> data and resources helped create the motivation for building the
>>>>> Internet, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s.  So community pull as a
>>>>> complement to our usual story of technology push.
>>>>>         -- Guy
>>>>> --
>>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/
>> internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!
>> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$>
>>>>> -
>>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/
>> form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?
>> The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!!
>> KwNVnqRv!
>> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *****
>>>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
>>>> mailing lists.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/
>> internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!
>> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$>
>>>> -
>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>>
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/
>> form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?
>> The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!!
>> KwNVnqRv!
>> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/
>> internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!
>> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$>
>>> -
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/
>> form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?
>> The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!!
>> KwNVnqRv!
>> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> *****
>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
>> mailing lists.
>> -- 
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/
>> internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!
>> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$>
>> -
>> Unsubscribe:https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/
>> form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?
>> The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!!
>> KwNVnqRv!
>> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$>
>>
> 

From galmes at tamu.edu  Thu Dec 18 14:08:49 2025
From: galmes at tamu.edu (Guy Almes)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 17:08:49 -0500
Subject: [ih] Fw: History from 1960s to 2025 (role of NCAR and other
 labs)
In-Reply-To: <3f6ffb35-cbbd-4a7b-8863-80b4bbe1a699@gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <2d24492b-b261-415d-bebd-69c14050f77a@tamu.edu>
 <CAHQj4Cfgw7cVVM4y84SV8_5gEwnxk+UxQxL7W0nUNpqAX-FzfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <151317743.1970639.1766080526982@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAMusaY-q73CJKUAk_YwTioUHO7AC0n3uWr9Nq3fa3ihCd0dCtw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHQj4CeYAPpdTBrKmvdpKgBNNthgcupt1-YuQROCkSBeEcingA@mail.gmail.com>
 <3aaad469-d850-4c92-afff-67a22e3b2765@tamu.edu>
 <3f6ffb35-cbbd-4a7b-8863-80b4bbe1a699@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <510cae23-b94f-4c43-9dcd-cb0c227cd9ee@tamu.edu>

Brian,
   Exactly.
   The role of CERN in European and International networking is very 
similar in nature (and some details) to the role of NCAR in the US.
   Excellent science that depends on international scientific 
collaboration is the common theme.
   Regards,
	-- Guy

On 12/18/25 5:01 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>  While I concur with the emphasis on "plumbing", you cannot (IMHO) 
>> understand the rise of the Internet without understanding its 
>> relationship with the research university/lab world.
> 
> Of course. As the chief plumber at CERN in the early 1990s, I recall
> dealing literally with plumbing problems on at least two occasions:
> once when some cable ducts on-site were invaded by the roots of poplar
> trees, and the second when a duct alongside a French road connecting
> our two sites was flooded, shorting out all the copper cables. Both
> times, I wasn't literally down the hole, but when your customers
> are angry Nobel prize winners, you have to at least be on the side of
> the road encouraging the people who are down the hole.
> 
> But to your point, we took pride at CERN in our part in building
> out the network along with innumerable academic and research partners
> throughout Europe.
> 
> Regards/Ng? mihi
>      Brian Carpenter
> 
> On 19-Dec-25 10:32, Guy Almes via Internet-history wrote:
>> Craig et al.,
>>     This
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ 
> scientists-decry-trumps-plan-to-kill-crucial-atmospheric-science-center/ 
> __;!!KwNVnqRv! 
> BdwwPsFftw3PC2X_I9sB8Sd7ikIEmhccmyywyz5tFeh8VrqoZ1d6gm816mN0EW1AwCOPYPPCvsvVjs5PGngPiYf2hw$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-decry-trumps-plan-to-kill-crucial-atmospheric-science-center/__;!!KwNVnqRv!BdwwPsFftw3PC2X_I9sB8Sd7ikIEmhccmyywyz5tFeh8VrqoZ1d6gm816mN0EW1AwCOPYPPCvsvVjs5PGngPiYf2hw$>>
>> from Scientific American confirms the news story I referred to in my
>> initial post.
>>     Polite language doesn't suffice to express my opinion of the
>> administration's move.
>>     But this list is about history, not politics.
>> 
>>     As I shared with another person, I like it when my politics is
>> informed by historical insight.  I am skeptical when my historical
>> insights are informed by my politics.
>> 
>>     I do look forward to other contributions to the thread.
>>     While I concur with the emphasis on "plumbing", you cannot (IMHO)
>> understand the rise of the Internet without understanding its
>> relationship with the research university/lab world.
>> 	-- Guy
>> 
>> On 12/18/25 1:36 PM, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote:
>>> Hi Alex:
>>>
>>> I don't know the full sequence as I joined the CSNET technical team after
>>> BBN took over.  But the rough background, as I understand it is:
>>>
>>>
>>>      - Initially, NSF awarded CSNET to someone (I'm guessing UCAR) to oversee
>>>      two sites that created the initial CSNET - there were machines on both
>>>      sides of the US (I think one at Rand  on the west -- don't recall if east
>>>      coast was UDel or somewhere else -- Wisconsin was also involved?).
>>>      - That divided management got CSNET up and going but proved
>>>      operationally painful and so it was decided to consolidate the contract
>>>      with one experienced corporate provider -- which ended up being BBN (and it
>>>      may have been BBN had been considered in the earlier round, per your note
>>>      -- I don't know).
>>>      - The CSNET machines were shipped from the two sites to BBN, which then
>>>      operated CSNET for the rest of its lifetime.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 11:22?AM Alexander McKenzie via Internet-history <
>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think an interesting question is " *Why* did UCAR have the contract from
>>>> NSF to operate (oversee) CSNET?" It is my understanding that NSF wanted to
>>>> award a contract to BBN (because BBN was already operating ARPAnet) to
>>>> operate CSNET, but that NSF rules did not allow giving (or made it
>>>> extremely difficult to give) a contract to a commercial company to build or
>>>> operate anything; NSF's charter was to sponsor research at "research
>>>> institutions."  UCAR was a "research institution" that already was
>>>> receiving NSF funding and was agreeable to do networking research for NSF
>>>> by writing a contract to a commercial company after going through the
>>>> official procurement process of soliciting and evaluating proposals. Being
>>>> from BBN, I like to believe BBN's proposal to UCAR was the best on its
>>>> merits, but it is possible selection pressure was exhibited by NSF; maybe
>>>> someone closer to the process can explain more.  But I assume NSF had
>>>> several institutions other than UCAR that could have been asked to work on
>>>> this problem, so the above summary of the procedure doesn't answer the "Why
>>>> UCAR?" question.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 12:55?PM Alex McKenzie <amckenzie3 at yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Forwarded Message -----
>>>>> *From:* Craig Partridge via Internet-history <
>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>>>>> *To:* Guy Almes <galmes at tamu.edu>
>>>>> *Cc:* "internet-history at elists.isoc.org" <
>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>>>>
>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2025 at 12:10:20 PM EST
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025 (role of NCAR and other
>>>>> labs)
>>>>>
>>>>> UCAR had the contract from NSF to operate CSNET (stated perhaps more
>>>>> clearly, CSNET, predecessor /partial-prototype to NSF regionals, was
>>>>> overseen by UCAR).
>>>>> Craig
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 9:54?AM Guy Almes via Internet-history <
>>>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jack,
>>>>>>     This is all so valuable.  It touches on the community to be
>>>>>> connected, but aims primarily at the evolution of technical
>>>> foundations.
>>>>>>     I'm going to aim at the community part, based in part on a recent
>>>>>> news story.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/17/25 5:17 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>>>> The January/February 2026 issue of Foreign Affairs contains an
>>>> article
>>>>>>> titled "How China Wins The Future".  ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's my thoughts -- based of course only on my personal experience.
>>>>>>> I'd love to know what I got wrong or missed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - 1960s: Licklider creates his vision of Intergalactic Network; ARPA
>>>>>>> creates the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO), which
>>>>>>> initiates the creation of ARPANET.
>>>>>> Note that it starts with a community to be connected.  For Licklider,
>>>> it
>>>>>> was ARPA and the community of scientists funded by ARPA.  This could be
>>>>>> trivialized by focusing on the menagerie of computer terminals and
>>>>>> modems that Lick had to log in to various computers, but it was surely
>>>>>> deeper.  One historic healthy outcome of the postwar United States was
>>>>>> the rise of systematic federal funding of science.  Whether researchers
>>>>>> in various fields were aware of it, there was a rapidly emerging
>>>> science
>>>>>> community that shared federal funding, but also shared a growing need
>>>>>> for effective collaboration among scientists in various disciplines and
>>>>>> various localities.
>>>>>>     Reflecting on the impact of this on the American and international
>>>>>> university research communities, I'd sometimes playfully note that the
>>>>>> US research university community was actually a very odd highly
>>>>>> decentralized organization.
>>>>>>     (At a meeting of networking leaders in Ireland circa 2001, a speaker
>>>>>> noted that there were elements of this present in the medieval
>>>>>> university world.  Patterns such as sending your best students to get
>>>>>> their advanced degrees in other universities and such as everyone
>>>>>> speaking a common second language (Latin then, English now), were
>>>>>> significant.  But I'll return to the special energy behind the postwar
>>>>>> situation.)
>>>>>>     One special player in this is NCAR.
>>>>>>     I am not an expert on NCAR and would very much like to hear from
>>>>>> others who know more about the role it played and is playing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     In 1987, when I was at Rice University cobbling together one of the
>>>>>> NSFnet-related "regional networks", we were suffering from a highly
>>>>>> congested 56kb/s ARPAnet while waiting for the promised T1-based NSFnet
>>>>>> Backbone.  So, to complement our ARPAnet connection, NSF kindly set up
>>>> a
>>>>>> 56kb/s connection of the prototype Fuzzball-based NSFnet backbone.  The
>>>>>> specific connection was to the backbone node at NCAR in Boulder,
>>>>>> Colorado.  I had not been aware of NCAR much, but as this intense
>>>> period
>>>>>> of Internet building continued, I became more and more aware of it.
>>>>>>     Evidently, NCAR was a creature of UCAR, the University Corporation
>>>>>> for Atmospheric Research.  UCAR, in turn, was a creature of atmospheric
>>>>>> science departments from across the country.  I do not pretend to
>>>>>> understand the bureaucratic details, but a few things were clear:
>>>>>> <> these departments and researchers had a deep need to share data,
>>>>>> computational resources, and other infrastructure, even acting on this
>>>>>> in 1960, when computer networks were not on the horizon.
>>>>>> <> NCAR has a neat campus "sort of" in Boulder, but on the top of a
>>>> mesa
>>>>>> and not even convenient to get at from Boulder, never mind any other
>>>>>> university in the country.  Its physical situation almost cried out for
>>>>>> a network.
>>>>>> <> It served as a sort of NSF Supercomputer Center even before there
>>>> was
>>>>>> an NSF Supercomputer Center program, even anticipating the 1983 Lax
>>>>> Report.
>>>>>> <> It seemed to have deeply understood the strategic value of
>>>>>> collaboration among atmospheric science departments at a large number
>>>> of
>>>>>> universities.
>>>>>> <> Among other things, this meant that NCAR was a natural contributor
>>>>>> and beneficiary of the use of computing and computer networking in
>>>>>> connecting a nationwide and worldwide atmospheric science community.
>>>>>> <> It also fostered the UCAR Unidata project, which used the Internet
>>>> to
>>>>>> share atmospheric data across universities and labs across the country.
>>>>>> <> I suspect that the 1950s International Geophysical Year had a role
>>>> in
>>>>>> creating UCAR and NCAR.  Oh, and also Sputnik, but that's another
>>>> story.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Let me stop there.
>>>>>>     My narrow request is for a better understanding of how NCAR emerged
>>>>>> and how it began to contribute to networking even before any modern
>>>>>> computer networks existed.
>>>>>>     My broader request is for other examples of how specific scientific
>>>>>> communities with their need for effective collaboration and sharing of
>>>>>> data and resources helped create the motivation for building the
>>>>>> Internet, particularly in the 1980s and 1990s.  So community pull as a
>>>>>> complement to our usual story of technology push.
>>>>>>         -- Guy
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/
>>>>internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!
>>> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv! 
> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$> >>>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$>
>>>>>>>-
>>>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/ >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/
>>>>form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?
>>> The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!!
>>> KwNVnqRv!
>>> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/ 
> form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b? 
> The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!! 
> KwNVnqRv! 
> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>> *****
>>>>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
>>>>> mailing lists.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/
>>>>internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!
>>> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv! 
> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$> >>>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$>
>>>>>>-
>>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/ >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/
>>>>form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?
>>> The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!!
>>> KwNVnqRv!
>>> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/ 
> form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b? 
> The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!! 
> KwNVnqRv! 
> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$> >>>> >>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$>
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/
>>>>internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!
>>> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv! 
> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$> >>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$>
>>>>>-
>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/ >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/
>>>>form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?
>>> The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!!
>>> KwNVnqRv!
>>> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/ 
> form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b? 
> The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!! 
> KwNVnqRv! 
> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$> >>> >> >> >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>-- 
>>> *****
>>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
>>> mailing lists.
>>> -- 
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/
>>>>internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!
>>> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv! 
> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$> >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history__;!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUsSuKO5SA$>
>>>>-
>>> Unsubscribe:https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/ >> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/
>>>>form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?
>>> The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!!
>>> KwNVnqRv!
>>> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/ 
> form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b? 
> The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!! 
> KwNVnqRv! 
> FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$> >> > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The*20list*20to*20be*20unsubscribed*20from=Internet-history__;JSUlJSU!!KwNVnqRv!FCSyWZ8N46Sz0rV-4MHPRdAF2QmmKBIeHORbZTmH7lS1Z0qwTA9XkzCdyXo5xz7frKh0Bdxt_r9dAR3lSe_AJUuZLW-tyA$>
>>>
>>>
> 



From johnl at iecc.com  Thu Dec 18 20:28:17 2025
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 18 Dec 2025 23:28:17 -0500
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <fad34a18-99e7-4c30-be9c-461f32f22d1d@gmail.com>
References: <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <CAHxHggf256bkWssaOtWr8pxAC-5a0eKowZM2Owzqu0rZv+F98g@mail.gmail.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <fad34a18-99e7-4c30-be9c-461f32f22d1d@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20251219042817.E6E8FEC879F3@ary.qy>

It appears that Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> said:
>Here's a counterfactual question: what would have happened if the
>whole Clinton/Gore/Magaziner commercialization project had never
>taken place?

ISDN

R's,
John


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Thu Dec 18 20:44:51 2025
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 04:44:51 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
Message-ID: <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>

On 12/18/2025 6:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote:
> 1. The introduction of URLs/URIs made the identity of a site (the host 
> part of an http URL) really important and encouraged the 
> identification with trademarks. 

My impression was that, since the issue is with domain names' ability to 
have real-world semantic, the trademark concern surfaces with /any/ use 
of domain names.? The web certainly exacerbated concerns, but it didn't 
create them.


On 12/18/2025 12:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
> Here's a counterfactual question: what would have happened if the
> whole Clinton/Gore/Magaziner commercialization project had never
> taken place? 

Commercial use of the Internet was already a serious issue by the late 
1980s.? Before the Web was invented.

NSFNet had funding but was still ramping up.? So, again, the NSFNet, 
etc. effort pushed growth, and it pushed some organizational and 
operational choices, but I do not believe it created the inevitability 
of a commercial Internet.(*)

So, no, I think ISDN was not the likely alternative.? More likely was a 
version of the Internet, albeit with less operational and/or 
administrative flexibility.

d/


(*) In the late 1980s, I was managing development efforts for TCP/IP and 
OSI stacks on several platforms.? We went to a number of customers -- 
mostly commercial organizations -- to find out their requirements for 
moving from TCP/IP to OSI.? Without exception they said they had no 
interest in that capability.? And, in fact, they were eager for 
transition tools from OSI to TCP/IP. Again, this was before the Web was 
invented.

-- 
Dave Crocker

Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social



From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Thu Dec 18 22:30:13 2025
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 19:30:13 +1300
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>

On 19-Dec-25 17:44, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
> On 12/18/2025 6:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote:
>> 1. The introduction of URLs/URIs made the identity of a site (the host
>> part of an http URL) really important and encouraged the
>> identification with trademarks.
> 
> My impression was that, since the issue is with domain names' ability to
> have real-world semantic, the trademark concern surfaces with /any/ use
> of domain names.? The web certainly exacerbated concerns, but it didn't
> create them.
> 
> 
> On 12/18/2025 12:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
>> Here's a counterfactual question: what would have happened if the
>> whole Clinton/Gore/Magaziner commercialization project had never
>> taken place?
> 
> Commercial use of the Internet was already a serious issue by the late
> 1980s.? Before the Web was invented.
> 
> NSFNet had funding but was still ramping up.? So, again, the NSFNet,
> etc. effort pushed growth, and it pushed some organizational and
> operational choices, but I do not believe it created the inevitability
> of a commercial Internet.(*)
> 
> So, no, I think ISDN was not the likely alternative.? More likely was a
> version of the Internet, albeit with less operational and/or
> administrative flexibility.

Yes, it's important to recall that when TimBL invented HTTP, he
could perfectly well have decided to implement it over OSI (we had
enough OSI running at CERN for that to have been technically plausible)
but he chose TCP/IP precisely because of the Internet** (including the
Cornell-CERN link that meant we were directly peering with NSFnet).
TCP/IP had already won before the web and long before Magaziner.

** I haven't yet read his new book, but he said that explicitly in
his 1999 book "Weaving the Web".

     Brian


> 
> d/
> 
> 
> (*) In the late 1980s, I was managing development efforts for TCP/IP and
> OSI stacks on several platforms.? We went to a number of customers --
> mostly commercial organizations -- to find out their requirements for
> moving from TCP/IP to OSI.? Without exception they said they had no
> interest in that capability.? And, in fact, they were eager for
> transition tools from OSI to TCP/IP. Again, this was before the Web was
> invented.
> 

From elmi at 4ever.de  Thu Dec 18 23:55:50 2025
From: elmi at 4ever.de (Elmar K. Bins)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 08:55:50 +0100
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <CABf5zvJgf6sDAtd7o-B5hToUfXApmu34cuoFf4P=bGqC-k0X7w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aUPXndSDBewn9Sh8@noir.de>
 <37d703cc-246f-4bf8-90c7-56f7e5b41d13@gmail.com>
 <CAHQj4CeZ-YT5ft9BCunq1Q7ooPKJUQnbN-h5QrbPBzFf-o4Y9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABf5zvJgf6sDAtd7o-B5hToUfXApmu34cuoFf4P=bGqC-k0X7w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <aUUFBiHGBspO1xoV@noir.de>

internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Steve Crocker via Internet-history) wrote:

> The next IETF tee shirt should read "Proud to be a plumber"

" It's-a me! "



From johngrahamalvord at gmail.com  Fri Dec 19 07:42:03 2025
From: johngrahamalvord at gmail.com (John Alvord)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 07:42:03 -0800
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <aUUFBiHGBspO1xoV@noir.de>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aUPXndSDBewn9Sh8@noir.de> <37d703cc-246f-4bf8-90c7-56f7e5b41d13@gmail.com>
 <CAHQj4CeZ-YT5ft9BCunq1Q7ooPKJUQnbN-h5QrbPBzFf-o4Y9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABf5zvJgf6sDAtd7o-B5hToUfXApmu34cuoFf4P=bGqC-k0X7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <aUUFBiHGBspO1xoV@noir.de>
Message-ID: <CACd6g0t-NFCZUa0wzZXosg_6b2QH0hPq_2JUWgjSkE6Ze_D6xA@mail.gmail.com>

I am a watcher? but at Candle in late 1990s we did a big effort to
implement ipv6 because of a DOD requirement. That was 20 years before 2017.

John Alvord

On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 23:56 Elmar K. Bins via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> internet-history at elists.isoc.org (Steve Crocker via Internet-history)
> wrote:
>
> > The next IETF tee shirt should read "Proud to be a plumber"
>
> " It's-a me! "
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>


From winowicki at yahoo.com  Fri Dec 19 10:53:05 2025
From: winowicki at yahoo.com (Bill Nowicki)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 18:53:05 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1536523630.2338546.1766170385912@mail.yahoo.com>

 
I agree with Dave Crocker, albeit my perspective might be skewed since I worked in commercial networking since 1985.
For example, Sun Microsystems had TCP/IP included in each product, and any kind of restriction on TCP/IP protocol stacks (as opposed to, say, Arpanet) would be virtually impossible to enforce. Many customers were in a gray area, since they might have commercial customers as well as a government contract or two. This resulted in many islands of TCP/IP on LANs, which created a huge demand for commercial TCP/IP WAN routers to connect the islands.
Sun itself had some government customers but as far as I know no government contracts. We connected ourselves to the Arpanet to better support the customers who did, and policing the traffic was not practical. My feeling was that the majority of traffic we exchanged was in fact Usenet and email lists. Besides, as soon as possible we switched to the Bay Area Regional Network (BARRNET) which became self-supporting fairly quickly. The?Clinton/Gore/Magaziner commercialization was really just admitting reality that was already starting to happen, instead of spending resources trying to squish it. The legacy telephone carriers tried to get into the game with technologies like ATM, but the path of least resistance was clearly doing a native TCP/IP backbone, if the US Government liked it or not.
Bill    On Thursday, December 18, 2025 at 10:30:26 PM PST, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:  
 
 On 19-Dec-25 17:44, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
> On 12/18/2025 6:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote:
>> 1. The introduction of URLs/URIs made the identity of a site (the host
>> part of an http URL) really important and encouraged the
>> identification with trademarks.
> 
> My impression was that, since the issue is with domain names' ability to
> have real-world semantic, the trademark concern surfaces with /any/ use
> of domain names.? The web certainly exacerbated concerns, but it didn't
> create them.
> 
> 
> On 12/18/2025 12:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
>> Here's a counterfactual question: what would have happened if the
>> whole Clinton/Gore/Magaziner commercialization project had never
>> taken place?
> 
> Commercial use of the Internet was already a serious issue by the late
> 1980s.? Before the Web was invented.
> 
> NSFNet had funding but was still ramping up.? So, again, the NSFNet,
> etc. effort pushed growth, and it pushed some organizational and
> operational choices, but I do not believe it created the inevitability
> of a commercial Internet.(*)
> 
> So, no, I think ISDN was not the likely alternative.? More likely was a
> version of the Internet, albeit with less operational and/or
> administrative flexibility.

Yes, it's important to recall that when TimBL invented HTTP, he
could perfectly well have decided to implement it over OSI (we had
enough OSI running at CERN for that to have been technically plausible)
but he chose TCP/IP precisely because of the Internet** (including the
Cornell-CERN link that meant we were directly peering with NSFnet).
TCP/IP had already won before the web and long before Magaziner.

** I haven't yet read his new book, but he said that explicitly in
his 1999 book "Weaving the Web".

? ? Brian


> 
> d/
> 
> 
> (*) In the late 1980s, I was managing development efforts for TCP/IP and
> OSI stacks on several platforms.? We went to a number of customers --
> mostly commercial organizations -- to find out their requirements for
> moving from TCP/IP to OSI.? Without exception they said they had no
> interest in that capability.? And, in fact, they were eager for
> transition tools from OSI to TCP/IP. Again, this was before the Web was
> invented.
> 
-- 
Internet-history mailing list
Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
-
Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
  

From ajs at crankycanuck.ca  Fri Dec 19 11:23:01 2025
From: ajs at crankycanuck.ca (Andrew Sullivan)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 14:23:01 -0500
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <g7kculk7eixw27q735jb7peu5f52zreyhesm4fqqwi5kota2bi@5vntwfjgeiov>

On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 04:44:51AM -0500, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:

>My impression was that, since the issue is with domain names' ability 
>to have real-world semantic, the trademark concern surfaces with /any/ 
>use of domain names.? The web certainly exacerbated concerns, but it 
>didn't create them.

I don't think I said it created them; just that it encouraged those concerns.  The point is that, with the exception of the dim recesses of the trademark enforcement divisions of Disney's firm and perhaps a few others, nobody would have noticed domain names except for their centrality in an important bit of user interface.  It's true, of course, that they were also in email addresses, but since the point of an email address was to get the mail to the recipient rather than to protest some other mail site, it was unlikely that anyone would register wal-mart-sucks-sucks-sucks-sucks.com for a mail domain.  (I suppose one might construct a case where someone would register clueless-oldcorp.com in an effort to capture all of their mail, to be fair.)

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at crankycanuck.ca



From b_a_denny at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 20 10:01:14 2025
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 18:01:14 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <126216144.3008535.1766253674681@mail.yahoo.com>

 
Catching up with email

I would add Packet Radio in addition to SATnet in your description. I think they are different enough that both should be included (especially mobility). I am not sure you have noticed how often people have said or written in papers that the Internet was not designed with wireless in mind.?
barbara

    On Wednesday, December 17, 2025 at 02:17:25 PM PST, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:  
 
 The January/February 2026 issue of Foreign Affairs contains an article 
titled "How China Wins The Future".? Part of it discusses the Internet 
(section titled "Hardwire and Hard Power"), and their initiatives to 
create a replacement for TCP/IP and deploy the new technology of "New 
IP", to solve the perceived problem that today's Internet won't meet the 
needs of the future.

This reminded me of the efforts in the 1960s/70s which created the 
Internet, with TCP serving as the mechanism to solve the problem of how 
to interconnect the numerous different kinds of networks that were 
popping up all over.

While the future is interesting to discuss and debate, this list is 
about History.? I'm curious about what people think about how we got 
from the 1960s to 2026.

Here's my thoughts -- based of course only on my personal experience.? 
I'd love to know what I got wrong or missed.

- 1960s: Licklider creates his vision of Intergalactic Network; ARPA 
creates the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO), which 
initiates the creation of ARPANET.

- 1970s: ARPANET expanded; additional network mechanisms developed 
(SATNET), need for interconnectivity among disjoint networks motivates 
creation of TCP; ARPANET expands rapidly.

- 1980s: TCP implemented in multiple systems; US DoD declares it as a 
Standard and requires it to be present in military procurements; NBS 
(NIST) creates program to certify implementations; government efforts 
drive existing network (ARPANET) and all host systems to be converted 
from NCP to TCP on 1/1/1983; NSF expands use of Internet into 
non-military environments, and fosters the creation of the first 
self-supporting Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

- 1980s: LANs become pervasive; workstations and PCs emerge as 
alternatives to older mainframe systems; notion of "an internet" becomes 
popular; multiple companies (Novell, Xerox, IBM, Banyan, DEC, ...) 
create their own architectures, incompatible with others. ?OSI continues 
to define yet another architecture intended to become a worldwide 
standard; ISPs proliferate.

- 1980s: US government embraces COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) policy, 
which encourages the development of commercial products for use in the 
TCP environment;? corporate representatives from tech companies begin to 
participate in Internet technology development and standardization 
efforts (IETF); DoD limits funding of custom systems and research in 
favor of using commercial products

- 1990s: Commercial users, and the public, get tired of waiting for the 
internet wars to end, notice that TCP technology is available, can be 
observed to work, and can solve their immediate IT problems; the TCP 
Internet grows rapidly in the general public worldwide; corporations 
deploy private "intranets" using TCP products; all competing internet 
architectures fade into oblivion

- 1990s: next generation protocol (IP V6) developed to address 
limitations of older TCP architecture; draft standard for next 
generation TCP (V6) created in 1998

- 1990s?: technology development efforts abandon the role of 
orchestrating replacement of old technology "in the field" with newer 
versions that remove vulnerabilities or introduce additional 
functionality.? Technologies in the Internet are now developed, and 
"standardized", and then "put on the shelf" for others to find and use

- 2017: full standard for next generation TCP (V6) defined; 
implementations are in use, but many systems continue to use older TCP (V4)

- 2026: after 30+ years, existing Internet has not yet successfully 
supplanted old V4 TCP with slightly newer V6 TCP;? many unsolved issues 
remain in areas of concern, such as spam, cybercrime, identity theft, 
intellectual property protection, "phishing", and others, not addressed 
even by the newer V6 architecture; US, EU, and other governments seem to 
avoid involvement in researching or orchestrating further technology 
development to counter such problems.? ?Corporate efforts seem to be 
continuing to create competing "silos" of technology, hoping to be the 
winner in the marketplace.

- 2026: China creates initiative to define a "New IP" to meet the needs 
of the future; begins deployment of associated new technology in 
countries which have embraced the initiative.

Your thoughts?
/Jack Haverty


-- 
Internet-history mailing list
Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
-
Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
  

From b_a_denny at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 20 11:47:26 2025
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 19:47:26 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>

 Not sure which thread to put this under, the web or the timeline.
I haven't read Tim Berners-Lee's new book yet? either but I went to a talk at a local bookstore advertising the book (book came with price of admission).? He was there and was having a discussion with Thomas Friedman. At the last minute, the organizers said people could email in questions with no guarantee that any questions would be asked.? I sent in more than my fair share and the last question in the talk was one of my questions.? The question below wasn't addressed. I thought I would throw this out to the mailing list in case anyone wants to chime in.

Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990, helped, or was necessary for,? the success of the World Wide Web?
barbara
    On Thursday, December 18, 2025 at 10:30:26 PM PST, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:  
 
 On 19-Dec-25 17:44, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
> On 12/18/2025 6:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote:
>> 1. The introduction of URLs/URIs made the identity of a site (the host
>> part of an http URL) really important and encouraged the
>> identification with trademarks.
> 
> My impression was that, since the issue is with domain names' ability to
> have real-world semantic, the trademark concern surfaces with /any/ use
> of domain names.? The web certainly exacerbated concerns, but it didn't
> create them.
> 
> 
> On 12/18/2025 12:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
>> Here's a counterfactual question: what would have happened if the
>> whole Clinton/Gore/Magaziner commercialization project had never
>> taken place?
> 
> Commercial use of the Internet was already a serious issue by the late
> 1980s.? Before the Web was invented.
> 
> NSFNet had funding but was still ramping up.? So, again, the NSFNet,
> etc. effort pushed growth, and it pushed some organizational and
> operational choices, but I do not believe it created the inevitability
> of a commercial Internet.(*)
> 
> So, no, I think ISDN was not the likely alternative.? More likely was a
> version of the Internet, albeit with less operational and/or
> administrative flexibility.

Yes, it's important to recall that when TimBL invented HTTP, he
could perfectly well have decided to implement it over OSI (we had
enough OSI running at CERN for that to have been technically plausible)
but he chose TCP/IP precisely because of the Internet** (including the
Cornell-CERN link that meant we were directly peering with NSFnet).
TCP/IP had already won before the web and long before Magaziner.

** I haven't yet read his new book, but he said that explicitly in
his 1999 book "Weaving the Web".

? ? Brian


> 
> d/
> 
> 
> (*) In the late 1980s, I was managing development efforts for TCP/IP and
> OSI stacks on several platforms.? We went to a number of customers --
> mostly commercial organizations -- to find out their requirements for
> moving from TCP/IP to OSI.? Without exception they said they had no
> interest in that capability.? And, in fact, they were eager for
> transition tools from OSI to TCP/IP. Again, this was before the Web was
> invented.
> 
-- 
Internet-history mailing list
Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
-
Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
  

From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sat Dec 20 12:00:52 2025
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 20:00:52 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <36200e8c-5723-4c8c-ae63-5a892e7d6a2b@dcrocker.net>

On 12/20/2025 11:47 AM, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
> Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990, helped, or was necessary for,? the success of the World Wide Web?

In 1990, when I was teaching a TCP/IP class and included a demo of 
gopher, there was a hierarchy of pages that were organized by 
geography.? So we could start at the top, choose a region of the globe, 
then sub-section, and so on.?Categorization is a form of pre-selected 
searches.

And while Archie search FTP, Veronica searched gopher.

So, yeah, search was fundamental (and inevitable) to utility, in the 
face of? Internet scaling.

d/

ps.? You didn't indicate how Tim responded.

-- 
Dave Crocker

Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social



From vint at google.com  Sat Dec 20 12:20:57 2025
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 15:20:57 -0500
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <126216144.3008535.1766253674681@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <126216144.3008535.1766253674681@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggdGNJctPBv0eM99aC=NWeoWJYQa0v-gxa=Ln3rpOQmPEg@mail.gmail.com>

packet radio, packet satellite and ethernet did a lot to dictate features
of TCP/IP.

v

On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 1:01?PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

>
> Catching up with email
>
> I would add Packet Radio in addition to SATnet in your description. I
> think they are different enough that both should be included (especially
> mobility). I am not sure you have noticed how often people have said or
> written in papers that the Internet was not designed with wireless in mind.
> barbara
>
>     On Wednesday, December 17, 2025 at 02:17:25 PM PST, Jack Haverty via
> Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>  The January/February 2026 issue of Foreign Affairs contains an article
> titled "How China Wins The Future".  Part of it discusses the Internet
> (section titled "Hardwire and Hard Power"), and their initiatives to
> create a replacement for TCP/IP and deploy the new technology of "New
> IP", to solve the perceived problem that today's Internet won't meet the
> needs of the future.
>
> This reminded me of the efforts in the 1960s/70s which created the
> Internet, with TCP serving as the mechanism to solve the problem of how
> to interconnect the numerous different kinds of networks that were
> popping up all over.
>
> While the future is interesting to discuss and debate, this list is
> about History.  I'm curious about what people think about how we got
> from the 1960s to 2026.
>
> Here's my thoughts -- based of course only on my personal experience.
> I'd love to know what I got wrong or missed.
>
> - 1960s: Licklider creates his vision of Intergalactic Network; ARPA
> creates the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO), which
> initiates the creation of ARPANET.
>
> - 1970s: ARPANET expanded; additional network mechanisms developed
> (SATNET), need for interconnectivity among disjoint networks motivates
> creation of TCP; ARPANET expands rapidly.
>
> - 1980s: TCP implemented in multiple systems; US DoD declares it as a
> Standard and requires it to be present in military procurements; NBS
> (NIST) creates program to certify implementations; government efforts
> drive existing network (ARPANET) and all host systems to be converted
> from NCP to TCP on 1/1/1983; NSF expands use of Internet into
> non-military environments, and fosters the creation of the first
> self-supporting Internet Service Providers (ISPs).
>
> - 1980s: LANs become pervasive; workstations and PCs emerge as
> alternatives to older mainframe systems; notion of "an internet" becomes
> popular; multiple companies (Novell, Xerox, IBM, Banyan, DEC, ...)
> create their own architectures, incompatible with others.  OSI continues
> to define yet another architecture intended to become a worldwide
> standard; ISPs proliferate.
>
> - 1980s: US government embraces COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) policy,
> which encourages the development of commercial products for use in the
> TCP environment;  corporate representatives from tech companies begin to
> participate in Internet technology development and standardization
> efforts (IETF); DoD limits funding of custom systems and research in
> favor of using commercial products
>
> - 1990s: Commercial users, and the public, get tired of waiting for the
> internet wars to end, notice that TCP technology is available, can be
> observed to work, and can solve their immediate IT problems; the TCP
> Internet grows rapidly in the general public worldwide; corporations
> deploy private "intranets" using TCP products; all competing internet
> architectures fade into oblivion
>
> - 1990s: next generation protocol (IP V6) developed to address
> limitations of older TCP architecture; draft standard for next
> generation TCP (V6) created in 1998
>
> - 1990s?: technology development efforts abandon the role of
> orchestrating replacement of old technology "in the field" with newer
> versions that remove vulnerabilities or introduce additional
> functionality.  Technologies in the Internet are now developed, and
> "standardized", and then "put on the shelf" for others to find and use
>
> - 2017: full standard for next generation TCP (V6) defined;
> implementations are in use, but many systems continue to use older TCP (V4)
>
> - 2026: after 30+ years, existing Internet has not yet successfully
> supplanted old V4 TCP with slightly newer V6 TCP;  many unsolved issues
> remain in areas of concern, such as spam, cybercrime, identity theft,
> intellectual property protection, "phishing", and others, not addressed
> even by the newer V6 architecture; US, EU, and other governments seem to
> avoid involvement in researching or orchestrating further technology
> development to counter such problems.   Corporate efforts seem to be
> continuing to create competing "silos" of technology, hoping to be the
> winner in the marketplace.
>
> - 2026: China creates initiative to define a "New IP" to meet the needs
> of the future; begins deployment of associated new technology in
> countries which have embraced the initiative.
>
> Your thoughts?
> /Jack Haverty
>
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=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  Sat Dec 20 12:28:11 2025
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 09:28:11 +1300
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>

> Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990, helped, or was necessary for,  the success of the World Wide Web?

Archie, WAIS and gopher were all invented at the same time as the web, +- a year or so. So I think a wide-area information system of some kind was quite inevitable, but Tim's stateless single-ended model that didn't need any overall management was just better placed for Darwinian success.

For me the first search engine that mattered was AltaVista.

RFC 1862 documents what people thought in 1994, and doesn't even mention Archie.

Regards/Ng? mihi
    Brian Carpenter

On 21-Dec-25 08:47, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
>   Not sure which thread to put this under, the web or the timeline.
> I haven't read Tim Berners-Lee's new book yet? either but I went to a talk at a local bookstore advertising the book (book came with price of admission).? He was there and was having a discussion with Thomas Friedman. At the last minute, the organizers said people could email in questions with no guarantee that any questions would be asked.? I sent in more than my fair share and the last question in the talk was one of my questions.? The question below wasn't addressed. I thought I would throw this out to the mailing list in case anyone wants to chime in.
> 
> Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990, helped, or was necessary for,? the success of the World Wide Web?
> barbara
>      On Thursday, December 18, 2025 at 10:30:26 PM PST, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>   
>   On 19-Dec-25 17:44, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
>> On 12/18/2025 6:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote:
>>> 1. The introduction of URLs/URIs made the identity of a site (the host
>>> part of an http URL) really important and encouraged the
>>> identification with trademarks.
>>
>> My impression was that, since the issue is with domain names' ability to
>> have real-world semantic, the trademark concern surfaces with /any/ use
>> of domain names.? The web certainly exacerbated concerns, but it didn't
>> create them.
>>
>>
>> On 12/18/2025 12:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
>>> Here's a counterfactual question: what would have happened if the
>>> whole Clinton/Gore/Magaziner commercialization project had never
>>> taken place?
>>
>> Commercial use of the Internet was already a serious issue by the late
>> 1980s.? Before the Web was invented.
>>
>> NSFNet had funding but was still ramping up.? So, again, the NSFNet,
>> etc. effort pushed growth, and it pushed some organizational and
>> operational choices, but I do not believe it created the inevitability
>> of a commercial Internet.(*)
>>
>> So, no, I think ISDN was not the likely alternative.? More likely was a
>> version of the Internet, albeit with less operational and/or
>> administrative flexibility.
> 
> Yes, it's important to recall that when TimBL invented HTTP, he
> could perfectly well have decided to implement it over OSI (we had
> enough OSI running at CERN for that to have been technically plausible)
> but he chose TCP/IP precisely because of the Internet** (including the
> Cornell-CERN link that meant we were directly peering with NSFnet).
> TCP/IP had already won before the web and long before Magaziner.
> 
> ** I haven't yet read his new book, but he said that explicitly in
> his 1999 book "Weaving the Web".
> 
>  ? ? Brian
> 
> 
>>
>> d/
>>
>>
>> (*) In the late 1980s, I was managing development efforts for TCP/IP and
>> OSI stacks on several platforms.? We went to a number of customers --
>> mostly commercial organizations -- to find out their requirements for
>> moving from TCP/IP to OSI.? Without exception they said they had no
>> interest in that capability.? And, in fact, they were eager for
>> transition tools from OSI to TCP/IP. Again, this was before the Web was
>> invented.
>>

From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sat Dec 20 12:47:27 2025
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 20:47:27 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>
 <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d1361eb2-fb3a-4b47-ba8e-afefd82677b9@dcrocker.net>

On 12/20/2025 12:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
> but Tim's stateless single-ended model that didn't need any overall 
> management was just better placed for Darwinian success.

FTP and gopher were single-ended, with no central management. As, of 
course, is email.

Except for depending on the domain name service.? As does the Web.? And 
that's not a small dependency.

The Internet's evolution was all about pressing for as much single-ended 
independence (but also with collaboration) and no overall management, 
for pretty much every aspect of service. Except for the DNS as 
coordination glue.

End-to-End Arguments codified this preference.

The Web's contribution was in a type of access method that was far 
better than what had been available, and in an object format that 
presented an extremely nice balance among functionality, usability, and 
extensibility.

(And Anonymous FTP was arguably the operational start of the networked 
web...)



> RFC 1862 documents what people thought in 1994, and doesn't even 
> mention Archie. 

It never occurred to me to view that document as being as attempting to 
be as comprehensive as you suggest.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker

Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social



From b_a_denny at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 20 12:52:19 2025
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 20:52:19 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <36200e8c-5723-4c8c-ae63-5a892e7d6a2b@dcrocker.net>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>
 <36200e8c-5723-4c8c-ae63-5a892e7d6a2b@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <2139817262.3048964.1766263939507@mail.yahoo.com>

 Perhaps my email wasn't clear.? That particular question wasn't asked.? ?I submitted like 4 questions.
barbara
    On Saturday, December 20, 2025 at 12:00:56 PM PST, Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:  
 
 On 12/20/2025 11:47 AM, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
> Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990, helped, or was necessary for,? the success of the World Wide Web?

In 1990, when I was teaching a TCP/IP class and included a demo of 
gopher, there was a hierarchy of pages that were organized by 
geography.? So we could start at the top, choose a region of the globe, 
then sub-section, and so on.?Categorization is a form of pre-selected 
searches.

And while Archie search FTP, Veronica searched gopher.

So, yeah, search was fundamental (and inevitable) to utility, in the 
face of? Internet scaling.

d/

ps.? You didn't indicate how Tim responded.

-- 
Dave Crocker

Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social

  

From jack at 3kitty.org  Sat Dec 20 13:05:11 2025
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 13:05:11 -0800
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>
 <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2da4c330-309b-4952-b926-0c99193b8d27@3kitty.org>

Before search engines, in the very early days of the WWW, a few 
"bookmark sites" were on the Web.? ?They simply listed a bunch of sites 
with hotlinks to each, enumerating whatever the site's author considered 
interesting to some audience.

I created one of these myself, for use within Oracle's internal network, 
for two purposes -- to provide a list of resources that company staff 
might find interesting or useful, and to educate them about the 
technology, which seemed to me to be the "killer app" that people had 
been seeking since the early days of the ARPANET. ?Telnet, FTP, and 
email were useful, but there had to be something else.? ?Lots of 
candidates appeared over the years (archie, wais, gopher, ...) but none 
of them reached critical mass

But the "first search engine that mattered" to me was Yahoo. ?Someone in 
Silicon Valley had told me that YAHOO was an acronym for Yet Another 
Hierarchical Officious Organizer, which seemed pretty accurate.? It 
"organized" the neonatal Web.? ?I remember bringing up the main yahoo 
page and then using the browser's "find" command to search for the 
specific site I was trying to find.

Yahoo IIRC didn't have a search engine function, but it was a useful 
Organizer that could be searched.

/Jack


On 12/20/25 12:28, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
>> Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990, 
>> helped, or was necessary for,? the success of the World Wide Web?
>
> Archie, WAIS and gopher were all invented at the same time as the web, 
> +- a year or so. So I think a wide-area information system of some 
> kind was quite inevitable, but Tim's stateless single-ended model that 
> didn't need any overall management was just better placed for 
> Darwinian success.
>
> For me the first search engine that mattered was AltaVista.
>
> RFC 1862 documents what people thought in 1994, and doesn't even 
> mention Archie.
>
> Regards/Ng? mihi
> ?? Brian Carpenter
>
> On 21-Dec-25 08:47, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
>> ? Not sure which thread to put this under, the web or the timeline.
>> I haven't read Tim Berners-Lee's new book yet? either but I went to a 
>> talk at a local bookstore advertising the book (book came with price 
>> of admission).? He was there and was having a discussion with Thomas 
>> Friedman. At the last minute, the organizers said people could email 
>> in questions with no guarantee that any questions would be asked.? I 
>> sent in more than my fair share and the last question in the talk was 
>> one of my questions.? The question below wasn't addressed. I thought 
>> I would throw this out to the mailing list in case anyone wants to 
>> chime in.
>>
>> Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990, 
>> helped, or was necessary for,? the success of the World Wide Web?
>> barbara
>> ???? On Thursday, December 18, 2025 at 10:30:26 PM PST, Brian E 
>> Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> ? ? On 19-Dec-25 17:44, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
>>> On 12/18/2025 6:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> 1. The introduction of URLs/URIs made the identity of a site (the host
>>>> part of an http URL) really important and encouraged the
>>>> identification with trademarks.
>>>
>>> My impression was that, since the issue is with domain names' 
>>> ability to
>>> have real-world semantic, the trademark concern surfaces with /any/ use
>>> of domain names.? The web certainly exacerbated concerns, but it didn't
>>> create them.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/18/2025 12:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> Here's a counterfactual question: what would have happened if the
>>>> whole Clinton/Gore/Magaziner commercialization project had never
>>>> taken place?
>>>
>>> Commercial use of the Internet was already a serious issue by the late
>>> 1980s.? Before the Web was invented.
>>>
>>> NSFNet had funding but was still ramping up.? So, again, the NSFNet,
>>> etc. effort pushed growth, and it pushed some organizational and
>>> operational choices, but I do not believe it created the inevitability
>>> of a commercial Internet.(*)
>>>
>>> So, no, I think ISDN was not the likely alternative.? More likely was a
>>> version of the Internet, albeit with less operational and/or
>>> administrative flexibility.
>>
>> Yes, it's important to recall that when TimBL invented HTTP, he
>> could perfectly well have decided to implement it over OSI (we had
>> enough OSI running at CERN for that to have been technically plausible)
>> but he chose TCP/IP precisely because of the Internet** (including the
>> Cornell-CERN link that meant we were directly peering with NSFnet).
>> TCP/IP had already won before the web and long before Magaziner.
>>
>> ** I haven't yet read his new book, but he said that explicitly in
>> his 1999 book "Weaving the Web".
>>
>> ?? ? Brian
>>
>>
>>>
>>> d/
>>>
>>>
>>> (*) In the late 1980s, I was managing development efforts for TCP/IP 
>>> and
>>> OSI stacks on several platforms.? We went to a number of customers --
>>> mostly commercial organizations -- to find out their requirements for
>>> moving from TCP/IP to OSI.? Without exception they said they had no
>>> interest in that capability.? And, in fact, they were eager for
>>> transition tools from OSI to TCP/IP. Again, this was before the Web was
>>> invented.
>>>

-------------- 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/20251220/41189860/attachment.asc>

From sghuter at nsrc.org  Sat Dec 20 13:50:07 2025
From: sghuter at nsrc.org (Steven G. Huter)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 13:50:07 -0800
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <5c41eec3-d805-4018-90d9-15d72311a6c4@nsrc.org>


On 12/20/25 11:47 AM, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
> Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990, helped, or was necessary for,? the success of the World Wide Web?

https://www.internethalloffame.org/inductee/alan-emtage/

https://www.internethalloffame.org/2019/02/12/alan-emtage-and-birth-first-internet-search-engine/



From b_a_denny at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 20 14:45:19 2025
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 22:45:19 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <2da4c330-309b-4952-b926-0c99193b8d27@3kitty.org>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>
 <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>
 <2da4c330-309b-4952-b926-0c99193b8d27@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <1143017587.3072957.1766270719572@mail.yahoo.com>

 
I believe yahoo was trying to be a portal to the Internet at the point in time you are talking about.? You go to their website and from there you could find whatever you wanted (if it existed). This was before Apple had created a walled garden.?
barbara
    On Saturday, December 20, 2025 at 01:05:25 PM PST, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:  
 
 Before search engines, in the very early days of the WWW, a few 
"bookmark sites" were on the Web.? ?They simply listed a bunch of sites 
with hotlinks to each, enumerating whatever the site's author considered 
interesting to some audience.

I created one of these myself, for use within Oracle's internal network, 
for two purposes -- to provide a list of resources that company staff 
might find interesting or useful, and to educate them about the 
technology, which seemed to me to be the "killer app" that people had 
been seeking since the early days of the ARPANET. ?Telnet, FTP, and 
email were useful, but there had to be something else.? ?Lots of 
candidates appeared over the years (archie, wais, gopher, ...) but none 
of them reached critical mass

But the "first search engine that mattered" to me was Yahoo. ?Someone in 
Silicon Valley had told me that YAHOO was an acronym for Yet Another 
Hierarchical Officious Organizer, which seemed pretty accurate.? It 
"organized" the neonatal Web.? ?I remember bringing up the main yahoo 
page and then using the browser's "find" command to search for the 
specific site I was trying to find.

Yahoo IIRC didn't have a search engine function, but it was a useful 
Organizer that could be searched.

/Jack


On 12/20/25 12:28, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
>> Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990, 
>> helped, or was necessary for,? the success of the World Wide Web?
>
> Archie, WAIS and gopher were all invented at the same time as the web, 
> +- a year or so. So I think a wide-area information system of some 
> kind was quite inevitable, but Tim's stateless single-ended model that 
> didn't need any overall management was just better placed for 
> Darwinian success.
>
> For me the first search engine that mattered was AltaVista.
>
> RFC 1862 documents what people thought in 1994, and doesn't even 
> mention Archie.
>
> Regards/Ng? mihi
> ?? Brian Carpenter
>
> On 21-Dec-25 08:47, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
>> ? Not sure which thread to put this under, the web or the timeline.
>> I haven't read Tim Berners-Lee's new book yet? either but I went to a 
>> talk at a local bookstore advertising the book (book came with price 
>> of admission).? He was there and was having a discussion with Thomas 
>> Friedman. At the last minute, the organizers said people could email 
>> in questions with no guarantee that any questions would be asked.? I 
>> sent in more than my fair share and the last question in the talk was 
>> one of my questions.? The question below wasn't addressed. I thought 
>> I would throw this out to the mailing list in case anyone wants to 
>> chime in.
>>
>> Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990, 
>> helped, or was necessary for,? the success of the World Wide Web?
>> barbara
>> ???? On Thursday, December 18, 2025 at 10:30:26 PM PST, Brian E 
>> Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> ? ? On 19-Dec-25 17:44, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
>>> On 12/18/2025 6:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> 1. The introduction of URLs/URIs made the identity of a site (the host
>>>> part of an http URL) really important and encouraged the
>>>> identification with trademarks.
>>>
>>> My impression was that, since the issue is with domain names' 
>>> ability to
>>> have real-world semantic, the trademark concern surfaces with /any/ use
>>> of domain names.? The web certainly exacerbated concerns, but it didn't
>>> create them.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/18/2025 12:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> Here's a counterfactual question: what would have happened if the
>>>> whole Clinton/Gore/Magaziner commercialization project had never
>>>> taken place?
>>>
>>> Commercial use of the Internet was already a serious issue by the late
>>> 1980s.? Before the Web was invented.
>>>
>>> NSFNet had funding but was still ramping up.? So, again, the NSFNet,
>>> etc. effort pushed growth, and it pushed some organizational and
>>> operational choices, but I do not believe it created the inevitability
>>> of a commercial Internet.(*)
>>>
>>> So, no, I think ISDN was not the likely alternative.? More likely was a
>>> version of the Internet, albeit with less operational and/or
>>> administrative flexibility.
>>
>> Yes, it's important to recall that when TimBL invented HTTP, he
>> could perfectly well have decided to implement it over OSI (we had
>> enough OSI running at CERN for that to have been technically plausible)
>> but he chose TCP/IP precisely because of the Internet** (including the
>> Cornell-CERN link that meant we were directly peering with NSFnet).
>> TCP/IP had already won before the web and long before Magaziner.
>>
>> ** I haven't yet read his new book, but he said that explicitly in
>> his 1999 book "Weaving the Web".
>>
>> ?? ? Brian
>>
>>
>>>
>>> d/
>>>
>>>
>>> (*) In the late 1980s, I was managing development efforts for TCP/IP 
>>> and
>>> OSI stacks on several platforms.? We went to a number of customers --
>>> mostly commercial organizations -- to find out their requirements for
>>> moving from TCP/IP to OSI.? Without exception they said they had no
>>> interest in that capability.? And, in fact, they were eager for
>>> transition tools from OSI to TCP/IP. Again, this was before the Web was
>>> invented.
>>>

-- 
Internet-history mailing list
Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
-
Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
  

From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Sat Dec 20 15:11:22 2025
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 15:11:22 -0800
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <2da4c330-309b-4952-b926-0c99193b8d27@3kitty.org>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>
 <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>
 <2da4c330-309b-4952-b926-0c99193b8d27@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <9271CD08-DD81-4CDD-8B84-B7F0EC9AEAE9@icloud.com>

On Dec 20, 2025, at 1:05?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Before search engines, in the very early days of the WWW, a few "bookmark sites" were on the Web.   They simply listed a bunch of sites with hotlinks to each, enumerating whatever the site's author considered interesting to some audience.
> 
> I created one of these myself, for use within Oracle's internal network, for two purposes -- to provide a list of resources that company staff might find interesting or useful, and to educate them about the technology, which seemed to me to be the "killer app" that people had been seeking since the early days of the ARPANET.  Telnet, FTP, and email were useful, but there had to be something else.   Lots of candidates appeared over the years (archie, wais, gopher, ...) but none of them reached critical mass
> 
> But the "first search engine that mattered" to me was Yahoo.  Someone in Silicon Valley had told me that YAHOO was an acronym for Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Organizer, which seemed pretty accurate.  It "organized" the neonatal Web.   I remember bringing up the main yahoo page and then using the browser's "find" command to search for the specific site I was trying to find.
> 
> Yahoo IIRC didn't have a search engine function, but it was a useful Organizer that could be searched.
> 
> /Jack

Actually,Yahoo had a search engine function.  Over time, they incorporated results from other search engines.  See the Yahoo Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo) for more of the history.

--gregbo




From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sat Dec 20 15:16:00 2025
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 12:16:00 +1300
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <2da4c330-309b-4952-b926-0c99193b8d27@3kitty.org>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>
 <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>
 <2da4c330-309b-4952-b926-0c99193b8d27@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <8ba5fb11-c56e-4c2c-96b0-b5514485af56@gmail.com>

On 21-Dec-25 10:05, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> Before search engines, in the very early days of the WWW, a few
> "bookmark sites" were on the Web.? ?They simply listed a bunch of sites
> with hotlinks to each, enumerating whatever the site's author considered
> interesting to some audience.

That's exactly what http://info.cern.ch was originally, in early 1991.
A home page for people at CERN to find mundane stuff like the phone
book. The reconstruction of info.cern.ch isn't quite what I remember
from the time that Tim came into my office in early 1991, checked that
I was logged in to the main Unix box, and told me to type "www".

The second web site was set up by Paul Kunz at SLAC in late 1991:
https://ahro.slac.stanford.edu/history-bits/slac-and-www

     Brian

> 
> I created one of these myself, for use within Oracle's internal network,
> for two purposes -- to provide a list of resources that company staff
> might find interesting or useful, and to educate them about the
> technology, which seemed to me to be the "killer app" that people had
> been seeking since the early days of the ARPANET. ?Telnet, FTP, and
> email were useful, but there had to be something else.? ?Lots of
> candidates appeared over the years (archie, wais, gopher, ...) but none
> of them reached critical mass
> 
> But the "first search engine that mattered" to me was Yahoo. ?Someone in
> Silicon Valley had told me that YAHOO was an acronym for Yet Another
> Hierarchical Officious Organizer, which seemed pretty accurate.? It
> "organized" the neonatal Web.? ?I remember bringing up the main yahoo
> page and then using the browser's "find" command to search for the
> specific site I was trying to find.
> 
> Yahoo IIRC didn't have a search engine function, but it was a useful
> Organizer that could be searched.
> 
> /Jack
> 
> 
> On 12/20/25 12:28, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
>>> Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990,
>>> helped, or was necessary for,? the success of the World Wide Web?
>>
>> Archie, WAIS and gopher were all invented at the same time as the web,
>> +- a year or so. So I think a wide-area information system of some
>> kind was quite inevitable, but Tim's stateless single-ended model that
>> didn't need any overall management was just better placed for
>> Darwinian success.
>>
>> For me the first search engine that mattered was AltaVista.
>>
>> RFC 1862 documents what people thought in 1994, and doesn't even
>> mention Archie.
>>
>> Regards/Ng? mihi
>>  ?? Brian Carpenter
>>
>> On 21-Dec-25 08:47, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
>>>  ? Not sure which thread to put this under, the web or the timeline.
>>> I haven't read Tim Berners-Lee's new book yet? either but I went to a
>>> talk at a local bookstore advertising the book (book came with price
>>> of admission).? He was there and was having a discussion with Thomas
>>> Friedman. At the last minute, the organizers said people could email
>>> in questions with no guarantee that any questions would be asked.? I
>>> sent in more than my fair share and the last question in the talk was
>>> one of my questions.? The question below wasn't addressed. I thought
>>> I would throw this out to the mailing list in case anyone wants to
>>> chime in.
>>>
>>> Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990,
>>> helped, or was necessary for,? the success of the World Wide Web?
>>> barbara
>>>  ???? On Thursday, December 18, 2025 at 10:30:26 PM PST, Brian E
>>> Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>  ? ? On 19-Dec-25 17:44, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> On 12/18/2025 6:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>> 1. The introduction of URLs/URIs made the identity of a site (the host
>>>>> part of an http URL) really important and encouraged the
>>>>> identification with trademarks.
>>>>
>>>> My impression was that, since the issue is with domain names'
>>>> ability to
>>>> have real-world semantic, the trademark concern surfaces with /any/ use
>>>> of domain names.? The web certainly exacerbated concerns, but it didn't
>>>> create them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/18/2025 12:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>> Here's a counterfactual question: what would have happened if the
>>>>> whole Clinton/Gore/Magaziner commercialization project had never
>>>>> taken place?
>>>>
>>>> Commercial use of the Internet was already a serious issue by the late
>>>> 1980s.? Before the Web was invented.
>>>>
>>>> NSFNet had funding but was still ramping up.? So, again, the NSFNet,
>>>> etc. effort pushed growth, and it pushed some organizational and
>>>> operational choices, but I do not believe it created the inevitability
>>>> of a commercial Internet.(*)
>>>>
>>>> So, no, I think ISDN was not the likely alternative.? More likely was a
>>>> version of the Internet, albeit with less operational and/or
>>>> administrative flexibility.
>>>
>>> Yes, it's important to recall that when TimBL invented HTTP, he
>>> could perfectly well have decided to implement it over OSI (we had
>>> enough OSI running at CERN for that to have been technically plausible)
>>> but he chose TCP/IP precisely because of the Internet** (including the
>>> Cornell-CERN link that meant we were directly peering with NSFnet).
>>> TCP/IP had already won before the web and long before Magaziner.
>>>
>>> ** I haven't yet read his new book, but he said that explicitly in
>>> his 1999 book "Weaving the Web".
>>>
>>>  ?? ? Brian
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> d/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (*) In the late 1980s, I was managing development efforts for TCP/IP
>>>> and
>>>> OSI stacks on several platforms.? We went to a number of customers --
>>>> mostly commercial organizations -- to find out their requirements for
>>>> moving from TCP/IP to OSI.? Without exception they said they had no
>>>> interest in that capability.? And, in fact, they were eager for
>>>> transition tools from OSI to TCP/IP. Again, this was before the Web was
>>>> invented.
>>>>
> 
> 

From karl at iwl.com  Sat Dec 20 15:53:39 2025
From: karl at iwl.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 15:53:39 -0800
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
Message-ID: <121bd36b-0cfd-4637-ac8a-4938ded4f43f@iwl.com>


On 12/18/25 6:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote:
> Or, to think of this another way, if the web had worked by 
> distributing copies of data around the Internet, and that data were 
> somehow fetched through addresses that came from (say) cryptographic 
> tokens identifying the content in some sort of grand Dewey decimal (or 
> LC, I don't care the version!) catalogue of information

One direction that I wish had been followed, but was not, was to pursue 
the idea of, if I remember correctly, Marshal Rose and Carl Malamud, to 
use tagging (they used XML) to attach a meaning tag to nest-able content 
elements of US Securities and Exchange (SEC) documents.

It would have been a pain to write, but vastly useful to consumers, had 
things like this been followed:

<name><firstname>John</><lastname>Doe</></>

Now we have massive "intelligent" engines that are trying to attempt 
(with errors) to reverse engineer meaning out of untagged content

 ? ? ? ? --karl--



From ajs at crankycanuck.ca  Sat Dec 20 16:01:08 2025
From: ajs at crankycanuck.ca (Andrew Sullivan)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 19:01:08 -0500
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <2da4c330-309b-4952-b926-0c99193b8d27@3kitty.org>
References: <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>
 <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>
 <2da4c330-309b-4952-b926-0c99193b8d27@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <s3jcxit4ia3rvnlufxtv2b2ez6hqvoqpl67su2d2v2pydigt4d@27xbory5url6>

On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 01:05:11PM -0500, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:

>Yahoo IIRC didn't have a search engine function, but it was a useful 
>Organizer that could be searched.

In retrospect that's probably a very nice way to think about it, but at the time I don't think that's the way everyone thought of it.  It was definitely marketed as a search engine.  As I understand things, their theory was that the web was so chaotic that the only way you'd ever find anything for real was through a human-curated index.  Exhibit A in their argument was Alta Vista, which was hugely ambitious but quickly had so much metadata on everything on the web that it was a real labour to find anything with it.  It's easy to forget, at this remove, how truly revolutionary Google was when it came around (and also how clear-eyed was the thinking that adverts had to be distinct and separate on the page when presented to the user--something later generations at Google forgot, thereby badly eroding the value that Google offered a user).

Note that Yahoo wasn't alone in thinking that just search would be enough for the web.  The Dublin Core Metadata Terms arise from basically the same thinking.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at crankycanuck.ca


From karl at iwl.com  Sat Dec 20 16:09:15 2025
From: karl at iwl.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 16:09:15 -0800
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <D9B6E884-0D28-433C-86CE-81F51929CF35@comcast.net>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aUPXndSDBewn9Sh8@noir.de> <37d703cc-246f-4bf8-90c7-56f7e5b41d13@gmail.com>
 <D9B6E884-0D28-433C-86CE-81F51929CF35@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <b95714c9-492a-4e27-bc83-b2a4c2167f01@iwl.com>


On 12/18/25 12:21 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> And some of us thought, it was the continuation of building a resource-sharing network.  ;-)

In the mid 1980's I spent a year or more at the Livermore Labs working 
on the MFE (magnetic confinement fusion energy) project. (Playing tennis 
with a multi-million degree ball of plasma as the ball was kinda fun.)

I wasn't involved in the networking part but I certainly overheard a lot 
of expressed desire to share not only our simulations and measurements 
(we had a couple of seriously-gigantic fusion vessels across the road 
from my office) as well as our boatload of Cray machines and data libraries.

The folks at the labs were pretty good a jury rigging things and it is 
my understanding that they created some duct-tape-and-bailing-wire 
systems to do that kind of sharing.

Also, in the 1970's when I was at SDC I heard many tales about the Q7 
and Q32 computers, and the desire to time share the latter among 
research institutions.? But I have no real memory of what was said in 
those tales.

 ? ? --karl--




From dhc at dcrocker.net  Sat Dec 20 16:23:26 2025
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 00:23:26 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <121bd36b-0cfd-4637-ac8a-4938ded4f43f@iwl.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <121bd36b-0cfd-4637-ac8a-4938ded4f43f@iwl.com>
Message-ID: <d55d4fd2-957c-4dc0-8f41-87884037dad0@dcrocker.net>

On 12/20/2025 3:53 PM, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
>
> It would have been a pain to write, but vastly useful to consumers, 
> had things like this been followed:
>
> <name><firstname>John</><lastname>Doe</></>


Note the .ics documents that do show up.

RFC 6350: vCard Format Specification <#>

? https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6350 
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6350>

 ?and

RFC 5545: Internet Calendaring and Scheduling Core Object Specification 
(iCalendar) <#>

? https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5545 
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5545>


It was fun negotiating for the release of the intellectual property from 
the group that created the original version of this work.? And it was at 
their initiative...

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker

Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social


From karl at iwl.com  Sat Dec 20 16:25:22 2025
From: karl at iwl.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 16:25:22 -0800
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <g7kculk7eixw27q735jb7peu5f52zreyhesm4fqqwi5kota2bi@5vntwfjgeiov>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <g7kculk7eixw27q735jb7peu5f52zreyhesm4fqqwi5kota2bi@5vntwfjgeiov>
Message-ID: <c7b8b186-a1c9-4047-8e4e-58e53ea00ea5@iwl.com>

I was one of the few members of the intellectual property bar during the 
pre-web life of the net who was aware of the developing world of 
networking.? (When I was offered a position in the chief counsel's 
office of NTIA in 1978 I was one of the two people there who had a clue 
about packet switching based networking [but my focus back then was on 
privacy and data linking.])

If my memory is to be trusted, I did not hear much at gatherings of IP 
lawyers about the evolving internet or domain names until the world wide 
web came along.? After that the floodgates of client cash to "do 
something to protect us" began to open.)

 ? ? ? ? --karl--


On 12/19/25 11:23 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 04:44:51AM -0500, Dave Crocker via 
> Internet-history wrote:
>
>> My impression was that, since the issue is with domain names' ability 
>> to have real-world semantic, the trademark concern surfaces with 
>> /any/ use of domain names.? The web certainly exacerbated concerns, 
>> but it didn't create them.
>
> I don't think I said it created them; just that it encouraged those 
> concerns.? The point is that, with the exception of the dim recesses 
> of the trademark enforcement divisions of Disney's firm and perhaps a 
> few others, nobody would have noticed domain names except for their 
> centrality in an important bit of user interface.


From karl at iwl.com  Sat Dec 20 16:31:39 2025
From: karl at iwl.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 16:31:39 -0800
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <5c41eec3-d805-4018-90d9-15d72311a6c4@nsrc.org>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>
 <5c41eec3-d805-4018-90d9-15d72311a6c4@nsrc.org>
Message-ID: <e6b72dd0-8018-492f-8eb1-42d31228bcf4@iwl.com>

With regard to Archie, don't forget Peter Deutsch and the rest of the 
Bunyip crew.

 ? ? ? ? --karl--

On 12/20/25 1:50 PM, Steven G. Huter via Internet-history wrote:
>
> On 12/20/25 11:47 AM, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
>> Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990, 
>> helped, or was necessary for,? the success of the World Wide Web?
>
> https://www.internethalloffame.org/inductee/alan-emtage/
>
> https://www.internethalloffame.org/2019/02/12/alan-emtage-and-birth-first-internet-search-engine/ 
>
>


From ajs at crankycanuck.ca  Sat Dec 20 19:57:55 2025
From: ajs at crankycanuck.ca (Andrew Sullivan)
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 22:57:55 -0500
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <c7b8b186-a1c9-4047-8e4e-58e53ea00ea5@iwl.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <g7kculk7eixw27q735jb7peu5f52zreyhesm4fqqwi5kota2bi@5vntwfjgeiov>
 <c7b8b186-a1c9-4047-8e4e-58e53ea00ea5@iwl.com>
Message-ID: <spuqkpk3qqi3p3oqg3c4sdoby3u7kuijwueemotlzqicizuow7@ezy5q42jp7to>

On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 04:25:22PM -0500, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
>If my memory is to be trusted, I did not hear much at gatherings of IP 
>lawyers about the evolving internet or domain names until the world 
>wide web came along.? After that the floodgates of client cash to "do 
>something to protect us" began to open.)

That was my impression from the outside, too, but there is the obvious problem that the end of the AUP and so the practical era of early consumer-grade commercialization is approximately contemporaneous with the rise of the web.  So, it's hard to be sure which way the causal arrow goes.  I nevertheless (obviously) think it was the web's doing.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at crankycanuck.ca


From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sat Dec 20 20:33:22 2025
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 17:33:22 +1300
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <spuqkpk3qqi3p3oqg3c4sdoby3u7kuijwueemotlzqicizuow7@ezy5q42jp7to>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <g7kculk7eixw27q735jb7peu5f52zreyhesm4fqqwi5kota2bi@5vntwfjgeiov>
 <c7b8b186-a1c9-4047-8e4e-58e53ea00ea5@iwl.com>
 <spuqkpk3qqi3p3oqg3c4sdoby3u7kuijwueemotlzqicizuow7@ezy5q42jp7to>
Message-ID: <c0715460-77a3-4618-9a77-36ef1c242965@gmail.com>

The conflation of "the Web" with "the Internet" was fully in place when Fred Baker (as IETF Chair) and I (as IAB Chair) were invited to a meeting with Magaziner in the Old Executive Office building in December 1997. Certainly the belief that DNS domain names had magical properties was thoroughly established by then, and Magaziner desparately wanted to privatize IANA. He wasn't interested in arguments about the public good.

A subsidiary question is when, and why, the Internet became the internet.

Regards/Ng? mihi
    Brian Carpenter

On 21-Dec-25 16:57, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 04:25:22PM -0500, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:
>> If my memory is to be trusted, I did not hear much at gatherings of IP
>> lawyers about the evolving internet or domain names until the world
>> wide web came along.? After that the floodgates of client cash to "do
>> something to protect us" began to open.)
> 
> That was my impression from the outside, too, but there is the obvious problem that the end of the AUP and so the practical era of early consumer-grade commercialization is approximately contemporaneous with the rise of the web.  So, it's hard to be sure which way the causal arrow goes.  I nevertheless (obviously) think it was the web's doing.
> 
> A
> 

From ajs at crankycanuck.ca  Sat Dec 20 21:39:33 2025
From: ajs at crankycanuck.ca (Andrew Sullivan)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 00:39:33 -0500
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <c0715460-77a3-4618-9a77-36ef1c242965@gmail.com>
References: <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <g7kculk7eixw27q735jb7peu5f52zreyhesm4fqqwi5kota2bi@5vntwfjgeiov>
 <c7b8b186-a1c9-4047-8e4e-58e53ea00ea5@iwl.com>
 <spuqkpk3qqi3p3oqg3c4sdoby3u7kuijwueemotlzqicizuow7@ezy5q42jp7to>
 <c0715460-77a3-4618-9a77-36ef1c242965@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ctw74nrmhfu2hx5jsiixtiqh27jplc4fgkvvu45yq4u7rcbcey@67zjqinehc4i>

On Sun, Dec 21, 2025 at 05:33:22PM -0500, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
>A subsidiary question is when, and why, the Internet became the internet.

Depending on whom you ask, it never did.  The Internet Society and the IETF both still capitalize the Internet.  The Wikipedia article on this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization_of_Internet) is actually pretty good. I never understood the argument about lowercasing it though: none of the people who want that think that "the Constitution" should be lower-case when referring to the US one, or "the King" should be lower-case when referring (today) to Charles III.  The Internet is an internet just as the Constitution is a constitution and the King is a king.  None of Wired, AP, nor the NYT has ever even tried to address this point.  (Of course, this has essentially nothing to do with technology and everything to do with another thing that is the Internet's fault, which is that nobody reads any more. Convention would demand a smiley here, but my cranky censor won't permit it.)

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at crankycanuck.ca


From b_a_denny at yahoo.com  Sat Dec 20 21:50:12 2025
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 05:50:12 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <ctw74nrmhfu2hx5jsiixtiqh27jplc4fgkvvu45yq4u7rcbcey@67zjqinehc4i>
References: <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <g7kculk7eixw27q735jb7peu5f52zreyhesm4fqqwi5kota2bi@5vntwfjgeiov>
 <c7b8b186-a1c9-4047-8e4e-58e53ea00ea5@iwl.com>
 <spuqkpk3qqi3p3oqg3c4sdoby3u7kuijwueemotlzqicizuow7@ezy5q42jp7to>
 <c0715460-77a3-4618-9a77-36ef1c242965@gmail.com>
 <ctw74nrmhfu2hx5jsiixtiqh27jplc4fgkvvu45yq4u7rcbcey@67zjqinehc4i>
Message-ID: <445825026.3127639.1766296212662@mail.yahoo.com>

 Fahlman's original smiley :-)
Couldn't resist.
barbara
    On Saturday, December 20, 2025 at 09:40:15 PM PST, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:  
 
 On Sun, Dec 21, 2025 at 05:33:22PM -0500, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
>A subsidiary question is when, and why, the Internet became the internet.

Depending on whom you ask, it never did.? The Internet Society and the IETF both still capitalize the Internet.? The Wikipedia article on this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization_of_Internet) is actually pretty good. I never understood the argument about lowercasing it though: none of the people who want that think that "the Constitution" should be lower-case when referring to the US one, or "the King" should be lower-case when referring (today) to Charles III.? The Internet is an internet just as the Constitution is a constitution and the King is a king.? None of Wired, AP, nor the NYT has ever even tried to address this point.? (Of course, this has essentially nothing to do with technology and everything to do with another thing that is the Internet's fault, which is that nobody reads any more. Convention would demand a smiley here, but my cranky censor won't permit it.)

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at crankycanuck.ca
-- 
Internet-history mailing list
Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
-
Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history

  

From paf at paftech.se  Sun Dec 21 02:27:42 2025
From: paf at paftech.se (=?utf-8?b?UGF0cmlrIEbDpGx0c3Ryw7Zt?=)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 11:27:42 +0100
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <e6b72dd0-8018-492f-8eb1-42d31228bcf4@iwl.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>
 <5c41eec3-d805-4018-90d9-15d72311a6c4@nsrc.org>
 <e6b72dd0-8018-492f-8eb1-42d31228bcf4@iwl.com>
Message-ID: <B40A84FE-BC53-4E96-8FFF-9F8E5E8EA8E6@paftech.se>

...and the rest of the people that did "hang around" in the work related to URI/URL/URN/URA development. We did many cool things at Bunyip including diving deep into whether one should use the Gopher like referrals (information in the link) or HTTP like (content type at destination in the HTML header). Lots of work on whether one should have one or multiple round trips in the application layer (HTML uses one, SMTP many), and of course (I say, of course) Whois++ and query routing where we tried out routing on the application layer to give better referrals "as one can not have one index in one location for the whole internet" (I claimed).

And then came Alta Vista! :-)

I.e. remember that WWW to some degree was "just links" and people clicking until Alta Vista. Because of that "Start pages" where important for people and organisations. Ads on web pages came in these days.

I think the work that many did in the 1990's did lead to both brutal full search of the internet (AltaVista and then Google algorithms for links to score pages). A different track starting(?) at Z39.50 -> Whois++/Centroids -> URI's and Dublin Core metadata set for long term stable identifiers and structuring data and indices.

But yes, Peter Deutch, Alan Emtage, Leslie Daigle and others did a great job. I was happy to be there for two years. What a ride!

Who remembers the chocolate lego train in Montr?al?

Patrik

On 21 Dec 2025, at 1:31, Karl Auerbach via Internet-history wrote:

> With regard to Archie, don't forget Peter Deutsch and the rest of the Bunyip crew.
>
> ? ? ? ? --karl--
>
> On 12/20/25 1:50 PM, Steven G. Huter via Internet-history wrote:
>>
>> On 12/20/25 11:47 AM, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
>>> Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990, helped, or was necessary for,? the success of the World Wide Web?
>>
>> https://www.internethalloffame.org/inductee/alan-emtage/
>>
>> https://www.internethalloffame.org/2019/02/12/alan-emtage-and-birth-first-internet-search-engine/
>>
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20251221/af0a817f/attachment.asc>

From gregskinner0 at icloud.com  Sun Dec 21 10:18:36 2025
From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 10:18:36 -0800
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <fad34a18-99e7-4c30-be9c-461f32f22d1d@gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <CAHxHggf256bkWssaOtWr8pxAC-5a0eKowZM2Owzqu0rZv+F98g@mail.gmail.com>
 <fad34a18-99e7-4c30-be9c-461f32f22d1d@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <942BC1C3-AF1D-46EA-AA23-3B57BF437AFA@icloud.com>

On Dec 18, 2025, at 12:16?PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Yes. Up-levelling a bit, unregulated markets always lead to monopolies or
> cartels unless there is effective anti-trust regulation. The Internet has
> always been an unregulated market -- originally because no politicians
> or regulators even knew it existed, and later because they had no idea
> how it worked and in particular how it simply ignored international
> boundaries. So we ended up with near-monopolies both in the plumbing
> (the "Tier 1" carriers, CDNs, the namespace, cloud hosting, etc.) and
> in the fluff (search engines, on-line markets, social media, etc.).
> 
> Here's a counterfactual question: what would have happened if the
> whole Clinton/Gore/Magaziner commercialization project had never
> taken place?
> 
> Regards/Ng? mihi
>   Brian Carpenter

Hmmm ?

At least as far as the US is concerned, politicians knew that it existed.  For example, there were US Congress hearings about NSFNET. [1] Also, when concerns about anticompetitive behavior arose, politicians got involved again. [2]

--gregbo

[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=yLLuZ61d9xAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=nsfnet&f=false
[2] https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED350986.pdf




From karl at iwl.com  Sun Dec 21 11:46:07 2025
From: karl at iwl.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 11:46:07 -0800
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <ctw74nrmhfu2hx5jsiixtiqh27jplc4fgkvvu45yq4u7rcbcey@67zjqinehc4i>
References: <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <g7kculk7eixw27q735jb7peu5f52zreyhesm4fqqwi5kota2bi@5vntwfjgeiov>
 <c7b8b186-a1c9-4047-8e4e-58e53ea00ea5@iwl.com>
 <spuqkpk3qqi3p3oqg3c4sdoby3u7kuijwueemotlzqicizuow7@ezy5q42jp7to>
 <c0715460-77a3-4618-9a77-36ef1c242965@gmail.com>
 <ctw74nrmhfu2hx5jsiixtiqh27jplc4fgkvvu45yq4u7rcbcey@67zjqinehc4i>
Message-ID: <7a554996-b27b-4c5d-a312-6bbe21310b48@iwl.com>


On 12/20/25 9:39 PM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2025 at 05:33:22PM -0500, Brian E Carpenter via 
> Internet-history wrote:
>> A subsidiary question is when, and why, the Internet became the 
>> internet.

I use both the "I" and "i" forms.

I use the capital I form to refer to the now worldwide (and beyond?) 
network that encompasses the endpoints reachable via IPv4 and IPv6 
addresses, as well as the machinery that moves packets between those end 
points.? In other words I use the "I" form to refer to a fairly specific 
thing.

On the other hand I use the lower case form to refer to the technology 
used to create the capitalized Internet as well as any other lower-case 
internets, each with its own full IPv4 or IPv6 address space and end 
points and links, that can (and I believe have been) created for various 
purposes.

(I am far from consistent in this usage of the "I" and "i" forms.)

One of the reasons I do this is that I am much of the belief that our 
capital "I" Internet is slowly undergoing a transformation. Much as the 
Internet is "a network of networks", I am of the belief that we are 
evolving to "a network of networks of networks".? I've referred to this 
as the "island and bridge" model in which entire lower-case internets 
come to be, each with its own IPv4 or IPv6 address space (the existing 
capital Internet being but one of these).? These internets, in this 
model, are mutually suspicious and often only self-interest 
cooperative.? These internets are connected by tightly guarded bridges - 
which in my mind would be application-level bridges (with plenty of 
filters and firewall functions) that proxy application level traffic, 
not IP packets, across those bridges.

A key aspect to this is a change in the minds of users that "the net" is 
a collection of applications rather than a system that moves packets 
end-to-end.? In this changed mindset what matters to users is not the 
elegance of the underlying plumbing but rather than ones favorite 
applications work (no matter how ugly is the underlying machinery that 
gets the data from hither to yon.)

Another key aspect to this is that so many of our application protocols 
are designed to be relayed and proxied at the application layer.? This 
allows deployment of application level gateways (distinct from network 
address translators) as means to interconnect diverse spaces.

I wrote about this in 2016 in a somewhat long-ish note "Internet: Quo 
Vadis (Where are you going?)" at 
https://www.cavebear.com/cavebear-blog/internet_quo_vadis/

Although what I wrote about in 2016 has not yet happened there are 
continuing signs that this change is happening, albeit at a pace that is 
slow even by "glacial" metrics.? To my mind, the rise of things such as 
the commercial DNS resolvers by Google (8.8.8.8), Cloudflare (1.1.1.1), 
Comcast (75.75.75.75) is one sign.? And the rise of the walled garden 
worlds of Facebook, Tiktok, and of federated social networking are 
further signs that cracks are forming.

 ? ? ? ? --karl--





From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Sun Dec 21 11:49:38 2025
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2025 08:49:38 +1300
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <942BC1C3-AF1D-46EA-AA23-3B57BF437AFA@icloud.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <CAHxHggf256bkWssaOtWr8pxAC-5a0eKowZM2Owzqu0rZv+F98g@mail.gmail.com>
 <fad34a18-99e7-4c30-be9c-461f32f22d1d@gmail.com>
 <942BC1C3-AF1D-46EA-AA23-3B57BF437AFA@icloud.com>
Message-ID: <4c5e4aa2-0a94-40f2-ac9c-199d5cedfad1@gmail.com>

On 22-Dec-25 07:18, Greg Skinner wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2025, at 12:16?PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>> Yes. Up-levelling a bit, unregulated markets always lead to monopolies or
>> cartels unless there is effective anti-trust regulation. The Internet has
>> always been an unregulated market -- originally because no politicians
>> or regulators even knew it existed, and later because they had no idea
>> how it worked and in particular how it simply ignored international
>> boundaries. So we ended up with near-monopolies both in the plumbing
>> (the "Tier 1" carriers, CDNs, the namespace, cloud hosting, etc.) and
>> in the fluff (search engines, on-line markets, social media, etc.).
>>
>> Here's a counterfactual question: what would have happened if the
>> whole Clinton/Gore/Magaziner commercialization project had never
>> taken place?
>>
>> Regards/Ng? mihi
>>    Brian Carpenter
> 
> Hmmm ?
> 
> At least as far as the US is concerned, politicians knew that it existed.  For example, there were US Congress hearings about NSFNET. [1] Also, when concerns about anticompetitive behavior arose, politicians got involved again. [2]

Well, Al Gore knew, yes. Networking featured heavily in the High Performance Computing Act of 1991. Another good source is [3].

But there wasn't widespread political interest in the network as such until at least 1995, by which time the unregulated Internet was already running wild. All this was equally true in the EU and pretty much everywhere else in the world.

I don't mean that was a bad thing; quite the opposite. I believe that the lack of political interference was a boon for the network's development.

Happy solstice,
     Brian Carpenter

[3] Brian Kahin (Ed.), Building Information Infrastructure: Issues in the Dvelopment of the National Research and Education Network, McGraw-Hill, 1992, ISBN 0-390-03083-X

> 
> --gregbo
> 
> [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=yLLuZ61d9xAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=nsfnet&f=false
> [2] https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED350986.pdf
> 
> 

From joly at punkcast.com  Sun Dec 21 11:51:56 2025
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 14:51:56 -0500
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <1143017587.3072957.1766270719572@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>
 <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>
 <2da4c330-309b-4952-b926-0c99193b8d27@3kitty.org>
 <1143017587.3072957.1766270719572@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk2wPUzmC_wPWDHTAAg54ZY6Uq_8q4n_x682h0o1A8UxkA@mail.gmail.com>

Until the mid 95 or so, there was an NCSA list of websites. I recall
because I made a site for punk band the Bad Brains, and got in on there :)

Joly.

On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 5:45?PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

>
> I believe yahoo was trying to be a portal to the Internet at the point in
> time you are talking about.  You go to their website and from there you
> could find whatever you wanted (if it existed). This was before Apple had
> created a walled garden.
> barbara
>     On Saturday, December 20, 2025 at 01:05:25 PM PST, Jack Haverty via
> Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
>  Before search engines, in the very early days of the WWW, a few
> "bookmark sites" were on the Web.   They simply listed a bunch of sites
> with hotlinks to each, enumerating whatever the site's author considered
> interesting to some audience.
>
> I created one of these myself, for use within Oracle's internal network,
> for two purposes -- to provide a list of resources that company staff
> might find interesting or useful, and to educate them about the
> technology, which seemed to me to be the "killer app" that people had
> been seeking since the early days of the ARPANET.  Telnet, FTP, and
> email were useful, but there had to be something else.   Lots of
> candidates appeared over the years (archie, wais, gopher, ...) but none
> of them reached critical mass
>
> But the "first search engine that mattered" to me was Yahoo.  Someone in
> Silicon Valley had told me that YAHOO was an acronym for Yet Another
> Hierarchical Officious Organizer, which seemed pretty accurate.  It
> "organized" the neonatal Web.   I remember bringing up the main yahoo
> page and then using the browser's "find" command to search for the
> specific site I was trying to find.
>
> Yahoo IIRC didn't have a search engine function, but it was a useful
> Organizer that could be searched.
>
> /Jack
>
>
> On 12/20/25 12:28, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
> >> Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990,
> >> helped, or was necessary for,  the success of the World Wide Web?
> >
> > Archie, WAIS and gopher were all invented at the same time as the web,
> > +- a year or so. So I think a wide-area information system of some
> > kind was quite inevitable, but Tim's stateless single-ended model that
> > didn't need any overall management was just better placed for
> > Darwinian success.
> >
> > For me the first search engine that mattered was AltaVista.
> >
> > RFC 1862 documents what people thought in 1994, and doesn't even
> > mention Archie.
> >
> > Regards/Ng? mihi
> >    Brian Carpenter
> >
> > On 21-Dec-25 08:47, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
> >>   Not sure which thread to put this under, the web or the timeline.
> >> I haven't read Tim Berners-Lee's new book yet  either but I went to a
> >> talk at a local bookstore advertising the book (book came with price
> >> of admission).  He was there and was having a discussion with Thomas
> >> Friedman. At the last minute, the organizers said people could email
> >> in questions with no guarantee that any questions would be asked.  I
> >> sent in more than my fair share and the last question in the talk was
> >> one of my questions.  The question below wasn't addressed. I thought
> >> I would throw this out to the mailing list in case anyone wants to
> >> chime in.
> >>
> >> Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990,
> >> helped, or was necessary for,  the success of the World Wide Web?
> >> barbara
> >>      On Thursday, December 18, 2025 at 10:30:26 PM PST, Brian E
> >> Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> wrote:
> >>     On 19-Dec-25 17:44, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
> >>> On 12/18/2025 6:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote:
> >>>> 1. The introduction of URLs/URIs made the identity of a site (the host
> >>>> part of an http URL) really important and encouraged the
> >>>> identification with trademarks.
> >>>
> >>> My impression was that, since the issue is with domain names'
> >>> ability to
> >>> have real-world semantic, the trademark concern surfaces with /any/ use
> >>> of domain names.  The web certainly exacerbated concerns, but it didn't
> >>> create them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 12/18/2025 12:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
> >>>> Here's a counterfactual question: what would have happened if the
> >>>> whole Clinton/Gore/Magaziner commercialization project had never
> >>>> taken place?
> >>>
> >>> Commercial use of the Internet was already a serious issue by the late
> >>> 1980s.  Before the Web was invented.
> >>>
> >>> NSFNet had funding but was still ramping up.  So, again, the NSFNet,
> >>> etc. effort pushed growth, and it pushed some organizational and
> >>> operational choices, but I do not believe it created the inevitability
> >>> of a commercial Internet.(*)
> >>>
> >>> So, no, I think ISDN was not the likely alternative.  More likely was a
> >>> version of the Internet, albeit with less operational and/or
> >>> administrative flexibility.
> >>
> >> Yes, it's important to recall that when TimBL invented HTTP, he
> >> could perfectly well have decided to implement it over OSI (we had
> >> enough OSI running at CERN for that to have been technically plausible)
> >> but he chose TCP/IP precisely because of the Internet** (including the
> >> Cornell-CERN link that meant we were directly peering with NSFnet).
> >> TCP/IP had already won before the web and long before Magaziner.
> >>
> >> ** I haven't yet read his new book, but he said that explicitly in
> >> his 1999 book "Weaving the Web".
> >>
> >>      Brian
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> d/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> (*) In the late 1980s, I was managing development efforts for TCP/IP
> >>> and
> >>> OSI stacks on several platforms.  We went to a number of customers --
> >>> mostly commercial organizations -- to find out their requirements for
> >>> moving from TCP/IP to OSI.  Without exception they said they had no
> >>> interest in that capability.  And, in fact, they were eager for
> >>> transition tools from OSI to TCP/IP. Again, this was before the Web was
> >>> invented.
> >>>
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>


-- 
--------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  +12185659365
--------------------------------------
-


From johnl at johnlabovitz.com  Sun Dec 21 14:25:27 2025
From: johnl at johnlabovitz.com (John Labovitz)
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 17:25:27 -0500
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk2wPUzmC_wPWDHTAAg54ZY6Uq_8q4n_x682h0o1A8UxkA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM9VJk2wPUzmC_wPWDHTAAg54ZY6Uq_8q4n_x682h0o1A8UxkA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43B7A46B-D095-40C6-BF9F-79EB70B4BAA3@johnlabovitz.com>

By 1995, I believe the NCSA What?s New page had been transferred to O?Reilly?s Global Network Navigator project. 

I know this because I was the GNN technical director at the time, and one of my jobs was to manage and publish the What?s New page. I had a little Perl script that automatically generated the static HTML files from a bunch of text files. (CGI existed, but was rarely used.)

And as someone who grew up in the late 80s DC punk scene, I was probably very excited to see your Bad Brains site come through. :)

?John


> On Dec 21, 2025, at 14:52, Joly MacFie via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> ?Until the mid 95 or so, there was an NCSA list of websites. I recall
> because I made a site for punk band the Bad Brains, and got in on there :)
> 
> Joly.
> 
>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 5:45?PM Barbara Denny via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I believe yahoo was trying to be a portal to the Internet at the point in
>> time you are talking about.  You go to their website and from there you
>> could find whatever you wanted (if it existed). This was before Apple had
>> created a walled garden.
>> barbara
>>    On Saturday, December 20, 2025 at 01:05:25 PM PST, Jack Haverty via
>> Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Before search engines, in the very early days of the WWW, a few
>> "bookmark sites" were on the Web.   They simply listed a bunch of sites
>> with hotlinks to each, enumerating whatever the site's author considered
>> interesting to some audience.
>> 
>> I created one of these myself, for use within Oracle's internal network,
>> for two purposes -- to provide a list of resources that company staff
>> might find interesting or useful, and to educate them about the
>> technology, which seemed to me to be the "killer app" that people had
>> been seeking since the early days of the ARPANET.  Telnet, FTP, and
>> email were useful, but there had to be something else.   Lots of
>> candidates appeared over the years (archie, wais, gopher, ...) but none
>> of them reached critical mass
>> 
>> But the "first search engine that mattered" to me was Yahoo.  Someone in
>> Silicon Valley had told me that YAHOO was an acronym for Yet Another
>> Hierarchical Officious Organizer, which seemed pretty accurate.  It
>> "organized" the neonatal Web.   I remember bringing up the main yahoo
>> page and then using the browser's "find" command to search for the
>> specific site I was trying to find.
>> 
>> Yahoo IIRC didn't have a search engine function, but it was a useful
>> Organizer that could be searched.
>> 
>> /Jack
>> 
>> 
>> On 12/20/25 12:28, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990,
>>>> helped, or was necessary for,  the success of the World Wide Web?
>>> 
>>> Archie, WAIS and gopher were all invented at the same time as the web,
>>> +- a year or so. So I think a wide-area information system of some
>>> kind was quite inevitable, but Tim's stateless single-ended model that
>>> didn't need any overall management was just better placed for
>>> Darwinian success.
>>> 
>>> For me the first search engine that mattered was AltaVista.
>>> 
>>> RFC 1862 documents what people thought in 1994, and doesn't even
>>> mention Archie.
>>> 
>>> Regards/Ng? mihi
>>>   Brian Carpenter
>>> 
>>> On 21-Dec-25 08:47, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>  Not sure which thread to put this under, the web or the timeline.
>>>> I haven't read Tim Berners-Lee's new book yet  either but I went to a
>>>> talk at a local bookstore advertising the book (book came with price
>>>> of admission).  He was there and was having a discussion with Thomas
>>>> Friedman. At the last minute, the organizers said people could email
>>>> in questions with no guarantee that any questions would be asked.  I
>>>> sent in more than my fair share and the last question in the talk was
>>>> one of my questions.  The question below wasn't addressed. I thought
>>>> I would throw this out to the mailing list in case anyone wants to
>>>> chime in.
>>>> 
>>>> Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990,
>>>> helped, or was necessary for,  the success of the World Wide Web?
>>>> barbara
>>>>     On Thursday, December 18, 2025 at 10:30:26 PM PST, Brian E
>>>> Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>    On 19-Dec-25 17:44, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>> On 12/18/2025 6:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>>> 1. The introduction of URLs/URIs made the identity of a site (the host
>>>>>> part of an http URL) really important and encouraged the
>>>>>> identification with trademarks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My impression was that, since the issue is with domain names'
>>>>> ability to
>>>>> have real-world semantic, the trademark concern surfaces with /any/ use
>>>>> of domain names.  The web certainly exacerbated concerns, but it didn't
>>>>> create them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 12/18/2025 12:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>>> Here's a counterfactual question: what would have happened if the
>>>>>> whole Clinton/Gore/Magaziner commercialization project had never
>>>>>> taken place?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Commercial use of the Internet was already a serious issue by the late
>>>>> 1980s.  Before the Web was invented.
>>>>> 
>>>>> NSFNet had funding but was still ramping up.  So, again, the NSFNet,
>>>>> etc. effort pushed growth, and it pushed some organizational and
>>>>> operational choices, but I do not believe it created the inevitability
>>>>> of a commercial Internet.(*)
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, no, I think ISDN was not the likely alternative.  More likely was a
>>>>> version of the Internet, albeit with less operational and/or
>>>>> administrative flexibility.
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, it's important to recall that when TimBL invented HTTP, he
>>>> could perfectly well have decided to implement it over OSI (we had
>>>> enough OSI running at CERN for that to have been technically plausible)
>>>> but he chose TCP/IP precisely because of the Internet** (including the
>>>> Cornell-CERN link that meant we were directly peering with NSFnet).
>>>> TCP/IP had already won before the web and long before Magaziner.
>>>> 
>>>> ** I haven't yet read his new book, but he said that explicitly in
>>>> his 1999 book "Weaving the Web".
>>>> 
>>>>     Brian
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> d/
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> (*) In the late 1980s, I was managing development efforts for TCP/IP
>>>>> and
>>>>> OSI stacks on several platforms.  We went to a number of customers --
>>>>> mostly commercial organizations -- to find out their requirements for
>>>>> moving from TCP/IP to OSI.  Without exception they said they had no
>>>>> interest in that capability.  And, in fact, they were eager for
>>>>> transition tools from OSI to TCP/IP. Again, this was before the Web was
>>>>> invented.
>>>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> -
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>> 
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> -
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>> 
> 
> 
> --
> --------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  +12185659365
> --------------------------------------
> -
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history



From johnl at iecc.com  Mon Dec 22 19:21:16 2025
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 22 Dec 2025 22:21:16 -0500
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>
References: <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20251223032116.761FBECF8920@ary.qy>

It appears that Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> said:
>> Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990, helped, or was necessary for,  the success of the World Wide Web?
>
>Archie, WAIS and gopher were all invented at the same time as the web, +- a year or so. So I think a wide-area information system of
>some kind was quite inevitable, but Tim's stateless single-ended model that didn't need any overall management was just better placed
>for Darwinian success.

In the first edition of Internet for Dummies, we had a chapters on all
the things you could do on the Internet, with the Web being one
chapter. In subsequent editions pretty much everything other than
telnet and email got absorbed into the web. Archie and WAIS were
great, but why use separate programs for eacn whcn you can embed them
into web sites and use one browser?

Gopher might have been a serious competitor if UofM hadn't made the
fatal mistake of trying to charge for it. It was a lot easier to set
up gopher sites than web sites, and it could do a lot of the
embedding.

R's,
John


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Mon Dec 22 19:27:34 2025
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 03:27:34 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <20251223032116.761FBECF8920@ary.qy>
References: <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>
 <20251223032116.761FBECF8920@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <275c13c8-4463-4573-ba8d-c2117c7618b7@dcrocker.net>

On 12/22/2025 7:21 PM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
> Gopher might have been a serious competitor if UofM hadn't made the
> fatal mistake of trying to charge for it.


Gopher was markedly easier to start publishing with, but had a very 
constrained experience model.


1. As I recall, it was text only, with no extensible object potential.? 
I didn't look at the protocol, so I don't know whether it had a 
provision for alternative object types.

2. My understanding was that while gopher supported a directed graph 
access, it did not enable display of content until reaching the leaf.? 
The web permits output of content anywhere along a sequence.? This is 
not a trivial benefit, in terms of UX.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker

Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social



From johnl at iecc.com  Mon Dec 22 19:34:28 2025
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 22 Dec 2025 22:34:28 -0500
Subject: [ih] what's an internet,
 The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <ctw74nrmhfu2hx5jsiixtiqh27jplc4fgkvvu45yq4u7rcbcey@67zjqinehc4i>
References: <spuqkpk3qqi3p3oqg3c4sdoby3u7kuijwueemotlzqicizuow7@ezy5q42jp7to>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <c7b8b186-a1c9-4047-8e4e-58e53ea00ea5@iwl.com>
 <g7kculk7eixw27q735jb7peu5f52zreyhesm4fqqwi5kota2bi@5vntwfjgeiov>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <c0715460-77a3-4618-9a77-36ef1c242965
 <ctw74nrmhfu2hx5jsiixtiqh27jplc4fgkvvu45yq4u7rcbcey@67zjqinehc4i>
Message-ID: <20251223033429.30BF7ECF9089@ary.qy>

It appears that Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history <ajs at crankycanuck.ca> said:
>The Internet is an internet just as the Constitution is a constitution and the King is a king.

Technically you are of course correct, but I suspect the difference is that the
people who use the Chicago Manual of Style encounter many countries that have
kings, and many states that have constitutions, but unless you are a networking
nerd, you only encounter one internet.

This is not a fight we are going to win.

R's,
John


From johnl at iecc.com  Mon Dec 22 19:45:00 2025
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 22 Dec 2025 22:45:00 -0500
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <275c13c8-4463-4573-ba8d-c2117c7618b7@dcrocker.net>
References: <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>
 <20251223032116.761FBECF8920@ary.qy>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@
 <275c13c8-4463-4573-ba8d-c2117c7618b7@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <20251223034500.ED793ECF9534@ary.qy>

It appears that Dave Crocker via Internet-history <dcrocker at bbiw.net> said:
>On 12/22/2025 7:21 PM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
>> Gopher might have been a serious competitor if UofM hadn't made the
>> fatal mistake of trying to charge for it.
>
>Gopher was markedly easier to start publishing with, but had a very 
>constrained experience model.

>1. As I recall, it was text only, with no extensible object potential.? 
>I didn't look at the protocol, so I don't know whether it had a 
>provision for alternative object types.

>2. My understanding was that while gopher supported a directed graph 
>access, it did not enable display of content until reaching the leaf.? 

Gopher had menus and pages. The menus were text menus but in Gopher+
the pages could be of many types including pictures, PDF, and movles.
It wasn't as good as the web but it was a lot easier to set up on
small slow computers and a lot snappier since the menus were very
compact.

>The web permits output of content anywhere along a sequence.? This is 
>not a trivial benefit, in terms of UX.

My recollection is that the early web was text and links, like Ted
Nelson's hypertext.  The embedded images were added a few years
later in Mosaic.

R's,
John


From ajs at crankycanuck.ca  Mon Dec 22 19:48:25 2025
From: ajs at crankycanuck.ca (Andrew Sullivan)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2025 22:48:25 -0500
Subject: [ih] what's an internet,
 The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <20251223033429.30BF7ECF9089@ary.qy>
References: <spuqkpk3qqi3p3oqg3c4sdoby3u7kuijwueemotlzqicizuow7@ezy5q42jp7to>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <c7b8b186-a1c9-4047-8e4e-58e53ea00ea5@iwl.com>
 <g7kculk7eixw27q735jb7peu5f52zreyhesm4fqqwi5kota2bi@5vntwfjgeiov>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <ctw74nrmhfu2hx5jsiixtiqh27jplc4fgkvvu45yq4u7rcbcey@67zjqinehc4i>
 <20251223033429.30BF7ECF9089@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <w3k5q4k4xurl7zoxudgfbpkpxb3nbxrqlmbb53aowanxpxh7n5@oj3o5jgqialk>

On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 10:34:28PM -0500, John Levine wrote:
>
>This is not a fight we are going to win.

No, agreed.  I just find it strange that they keep cloaking themselves with "grammar" when they make these ungrammatical arguments.  I will refrain from making any observations about "democracy" and certain countries (note the plural) of my acquaintance and what lesson I ought to be drawing.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at crankycanuck.ca


From dcrocker at bbiw.net  Mon Dec 22 20:28:17 2025
From: dcrocker at bbiw.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2025 20:28:17 -0800
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <20251223034500.ED793ECF9534@ary.qy>
References: <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>
 <20251223032116.761FBECF8920@ary.qy>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@
 <275c13c8-4463-4573-ba8d-c2117c7618b7@dcrocker.net>
 <20251223034500.ED793ECF9534@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <a7b948ee-4ed3-4a47-994f-38211abdb98f@bbiw.net>

On 12/22/2025 7:45 PM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
>> The web permits output of content anywhere along a sequence.? This is
>> not a trivial benefit, in terms of UX.
> My recollection is that the early web was text and links, like Ted
> Nelson's hypertext.  The embedded images were added a few years
> later in Mosaic.


Not what I encountered, by the time I was looking.? Had to be html. I 
think Mosaic was already around by then.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker

Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social


From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Mon Dec 22 22:26:29 2025
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 19:26:29 +1300
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <20251223034500.ED793ECF9534@ary.qy>
References: <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>
 <20251223032116.761FBECF8920@ary.qy>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@
 <275c13c8-4463-4573-ba8d-c2117c7618b7@dcrocker.net>
 <20251223034500.ED793ECF9534@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <8a482a8e-8891-4ae0-81c5-cd405e90f3c6@gmail.com>

On 23-Dec-25 16:45, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
> It appears that Dave Crocker via Internet-history <dcrocker at bbiw.net> said:
>> On 12/22/2025 7:21 PM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
>>> Gopher might have been a serious competitor if UofM hadn't made the
>>> fatal mistake of trying to charge for it.
>>
>> Gopher was markedly easier to start publishing with, but had a very
>> constrained experience model.
> 
>> 1. As I recall, it was text only, with no extensible object potential.
>> I didn't look at the protocol, so I don't know whether it had a
>> provision for alternative object types.
> 
>> 2. My understanding was that while gopher supported a directed graph
>> access, it did not enable display of content until reaching the leaf.
> 
> Gopher had menus and pages. The menus were text menus but in Gopher+
> the pages could be of many types including pictures, PDF, and movles.
> It wasn't as good as the web but it was a lot easier to set up on
> small slow computers and a lot snappier since the menus were very
> compact.
> 
>> The web permits output of content anywhere along a sequence.? This is
>> not a trivial benefit, in terms of UX.
> 
> My recollection is that the early web was text and links, like Ted
> Nelson's hypertext.  The embedded images were added a few years
> later in Mosaic.

I think the Next version had images, but of course most people didn't
have Nexts. Mosaic + X terminals added images for many people. I know
I first saw images on Mosaic and an NCD, demonstrated personally by Tim.
But it was POST dialogue boxes and radio buttons that really grabbed me,
because we had an immediate application: users registering devices and
requesting an IP address; this was before DHCP was deployable. I wrote
the HTML and a colleague (Jean-Michel Jouanigot) wrote the CGI script.
So anyone who added a device to the network had to use Mosaic.

     Brian

> 
> R's,
> John

From david.sitman at gmail.com  Tue Dec 23 07:57:43 2025
From: david.sitman at gmail.com (David Sitman)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 17:57:43 +0200
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>
 <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHbKQ5BeOQMzSn-PZAivzeinOYR_9HNc4vXYUoLpmVuMbtRbww@mail.gmail.com>

Daniele's message below did not go through to the list, so he asked me to
forward it.
We listed Gopher before WWW in our guide because at the time (early 1993)
we thought that it was more accessible to the academic and research
community. And it was much easier to set up a Gopher instance than it was
to create a Web site.
Regarding graphics on the Web, my recollection, FWIW, is that Marc
Andreessen was one of the main advocates of inline graphics, while Tim was
reluctant at first, fearing that they would slow down rendering too much.

Happy holidays,
David Sitman

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniele Bovio [mailto:Bovio at aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2025 9:13 AM
To: 'Brian E Carpenter' <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>; 'Barbara Denny' <
b_a_denny at yahoo.com>
Cc: 'internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org' <
internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org>
Subject: RE: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from
1960s to 2025)

Hi Brian,
In 1993 the EARN team wrote and distributed the first Guide to Network
Resource Tools, which in 1994 became RFC1580:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1580

I think this document, however outdated, gives a good picture of the status
of the internet at that time ;-)

Cheers

Daniele Bovio

On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 10:28?PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> > Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990, helped,
> or was necessary for,  the success of the World Wide Web?
>
> Archie, WAIS and gopher were all invented at the same time as the web, +-
> a year or so. So I think a wide-area information system of some kind was
> quite inevitable, but Tim's stateless single-ended model that didn't need
> any overall management was just better placed for Darwinian success.
>
> For me the first search engine that mattered was AltaVista.
>
> RFC 1862 documents what people thought in 1994, and doesn't even mention
> Archie.
>
> Regards/Ng? mihi
>     Brian Carpenter
>
> On 21-Dec-25 08:47, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
> >   Not sure which thread to put this under, the web or the timeline.
> > I haven't read Tim Berners-Lee's new book yet  either but I went to a
> talk at a local bookstore advertising the book (book came with price of
> admission).  He was there and was having a discussion with Thomas Friedman.
> At the last minute, the organizers said people could email in questions
> with no guarantee that any questions would be asked.  I sent in more than
> my fair share and the last question in the talk was one of my questions.
> The question below wasn't addressed. I thought I would throw this out to
> the mailing list in case anyone wants to chime in.
> >
> > Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990, helped,
> or was necessary for,  the success of the World Wide Web?
> > barbara
> >      On Thursday, December 18, 2025 at 10:30:26 PM PST, Brian E
> Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> >   On 19-Dec-25 17:44, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
> >> On 12/18/2025 6:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote:
> >>> 1. The introduction of URLs/URIs made the identity of a site (the host
> >>> part of an http URL) really important and encouraged the
> >>> identification with trademarks.
> >>
> >> My impression was that, since the issue is with domain names' ability to
> >> have real-world semantic, the trademark concern surfaces with /any/ use
> >> of domain names.  The web certainly exacerbated concerns, but it didn't
> >> create them.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/18/2025 12:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
> >>> Here's a counterfactual question: what would have happened if the
> >>> whole Clinton/Gore/Magaziner commercialization project had never
> >>> taken place?
> >>
> >> Commercial use of the Internet was already a serious issue by the late
> >> 1980s.  Before the Web was invented.
> >>
> >> NSFNet had funding but was still ramping up.  So, again, the NSFNet,
> >> etc. effort pushed growth, and it pushed some organizational and
> >> operational choices, but I do not believe it created the inevitability
> >> of a commercial Internet.(*)
> >>
> >> So, no, I think ISDN was not the likely alternative.  More likely was a
> >> version of the Internet, albeit with less operational and/or
> >> administrative flexibility.
> >
> > Yes, it's important to recall that when TimBL invented HTTP, he
> > could perfectly well have decided to implement it over OSI (we had
> > enough OSI running at CERN for that to have been technically plausible)
> > but he chose TCP/IP precisely because of the Internet** (including the
> > Cornell-CERN link that meant we were directly peering with NSFnet).
> > TCP/IP had already won before the web and long before Magaziner.
> >
> > ** I haven't yet read his new book, but he said that explicitly in
> > his 1999 book "Weaving the Web".
> >
> >      Brian
> >
> >
> >>
> >> d/
> >>
> >>
> >> (*) In the late 1980s, I was managing development efforts for TCP/IP and
> >> OSI stacks on several platforms.  We went to a number of customers --
> >> mostly commercial organizations -- to find out their requirements for
> >> moving from TCP/IP to OSI.  Without exception they said they had no
> >> interest in that capability.  And, in fact, they were eager for
> >> transition tools from OSI to TCP/IP. Again, this was before the Web was
> >> invented.
> >>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>


From touch at strayalpha.com  Tue Dec 23 08:03:41 2025
From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 08:03:41 -0800
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <CAHbKQ5BeOQMzSn-PZAivzeinOYR_9HNc4vXYUoLpmVuMbtRbww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>
 <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>
 <CAHbKQ5BeOQMzSn-PZAivzeinOYR_9HNc4vXYUoLpmVuMbtRbww@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BD8327D9-7642-429A-8EE7-682A3F8D0D4B@strayalpha.com>

Seems like that list overlooks Fetch; I recall using it on an original Mac, which I used only until late 1991.

Joe

?
Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com

> On Dec 23, 2025, at 7:57?AM, David Sitman via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Daniele's message below did not go through to the list, so he asked me to
> forward it.
> We listed Gopher before WWW in our guide because at the time (early 1993)
> we thought that it was more accessible to the academic and research
> community. And it was much easier to set up a Gopher instance than it was
> to create a Web site.
> Regarding graphics on the Web, my recollection, FWIW, is that Marc
> Andreessen was one of the main advocates of inline graphics, while Tim was
> reluctant at first, fearing that they would slow down rendering too much.
> 
> Happy holidays,
> David Sitman
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniele Bovio [mailto:Bovio at aol.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2025 9:13 AM
> To: 'Brian E Carpenter' <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>; 'Barbara Denny' <
> b_a_denny at yahoo.com>
> Cc: 'internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org' <
> internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org>
> Subject: RE: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from
> 1960s to 2025)
> 
> Hi Brian,
> In 1993 the EARN team wrote and distributed the first Guide to Network
> Resource Tools, which in 1994 became RFC1580:
> 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1580
> 
> I think this document, however outdated, gives a good picture of the status
> of the internet at that time ;-)
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Daniele Bovio
> 
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 10:28?PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>>> Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990, helped,
>> or was necessary for,  the success of the World Wide Web?
>> 
>> Archie, WAIS and gopher were all invented at the same time as the web, +-
>> a year or so. So I think a wide-area information system of some kind was
>> quite inevitable, but Tim's stateless single-ended model that didn't need
>> any overall management was just better placed for Darwinian success.
>> 
>> For me the first search engine that mattered was AltaVista.
>> 
>> RFC 1862 documents what people thought in 1994, and doesn't even mention
>> Archie.
>> 
>> Regards/Ng? mihi
>>    Brian Carpenter
>> 
>> On 21-Dec-25 08:47, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
>>>  Not sure which thread to put this under, the web or the timeline.
>>> I haven't read Tim Berners-Lee's new book yet  either but I went to a
>> talk at a local bookstore advertising the book (book came with price of
>> admission).  He was there and was having a discussion with Thomas Friedman.
>> At the last minute, the organizers said people could email in questions
>> with no guarantee that any questions would be asked.  I sent in more than
>> my fair share and the last question in the talk was one of my questions.
>> The question below wasn't addressed. I thought I would throw this out to
>> the mailing list in case anyone wants to chime in.
>>> 
>>> Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990, helped,
>> or was necessary for,  the success of the World Wide Web?
>>> barbara
>>>     On Thursday, December 18, 2025 at 10:30:26 PM PST, Brian E
>> Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  On 19-Dec-25 17:44, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> On 12/18/2025 6:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>> 1. The introduction of URLs/URIs made the identity of a site (the host
>>>>> part of an http URL) really important and encouraged the
>>>>> identification with trademarks.
>>>> 
>>>> My impression was that, since the issue is with domain names' ability to
>>>> have real-world semantic, the trademark concern surfaces with /any/ use
>>>> of domain names.  The web certainly exacerbated concerns, but it didn't
>>>> create them.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 12/18/2025 12:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>> Here's a counterfactual question: what would have happened if the
>>>>> whole Clinton/Gore/Magaziner commercialization project had never
>>>>> taken place?
>>>> 
>>>> Commercial use of the Internet was already a serious issue by the late
>>>> 1980s.  Before the Web was invented.
>>>> 
>>>> NSFNet had funding but was still ramping up.  So, again, the NSFNet,
>>>> etc. effort pushed growth, and it pushed some organizational and
>>>> operational choices, but I do not believe it created the inevitability
>>>> of a commercial Internet.(*)
>>>> 
>>>> So, no, I think ISDN was not the likely alternative.  More likely was a
>>>> version of the Internet, albeit with less operational and/or
>>>> administrative flexibility.
>>> 
>>> Yes, it's important to recall that when TimBL invented HTTP, he
>>> could perfectly well have decided to implement it over OSI (we had
>>> enough OSI running at CERN for that to have been technically plausible)
>>> but he chose TCP/IP precisely because of the Internet** (including the
>>> Cornell-CERN link that meant we were directly peering with NSFnet).
>>> TCP/IP had already won before the web and long before Magaziner.
>>> 
>>> ** I haven't yet read his new book, but he said that explicitly in
>>> his 1999 book "Weaving the Web".
>>> 
>>>     Brian
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> d/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> (*) In the late 1980s, I was managing development efforts for TCP/IP and
>>>> OSI stacks on several platforms.  We went to a number of customers --
>>>> mostly commercial organizations -- to find out their requirements for
>>>> moving from TCP/IP to OSI.  Without exception they said they had no
>>>> interest in that capability.  And, in fact, they were eager for
>>>> transition tools from OSI to TCP/IP. Again, this was before the Web was
>>>> invented.
>>>> 
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> -
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history



From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Tue Dec 23 11:42:44 2025
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2025 08:42:44 +1300
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <CAHbKQ5BeOQMzSn-PZAivzeinOYR_9HNc4vXYUoLpmVuMbtRbww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>
 <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>
 <CAHbKQ5BeOQMzSn-PZAivzeinOYR_9HNc4vXYUoLpmVuMbtRbww@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fe298cad-c32b-42be-a7ec-93d0447df7b2@gmail.com>

It appears that the NeXT browser in early 1991 did have image support, as I thought:

"With the NeXT browser, there were no images in-line with the text... Instead there would be a hypertext link that would open up another window with the image in it. That meant that you could keep the image on the screen whilst you scrolled through the text...".

[James Gillies & Robert Cailliau, How the Web was Born, OUP, 2000, p. 193]

"Thanks to the IMG tag that Marc Andressen had proposed in February 1993, Web site designers had the potential to make their Web sites look more like glossy magazines..."

[ibid., p. 252]

The Gillies/Cailliau book is very well researched and well indexed, when you want actual facts. And Robert's memory is still very clear.

Regards/Ng? mihi
    Brian Carpenter

On 24-Dec-25 04:57, David Sitman via Internet-history wrote:
> Daniele's message below did not go through to the list, so he asked me to
> forward it.
> We listed Gopher before WWW in our guide because at the time (early 1993)
> we thought that it was more accessible to the academic and research
> community. And it was much easier to set up a Gopher instance than it was
> to create a Web site.
> Regarding graphics on the Web, my recollection, FWIW, is that Marc
> Andreessen was one of the main advocates of inline graphics, while Tim was
> reluctant at first, fearing that they would slow down rendering too much.
> 
> Happy holidays,
> David Sitman
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniele Bovio [mailto:Bovio at aol.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2025 9:13 AM
> To: 'Brian E Carpenter' <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>; 'Barbara Denny' <
> b_a_denny at yahoo.com>
> Cc: 'internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org' <
> internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org>
> Subject: RE: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from
> 1960s to 2025)
> 
> Hi Brian,
> In 1993 the EARN team wrote and distributed the first Guide to Network
> Resource Tools, which in 1994 became RFC1580:
> 
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1580
> 
> I think this document, however outdated, gives a good picture of the status
> of the internet at that time ;-)
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Daniele Bovio
> 
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 10:28?PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>>> Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990, helped,
>> or was necessary for,  the success of the World Wide Web?
>>
>> Archie, WAIS and gopher were all invented at the same time as the web, +-
>> a year or so. So I think a wide-area information system of some kind was
>> quite inevitable, but Tim's stateless single-ended model that didn't need
>> any overall management was just better placed for Darwinian success.
>>
>> For me the first search engine that mattered was AltaVista.
>>
>> RFC 1862 documents what people thought in 1994, and doesn't even mention
>> Archie.
>>
>> Regards/Ng? mihi
>>      Brian Carpenter
>>
>> On 21-Dec-25 08:47, Barbara Denny via Internet-history wrote:
>>>    Not sure which thread to put this under, the web or the timeline.
>>> I haven't read Tim Berners-Lee's new book yet  either but I went to a
>> talk at a local bookstore advertising the book (book came with price of
>> admission).  He was there and was having a discussion with Thomas Friedman.
>> At the last minute, the organizers said people could email in questions
>> with no guarantee that any questions would be asked.  I sent in more than
>> my fair share and the last question in the talk was one of my questions.
>> The question below wasn't addressed. I thought I would throw this out to
>> the mailing list in case anyone wants to chime in.
>>>
>>> Do you feel the creation of Archie, first search engine in 1990, helped,
>> or was necessary for,  the success of the World Wide Web?
>>> barbara
>>>       On Thursday, December 18, 2025 at 10:30:26 PM PST, Brian E
>> Carpenter via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>    On 19-Dec-25 17:44, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> On 12/18/2025 6:52 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>> 1. The introduction of URLs/URIs made the identity of a site (the host
>>>>> part of an http URL) really important and encouraged the
>>>>> identification with trademarks.
>>>>
>>>> My impression was that, since the issue is with domain names' ability to
>>>> have real-world semantic, the trademark concern surfaces with /any/ use
>>>> of domain names.  The web certainly exacerbated concerns, but it didn't
>>>> create them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/18/2025 12:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>> Here's a counterfactual question: what would have happened if the
>>>>> whole Clinton/Gore/Magaziner commercialization project had never
>>>>> taken place?
>>>>
>>>> Commercial use of the Internet was already a serious issue by the late
>>>> 1980s.  Before the Web was invented.
>>>>
>>>> NSFNet had funding but was still ramping up.  So, again, the NSFNet,
>>>> etc. effort pushed growth, and it pushed some organizational and
>>>> operational choices, but I do not believe it created the inevitability
>>>> of a commercial Internet.(*)
>>>>
>>>> So, no, I think ISDN was not the likely alternative.  More likely was a
>>>> version of the Internet, albeit with less operational and/or
>>>> administrative flexibility.
>>>
>>> Yes, it's important to recall that when TimBL invented HTTP, he
>>> could perfectly well have decided to implement it over OSI (we had
>>> enough OSI running at CERN for that to have been technically plausible)
>>> but he chose TCP/IP precisely because of the Internet** (including the
>>> Cornell-CERN link that meant we were directly peering with NSFnet).
>>> TCP/IP had already won before the web and long before Magaziner.
>>>
>>> ** I haven't yet read his new book, but he said that explicitly in
>>> his 1999 book "Weaving the Web".
>>>
>>>       Brian
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> d/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (*) In the late 1980s, I was managing development efforts for TCP/IP and
>>>> OSI stacks on several platforms.  We went to a number of customers --
>>>> mostly commercial organizations -- to find out their requirements for
>>>> moving from TCP/IP to OSI.  Without exception they said they had no
>>>> interest in that capability.  And, in fact, they were eager for
>>>> transition tools from OSI to TCP/IP. Again, this was before the Web was
>>>> invented.
>>>>
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> -
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>>

From johnl at iecc.com  Tue Dec 23 12:56:37 2025
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 23 Dec 2025 15:56:37 -0500
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <a7b948ee-4ed3-4a47-994f-38211abdb98f@bbiw.net>
References: <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <20251223034500.ED793ECF9534@ary.qy>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <275c13c8-4463-4573-ba8d-c2117c7618b7@dcrocker.net>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com> <
 <a7b948ee-4ed3-4a47-994f-38211abdb98f@bbiw.net>
Message-ID: <20251223205637.5DC95ED1B9C6@ary.qy>

It appears that Dave Crocker via Internet-history <dcrocker at bbiw.net> said:
>On 12/22/2025 7:45 PM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
>>> The web permits output of content anywhere along a sequence.? This is
>>> not a trivial benefit, in terms of UX.
>> My recollection is that the early web was text and links, like Ted
>> Nelson's hypertext.  The embedded images were added a few years
>> later in Mosaic.
>
>Not what I encountered, by the time I was looking.? Had to be html. I 
>think Mosaic was already around by then.

It was alwyas HTML to encode hypertext, but you couldn't embed images
or other non-text material until Mosaic. I think the early web let you
link to a separate image, not unlike the way Gopher+ did.

In any event, I agree that the web can do a lot more things that Gopher could.
The question is whether Gopher's lighter footprint would have found it a
persistent niche if UofM hadn't priced it out of existence.

R's,
John


From lyndon at orthanc.ca  Tue Dec 23 13:18:46 2025
From: lyndon at orthanc.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM))
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 13:18:46 -0800
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <BD8327D9-7642-429A-8EE7-682A3F8D0D4B@strayalpha.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>
 <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>
 <CAHbKQ5BeOQMzSn-PZAivzeinOYR_9HNc4vXYUoLpmVuMbtRbww@mail.gmail.com>
 <BD8327D9-7642-429A-8EE7-682A3F8D0D4B@strayalpha.com>
Message-ID: <e6906f28dc4bcd09@orthanc.ca>

> Seems like that list overlooks Fetch; I recall using it on an
> original Mac, which I used only until late 1991.

And decwrl!ftpmail.  The bane of my existance when I was running
UUCP mail hubs :-)

--lyndon


From dcrocker at bbiw.net  Tue Dec 23 15:33:25 2025
From: dcrocker at bbiw.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2025 15:33:25 -0800
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
In-Reply-To: <20251223205637.5DC95ED1B9C6@ary.qy>
References: <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <20251223034500.ED793ECF9534@ary.qy>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <275c13c8-4463-4573-ba8d-c2117c7618b7@dcrocker.net>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com> <
 <a7b948ee-4ed3-4a47-994f-38211abdb98f@bbiw.net>
 <20251223205637.5DC95ED1B9C6@ary.qy>
Message-ID: <20975323-bab1-4f38-b32a-774ccce4083e@bbiw.net>

On 12/23/2025 12:56 PM, John Levine via Internet-history wrote:
> It was alwyas HTML to encode hypertext,

My original comment was only meant to be about the requirement for 
html.? It was a considerable barrier to adoption, especially given the 
lack of -- or poor quality of -- tools originally available for creating 
it.? It was in the ballpark of requiring users to learn a programming 
language, at a time when average users had no background for that.? (And 
comparing with what average users now can do, it's quite a change over 
the 35 years.)

All this got worked out, over time.? Obviously.? But initially, everyone 
had text files, which made gopher extremely useful, far more easily.


> but you couldn't embed images
> or other non-text material until Mosaic. I think the early web let you
> link to a separate image, not unlike the way Gopher+ did.
>
> In any event, I agree that the web can do a lot more things that Gopher could.
> The question is whether Gopher's lighter footprint would have found it a
> persistent niche if UofM hadn't priced it out of existence.

Might have lasted longer, but the considerable utility of the web's core 
design and the demonstrable extensibility of both http and html almost 
certainly guaranteed gopher would lose to the point of extinction.? Note 
that the web could emulate gopher but gopher could not emulate the web.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker

Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social



From ycor at iit.demokritos.gr  Wed Dec 24 01:27:08 2025
From: ycor at iit.demokritos.gr (Yannis KOROVESIS/COROVESIS)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2025 09:27:08 +0000
Subject: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 1960s
 to 2025)
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7ys7d5guqak2zaufbhvxuimowjfvabpq6fuuoiq4ixh5f6e3rv@gdj4msr2ohlc>
 <ca9fa3a9-5cee-4c8d-adb1-6572035c73c3@dcrocker.net>
 <de1a520c-6b6a-4c03-b0ef-0a70253f9b10@gmail.com>
 <1901144452.3041911.1766260046071@mail.yahoo.com>
 <0ae0fc50-d45a-4649-a66e-df812c5ea3b1@gmail.com>
 <CAHbKQ5BeOQMzSn-PZAivzeinOYR_9HNc4vXYUoLpmVuMbtRbww@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b5c5a7a4c5d63.796a8bc70dcec@iit.demokritos.gr>

Jill Foster of Newcastle University, UK edited the following Joint IETF, 
RARE, CNI report about the same time 
  
  
  
  
  https://ftp.ripe.net/fyi/fyi25.html 
  
  
  
  
  Yannis Corovesis 
  
  NCSR Demokritos 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Daniele's message below did not go through to the list, so he asked me to 

  
  forward it. 
  
  We listed Gopher before WWW in our guide because at the time (early 1993) 

  
  we thought that it was more accessible to the academic and research 
  
  community. And it was much easier to set up a Gopher instance than it was 

  
  to create a Web site. 
  
  Regarding graphics on the Web, my recollection, FWIW, is that Marc 
  
  Andreessen was one of the main advocates of inline graphics, while Tim 
was 
  
  reluctant at first, fearing that they would slow down rendering too much. 

  
  
  
  
  Happy holidays, 
  
  David Sitman 
  
  
  
  
  -----Original Message----- 
  
  From: Daniele Bovio [mailto:Bovio at aol.com] 
  
  Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2025 9:13 AM 
  
  To: 'Brian E Carpenter' <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>; 'Barbara Denny' < 
  
  b_a_denny at yahoo.com> 
  
  Cc: 'internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org' < 
  
  internet-history-bounces at elists.isoc.org> 
  
  Subject: RE: [ih] The web as wind and whirlwind? (was Re: History from 
  
  1960s to 2025) 
  
  
  
  
  Hi Brian, 
  
  In 1993 the EARN team wrote and distributed the first Guide to Network 
  
  Resource Tools, which in 1994 became RFC1580: 
  
  
  
  
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1580 
  
  
  
  
  I think this document, however outdated, gives a good picture of the 
status 
  
  of the internet at that time ;-) 
  
  
  
  
  Cheers 
  
  
  
  
  Daniele Bovio 
  
  
  
  
  On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 10:28 PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history < 

  
  internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: 
  
  
  
  
  --  
  
  Internet-history mailing list 
  
  Internet-history at elists.isoc.org 
  
  https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history 
  
  - 
  
  Unsubscribe: 
https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history

From geoff at iconia.com  Wed Dec 24 17:20:44 2025
From: geoff at iconia.com (the keyboard of geoff goodfellow)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2025 18:20:44 -0700
Subject: [ih] Dark Internet Mail Environment (DIME)
Message-ID: <CAEf-zrg5oYcYD5raVRZDJAgZ=i-hLa2pLYjUTbh8hNTBdBh9pQ@mail.gmail.com>

can anyone add any additional historical perspective and/or present status
of The Dark Mail effort might be other than what Grok is saying\|/?

"The Dark Mail project, announced in late 2013 by the Dark Mail Alliance
(founded by Lavabit and Silent Circle), aimed to create a new end-to-end
encrypted email protocol and architecture called the Dark Internet Mail
Environment (DIME). It sought to protect both message content and metadata
(like "To/From" fields and subjects) in a user-friendly way, addressing
limitations in existing systems like PGP and standard SMTP email. The
alliance raised funds via crowdfunding and planned to open-source the
technology to encourage widespread adoption.

The project evolved but didn't achieve broad industry adoption. Silent
Circle withdrew early, leaving Ladar Levison (Lavabit's founder) as the
primary driver by around 2016?2023. Specifications for DIME were released
(with revisions into at least 2015), and open-source components were
developed:

   - Magma (the reference email server supporting DIME features).
   - libdime (libraries and tools on GitHub).

In 2017, Levison relaunched Lavabit incorporating DIME for enhanced privacy
modes (including "Paranoid" mode, designed to resist subpoenas by ensuring
providers can't access plaintext emails or keys). DIME introduced concepts
like multiple encryption layers, signets for key management, and protocols
(DMAP/DMTP) to replace or augment IMAP/SMTP while maintaining compatibility.
As of late 2025, the Dark Mail Alliance appears largely inactive (its
website is outdated and focuses on Lavabit), and DIME hasn't become a
mainstream standard?email privacy has instead advanced through tools like
PGP improvements, Signal Protocol-inspired messaging, and services like
Proton Mail. However, the open-source code remains available on GitHub
under Lavabit's repositories, and Lavabit continues operating with DIME
support for users seeking high-privacy email. The project transitioned from
an ambitious alliance effort into a niche, ongoing open-source initiative
led by Levison, without the global rollout originally envisioned."

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


From johnl at iecc.com  Wed Dec 24 19:35:01 2025
From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
Date: 24 Dec 2025 22:35:01 -0500
Subject: [ih] Dark Internet Mail Environment (DIME)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf-zrg5oYcYD5raVRZDJAgZ=i-hLa2pLYjUTbh8hNTBdBh9pQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEf-zrg5oYcYD5raVRZDJAgZ=i-hLa2pLYjUTbh8hNTBdBh9pQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20251225033502.6761BED47248@ary.local>

It appears that the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via Internet-history <geoff at iconia.com> said:
>can anyone add any additional historical perspective and/or present status
>of The Dark Mail effort might be other than what Grok is saying\|/?

Wikipedia has a history that suggests that it's basically dead.

We know many of the people involved, so why not just ask?

R's,
John


From matt.mathis at gmail.com  Thu Dec 25 06:58:19 2025
From: matt.mathis at gmail.com (Matt Mathis)
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2025 08:58:19 -0600
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <b95714c9-492a-4e27-bc83-b2a4c2167f01@iwl.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aUPXndSDBewn9Sh8@noir.de> <37d703cc-246f-4bf8-90c7-56f7e5b41d13@gmail.com>
 <D9B6E884-0D28-433C-86CE-81F51929CF35@comcast.net>
 <b95714c9-492a-4e27-bc83-b2a4c2167f01@iwl.com>
Message-ID: <CA+s1KQEd9yM_jAJfRx5zUG4JWtAYd7H8GMzfVxWK_32GV5kydw@mail.gmail.com>

One key development (that predates me, so I can't provide details) was the
codification (and evolution) of the Internet Draft and RFC processes.    I
believe that finding the right balance between ease of contribution,
permanence and implied or explicit (non)authority, embodied by the use of
the name "Request For Comments" was as important as any individual
technical detail.   The publication process substantially inspired the
culture of the IETF (or perhaps vice-versa), which is what enabled
collaborative engineering between nominally competing organizations.

As far as I know RFCs were the first ever self published archival series of
documents.

Thanks,
--MM--
Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force to
apply it to others.
-------------------------------------------
Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.



On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 6:09?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

>
> On 12/18/25 12:21 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> > And some of us thought, it was the continuation of building a
> resource-sharing network.  ;-)
>
> In the mid 1980's I spent a year or more at the Livermore Labs working
> on the MFE (magnetic confinement fusion energy) project. (Playing tennis
> with a multi-million degree ball of plasma as the ball was kinda fun.)
>
> I wasn't involved in the networking part but I certainly overheard a lot
> of expressed desire to share not only our simulations and measurements
> (we had a couple of seriously-gigantic fusion vessels across the road
> from my office) as well as our boatload of Cray machines and data
> libraries.
>
> The folks at the labs were pretty good a jury rigging things and it is
> my understanding that they created some duct-tape-and-bailing-wire
> systems to do that kind of sharing.
>
> Also, in the 1970's when I was at SDC I heard many tales about the Q7
> and Q32 computers, and the desire to time share the latter among
> research institutions.  But I have no real memory of what was said in
> those tales.
>
>      --karl--
>
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>


From craig at tereschau.net  Thu Dec 25 12:19:42 2025
From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge)
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2025 15:19:42 -0500
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <CA+s1KQEd9yM_jAJfRx5zUG4JWtAYd7H8GMzfVxWK_32GV5kydw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aUPXndSDBewn9Sh8@noir.de> <37d703cc-246f-4bf8-90c7-56f7e5b41d13@gmail.com>
 <D9B6E884-0D28-433C-86CE-81F51929CF35@comcast.net>
 <b95714c9-492a-4e27-bc83-b2a4c2167f01@iwl.com>
 <CA+s1KQEd9yM_jAJfRx5zUG4JWtAYd7H8GMzfVxWK_32GV5kydw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHQj4CfV7T-O855qCHbpabatcoP8n8onqx+hdW6RDL7k-rBbzw@mail.gmail.com>

Hey Matt:

Your note brought up a flood of memories about creating the Internet-Draft
series.  I don't think I've seen a history of the series and its creation,
so I thought I'd dump my memories -- combined with some fact checking in
IETF reports.

Very quickly in the IETF's development, it became clear that it was
generating a large number of *interim* technical documents.  E.g. before
each IETF meeting, a WG would typically produce a "latest draft" of
whatever specification(s) it was working on, so they could be discussed.
People wanted those drafts in a central spot, rather than just mailed to a
WG, so they could figure out which WG meetings were the highest priority to
attend during the IETF week.  Also, some documents were becoming big (100s
of pages), an issue in a time of small disks which limited the size of
emails.  So, it became clear a document series/repository/something else
was needed.

As I recall, the initial ideas bounced around were to use the RFC series or
revive IENs (Internet Engineering Notes so a logical series for the
Internet Enginering Task Force).  Both were swiftly shot down.  Jon Postel
and Joyce Reynolds did not want to place a flood of often partial-drafts of
technical specs into the RFC series, nor deal with the tight timeframes
(e.g. dozens of specs that all had to be published showing up a week before
IETF meetings). For whatever reason, IENs were also declared off limits.

So Phill Gross, as chair of IETF, created a document series called IDEAS
(announced at IETF 8 in NCAR in late 1987).  This produced pushback [my
recollection here].  People wanted the IETF drafts to be ephemeral (fear
that people would start claiming conformance to IDEA ### rather than RFCs,
etc) and various other issues (which I only recall vaguely -- one issue, I
believe, was the IAB was concerned this had the potential to end-run RFCs
[see Note]).  As I recall, intellectual property issues were barely touched
on. People realized things were being invented in WG meetings, but
documenting them for posterity was not yet uppermost in folks' thoughts --
thus the notion IETF documents could be ephemeral and would expire.

As late as IETF 11 (Ann Arbor, late 1988), there was still no document
series in place -- IDEAS were sorta there (about a dozen ever existed), but
not quite.  I note that Karen Bowers, a no nonsense, ex-military (?) person
was brought in to manage many aspects of IETF including its documents
around the time of IETF 11.  The fact that a year had passed and there was
still no solution tells you the level of background discussions about how
to create the needed document series.  Indeed, the cover note in IETF 11
says, essentially, if you want to figure out where a WG is on its drafting
of spec, contact Karen (!?!?!).  Remembering Karen's attitude on ad-hoc
processes, I suspect she put some pressure on Phill and others to find a
better answer ASAP.

Then at IETF 12 (January 1989) the Internet-Drafts series was announced.
It has many of the elements of today's series; standard names, expiration
after 6 months, draft plastered all over the document, in a form that can
easily become an RFC.

Craig

Note re: RFCs.  It is worth remembering that just as IETF was spinning up
(and the workload was quite big -- IETF 11's proceedings lists 10 active
specs for things like Host Requirements, the first MIB, PPP, OSPF and an
EGP successor) the RFC series was sputtering.  It produced about 25 RFCs in
1986 and a similar number in 1987.  It was clear the IETF was going to more
than double that annual total -- in other words, IETF product would soon
dominate the RFC series. The IAB (and Jon P) wanted to retain control of
RFCs and protocols deemed part of the Internet architecture.  This created
a potential dilemma - if the IETF created its own document series, so RFCs
only saw final versions of specifications, that met Jon's need to not
publish ephemeral stuff, but raised the possibility that the IETF could
weaponize its document series to undermine RFCs if specs did not mature to
RFC status after IETF felt they were ready.

On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 9:58?AM Matt Mathis via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> One key development (that predates me, so I can't provide details) was the
> codification (and evolution) of the Internet Draft and RFC processes.    I
> believe that finding the right balance between ease of contribution,
> permanence and implied or explicit (non)authority, embodied by the use of
> the name "Request For Comments" was as important as any individual
> technical detail.   The publication process substantially inspired the
> culture of the IETF (or perhaps vice-versa), which is what enabled
> collaborative engineering between nominally competing organizations.
>
> As far as I know RFCs were the first ever self published archival series of
> documents.
>
> Thanks,
> --MM--
> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force to
> apply it to others.
> -------------------------------------------
> Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 6:09?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 12/18/25 12:21 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> > > And some of us thought, it was the continuation of building a
> > resource-sharing network.  ;-)
> >
> > In the mid 1980's I spent a year or more at the Livermore Labs working
> > on the MFE (magnetic confinement fusion energy) project. (Playing tennis
> > with a multi-million degree ball of plasma as the ball was kinda fun.)
> >
> > I wasn't involved in the networking part but I certainly overheard a lot
> > of expressed desire to share not only our simulations and measurements
> > (we had a couple of seriously-gigantic fusion vessels across the road
> > from my office) as well as our boatload of Cray machines and data
> > libraries.
> >
> > The folks at the labs were pretty good a jury rigging things and it is
> > my understanding that they created some duct-tape-and-bailing-wire
> > systems to do that kind of sharing.
> >
> > Also, in the 1970's when I was at SDC I heard many tales about the Q7
> > and Q32 computers, and the desire to time share the latter among
> > research institutions.  But I have no real memory of what was said in
> > those tales.
> >
> >      --karl--
> >
> >
> > --
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > -
> > Unsubscribe:
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> >
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>


-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.


From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Thu Dec 25 13:18:28 2025
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2025 10:18:28 +1300
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <CAHQj4CfV7T-O855qCHbpabatcoP8n8onqx+hdW6RDL7k-rBbzw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aUPXndSDBewn9Sh8@noir.de> <37d703cc-246f-4bf8-90c7-56f7e5b41d13@gmail.com>
 <D9B6E884-0D28-433C-86CE-81F51929CF35@comcast.net>
 <b95714c9-492a-4e27-bc83-b2a4c2167f01@iwl.com>
 <CA+s1KQEd9yM_jAJfRx5zUG4JWtAYd7H8GMzfVxWK_32GV5kydw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHQj4CfV7T-O855qCHbpabatcoP8n8onqx+hdW6RDL7k-rBbzw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f0b6c604-92b0-4dd3-94e0-0680d5e1b1f8@gmail.com>

Craig,

That's very interesting. A few questions:

1. When exactly were I-Ds invented? (I know that it was no later than September 1989, see #3 below.)

2. Is it true to say that the de facto standard tool for producing early I-Ds was nroff?

(In 1994 when I wrote my first I-D, somebody -- very likely Scott Bradner -- sent me an nroff template, and I went on using it until XML2RFC first appeared.)

3. Who invented the formal expiry for I-Ds?

(It was first documented in RFC 1120 (Sept 1989) as far as I can tell, except that it was 3 months then, updated to "3-6 months" in RFC 1160, and codified as 6 months in RFC 1310.)

Incidentally, I think that RFC 1120 must have been the first RFC that documented the IETF standards process in any way.

Regards/Ng? mihi
    Brian Carpenter

On 26-Dec-25 09:19, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote:
> Hey Matt:
> 
> Your note brought up a flood of memories about creating the Internet-Draft
> series.  I don't think I've seen a history of the series and its creation,
> so I thought I'd dump my memories -- combined with some fact checking in
> IETF reports.
> 
> Very quickly in the IETF's development, it became clear that it was
> generating a large number of *interim* technical documents.  E.g. before
> each IETF meeting, a WG would typically produce a "latest draft" of
> whatever specification(s) it was working on, so they could be discussed.
> People wanted those drafts in a central spot, rather than just mailed to a
> WG, so they could figure out which WG meetings were the highest priority to
> attend during the IETF week.  Also, some documents were becoming big (100s
> of pages), an issue in a time of small disks which limited the size of
> emails.  So, it became clear a document series/repository/something else
> was needed.
> 
> As I recall, the initial ideas bounced around were to use the RFC series or
> revive IENs (Internet Engineering Notes so a logical series for the
> Internet Enginering Task Force).  Both were swiftly shot down.  Jon Postel
> and Joyce Reynolds did not want to place a flood of often partial-drafts of
> technical specs into the RFC series, nor deal with the tight timeframes
> (e.g. dozens of specs that all had to be published showing up a week before
> IETF meetings). For whatever reason, IENs were also declared off limits.
> 
> So Phill Gross, as chair of IETF, created a document series called IDEAS
> (announced at IETF 8 in NCAR in late 1987).  This produced pushback [my
> recollection here].  People wanted the IETF drafts to be ephemeral (fear
> that people would start claiming conformance to IDEA ### rather than RFCs,
> etc) and various other issues (which I only recall vaguely -- one issue, I
> believe, was the IAB was concerned this had the potential to end-run RFCs
> [see Note]).  As I recall, intellectual property issues were barely touched
> on. People realized things were being invented in WG meetings, but
> documenting them for posterity was not yet uppermost in folks' thoughts --
> thus the notion IETF documents could be ephemeral and would expire.
> 
> As late as IETF 11 (Ann Arbor, late 1988), there was still no document
> series in place -- IDEAS were sorta there (about a dozen ever existed), but
> not quite.  I note that Karen Bowers, a no nonsense, ex-military (?) person
> was brought in to manage many aspects of IETF including its documents
> around the time of IETF 11.  The fact that a year had passed and there was
> still no solution tells you the level of background discussions about how
> to create the needed document series.  Indeed, the cover note in IETF 11
> says, essentially, if you want to figure out where a WG is on its drafting
> of spec, contact Karen (!?!?!).  Remembering Karen's attitude on ad-hoc
> processes, I suspect she put some pressure on Phill and others to find a
> better answer ASAP.
> 
> Then at IETF 12 (January 1989) the Internet-Drafts series was announced.
> It has many of the elements of today's series; standard names, expiration
> after 6 months, draft plastered all over the document, in a form that can
> easily become an RFC.
> 
> Craig
> 
> Note re: RFCs.  It is worth remembering that just as IETF was spinning up
> (and the workload was quite big -- IETF 11's proceedings lists 10 active
> specs for things like Host Requirements, the first MIB, PPP, OSPF and an
> EGP successor) the RFC series was sputtering.  It produced about 25 RFCs in
> 1986 and a similar number in 1987.  It was clear the IETF was going to more
> than double that annual total -- in other words, IETF product would soon
> dominate the RFC series. The IAB (and Jon P) wanted to retain control of
> RFCs and protocols deemed part of the Internet architecture.  This created
> a potential dilemma - if the IETF created its own document series, so RFCs
> only saw final versions of specifications, that met Jon's need to not
> publish ephemeral stuff, but raised the possibility that the IETF could
> weaponize its document series to undermine RFCs if specs did not mature to
> RFC status after IETF felt they were ready.
> 
> On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 9:58?AM Matt Mathis via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>> One key development (that predates me, so I can't provide details) was the
>> codification (and evolution) of the Internet Draft and RFC processes.    I
>> believe that finding the right balance between ease of contribution,
>> permanence and implied or explicit (non)authority, embodied by the use of
>> the name "Request For Comments" was as important as any individual
>> technical detail.   The publication process substantially inspired the
>> culture of the IETF (or perhaps vice-versa), which is what enabled
>> collaborative engineering between nominally competing organizations.
>>
>> As far as I know RFCs were the first ever self published archival series of
>> documents.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --MM--
>> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force to
>> apply it to others.
>> -------------------------------------------
>> Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
>> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 6:09?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 12/18/25 12:21 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>>>> And some of us thought, it was the continuation of building a
>>> resource-sharing network.  ;-)
>>>
>>> In the mid 1980's I spent a year or more at the Livermore Labs working
>>> on the MFE (magnetic confinement fusion energy) project. (Playing tennis
>>> with a multi-million degree ball of plasma as the ball was kinda fun.)
>>>
>>> I wasn't involved in the networking part but I certainly overheard a lot
>>> of expressed desire to share not only our simulations and measurements
>>> (we had a couple of seriously-gigantic fusion vessels across the road
>>> from my office) as well as our boatload of Cray machines and data
>>> libraries.
>>>
>>> The folks at the labs were pretty good a jury rigging things and it is
>>> my understanding that they created some duct-tape-and-bailing-wire
>>> systems to do that kind of sharing.
>>>
>>> Also, in the 1970's when I was at SDC I heard many tales about the Q7
>>> and Q32 computers, and the desire to time share the latter among
>>> research institutions.  But I have no real memory of what was said in
>>> those tales.
>>>
>>>       --karl--
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>> -
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>
>> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>>>
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> -
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>>
> 
> 

From craig at tereschau.net  Thu Dec 25 14:59:54 2025
From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge)
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2025 17:59:54 -0500
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <f0b6c604-92b0-4dd3-94e0-0680d5e1b1f8@gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aUPXndSDBewn9Sh8@noir.de> <37d703cc-246f-4bf8-90c7-56f7e5b41d13@gmail.com>
 <D9B6E884-0D28-433C-86CE-81F51929CF35@comcast.net>
 <b95714c9-492a-4e27-bc83-b2a4c2167f01@iwl.com>
 <CA+s1KQEd9yM_jAJfRx5zUG4JWtAYd7H8GMzfVxWK_32GV5kydw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHQj4CfV7T-O855qCHbpabatcoP8n8onqx+hdW6RDL7k-rBbzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f0b6c604-92b0-4dd3-94e0-0680d5e1b1f8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHQj4CcE-cGWNb_=MQ_WaCzafYLb5cv488uaCtSbngPCpzcq3A@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 4:18?PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> Craig,
>
> That's very interesting. A few questions:
>
> 1. When exactly were I-Ds invented? (I know that it was no later than
> September 1989, see #3 below.)
>

Phill Gross announced them to IETF in January 1989 (IETF 13 proceedings,
introduction).


>
> 2. Is it true to say that the de facto standard tool for producing early
> I-Ds was nroff?
>

Yes, Jon Postel had an nroff to RFC format script which we all used.


>
> (In 1994 when I wrote my first I-D, somebody -- very likely Scott Bradner
> -- sent me an nroff template, and I went on using it until XML2RFC first
> appeared.)
>
> 3. Who invented the formal expiry for I-Ds?
>

I believe it was Phill Gross, in one of Phill's standard ways of solving a
problem, which is, once he established that people wanted I-Ds to expire
(so they couldn't be cited as active standards) he talked with a bunch of
folks and came up with a compromise number.  In his January '89 memo it was
6 months. (Someone must have pushed hard to make it 3 months in RFC1120,
only to realize that Phill's initial sense of the solution was right).
Originally, I-Ds were to be discarded from the I-D repository (the idea
being they were ephemeral -- that ended after folks realized that proving
the WG came up with idea III on date DDD to pre-empt patent claims was
important).


>
> (It was first documented in RFC 1120 (Sept 1989) as far as I can tell,
> except that it was 3 months then, updated to "3-6 months" in RFC 1160, and
> codified as 6 months in RFC 1310.)
>
> Incidentally, I think that RFC 1120 must have been the first RFC that
> documented the IETF standards process in any way.
>

Sounds likely!

Craig

>
> Regards/Ng? mihi
>     Brian Carpenter
>
> On 26-Dec-25 09:19, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote:
> > Hey Matt:
> >
> > Your note brought up a flood of memories about creating the
> Internet-Draft
> > series.  I don't think I've seen a history of the series and its
> creation,
> > so I thought I'd dump my memories -- combined with some fact checking in
> > IETF reports.
> >
> > Very quickly in the IETF's development, it became clear that it was
> > generating a large number of *interim* technical documents.  E.g. before
> > each IETF meeting, a WG would typically produce a "latest draft" of
> > whatever specification(s) it was working on, so they could be discussed.
> > People wanted those drafts in a central spot, rather than just mailed to
> a
> > WG, so they could figure out which WG meetings were the highest priority
> to
> > attend during the IETF week.  Also, some documents were becoming big
> (100s
> > of pages), an issue in a time of small disks which limited the size of
> > emails.  So, it became clear a document series/repository/something else
> > was needed.
> >
> > As I recall, the initial ideas bounced around were to use the RFC series
> or
> > revive IENs (Internet Engineering Notes so a logical series for the
> > Internet Enginering Task Force).  Both were swiftly shot down.  Jon
> Postel
> > and Joyce Reynolds did not want to place a flood of often partial-drafts
> of
> > technical specs into the RFC series, nor deal with the tight timeframes
> > (e.g. dozens of specs that all had to be published showing up a week
> before
> > IETF meetings). For whatever reason, IENs were also declared off limits.
> >
> > So Phill Gross, as chair of IETF, created a document series called IDEAS
> > (announced at IETF 8 in NCAR in late 1987).  This produced pushback [my
> > recollection here].  People wanted the IETF drafts to be ephemeral (fear
> > that people would start claiming conformance to IDEA ### rather than
> RFCs,
> > etc) and various other issues (which I only recall vaguely -- one issue,
> I
> > believe, was the IAB was concerned this had the potential to end-run RFCs
> > [see Note]).  As I recall, intellectual property issues were barely
> touched
> > on. People realized things were being invented in WG meetings, but
> > documenting them for posterity was not yet uppermost in folks' thoughts
> --
> > thus the notion IETF documents could be ephemeral and would expire.
> >
> > As late as IETF 11 (Ann Arbor, late 1988), there was still no document
> > series in place -- IDEAS were sorta there (about a dozen ever existed),
> but
> > not quite.  I note that Karen Bowers, a no nonsense, ex-military (?)
> person
> > was brought in to manage many aspects of IETF including its documents
> > around the time of IETF 11.  The fact that a year had passed and there
> was
> > still no solution tells you the level of background discussions about how
> > to create the needed document series.  Indeed, the cover note in IETF 11
> > says, essentially, if you want to figure out where a WG is on its
> drafting
> > of spec, contact Karen (!?!?!).  Remembering Karen's attitude on ad-hoc
> > processes, I suspect she put some pressure on Phill and others to find a
> > better answer ASAP.
> >
> > Then at IETF 12 (January 1989) the Internet-Drafts series was announced.
> > It has many of the elements of today's series; standard names, expiration
> > after 6 months, draft plastered all over the document, in a form that can
> > easily become an RFC.
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > Note re: RFCs.  It is worth remembering that just as IETF was spinning up
> > (and the workload was quite big -- IETF 11's proceedings lists 10 active
> > specs for things like Host Requirements, the first MIB, PPP, OSPF and an
> > EGP successor) the RFC series was sputtering.  It produced about 25 RFCs
> in
> > 1986 and a similar number in 1987.  It was clear the IETF was going to
> more
> > than double that annual total -- in other words, IETF product would soon
> > dominate the RFC series. The IAB (and Jon P) wanted to retain control of
> > RFCs and protocols deemed part of the Internet architecture.  This
> created
> > a potential dilemma - if the IETF created its own document series, so
> RFCs
> > only saw final versions of specifications, that met Jon's need to not
> > publish ephemeral stuff, but raised the possibility that the IETF could
> > weaponize its document series to undermine RFCs if specs did not mature
> to
> > RFC status after IETF felt they were ready.
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 9:58?AM Matt Mathis via Internet-history <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> >> One key development (that predates me, so I can't provide details) was
> the
> >> codification (and evolution) of the Internet Draft and RFC processes.
>   I
> >> believe that finding the right balance between ease of contribution,
> >> permanence and implied or explicit (non)authority, embodied by the use
> of
> >> the name "Request For Comments" was as important as any individual
> >> technical detail.   The publication process substantially inspired the
> >> culture of the IETF (or perhaps vice-versa), which is what enabled
> >> collaborative engineering between nominally competing organizations.
> >>
> >> As far as I know RFCs were the first ever self published archival
> series of
> >> documents.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> --MM--
> >> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use
> force to
> >> apply it to others.
> >> -------------------------------------------
> >> Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
> >> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 6:09?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
> >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 12/18/25 12:21 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> >>>> And some of us thought, it was the continuation of building a
> >>> resource-sharing network.  ;-)
> >>>
> >>> In the mid 1980's I spent a year or more at the Livermore Labs working
> >>> on the MFE (magnetic confinement fusion energy) project. (Playing
> tennis
> >>> with a multi-million degree ball of plasma as the ball was kinda fun.)
> >>>
> >>> I wasn't involved in the networking part but I certainly overheard a
> lot
> >>> of expressed desire to share not only our simulations and measurements
> >>> (we had a couple of seriously-gigantic fusion vessels across the road
> >>> from my office) as well as our boatload of Cray machines and data
> >>> libraries.
> >>>
> >>> The folks at the labs were pretty good a jury rigging things and it is
> >>> my understanding that they created some duct-tape-and-bailing-wire
> >>> systems to do that kind of sharing.
> >>>
> >>> Also, in the 1970's when I was at SDC I heard many tales about the Q7
> >>> and Q32 computers, and the desire to time share the latter among
> >>> research institutions.  But I have no real memory of what was said in
> >>> those tales.
> >>>
> >>>       --karl--
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Internet-history mailing list
> >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >>> -
> >>> Unsubscribe:
> >>>
> >>
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Internet-history mailing list
> >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >> -
> >> Unsubscribe:
> >>
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> >>
> >
> >
>


-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.


From ocl at gih.com  Thu Dec 25 15:06:30 2025
From: ocl at gih.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=C3=A9pin-Leblond?=)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2025 00:06:30 +0100
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <CAHQj4CcE-cGWNb_=MQ_WaCzafYLb5cv488uaCtSbngPCpzcq3A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aUPXndSDBewn9Sh8@noir.de> <37d703cc-246f-4bf8-90c7-56f7e5b41d13@gmail.com>
 <D9B6E884-0D28-433C-86CE-81F51929CF35@comcast.net>
 <b95714c9-492a-4e27-bc83-b2a4c2167f01@iwl.com>
 <CA+s1KQEd9yM_jAJfRx5zUG4JWtAYd7H8GMzfVxWK_32GV5kydw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHQj4CfV7T-O855qCHbpabatcoP8n8onqx+hdW6RDL7k-rBbzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f0b6c604-92b0-4dd3-94e0-0680d5e1b1f8@gmail.com>
 <CAHQj4CcE-cGWNb_=MQ_WaCzafYLb5cv488uaCtSbngPCpzcq3A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a4ffe1e2-1ac2-4d26-8917-db19ea6881bf@gih.com>



On 25/12/2025 23:59, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote:
>> 2. Is it true to say that the de facto standard tool for producing early
>> I-Ds was nroff?
>>
> Yes, Jon Postel had an nroff to RFC format script which we all used.

https://github.com/oberstet/scratchbox/blob/master/docs/rfc/3-nroff.template 
?

From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Thu Dec 25 15:55:39 2025
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2025 12:55:39 +1300
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <a4ffe1e2-1ac2-4d26-8917-db19ea6881bf@gih.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aUPXndSDBewn9Sh8@noir.de> <37d703cc-246f-4bf8-90c7-56f7e5b41d13@gmail.com>
 <D9B6E884-0D28-433C-86CE-81F51929CF35@comcast.net>
 <b95714c9-492a-4e27-bc83-b2a4c2167f01@iwl.com>
 <CA+s1KQEd9yM_jAJfRx5zUG4JWtAYd7H8GMzfVxWK_32GV5kydw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHQj4CfV7T-O855qCHbpabatcoP8n8onqx+hdW6RDL7k-rBbzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f0b6c604-92b0-4dd3-94e0-0680d5e1b1f8@gmail.com>
 <CAHQj4CcE-cGWNb_=MQ_WaCzafYLb5cv488uaCtSbngPCpzcq3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <a4ffe1e2-1ac2-4d26-8917-db19ea6881bf@gih.com>
Message-ID: <4e9f050c-959f-4581-9722-9171bdaae85a@gmail.com>

On 26-Dec-25 12:06, Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond wrote:
> 
> 
> On 25/12/2025 23:59, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote:
>>> 2. Is it true to say that the de facto standard tool for producing early
>>> I-Ds was nroff?
>>>
>> Yes, Jon Postel had an nroff to RFC format script which we all used.
> 
> https://github.com/oberstet/scratchbox/blob/master/docs/rfc/3-nroff.template ?

Try this to get you back to 1991:

https://www.potaroo.net/ietf/old-ids/2-nroff.template

I'd forgotten all about pg and fix.sh, but I see that I still have them hiding in a folder called OldUnixStuff/bin.

     Brian

     Brian

From jeanjour at comcast.net  Thu Dec 25 16:45:26 2025
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2025 19:45:26 -0500
Subject: [ih] Fwd:  History from 1960s to 2025
References: <CA326EA7-FCD6-41E8-B624-D82628F936A1@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <F63CA9DC-8207-45A6-8CF4-DF56C5276C5A@comcast.net>



> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
> Date: December 25, 2025 at 19:44:08 EST
> To: Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net>
> 
> It always seemed peculiar that a Request for *Comment* was a standard
> and 
> an Internet-Draft which sounds like a draft standard was a Comment.
> 
> And early on RFCs were Requests for Comments.
> 
>> On Dec 25, 2025, at 15:19, Craig Partridge via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hey Matt:
>> 
>> Your note brought up a flood of memories about creating the Internet-Draft
>> series.  I don't think I've seen a history of the series and its creation,
>> so I thought I'd dump my memories -- combined with some fact checking in
>> IETF reports.
>> 
>> Very quickly in the IETF's development, it became clear that it was
>> generating a large number of *interim* technical documents.  E.g. before
>> each IETF meeting, a WG would typically produce a "latest draft" of
>> whatever specification(s) it was working on, so they could be discussed.
>> People wanted those drafts in a central spot, rather than just mailed to a
>> WG, so they could figure out which WG meetings were the highest priority to
>> attend during the IETF week.  Also, some documents were becoming big (100s
>> of pages), an issue in a time of small disks which limited the size of
>> emails.  So, it became clear a document series/repository/something else
>> was needed.
>> 
>> As I recall, the initial ideas bounced around were to use the RFC series or
>> revive IENs (Internet Engineering Notes so a logical series for the
>> Internet Enginering Task Force).  Both were swiftly shot down.  Jon Postel
>> and Joyce Reynolds did not want to place a flood of often partial-drafts of
>> technical specs into the RFC series, nor deal with the tight timeframes
>> (e.g. dozens of specs that all had to be published showing up a week before
>> IETF meetings). For whatever reason, IENs were also declared off limits.
>> 
>> So Phill Gross, as chair of IETF, created a document series called IDEAS
>> (announced at IETF 8 in NCAR in late 1987).  This produced pushback [my
>> recollection here].  People wanted the IETF drafts to be ephemeral (fear
>> that people would start claiming conformance to IDEA ### rather than RFCs,
>> etc) and various other issues (which I only recall vaguely -- one issue, I
>> believe, was the IAB was concerned this had the potential to end-run RFCs
>> [see Note]).  As I recall, intellectual property issues were barely touched
>> on. People realized things were being invented in WG meetings, but
>> documenting them for posterity was not yet uppermost in folks' thoughts --
>> thus the notion IETF documents could be ephemeral and would expire.
>> 
>> As late as IETF 11 (Ann Arbor, late 1988), there was still no document
>> series in place -- IDEAS were sorta there (about a dozen ever existed), but
>> not quite.  I note that Karen Bowers, a no nonsense, ex-military (?) person
>> was brought in to manage many aspects of IETF including its documents
>> around the time of IETF 11.  The fact that a year had passed and there was
>> still no solution tells you the level of background discussions about how
>> to create the needed document series.  Indeed, the cover note in IETF 11
>> says, essentially, if you want to figure out where a WG is on its drafting
>> of spec, contact Karen (!?!?!).  Remembering Karen's attitude on ad-hoc
>> processes, I suspect she put some pressure on Phill and others to find a
>> better answer ASAP.
>> 
>> Then at IETF 12 (January 1989) the Internet-Drafts series was announced.
>> It has many of the elements of today's series; standard names, expiration
>> after 6 months, draft plastered all over the document, in a form that can
>> easily become an RFC.
>> 
>> Craig
>> 
>> Note re: RFCs.  It is worth remembering that just as IETF was spinning up
>> (and the workload was quite big -- IETF 11's proceedings lists 10 active
>> specs for things like Host Requirements, the first MIB, PPP, OSPF and an
>> EGP successor) the RFC series was sputtering.  It produced about 25 RFCs in
>> 1986 and a similar number in 1987.  It was clear the IETF was going to more
>> than double that annual total -- in other words, IETF product would soon
>> dominate the RFC series. The IAB (and Jon P) wanted to retain control of
>> RFCs and protocols deemed part of the Internet architecture.  This created
>> a potential dilemma - if the IETF created its own document series, so RFCs
>> only saw final versions of specifications, that met Jon's need to not
>> publish ephemeral stuff, but raised the possibility that the IETF could
>> weaponize its document series to undermine RFCs if specs did not mature to
>> RFC status after IETF felt they were ready.
>> 
>> On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 9:58?AM Matt Mathis via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> One key development (that predates me, so I can't provide details) was the
>>> codification (and evolution) of the Internet Draft and RFC processes.    I
>>> believe that finding the right balance between ease of contribution,
>>> permanence and implied or explicit (non)authority, embodied by the use of
>>> the name "Request For Comments" was as important as any individual
>>> technical detail.   The publication process substantially inspired the
>>> culture of the IETF (or perhaps vice-versa), which is what enabled
>>> collaborative engineering between nominally competing organizations.
>>> 
>>> As far as I know RFCs were the first ever self published archival series of
>>> documents.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> --MM--
>>> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force to
>>> apply it to others.
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>> Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
>>> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 6:09?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 12/18/25 12:21 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>> And some of us thought, it was the continuation of building a
>>>> resource-sharing network.  ;-)
>>>> 
>>>> In the mid 1980's I spent a year or more at the Livermore Labs working
>>>> on the MFE (magnetic confinement fusion energy) project. (Playing tennis
>>>> with a multi-million degree ball of plasma as the ball was kinda fun.)
>>>> 
>>>> I wasn't involved in the networking part but I certainly overheard a lot
>>>> of expressed desire to share not only our simulations and measurements
>>>> (we had a couple of seriously-gigantic fusion vessels across the road
>>>> from my office) as well as our boatload of Cray machines and data
>>>> libraries.
>>>> 
>>>> The folks at the labs were pretty good a jury rigging things and it is
>>>> my understanding that they created some duct-tape-and-bailing-wire
>>>> systems to do that kind of sharing.
>>>> 
>>>> Also, in the 1970's when I was at SDC I heard many tales about the Q7
>>>> and Q32 computers, and the desire to time share the latter among
>>>> research institutions.  But I have no real memory of what was said in
>>>> those tales.
>>>> 
>>>>    --karl--
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>> -
>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>> 
>>> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>>>> 
>>> --
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>> -
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> *****
>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
>> mailing lists.
>> -- 
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> -
>> Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> 



From j at shoch.com  Thu Dec 25 21:19:45 2025
From: j at shoch.com (John Shoch)
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2025 21:19:45 -0800
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025 (Craig Partridge)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.317.1766703613.29669.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
References: <mailman.317.1766703613.29669.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
Message-ID: <CAFrK2djPZX9LMWJxhsvJCQDhUhkajO7HX6EHKKc7fkVTn1es4Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 3:00?PM <internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org>
wrote:
....
"As I recall, the initial ideas bounced around were to use the RFC series or
revive IENs (Internet Engineering Notes so a logical series for the
Internet Enginering Task Force).  Both were swiftly shot down."
----------------
A very minor point:  I am not familiar with IEN as "Internet Engineering
Notes"
There was the IEN series of "Internet Experiment Notes"..... spanning about
5 years of early work from July 1977 to Sept. 1982.

There is a listing showing 212 IEN numbers were issued or reserved -- but
not all of them seem to have actually been published:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien-index.html

John


On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 3:00?PM <internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org>
wrote:

> Send Internet-history mailing list submissions to
>         internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         internet-history-owner at elists.isoc.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Internet-history digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: History from 1960s to 2025 (Craig Partridge)
>    2. Re: History from 1960s to 2025 (Brian E Carpenter)
>    3. Re: History from 1960s to 2025 (Craig Partridge)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2025 15:19:42 -0500
> From: Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net>
> To: Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com>
> Cc: internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAHQj4CfV7T-O855qCHbpabatcoP8n8onqx+hdW6RDL7k-rBbzw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> Hey Matt:
>
> Your note brought up a flood of memories about creating the Internet-Draft
> series.  I don't think I've seen a history of the series and its creation,
> so I thought I'd dump my memories -- combined with some fact checking in
> IETF reports.
>
> Very quickly in the IETF's development, it became clear that it was
> generating a large number of *interim* technical documents.  E.g. before
> each IETF meeting, a WG would typically produce a "latest draft" of
> whatever specification(s) it was working on, so they could be discussed.
> People wanted those drafts in a central spot, rather than just mailed to a
> WG, so they could figure out which WG meetings were the highest priority to
> attend during the IETF week.  Also, some documents were becoming big (100s
> of pages), an issue in a time of small disks which limited the size of
> emails.  So, it became clear a document series/repository/something else
> was needed.
>
> As I recall, the initial ideas bounced around were to use the RFC series or
> revive IENs (Internet Engineering Notes so a logical series for the
> Internet Enginering Task Force).  Both were swiftly shot down.  Jon Postel
> and Joyce Reynolds did not want to place a flood of often partial-drafts of
> technical specs into the RFC series, nor deal with the tight timeframes
> (e.g. dozens of specs that all had to be published showing up a week before
> IETF meetings). For whatever reason, IENs were also declared off limits.
>
> So Phill Gross, as chair of IETF, created a document series called IDEAS
> (announced at IETF 8 in NCAR in late 1987).  This produced pushback [my
> recollection here].  People wanted the IETF drafts to be ephemeral (fear
> that people would start claiming conformance to IDEA ### rather than RFCs,
> etc) and various other issues (which I only recall vaguely -- one issue, I
> believe, was the IAB was concerned this had the potential to end-run RFCs
> [see Note]).  As I recall, intellectual property issues were barely touched
> on. People realized things were being invented in WG meetings, but
> documenting them for posterity was not yet uppermost in folks' thoughts --
> thus the notion IETF documents could be ephemeral and would expire.
>
> As late as IETF 11 (Ann Arbor, late 1988), there was still no document
> series in place -- IDEAS were sorta there (about a dozen ever existed), but
> not quite.  I note that Karen Bowers, a no nonsense, ex-military (?) person
> was brought in to manage many aspects of IETF including its documents
> around the time of IETF 11.  The fact that a year had passed and there was
> still no solution tells you the level of background discussions about how
> to create the needed document series.  Indeed, the cover note in IETF 11
> says, essentially, if you want to figure out where a WG is on its drafting
> of spec, contact Karen (!?!?!).  Remembering Karen's attitude on ad-hoc
> processes, I suspect she put some pressure on Phill and others to find a
> better answer ASAP.
>
> Then at IETF 12 (January 1989) the Internet-Drafts series was announced.
> It has many of the elements of today's series; standard names, expiration
> after 6 months, draft plastered all over the document, in a form that can
> easily become an RFC.
>
> Craig
>
> Note re: RFCs.  It is worth remembering that just as IETF was spinning up
> (and the workload was quite big -- IETF 11's proceedings lists 10 active
> specs for things like Host Requirements, the first MIB, PPP, OSPF and an
> EGP successor) the RFC series was sputtering.  It produced about 25 RFCs in
> 1986 and a similar number in 1987.  It was clear the IETF was going to more
> than double that annual total -- in other words, IETF product would soon
> dominate the RFC series. The IAB (and Jon P) wanted to retain control of
> RFCs and protocols deemed part of the Internet architecture.  This created
> a potential dilemma - if the IETF created its own document series, so RFCs
> only saw final versions of specifications, that met Jon's need to not
> publish ephemeral stuff, but raised the possibility that the IETF could
> weaponize its document series to undermine RFCs if specs did not mature to
> RFC status after IETF felt they were ready.
>
> On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 9:58?AM Matt Mathis via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> > One key development (that predates me, so I can't provide details) was
> the
> > codification (and evolution) of the Internet Draft and RFC processes.
> I
> > believe that finding the right balance between ease of contribution,
> > permanence and implied or explicit (non)authority, embodied by the use of
> > the name "Request For Comments" was as important as any individual
> > technical detail.   The publication process substantially inspired the
> > culture of the IETF (or perhaps vice-versa), which is what enabled
> > collaborative engineering between nominally competing organizations.
> >
> > As far as I know RFCs were the first ever self published archival series
> of
> > documents.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --MM--
> > Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force
> to
> > apply it to others.
> > -------------------------------------------
> > Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
> > Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 6:09?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On 12/18/25 12:21 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> > > > And some of us thought, it was the continuation of building a
> > > resource-sharing network.  ;-)
> > >
> > > In the mid 1980's I spent a year or more at the Livermore Labs working
> > > on the MFE (magnetic confinement fusion energy) project. (Playing
> tennis
> > > with a multi-million degree ball of plasma as the ball was kinda fun.)
> > >
> > > I wasn't involved in the networking part but I certainly overheard a
> lot
> > > of expressed desire to share not only our simulations and measurements
> > > (we had a couple of seriously-gigantic fusion vessels across the road
> > > from my office) as well as our boatload of Cray machines and data
> > > libraries.
> > >
> > > The folks at the labs were pretty good a jury rigging things and it is
> > > my understanding that they created some duct-tape-and-bailing-wire
> > > systems to do that kind of sharing.
> > >
> > > Also, in the 1970's when I was at SDC I heard many tales about the Q7
> > > and Q32 computers, and the desire to time share the latter among
> > > research institutions.  But I have no real memory of what was said in
> > > those tales.
> > >
> > >      --karl--
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Internet-history mailing list
> > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > > -
> > > Unsubscribe:
> > >
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> > >
> > --
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > -
> > Unsubscribe:
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> >
>
>
> --
> *****
> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
> mailing lists.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2025 10:18:28 +1300
> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
> To: Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net>, Matt Mathis
>         <matt.mathis at gmail.com>
> Cc: internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
> Message-ID: <f0b6c604-92b0-4dd3-94e0-0680d5e1b1f8 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Craig,
>
> That's very interesting. A few questions:
>
> 1. When exactly were I-Ds invented? (I know that it was no later than
> September 1989, see #3 below.)
>
> 2. Is it true to say that the de facto standard tool for producing early
> I-Ds was nroff?
>
> (In 1994 when I wrote my first I-D, somebody -- very likely Scott Bradner
> -- sent me an nroff template, and I went on using it until XML2RFC first
> appeared.)
>
> 3. Who invented the formal expiry for I-Ds?
>
> (It was first documented in RFC 1120 (Sept 1989) as far as I can tell,
> except that it was 3 months then, updated to "3-6 months" in RFC 1160, and
> codified as 6 months in RFC 1310.)
>
> Incidentally, I think that RFC 1120 must have been the first RFC that
> documented the IETF standards process in any way.
>
> Regards/Ng? mihi
>     Brian Carpenter
>
> On 26-Dec-25 09:19, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote:
> > Hey Matt:
> >
> > Your note brought up a flood of memories about creating the
> Internet-Draft
> > series.  I don't think I've seen a history of the series and its
> creation,
> > so I thought I'd dump my memories -- combined with some fact checking in
> > IETF reports.
> >
> > Very quickly in the IETF's development, it became clear that it was
> > generating a large number of *interim* technical documents.  E.g. before
> > each IETF meeting, a WG would typically produce a "latest draft" of
> > whatever specification(s) it was working on, so they could be discussed.
> > People wanted those drafts in a central spot, rather than just mailed to
> a
> > WG, so they could figure out which WG meetings were the highest priority
> to
> > attend during the IETF week.  Also, some documents were becoming big
> (100s
> > of pages), an issue in a time of small disks which limited the size of
> > emails.  So, it became clear a document series/repository/something else
> > was needed.
> >
> > As I recall, the initial ideas bounced around were to use the RFC series
> or
> > revive IENs (Internet Engineering Notes so a logical series for the
> > Internet Enginering Task Force).  Both were swiftly shot down.  Jon
> Postel
> > and Joyce Reynolds did not want to place a flood of often partial-drafts
> of
> > technical specs into the RFC series, nor deal with the tight timeframes
> > (e.g. dozens of specs that all had to be published showing up a week
> before
> > IETF meetings). For whatever reason, IENs were also declared off limits.
> >
> > So Phill Gross, as chair of IETF, created a document series called IDEAS
> > (announced at IETF 8 in NCAR in late 1987).  This produced pushback [my
> > recollection here].  People wanted the IETF drafts to be ephemeral (fear
> > that people would start claiming conformance to IDEA ### rather than
> RFCs,
> > etc) and various other issues (which I only recall vaguely -- one issue,
> I
> > believe, was the IAB was concerned this had the potential to end-run RFCs
> > [see Note]).  As I recall, intellectual property issues were barely
> touched
> > on. People realized things were being invented in WG meetings, but
> > documenting them for posterity was not yet uppermost in folks' thoughts
> --
> > thus the notion IETF documents could be ephemeral and would expire.
> >
> > As late as IETF 11 (Ann Arbor, late 1988), there was still no document
> > series in place -- IDEAS were sorta there (about a dozen ever existed),
> but
> > not quite.  I note that Karen Bowers, a no nonsense, ex-military (?)
> person
> > was brought in to manage many aspects of IETF including its documents
> > around the time of IETF 11.  The fact that a year had passed and there
> was
> > still no solution tells you the level of background discussions about how
> > to create the needed document series.  Indeed, the cover note in IETF 11
> > says, essentially, if you want to figure out where a WG is on its
> drafting
> > of spec, contact Karen (!?!?!).  Remembering Karen's attitude on ad-hoc
> > processes, I suspect she put some pressure on Phill and others to find a
> > better answer ASAP.
> >
> > Then at IETF 12 (January 1989) the Internet-Drafts series was announced.
> > It has many of the elements of today's series; standard names, expiration
> > after 6 months, draft plastered all over the document, in a form that can
> > easily become an RFC.
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > Note re: RFCs.  It is worth remembering that just as IETF was spinning up
> > (and the workload was quite big -- IETF 11's proceedings lists 10 active
> > specs for things like Host Requirements, the first MIB, PPP, OSPF and an
> > EGP successor) the RFC series was sputtering.  It produced about 25 RFCs
> in
> > 1986 and a similar number in 1987.  It was clear the IETF was going to
> more
> > than double that annual total -- in other words, IETF product would soon
> > dominate the RFC series. The IAB (and Jon P) wanted to retain control of
> > RFCs and protocols deemed part of the Internet architecture.  This
> created
> > a potential dilemma - if the IETF created its own document series, so
> RFCs
> > only saw final versions of specifications, that met Jon's need to not
> > publish ephemeral stuff, but raised the possibility that the IETF could
> > weaponize its document series to undermine RFCs if specs did not mature
> to
> > RFC status after IETF felt they were ready.
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 9:58?AM Matt Mathis via Internet-history <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> >> One key development (that predates me, so I can't provide details) was
> the
> >> codification (and evolution) of the Internet Draft and RFC processes.
>   I
> >> believe that finding the right balance between ease of contribution,
> >> permanence and implied or explicit (non)authority, embodied by the use
> of
> >> the name "Request For Comments" was as important as any individual
> >> technical detail.   The publication process substantially inspired the
> >> culture of the IETF (or perhaps vice-versa), which is what enabled
> >> collaborative engineering between nominally competing organizations.
> >>
> >> As far as I know RFCs were the first ever self published archival
> series of
> >> documents.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> --MM--
> >> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use
> force to
> >> apply it to others.
> >> -------------------------------------------
> >> Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
> >> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 6:09?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
> >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 12/18/25 12:21 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> >>>> And some of us thought, it was the continuation of building a
> >>> resource-sharing network.  ;-)
> >>>
> >>> In the mid 1980's I spent a year or more at the Livermore Labs working
> >>> on the MFE (magnetic confinement fusion energy) project. (Playing
> tennis
> >>> with a multi-million degree ball of plasma as the ball was kinda fun.)
> >>>
> >>> I wasn't involved in the networking part but I certainly overheard a
> lot
> >>> of expressed desire to share not only our simulations and measurements
> >>> (we had a couple of seriously-gigantic fusion vessels across the road
> >>> from my office) as well as our boatload of Cray machines and data
> >>> libraries.
> >>>
> >>> The folks at the labs were pretty good a jury rigging things and it is
> >>> my understanding that they created some duct-tape-and-bailing-wire
> >>> systems to do that kind of sharing.
> >>>
> >>> Also, in the 1970's when I was at SDC I heard many tales about the Q7
> >>> and Q32 computers, and the desire to time share the latter among
> >>> research institutions.  But I have no real memory of what was said in
> >>> those tales.
> >>>
> >>>       --karl--
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Internet-history mailing list
> >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >>> -
> >>> Unsubscribe:
> >>>
> >>
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Internet-history mailing list
> >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >> -
> >> Unsubscribe:
> >>
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> >>
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2025 17:59:54 -0500
> From: Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net>
> To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
> Cc: Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com>,
>         internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
> Message-ID:
>         <CAHQj4CcE-cGWNb_=
> MQ_WaCzafYLb5cv488uaCtSbngPCpzcq3A at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
>
> On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 4:18?PM Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Craig,
> >
> > That's very interesting. A few questions:
> >
> > 1. When exactly were I-Ds invented? (I know that it was no later than
> > September 1989, see #3 below.)
> >
>
> Phill Gross announced them to IETF in January 1989 (IETF 13 proceedings,
> introduction).
>
>
> >
> > 2. Is it true to say that the de facto standard tool for producing early
> > I-Ds was nroff?
> >
>
> Yes, Jon Postel had an nroff to RFC format script which we all used.
>
>
> >
> > (In 1994 when I wrote my first I-D, somebody -- very likely Scott Bradner
> > -- sent me an nroff template, and I went on using it until XML2RFC first
> > appeared.)
> >
> > 3. Who invented the formal expiry for I-Ds?
> >
>
> I believe it was Phill Gross, in one of Phill's standard ways of solving a
> problem, which is, once he established that people wanted I-Ds to expire
> (so they couldn't be cited as active standards) he talked with a bunch of
> folks and came up with a compromise number.  In his January '89 memo it was
> 6 months. (Someone must have pushed hard to make it 3 months in RFC1120,
> only to realize that Phill's initial sense of the solution was right).
> Originally, I-Ds were to be discarded from the I-D repository (the idea
> being they were ephemeral -- that ended after folks realized that proving
> the WG came up with idea III on date DDD to pre-empt patent claims was
> important).
>
>
> >
> > (It was first documented in RFC 1120 (Sept 1989) as far as I can tell,
> > except that it was 3 months then, updated to "3-6 months" in RFC 1160,
> and
> > codified as 6 months in RFC 1310.)
> >
> > Incidentally, I think that RFC 1120 must have been the first RFC that
> > documented the IETF standards process in any way.
> >
>
> Sounds likely!
>
> Craig
>
> >
> > Regards/Ng? mihi
> >     Brian Carpenter
> >
> > On 26-Dec-25 09:19, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote:
> > > Hey Matt:
> > >
> > > Your note brought up a flood of memories about creating the
> > Internet-Draft
> > > series.  I don't think I've seen a history of the series and its
> > creation,
> > > so I thought I'd dump my memories -- combined with some fact checking
> in
> > > IETF reports.
> > >
> > > Very quickly in the IETF's development, it became clear that it was
> > > generating a large number of *interim* technical documents.  E.g.
> before
> > > each IETF meeting, a WG would typically produce a "latest draft" of
> > > whatever specification(s) it was working on, so they could be
> discussed.
> > > People wanted those drafts in a central spot, rather than just mailed
> to
> > a
> > > WG, so they could figure out which WG meetings were the highest
> priority
> > to
> > > attend during the IETF week.  Also, some documents were becoming big
> > (100s
> > > of pages), an issue in a time of small disks which limited the size of
> > > emails.  So, it became clear a document series/repository/something
> else
> > > was needed.
> > >
> > > As I recall, the initial ideas bounced around were to use the RFC
> series
> > or
> > > revive IENs (Internet Engineering Notes so a logical series for the
> > > Internet Enginering Task Force).  Both were swiftly shot down.  Jon
> > Postel
> > > and Joyce Reynolds did not want to place a flood of often
> partial-drafts
> > of
> > > technical specs into the RFC series, nor deal with the tight timeframes
> > > (e.g. dozens of specs that all had to be published showing up a week
> > before
> > > IETF meetings). For whatever reason, IENs were also declared off
> limits.
> > >
> > > So Phill Gross, as chair of IETF, created a document series called
> IDEAS
> > > (announced at IETF 8 in NCAR in late 1987).  This produced pushback [my
> > > recollection here].  People wanted the IETF drafts to be ephemeral
> (fear
> > > that people would start claiming conformance to IDEA ### rather than
> > RFCs,
> > > etc) and various other issues (which I only recall vaguely -- one
> issue,
> > I
> > > believe, was the IAB was concerned this had the potential to end-run
> RFCs
> > > [see Note]).  As I recall, intellectual property issues were barely
> > touched
> > > on. People realized things were being invented in WG meetings, but
> > > documenting them for posterity was not yet uppermost in folks' thoughts
> > --
> > > thus the notion IETF documents could be ephemeral and would expire.
> > >
> > > As late as IETF 11 (Ann Arbor, late 1988), there was still no document
> > > series in place -- IDEAS were sorta there (about a dozen ever existed),
> > but
> > > not quite.  I note that Karen Bowers, a no nonsense, ex-military (?)
> > person
> > > was brought in to manage many aspects of IETF including its documents
> > > around the time of IETF 11.  The fact that a year had passed and there
> > was
> > > still no solution tells you the level of background discussions about
> how
> > > to create the needed document series.  Indeed, the cover note in IETF
> 11
> > > says, essentially, if you want to figure out where a WG is on its
> > drafting
> > > of spec, contact Karen (!?!?!).  Remembering Karen's attitude on ad-hoc
> > > processes, I suspect she put some pressure on Phill and others to find
> a
> > > better answer ASAP.
> > >
> > > Then at IETF 12 (January 1989) the Internet-Drafts series was
> announced.
> > > It has many of the elements of today's series; standard names,
> expiration
> > > after 6 months, draft plastered all over the document, in a form that
> can
> > > easily become an RFC.
> > >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > > Note re: RFCs.  It is worth remembering that just as IETF was spinning
> up
> > > (and the workload was quite big -- IETF 11's proceedings lists 10
> active
> > > specs for things like Host Requirements, the first MIB, PPP, OSPF and
> an
> > > EGP successor) the RFC series was sputtering.  It produced about 25
> RFCs
> > in
> > > 1986 and a similar number in 1987.  It was clear the IETF was going to
> > more
> > > than double that annual total -- in other words, IETF product would
> soon
> > > dominate the RFC series. The IAB (and Jon P) wanted to retain control
> of
> > > RFCs and protocols deemed part of the Internet architecture.  This
> > created
> > > a potential dilemma - if the IETF created its own document series, so
> > RFCs
> > > only saw final versions of specifications, that met Jon's need to not
> > > publish ephemeral stuff, but raised the possibility that the IETF could
> > > weaponize its document series to undermine RFCs if specs did not mature
> > to
> > > RFC status after IETF felt they were ready.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 9:58?AM Matt Mathis via Internet-history <
> > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> One key development (that predates me, so I can't provide details) was
> > the
> > >> codification (and evolution) of the Internet Draft and RFC processes.
> >   I
> > >> believe that finding the right balance between ease of contribution,
> > >> permanence and implied or explicit (non)authority, embodied by the use
> > of
> > >> the name "Request For Comments" was as important as any individual
> > >> technical detail.   The publication process substantially inspired the
> > >> culture of the IETF (or perhaps vice-versa), which is what enabled
> > >> collaborative engineering between nominally competing organizations.
> > >>
> > >> As far as I know RFCs were the first ever self published archival
> > series of
> > >> documents.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> --MM--
> > >> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use
> > force to
> > >> apply it to others.
> > >> -------------------------------------------
> > >> Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
> > >> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 6:09?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
> > >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 12/18/25 12:21 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> > >>>> And some of us thought, it was the continuation of building a
> > >>> resource-sharing network.  ;-)
> > >>>
> > >>> In the mid 1980's I spent a year or more at the Livermore Labs
> working
> > >>> on the MFE (magnetic confinement fusion energy) project. (Playing
> > tennis
> > >>> with a multi-million degree ball of plasma as the ball was kinda
> fun.)
> > >>>
> > >>> I wasn't involved in the networking part but I certainly overheard a
> > lot
> > >>> of expressed desire to share not only our simulations and
> measurements
> > >>> (we had a couple of seriously-gigantic fusion vessels across the road
> > >>> from my office) as well as our boatload of Cray machines and data
> > >>> libraries.
> > >>>
> > >>> The folks at the labs were pretty good a jury rigging things and it
> is
> > >>> my understanding that they created some duct-tape-and-bailing-wire
> > >>> systems to do that kind of sharing.
> > >>>
> > >>> Also, in the 1970's when I was at SDC I heard many tales about the Q7
> > >>> and Q32 computers, and the desire to time share the latter among
> > >>> research institutions.  But I have no real memory of what was said in
> > >>> those tales.
> > >>>
> > >>>       --karl--
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Internet-history mailing list
> > >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > >>> -
> > >>> Unsubscribe:
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> > >>>
> > >> --
> > >> Internet-history mailing list
> > >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > >> -
> > >> Unsubscribe:
> > >>
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> *****
> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
> mailing lists.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 73, Issue 25
> ************************************************
>


From vgcerf at gmail.com  Fri Dec 26 01:24:55 2025
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2025 04:24:55 -0500
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025 (Craig Partridge)
In-Reply-To: <CAFrK2djPZX9LMWJxhsvJCQDhUhkajO7HX6EHKKc7fkVTn1es4Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.317.1766703613.29669.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <CAFrK2djPZX9LMWJxhsvJCQDhUhkajO7HX6EHKKc7fkVTn1es4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_U3O3vs0uRA5spF40UDwvPBOBbn3TByG5pTdWMLErd2mA@mail.gmail.com>

correct, IENs were Internet Experiment Notes
v


On Fri, Dec 26, 2025 at 12:20?AM John Shoch via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 3:00?PM <internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org>
> wrote:
> ....
> "As I recall, the initial ideas bounced around were to use the RFC series
> or
> revive IENs (Internet Engineering Notes so a logical series for the
> Internet Enginering Task Force).  Both were swiftly shot down."
> ----------------
> A very minor point:  I am not familiar with IEN as "Internet Engineering
> Notes"
> There was the IEN series of "Internet Experiment Notes"..... spanning about
> 5 years of early work from July 1977 to Sept. 1982.
>
> There is a listing showing 212 IEN numbers were issued or reserved -- but
> not all of them seem to have actually been published:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien-index.html
>
> John
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 3:00?PM <internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Send Internet-history mailing list submissions to
> >         internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >         https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >         internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> >         internet-history-owner at elists.isoc.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Internet-history digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >    1. Re: History from 1960s to 2025 (Craig Partridge)
> >    2. Re: History from 1960s to 2025 (Brian E Carpenter)
> >    3. Re: History from 1960s to 2025 (Craig Partridge)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2025 15:19:42 -0500
> > From: Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net>
> > To: Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com>
> > Cc: internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > Subject: Re: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
> > Message-ID:
> >         <
> > CAHQj4CfV7T-O855qCHbpabatcoP8n8onqx+hdW6RDL7k-rBbzw at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > Hey Matt:
> >
> > Your note brought up a flood of memories about creating the
> Internet-Draft
> > series.  I don't think I've seen a history of the series and its
> creation,
> > so I thought I'd dump my memories -- combined with some fact checking in
> > IETF reports.
> >
> > Very quickly in the IETF's development, it became clear that it was
> > generating a large number of *interim* technical documents.  E.g. before
> > each IETF meeting, a WG would typically produce a "latest draft" of
> > whatever specification(s) it was working on, so they could be discussed.
> > People wanted those drafts in a central spot, rather than just mailed to
> a
> > WG, so they could figure out which WG meetings were the highest priority
> to
> > attend during the IETF week.  Also, some documents were becoming big
> (100s
> > of pages), an issue in a time of small disks which limited the size of
> > emails.  So, it became clear a document series/repository/something else
> > was needed.
> >
> > As I recall, the initial ideas bounced around were to use the RFC series
> or
> > revive IENs (Internet Engineering Notes so a logical series for the
> > Internet Enginering Task Force).  Both were swiftly shot down.  Jon
> Postel
> > and Joyce Reynolds did not want to place a flood of often partial-drafts
> of
> > technical specs into the RFC series, nor deal with the tight timeframes
> > (e.g. dozens of specs that all had to be published showing up a week
> before
> > IETF meetings). For whatever reason, IENs were also declared off limits.
> >
> > So Phill Gross, as chair of IETF, created a document series called IDEAS
> > (announced at IETF 8 in NCAR in late 1987).  This produced pushback [my
> > recollection here].  People wanted the IETF drafts to be ephemeral (fear
> > that people would start claiming conformance to IDEA ### rather than
> RFCs,
> > etc) and various other issues (which I only recall vaguely -- one issue,
> I
> > believe, was the IAB was concerned this had the potential to end-run RFCs
> > [see Note]).  As I recall, intellectual property issues were barely
> touched
> > on. People realized things were being invented in WG meetings, but
> > documenting them for posterity was not yet uppermost in folks' thoughts
> --
> > thus the notion IETF documents could be ephemeral and would expire.
> >
> > As late as IETF 11 (Ann Arbor, late 1988), there was still no document
> > series in place -- IDEAS were sorta there (about a dozen ever existed),
> but
> > not quite.  I note that Karen Bowers, a no nonsense, ex-military (?)
> person
> > was brought in to manage many aspects of IETF including its documents
> > around the time of IETF 11.  The fact that a year had passed and there
> was
> > still no solution tells you the level of background discussions about how
> > to create the needed document series.  Indeed, the cover note in IETF 11
> > says, essentially, if you want to figure out where a WG is on its
> drafting
> > of spec, contact Karen (!?!?!).  Remembering Karen's attitude on ad-hoc
> > processes, I suspect she put some pressure on Phill and others to find a
> > better answer ASAP.
> >
> > Then at IETF 12 (January 1989) the Internet-Drafts series was announced.
> > It has many of the elements of today's series; standard names, expiration
> > after 6 months, draft plastered all over the document, in a form that can
> > easily become an RFC.
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > Note re: RFCs.  It is worth remembering that just as IETF was spinning up
> > (and the workload was quite big -- IETF 11's proceedings lists 10 active
> > specs for things like Host Requirements, the first MIB, PPP, OSPF and an
> > EGP successor) the RFC series was sputtering.  It produced about 25 RFCs
> in
> > 1986 and a similar number in 1987.  It was clear the IETF was going to
> more
> > than double that annual total -- in other words, IETF product would soon
> > dominate the RFC series. The IAB (and Jon P) wanted to retain control of
> > RFCs and protocols deemed part of the Internet architecture.  This
> created
> > a potential dilemma - if the IETF created its own document series, so
> RFCs
> > only saw final versions of specifications, that met Jon's need to not
> > publish ephemeral stuff, but raised the possibility that the IETF could
> > weaponize its document series to undermine RFCs if specs did not mature
> to
> > RFC status after IETF felt they were ready.
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 9:58?AM Matt Mathis via Internet-history <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > > One key development (that predates me, so I can't provide details) was
> > the
> > > codification (and evolution) of the Internet Draft and RFC processes.
> > I
> > > believe that finding the right balance between ease of contribution,
> > > permanence and implied or explicit (non)authority, embodied by the use
> of
> > > the name "Request For Comments" was as important as any individual
> > > technical detail.   The publication process substantially inspired the
> > > culture of the IETF (or perhaps vice-versa), which is what enabled
> > > collaborative engineering between nominally competing organizations.
> > >
> > > As far as I know RFCs were the first ever self published archival
> series
> > of
> > > documents.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > --MM--
> > > Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use
> force
> > to
> > > apply it to others.
> > > -------------------------------------------
> > > Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
> > > Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 6:09?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
> > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On 12/18/25 12:21 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> > > > > And some of us thought, it was the continuation of building a
> > > > resource-sharing network.  ;-)
> > > >
> > > > In the mid 1980's I spent a year or more at the Livermore Labs
> working
> > > > on the MFE (magnetic confinement fusion energy) project. (Playing
> > tennis
> > > > with a multi-million degree ball of plasma as the ball was kinda
> fun.)
> > > >
> > > > I wasn't involved in the networking part but I certainly overheard a
> > lot
> > > > of expressed desire to share not only our simulations and
> measurements
> > > > (we had a couple of seriously-gigantic fusion vessels across the road
> > > > from my office) as well as our boatload of Cray machines and data
> > > > libraries.
> > > >
> > > > The folks at the labs were pretty good a jury rigging things and it
> is
> > > > my understanding that they created some duct-tape-and-bailing-wire
> > > > systems to do that kind of sharing.
> > > >
> > > > Also, in the 1970's when I was at SDC I heard many tales about the Q7
> > > > and Q32 computers, and the desire to time share the latter among
> > > > research institutions.  But I have no real memory of what was said in
> > > > those tales.
> > > >
> > > >      --karl--
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Internet-history mailing list
> > > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > > > -
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> > > >
> > > --
> > > Internet-history mailing list
> > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > > -
> > > Unsubscribe:
> > >
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *****
> > Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
> > mailing lists.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2025 10:18:28 +1300
> > From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
> > To: Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net>, Matt Mathis
> >         <matt.mathis at gmail.com>
> > Cc: internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > Subject: Re: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
> > Message-ID: <f0b6c604-92b0-4dd3-94e0-0680d5e1b1f8 at gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> >
> > Craig,
> >
> > That's very interesting. A few questions:
> >
> > 1. When exactly were I-Ds invented? (I know that it was no later than
> > September 1989, see #3 below.)
> >
> > 2. Is it true to say that the de facto standard tool for producing early
> > I-Ds was nroff?
> >
> > (In 1994 when I wrote my first I-D, somebody -- very likely Scott Bradner
> > -- sent me an nroff template, and I went on using it until XML2RFC first
> > appeared.)
> >
> > 3. Who invented the formal expiry for I-Ds?
> >
> > (It was first documented in RFC 1120 (Sept 1989) as far as I can tell,
> > except that it was 3 months then, updated to "3-6 months" in RFC 1160,
> and
> > codified as 6 months in RFC 1310.)
> >
> > Incidentally, I think that RFC 1120 must have been the first RFC that
> > documented the IETF standards process in any way.
> >
> > Regards/Ng? mihi
> >     Brian Carpenter
> >
> > On 26-Dec-25 09:19, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote:
> > > Hey Matt:
> > >
> > > Your note brought up a flood of memories about creating the
> > Internet-Draft
> > > series.  I don't think I've seen a history of the series and its
> > creation,
> > > so I thought I'd dump my memories -- combined with some fact checking
> in
> > > IETF reports.
> > >
> > > Very quickly in the IETF's development, it became clear that it was
> > > generating a large number of *interim* technical documents.  E.g.
> before
> > > each IETF meeting, a WG would typically produce a "latest draft" of
> > > whatever specification(s) it was working on, so they could be
> discussed.
> > > People wanted those drafts in a central spot, rather than just mailed
> to
> > a
> > > WG, so they could figure out which WG meetings were the highest
> priority
> > to
> > > attend during the IETF week.  Also, some documents were becoming big
> > (100s
> > > of pages), an issue in a time of small disks which limited the size of
> > > emails.  So, it became clear a document series/repository/something
> else
> > > was needed.
> > >
> > > As I recall, the initial ideas bounced around were to use the RFC
> series
> > or
> > > revive IENs (Internet Engineering Notes so a logical series for the
> > > Internet Enginering Task Force).  Both were swiftly shot down.  Jon
> > Postel
> > > and Joyce Reynolds did not want to place a flood of often
> partial-drafts
> > of
> > > technical specs into the RFC series, nor deal with the tight timeframes
> > > (e.g. dozens of specs that all had to be published showing up a week
> > before
> > > IETF meetings). For whatever reason, IENs were also declared off
> limits.
> > >
> > > So Phill Gross, as chair of IETF, created a document series called
> IDEAS
> > > (announced at IETF 8 in NCAR in late 1987).  This produced pushback [my
> > > recollection here].  People wanted the IETF drafts to be ephemeral
> (fear
> > > that people would start claiming conformance to IDEA ### rather than
> > RFCs,
> > > etc) and various other issues (which I only recall vaguely -- one
> issue,
> > I
> > > believe, was the IAB was concerned this had the potential to end-run
> RFCs
> > > [see Note]).  As I recall, intellectual property issues were barely
> > touched
> > > on. People realized things were being invented in WG meetings, but
> > > documenting them for posterity was not yet uppermost in folks' thoughts
> > --
> > > thus the notion IETF documents could be ephemeral and would expire.
> > >
> > > As late as IETF 11 (Ann Arbor, late 1988), there was still no document
> > > series in place -- IDEAS were sorta there (about a dozen ever existed),
> > but
> > > not quite.  I note that Karen Bowers, a no nonsense, ex-military (?)
> > person
> > > was brought in to manage many aspects of IETF including its documents
> > > around the time of IETF 11.  The fact that a year had passed and there
> > was
> > > still no solution tells you the level of background discussions about
> how
> > > to create the needed document series.  Indeed, the cover note in IETF
> 11
> > > says, essentially, if you want to figure out where a WG is on its
> > drafting
> > > of spec, contact Karen (!?!?!).  Remembering Karen's attitude on ad-hoc
> > > processes, I suspect she put some pressure on Phill and others to find
> a
> > > better answer ASAP.
> > >
> > > Then at IETF 12 (January 1989) the Internet-Drafts series was
> announced.
> > > It has many of the elements of today's series; standard names,
> expiration
> > > after 6 months, draft plastered all over the document, in a form that
> can
> > > easily become an RFC.
> > >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > > Note re: RFCs.  It is worth remembering that just as IETF was spinning
> up
> > > (and the workload was quite big -- IETF 11's proceedings lists 10
> active
> > > specs for things like Host Requirements, the first MIB, PPP, OSPF and
> an
> > > EGP successor) the RFC series was sputtering.  It produced about 25
> RFCs
> > in
> > > 1986 and a similar number in 1987.  It was clear the IETF was going to
> > more
> > > than double that annual total -- in other words, IETF product would
> soon
> > > dominate the RFC series. The IAB (and Jon P) wanted to retain control
> of
> > > RFCs and protocols deemed part of the Internet architecture.  This
> > created
> > > a potential dilemma - if the IETF created its own document series, so
> > RFCs
> > > only saw final versions of specifications, that met Jon's need to not
> > > publish ephemeral stuff, but raised the possibility that the IETF could
> > > weaponize its document series to undermine RFCs if specs did not mature
> > to
> > > RFC status after IETF felt they were ready.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 9:58?AM Matt Mathis via Internet-history <
> > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> One key development (that predates me, so I can't provide details) was
> > the
> > >> codification (and evolution) of the Internet Draft and RFC processes.
> >   I
> > >> believe that finding the right balance between ease of contribution,
> > >> permanence and implied or explicit (non)authority, embodied by the use
> > of
> > >> the name "Request For Comments" was as important as any individual
> > >> technical detail.   The publication process substantially inspired the
> > >> culture of the IETF (or perhaps vice-versa), which is what enabled
> > >> collaborative engineering between nominally competing organizations.
> > >>
> > >> As far as I know RFCs were the first ever self published archival
> > series of
> > >> documents.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> --MM--
> > >> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use
> > force to
> > >> apply it to others.
> > >> -------------------------------------------
> > >> Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
> > >> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 6:09?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
> > >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 12/18/25 12:21 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> > >>>> And some of us thought, it was the continuation of building a
> > >>> resource-sharing network.  ;-)
> > >>>
> > >>> In the mid 1980's I spent a year or more at the Livermore Labs
> working
> > >>> on the MFE (magnetic confinement fusion energy) project. (Playing
> > tennis
> > >>> with a multi-million degree ball of plasma as the ball was kinda
> fun.)
> > >>>
> > >>> I wasn't involved in the networking part but I certainly overheard a
> > lot
> > >>> of expressed desire to share not only our simulations and
> measurements
> > >>> (we had a couple of seriously-gigantic fusion vessels across the road
> > >>> from my office) as well as our boatload of Cray machines and data
> > >>> libraries.
> > >>>
> > >>> The folks at the labs were pretty good a jury rigging things and it
> is
> > >>> my understanding that they created some duct-tape-and-bailing-wire
> > >>> systems to do that kind of sharing.
> > >>>
> > >>> Also, in the 1970's when I was at SDC I heard many tales about the Q7
> > >>> and Q32 computers, and the desire to time share the latter among
> > >>> research institutions.  But I have no real memory of what was said in
> > >>> those tales.
> > >>>
> > >>>       --karl--
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Internet-history mailing list
> > >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > >>> -
> > >>> Unsubscribe:
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> > >>>
> > >> --
> > >> Internet-history mailing list
> > >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > >> -
> > >> Unsubscribe:
> > >>
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2025 17:59:54 -0500
> > From: Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net>
> > To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
> > Cc: Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com>,
> >         internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > Subject: Re: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
> > Message-ID:
> >         <CAHQj4CcE-cGWNb_=
> > MQ_WaCzafYLb5cv488uaCtSbngPCpzcq3A at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 4:18?PM Brian E Carpenter <
> > brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Craig,
> > >
> > > That's very interesting. A few questions:
> > >
> > > 1. When exactly were I-Ds invented? (I know that it was no later than
> > > September 1989, see #3 below.)
> > >
> >
> > Phill Gross announced them to IETF in January 1989 (IETF 13 proceedings,
> > introduction).
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 2. Is it true to say that the de facto standard tool for producing
> early
> > > I-Ds was nroff?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, Jon Postel had an nroff to RFC format script which we all used.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > (In 1994 when I wrote my first I-D, somebody -- very likely Scott
> Bradner
> > > -- sent me an nroff template, and I went on using it until XML2RFC
> first
> > > appeared.)
> > >
> > > 3. Who invented the formal expiry for I-Ds?
> > >
> >
> > I believe it was Phill Gross, in one of Phill's standard ways of solving
> a
> > problem, which is, once he established that people wanted I-Ds to expire
> > (so they couldn't be cited as active standards) he talked with a bunch of
> > folks and came up with a compromise number.  In his January '89 memo it
> was
> > 6 months. (Someone must have pushed hard to make it 3 months in RFC1120,
> > only to realize that Phill's initial sense of the solution was right).
> > Originally, I-Ds were to be discarded from the I-D repository (the idea
> > being they were ephemeral -- that ended after folks realized that proving
> > the WG came up with idea III on date DDD to pre-empt patent claims was
> > important).
> >
> >
> > >
> > > (It was first documented in RFC 1120 (Sept 1989) as far as I can tell,
> > > except that it was 3 months then, updated to "3-6 months" in RFC 1160,
> > and
> > > codified as 6 months in RFC 1310.)
> > >
> > > Incidentally, I think that RFC 1120 must have been the first RFC that
> > > documented the IETF standards process in any way.
> > >
> >
> > Sounds likely!
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > >
> > > Regards/Ng? mihi
> > >     Brian Carpenter
> > >
> > > On 26-Dec-25 09:19, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote:
> > > > Hey Matt:
> > > >
> > > > Your note brought up a flood of memories about creating the
> > > Internet-Draft
> > > > series.  I don't think I've seen a history of the series and its
> > > creation,
> > > > so I thought I'd dump my memories -- combined with some fact checking
> > in
> > > > IETF reports.
> > > >
> > > > Very quickly in the IETF's development, it became clear that it was
> > > > generating a large number of *interim* technical documents.  E.g.
> > before
> > > > each IETF meeting, a WG would typically produce a "latest draft" of
> > > > whatever specification(s) it was working on, so they could be
> > discussed.
> > > > People wanted those drafts in a central spot, rather than just mailed
> > to
> > > a
> > > > WG, so they could figure out which WG meetings were the highest
> > priority
> > > to
> > > > attend during the IETF week.  Also, some documents were becoming big
> > > (100s
> > > > of pages), an issue in a time of small disks which limited the size
> of
> > > > emails.  So, it became clear a document series/repository/something
> > else
> > > > was needed.
> > > >
> > > > As I recall, the initial ideas bounced around were to use the RFC
> > series
> > > or
> > > > revive IENs (Internet Engineering Notes so a logical series for the
> > > > Internet Enginering Task Force).  Both were swiftly shot down.  Jon
> > > Postel
> > > > and Joyce Reynolds did not want to place a flood of often
> > partial-drafts
> > > of
> > > > technical specs into the RFC series, nor deal with the tight
> timeframes
> > > > (e.g. dozens of specs that all had to be published showing up a week
> > > before
> > > > IETF meetings). For whatever reason, IENs were also declared off
> > limits.
> > > >
> > > > So Phill Gross, as chair of IETF, created a document series called
> > IDEAS
> > > > (announced at IETF 8 in NCAR in late 1987).  This produced pushback
> [my
> > > > recollection here].  People wanted the IETF drafts to be ephemeral
> > (fear
> > > > that people would start claiming conformance to IDEA ### rather than
> > > RFCs,
> > > > etc) and various other issues (which I only recall vaguely -- one
> > issue,
> > > I
> > > > believe, was the IAB was concerned this had the potential to end-run
> > RFCs
> > > > [see Note]).  As I recall, intellectual property issues were barely
> > > touched
> > > > on. People realized things were being invented in WG meetings, but
> > > > documenting them for posterity was not yet uppermost in folks'
> thoughts
> > > --
> > > > thus the notion IETF documents could be ephemeral and would expire.
> > > >
> > > > As late as IETF 11 (Ann Arbor, late 1988), there was still no
> document
> > > > series in place -- IDEAS were sorta there (about a dozen ever
> existed),
> > > but
> > > > not quite.  I note that Karen Bowers, a no nonsense, ex-military (?)
> > > person
> > > > was brought in to manage many aspects of IETF including its documents
> > > > around the time of IETF 11.  The fact that a year had passed and
> there
> > > was
> > > > still no solution tells you the level of background discussions about
> > how
> > > > to create the needed document series.  Indeed, the cover note in IETF
> > 11
> > > > says, essentially, if you want to figure out where a WG is on its
> > > drafting
> > > > of spec, contact Karen (!?!?!).  Remembering Karen's attitude on
> ad-hoc
> > > > processes, I suspect she put some pressure on Phill and others to
> find
> > a
> > > > better answer ASAP.
> > > >
> > > > Then at IETF 12 (January 1989) the Internet-Drafts series was
> > announced.
> > > > It has many of the elements of today's series; standard names,
> > expiration
> > > > after 6 months, draft plastered all over the document, in a form that
> > can
> > > > easily become an RFC.
> > > >
> > > > Craig
> > > >
> > > > Note re: RFCs.  It is worth remembering that just as IETF was
> spinning
> > up
> > > > (and the workload was quite big -- IETF 11's proceedings lists 10
> > active
> > > > specs for things like Host Requirements, the first MIB, PPP, OSPF and
> > an
> > > > EGP successor) the RFC series was sputtering.  It produced about 25
> > RFCs
> > > in
> > > > 1986 and a similar number in 1987.  It was clear the IETF was going
> to
> > > more
> > > > than double that annual total -- in other words, IETF product would
> > soon
> > > > dominate the RFC series. The IAB (and Jon P) wanted to retain control
> > of
> > > > RFCs and protocols deemed part of the Internet architecture.  This
> > > created
> > > > a potential dilemma - if the IETF created its own document series, so
> > > RFCs
> > > > only saw final versions of specifications, that met Jon's need to not
> > > > publish ephemeral stuff, but raised the possibility that the IETF
> could
> > > > weaponize its document series to undermine RFCs if specs did not
> mature
> > > to
> > > > RFC status after IETF felt they were ready.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 9:58?AM Matt Mathis via Internet-history <
> > > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> One key development (that predates me, so I can't provide details)
> was
> > > the
> > > >> codification (and evolution) of the Internet Draft and RFC
> processes.
> > >   I
> > > >> believe that finding the right balance between ease of contribution,
> > > >> permanence and implied or explicit (non)authority, embodied by the
> use
> > > of
> > > >> the name "Request For Comments" was as important as any individual
> > > >> technical detail.   The publication process substantially inspired
> the
> > > >> culture of the IETF (or perhaps vice-versa), which is what enabled
> > > >> collaborative engineering between nominally competing organizations.
> > > >>
> > > >> As far as I know RFCs were the first ever self published archival
> > > series of
> > > >> documents.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> --MM--
> > > >> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use
> > > force to
> > > >> apply it to others.
> > > >> -------------------------------------------
> > > >> Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
> > > >> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 6:09?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
> > > >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 12/18/25 12:21 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> > > >>>> And some of us thought, it was the continuation of building a
> > > >>> resource-sharing network.  ;-)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> In the mid 1980's I spent a year or more at the Livermore Labs
> > working
> > > >>> on the MFE (magnetic confinement fusion energy) project. (Playing
> > > tennis
> > > >>> with a multi-million degree ball of plasma as the ball was kinda
> > fun.)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I wasn't involved in the networking part but I certainly overheard
> a
> > > lot
> > > >>> of expressed desire to share not only our simulations and
> > measurements
> > > >>> (we had a couple of seriously-gigantic fusion vessels across the
> road
> > > >>> from my office) as well as our boatload of Cray machines and data
> > > >>> libraries.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The folks at the labs were pretty good a jury rigging things and it
> > is
> > > >>> my understanding that they created some duct-tape-and-bailing-wire
> > > >>> systems to do that kind of sharing.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Also, in the 1970's when I was at SDC I heard many tales about the
> Q7
> > > >>> and Q32 computers, and the desire to time share the latter among
> > > >>> research institutions.  But I have no real memory of what was said
> in
> > > >>> those tales.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>       --karl--
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Internet-history mailing list
> > > >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > > >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > > >>> -
> > > >>> Unsubscribe:
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> > > >>>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Internet-history mailing list
> > > >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > > >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > > >> -
> > > >> Unsubscribe:
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *****
> > Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
> > mailing lists.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Subject: Digest Footer
> >
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > -
> > Unsubscribe:
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 73, Issue 25
> > ************************************************
> >
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>


From craig at tereschau.net  Fri Dec 26 04:12:48 2025
From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:12:48 -0500
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025 (Craig Partridge)
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_U3O3vs0uRA5spF40UDwvPBOBbn3TByG5pTdWMLErd2mA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.317.1766703613.29669.internet-history@elists.isoc.org>
 <CAFrK2djPZX9LMWJxhsvJCQDhUhkajO7HX6EHKKc7fkVTn1es4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAFtm_U3O3vs0uRA5spF40UDwvPBOBbn3TByG5pTdWMLErd2mA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHQj4CdZj-PStf+ZW3dW-yRgTm+4oFsstyHaLrJBpjWe+Shehw@mail.gmail.com>

Yep -- my bad memory.  I do recall reviving IENs was discussed briefly.
Craig

On Fri, Dec 26, 2025 at 4:25?AM vinton cerf via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> correct, IENs were Internet Experiment Notes
> v
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2025 at 12:20?AM John Shoch via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 3:00?PM <
> internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org>
> > wrote:
> > ....
> > "As I recall, the initial ideas bounced around were to use the RFC series
> > or
> > revive IENs (Internet Engineering Notes so a logical series for the
> > Internet Enginering Task Force).  Both were swiftly shot down."
> > ----------------
> > A very minor point:  I am not familiar with IEN as "Internet Engineering
> > Notes"
> > There was the IEN series of "Internet Experiment Notes"..... spanning
> about
> > 5 years of early work from July 1977 to Sept. 1982.
> >
> > There is a listing showing 212 IEN numbers were issued or reserved -- but
> > not all of them seem to have actually been published:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien-index.html
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 3:00?PM <
> internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Send Internet-history mailing list submissions to
> > >         internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > >
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > >         https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > >         internet-history-request at elists.isoc.org
> > >
> > > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > >         internet-history-owner at elists.isoc.org
> > >
> > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > > than "Re: Contents of Internet-history digest..."
> > >
> > >
> > > Today's Topics:
> > >
> > >    1. Re: History from 1960s to 2025 (Craig Partridge)
> > >    2. Re: History from 1960s to 2025 (Brian E Carpenter)
> > >    3. Re: History from 1960s to 2025 (Craig Partridge)
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2025 15:19:42 -0500
> > > From: Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net>
> > > To: Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com>
> > > Cc: internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > > Subject: Re: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
> > > Message-ID:
> > >         <
> > > CAHQj4CfV7T-O855qCHbpabatcoP8n8onqx+hdW6RDL7k-rBbzw at mail.gmail.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> > >
> > > Hey Matt:
> > >
> > > Your note brought up a flood of memories about creating the
> > Internet-Draft
> > > series.  I don't think I've seen a history of the series and its
> > creation,
> > > so I thought I'd dump my memories -- combined with some fact checking
> in
> > > IETF reports.
> > >
> > > Very quickly in the IETF's development, it became clear that it was
> > > generating a large number of *interim* technical documents.  E.g.
> before
> > > each IETF meeting, a WG would typically produce a "latest draft" of
> > > whatever specification(s) it was working on, so they could be
> discussed.
> > > People wanted those drafts in a central spot, rather than just mailed
> to
> > a
> > > WG, so they could figure out which WG meetings were the highest
> priority
> > to
> > > attend during the IETF week.  Also, some documents were becoming big
> > (100s
> > > of pages), an issue in a time of small disks which limited the size of
> > > emails.  So, it became clear a document series/repository/something
> else
> > > was needed.
> > >
> > > As I recall, the initial ideas bounced around were to use the RFC
> series
> > or
> > > revive IENs (Internet Engineering Notes so a logical series for the
> > > Internet Enginering Task Force).  Both were swiftly shot down.  Jon
> > Postel
> > > and Joyce Reynolds did not want to place a flood of often
> partial-drafts
> > of
> > > technical specs into the RFC series, nor deal with the tight timeframes
> > > (e.g. dozens of specs that all had to be published showing up a week
> > before
> > > IETF meetings). For whatever reason, IENs were also declared off
> limits.
> > >
> > > So Phill Gross, as chair of IETF, created a document series called
> IDEAS
> > > (announced at IETF 8 in NCAR in late 1987).  This produced pushback [my
> > > recollection here].  People wanted the IETF drafts to be ephemeral
> (fear
> > > that people would start claiming conformance to IDEA ### rather than
> > RFCs,
> > > etc) and various other issues (which I only recall vaguely -- one
> issue,
> > I
> > > believe, was the IAB was concerned this had the potential to end-run
> RFCs
> > > [see Note]).  As I recall, intellectual property issues were barely
> > touched
> > > on. People realized things were being invented in WG meetings, but
> > > documenting them for posterity was not yet uppermost in folks' thoughts
> > --
> > > thus the notion IETF documents could be ephemeral and would expire.
> > >
> > > As late as IETF 11 (Ann Arbor, late 1988), there was still no document
> > > series in place -- IDEAS were sorta there (about a dozen ever existed),
> > but
> > > not quite.  I note that Karen Bowers, a no nonsense, ex-military (?)
> > person
> > > was brought in to manage many aspects of IETF including its documents
> > > around the time of IETF 11.  The fact that a year had passed and there
> > was
> > > still no solution tells you the level of background discussions about
> how
> > > to create the needed document series.  Indeed, the cover note in IETF
> 11
> > > says, essentially, if you want to figure out where a WG is on its
> > drafting
> > > of spec, contact Karen (!?!?!).  Remembering Karen's attitude on ad-hoc
> > > processes, I suspect she put some pressure on Phill and others to find
> a
> > > better answer ASAP.
> > >
> > > Then at IETF 12 (January 1989) the Internet-Drafts series was
> announced.
> > > It has many of the elements of today's series; standard names,
> expiration
> > > after 6 months, draft plastered all over the document, in a form that
> can
> > > easily become an RFC.
> > >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > > Note re: RFCs.  It is worth remembering that just as IETF was spinning
> up
> > > (and the workload was quite big -- IETF 11's proceedings lists 10
> active
> > > specs for things like Host Requirements, the first MIB, PPP, OSPF and
> an
> > > EGP successor) the RFC series was sputtering.  It produced about 25
> RFCs
> > in
> > > 1986 and a similar number in 1987.  It was clear the IETF was going to
> > more
> > > than double that annual total -- in other words, IETF product would
> soon
> > > dominate the RFC series. The IAB (and Jon P) wanted to retain control
> of
> > > RFCs and protocols deemed part of the Internet architecture.  This
> > created
> > > a potential dilemma - if the IETF created its own document series, so
> > RFCs
> > > only saw final versions of specifications, that met Jon's need to not
> > > publish ephemeral stuff, but raised the possibility that the IETF could
> > > weaponize its document series to undermine RFCs if specs did not mature
> > to
> > > RFC status after IETF felt they were ready.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 9:58?AM Matt Mathis via Internet-history <
> > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > One key development (that predates me, so I can't provide details)
> was
> > > the
> > > > codification (and evolution) of the Internet Draft and RFC processes.
> > > I
> > > > believe that finding the right balance between ease of contribution,
> > > > permanence and implied or explicit (non)authority, embodied by the
> use
> > of
> > > > the name "Request For Comments" was as important as any individual
> > > > technical detail.   The publication process substantially inspired
> the
> > > > culture of the IETF (or perhaps vice-versa), which is what enabled
> > > > collaborative engineering between nominally competing organizations.
> > > >
> > > > As far as I know RFCs were the first ever self published archival
> > series
> > > of
> > > > documents.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > --MM--
> > > > Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use
> > force
> > > to
> > > > apply it to others.
> > > > -------------------------------------------
> > > > Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
> > > > Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 6:09?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
> > > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/18/25 12:21 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> > > > > > And some of us thought, it was the continuation of building a
> > > > > resource-sharing network.  ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > In the mid 1980's I spent a year or more at the Livermore Labs
> > working
> > > > > on the MFE (magnetic confinement fusion energy) project. (Playing
> > > tennis
> > > > > with a multi-million degree ball of plasma as the ball was kinda
> > fun.)
> > > > >
> > > > > I wasn't involved in the networking part but I certainly overheard
> a
> > > lot
> > > > > of expressed desire to share not only our simulations and
> > measurements
> > > > > (we had a couple of seriously-gigantic fusion vessels across the
> road
> > > > > from my office) as well as our boatload of Cray machines and data
> > > > > libraries.
> > > > >
> > > > > The folks at the labs were pretty good a jury rigging things and it
> > is
> > > > > my understanding that they created some duct-tape-and-bailing-wire
> > > > > systems to do that kind of sharing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, in the 1970's when I was at SDC I heard many tales about the
> Q7
> > > > > and Q32 computers, and the desire to time share the latter among
> > > > > research institutions.  But I have no real memory of what was said
> in
> > > > > those tales.
> > > > >
> > > > >      --karl--
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Internet-history mailing list
> > > > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > > > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > > > > -
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> > > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Internet-history mailing list
> > > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > > > -
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *****
> > > Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
> > > mailing lists.
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 2
> > > Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2025 10:18:28 +1300
> > > From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
> > > To: Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net>, Matt Mathis
> > >         <matt.mathis at gmail.com>
> > > Cc: internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > > Subject: Re: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
> > > Message-ID: <f0b6c604-92b0-4dd3-94e0-0680d5e1b1f8 at gmail.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> > >
> > > Craig,
> > >
> > > That's very interesting. A few questions:
> > >
> > > 1. When exactly were I-Ds invented? (I know that it was no later than
> > > September 1989, see #3 below.)
> > >
> > > 2. Is it true to say that the de facto standard tool for producing
> early
> > > I-Ds was nroff?
> > >
> > > (In 1994 when I wrote my first I-D, somebody -- very likely Scott
> Bradner
> > > -- sent me an nroff template, and I went on using it until XML2RFC
> first
> > > appeared.)
> > >
> > > 3. Who invented the formal expiry for I-Ds?
> > >
> > > (It was first documented in RFC 1120 (Sept 1989) as far as I can tell,
> > > except that it was 3 months then, updated to "3-6 months" in RFC 1160,
> > and
> > > codified as 6 months in RFC 1310.)
> > >
> > > Incidentally, I think that RFC 1120 must have been the first RFC that
> > > documented the IETF standards process in any way.
> > >
> > > Regards/Ng? mihi
> > >     Brian Carpenter
> > >
> > > On 26-Dec-25 09:19, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote:
> > > > Hey Matt:
> > > >
> > > > Your note brought up a flood of memories about creating the
> > > Internet-Draft
> > > > series.  I don't think I've seen a history of the series and its
> > > creation,
> > > > so I thought I'd dump my memories -- combined with some fact checking
> > in
> > > > IETF reports.
> > > >
> > > > Very quickly in the IETF's development, it became clear that it was
> > > > generating a large number of *interim* technical documents.  E.g.
> > before
> > > > each IETF meeting, a WG would typically produce a "latest draft" of
> > > > whatever specification(s) it was working on, so they could be
> > discussed.
> > > > People wanted those drafts in a central spot, rather than just mailed
> > to
> > > a
> > > > WG, so they could figure out which WG meetings were the highest
> > priority
> > > to
> > > > attend during the IETF week.  Also, some documents were becoming big
> > > (100s
> > > > of pages), an issue in a time of small disks which limited the size
> of
> > > > emails.  So, it became clear a document series/repository/something
> > else
> > > > was needed.
> > > >
> > > > As I recall, the initial ideas bounced around were to use the RFC
> > series
> > > or
> > > > revive IENs (Internet Engineering Notes so a logical series for the
> > > > Internet Enginering Task Force).  Both were swiftly shot down.  Jon
> > > Postel
> > > > and Joyce Reynolds did not want to place a flood of often
> > partial-drafts
> > > of
> > > > technical specs into the RFC series, nor deal with the tight
> timeframes
> > > > (e.g. dozens of specs that all had to be published showing up a week
> > > before
> > > > IETF meetings). For whatever reason, IENs were also declared off
> > limits.
> > > >
> > > > So Phill Gross, as chair of IETF, created a document series called
> > IDEAS
> > > > (announced at IETF 8 in NCAR in late 1987).  This produced pushback
> [my
> > > > recollection here].  People wanted the IETF drafts to be ephemeral
> > (fear
> > > > that people would start claiming conformance to IDEA ### rather than
> > > RFCs,
> > > > etc) and various other issues (which I only recall vaguely -- one
> > issue,
> > > I
> > > > believe, was the IAB was concerned this had the potential to end-run
> > RFCs
> > > > [see Note]).  As I recall, intellectual property issues were barely
> > > touched
> > > > on. People realized things were being invented in WG meetings, but
> > > > documenting them for posterity was not yet uppermost in folks'
> thoughts
> > > --
> > > > thus the notion IETF documents could be ephemeral and would expire.
> > > >
> > > > As late as IETF 11 (Ann Arbor, late 1988), there was still no
> document
> > > > series in place -- IDEAS were sorta there (about a dozen ever
> existed),
> > > but
> > > > not quite.  I note that Karen Bowers, a no nonsense, ex-military (?)
> > > person
> > > > was brought in to manage many aspects of IETF including its documents
> > > > around the time of IETF 11.  The fact that a year had passed and
> there
> > > was
> > > > still no solution tells you the level of background discussions about
> > how
> > > > to create the needed document series.  Indeed, the cover note in IETF
> > 11
> > > > says, essentially, if you want to figure out where a WG is on its
> > > drafting
> > > > of spec, contact Karen (!?!?!).  Remembering Karen's attitude on
> ad-hoc
> > > > processes, I suspect she put some pressure on Phill and others to
> find
> > a
> > > > better answer ASAP.
> > > >
> > > > Then at IETF 12 (January 1989) the Internet-Drafts series was
> > announced.
> > > > It has many of the elements of today's series; standard names,
> > expiration
> > > > after 6 months, draft plastered all over the document, in a form that
> > can
> > > > easily become an RFC.
> > > >
> > > > Craig
> > > >
> > > > Note re: RFCs.  It is worth remembering that just as IETF was
> spinning
> > up
> > > > (and the workload was quite big -- IETF 11's proceedings lists 10
> > active
> > > > specs for things like Host Requirements, the first MIB, PPP, OSPF and
> > an
> > > > EGP successor) the RFC series was sputtering.  It produced about 25
> > RFCs
> > > in
> > > > 1986 and a similar number in 1987.  It was clear the IETF was going
> to
> > > more
> > > > than double that annual total -- in other words, IETF product would
> > soon
> > > > dominate the RFC series. The IAB (and Jon P) wanted to retain control
> > of
> > > > RFCs and protocols deemed part of the Internet architecture.  This
> > > created
> > > > a potential dilemma - if the IETF created its own document series, so
> > > RFCs
> > > > only saw final versions of specifications, that met Jon's need to not
> > > > publish ephemeral stuff, but raised the possibility that the IETF
> could
> > > > weaponize its document series to undermine RFCs if specs did not
> mature
> > > to
> > > > RFC status after IETF felt they were ready.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 9:58?AM Matt Mathis via Internet-history <
> > > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> One key development (that predates me, so I can't provide details)
> was
> > > the
> > > >> codification (and evolution) of the Internet Draft and RFC
> processes.
> > >   I
> > > >> believe that finding the right balance between ease of contribution,
> > > >> permanence and implied or explicit (non)authority, embodied by the
> use
> > > of
> > > >> the name "Request For Comments" was as important as any individual
> > > >> technical detail.   The publication process substantially inspired
> the
> > > >> culture of the IETF (or perhaps vice-versa), which is what enabled
> > > >> collaborative engineering between nominally competing organizations.
> > > >>
> > > >> As far as I know RFCs were the first ever self published archival
> > > series of
> > > >> documents.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> --MM--
> > > >> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use
> > > force to
> > > >> apply it to others.
> > > >> -------------------------------------------
> > > >> Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
> > > >> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 6:09?PM Karl Auerbach via Internet-history <
> > > >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 12/18/25 12:21 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> > > >>>> And some of us thought, it was the continuation of building a
> > > >>> resource-sharing network.  ;-)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> In the mid 1980's I spent a year or more at the Livermore Labs
> > working
> > > >>> on the MFE (magnetic confinement fusion energy) project. (Playing
> > > tennis
> > > >>> with a multi-million degree ball of plasma as the ball was kinda
> > fun.)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I wasn't involved in the networking part but I certainly overheard
> a
> > > lot
> > > >>> of expressed desire to share not only our simulations and
> > measurements
> > > >>> (we had a couple of seriously-gigantic fusion vessels across the
> road
> > > >>> from my office) as well as our boatload of Cray machines and data
> > > >>> libraries.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The folks at the labs were pretty good a jury rigging things and it
> > is
> > > >>> my understanding that they created some duct-tape-and-bailing-wire
> > > >>> systems to do that kind of sharing.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Also, in the 1970's when I was at SDC I heard many tales about the
> Q7
> > > >>> and Q32 computers, and the desire to time share the latter among
> > > >>> research institutions.  But I have no real memory of what was said
> in
> > > >>> those tales.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>       --karl--
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Internet-history mailing list
> > > >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > > >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > > >>> -
> > > >>> Unsubscribe:
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> > > >>>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Internet-history mailing list
> > > >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > > >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > > >> -
> > > >> Unsubscribe:
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 3
> > > Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2025 17:59:54 -0500
> > > From: Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net>
> > > To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
> > > Cc: Matt Mathis <matt.mathis at gmail.com>,
> > >         internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > > Subject: Re: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
> > > Message-ID:
> > >         <CAHQj4CcE-cGWNb_=
> > > MQ_WaCzafYLb5cv488uaCtSbngPCpzcq3A at mail.gmail.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 4:18?PM Brian E Carpenter <
> > > brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Craig,
> > > >
> > > > That's very interesting. A few questions:
> > > >
> > > > 1. When exactly were I-Ds invented? (I know that it was no later than
> > > > September 1989, see #3 below.)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Phill Gross announced them to IETF in January 1989 (IETF 13
> proceedings,
> > > introduction).
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 2. Is it true to say that the de facto standard tool for producing
> > early
> > > > I-Ds was nroff?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, Jon Postel had an nroff to RFC format script which we all used.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > (In 1994 when I wrote my first I-D, somebody -- very likely Scott
> > Bradner
> > > > -- sent me an nroff template, and I went on using it until XML2RFC
> > first
> > > > appeared.)
> > > >
> > > > 3. Who invented the formal expiry for I-Ds?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I believe it was Phill Gross, in one of Phill's standard ways of
> solving
> > a
> > > problem, which is, once he established that people wanted I-Ds to
> expire
> > > (so they couldn't be cited as active standards) he talked with a bunch
> of
> > > folks and came up with a compromise number.  In his January '89 memo it
> > was
> > > 6 months. (Someone must have pushed hard to make it 3 months in
> RFC1120,
> > > only to realize that Phill's initial sense of the solution was right).
> > > Originally, I-Ds were to be discarded from the I-D repository (the idea
> > > being they were ephemeral -- that ended after folks realized that
> proving
> > > the WG came up with idea III on date DDD to pre-empt patent claims was
> > > important).
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > (It was first documented in RFC 1120 (Sept 1989) as far as I can
> tell,
> > > > except that it was 3 months then, updated to "3-6 months" in RFC
> 1160,
> > > and
> > > > codified as 6 months in RFC 1310.)
> > > >
> > > > Incidentally, I think that RFC 1120 must have been the first RFC that
> > > > documented the IETF standards process in any way.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sounds likely!
> > >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards/Ng? mihi
> > > >     Brian Carpenter
> > > >
> > > > On 26-Dec-25 09:19, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote:
> > > > > Hey Matt:
> > > > >
> > > > > Your note brought up a flood of memories about creating the
> > > > Internet-Draft
> > > > > series.  I don't think I've seen a history of the series and its
> > > > creation,
> > > > > so I thought I'd dump my memories -- combined with some fact
> checking
> > > in
> > > > > IETF reports.
> > > > >
> > > > > Very quickly in the IETF's development, it became clear that it was
> > > > > generating a large number of *interim* technical documents.  E.g.
> > > before
> > > > > each IETF meeting, a WG would typically produce a "latest draft" of
> > > > > whatever specification(s) it was working on, so they could be
> > > discussed.
> > > > > People wanted those drafts in a central spot, rather than just
> mailed
> > > to
> > > > a
> > > > > WG, so they could figure out which WG meetings were the highest
> > > priority
> > > > to
> > > > > attend during the IETF week.  Also, some documents were becoming
> big
> > > > (100s
> > > > > of pages), an issue in a time of small disks which limited the size
> > of
> > > > > emails.  So, it became clear a document series/repository/something
> > > else
> > > > > was needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > As I recall, the initial ideas bounced around were to use the RFC
> > > series
> > > > or
> > > > > revive IENs (Internet Engineering Notes so a logical series for the
> > > > > Internet Enginering Task Force).  Both were swiftly shot down.  Jon
> > > > Postel
> > > > > and Joyce Reynolds did not want to place a flood of often
> > > partial-drafts
> > > > of
> > > > > technical specs into the RFC series, nor deal with the tight
> > timeframes
> > > > > (e.g. dozens of specs that all had to be published showing up a
> week
> > > > before
> > > > > IETF meetings). For whatever reason, IENs were also declared off
> > > limits.
> > > > >
> > > > > So Phill Gross, as chair of IETF, created a document series called
> > > IDEAS
> > > > > (announced at IETF 8 in NCAR in late 1987).  This produced pushback
> > [my
> > > > > recollection here].  People wanted the IETF drafts to be ephemeral
> > > (fear
> > > > > that people would start claiming conformance to IDEA ### rather
> than
> > > > RFCs,
> > > > > etc) and various other issues (which I only recall vaguely -- one
> > > issue,
> > > > I
> > > > > believe, was the IAB was concerned this had the potential to
> end-run
> > > RFCs
> > > > > [see Note]).  As I recall, intellectual property issues were barely
> > > > touched
> > > > > on. People realized things were being invented in WG meetings, but
> > > > > documenting them for posterity was not yet uppermost in folks'
> > thoughts
> > > > --
> > > > > thus the notion IETF documents could be ephemeral and would expire.
> > > > >
> > > > > As late as IETF 11 (Ann Arbor, late 1988), there was still no
> > document
> > > > > series in place -- IDEAS were sorta there (about a dozen ever
> > existed),
> > > > but
> > > > > not quite.  I note that Karen Bowers, a no nonsense, ex-military
> (?)
> > > > person
> > > > > was brought in to manage many aspects of IETF including its
> documents
> > > > > around the time of IETF 11.  The fact that a year had passed and
> > there
> > > > was
> > > > > still no solution tells you the level of background discussions
> about
> > > how
> > > > > to create the needed document series.  Indeed, the cover note in
> IETF
> > > 11
> > > > > says, essentially, if you want to figure out where a WG is on its
> > > > drafting
> > > > > of spec, contact Karen (!?!?!).  Remembering Karen's attitude on
> > ad-hoc
> > > > > processes, I suspect she put some pressure on Phill and others to
> > find
> > > a
> > > > > better answer ASAP.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then at IETF 12 (January 1989) the Internet-Drafts series was
> > > announced.
> > > > > It has many of the elements of today's series; standard names,
> > > expiration
> > > > > after 6 months, draft plastered all over the document, in a form
> that
> > > can
> > > > > easily become an RFC.
> > > > >
> > > > > Craig
> > > > >
> > > > > Note re: RFCs.  It is worth remembering that just as IETF was
> > spinning
> > > up
> > > > > (and the workload was quite big -- IETF 11's proceedings lists 10
> > > active
> > > > > specs for things like Host Requirements, the first MIB, PPP, OSPF
> and
> > > an
> > > > > EGP successor) the RFC series was sputtering.  It produced about 25
> > > RFCs
> > > > in
> > > > > 1986 and a similar number in 1987.  It was clear the IETF was going
> > to
> > > > more
> > > > > than double that annual total -- in other words, IETF product would
> > > soon
> > > > > dominate the RFC series. The IAB (and Jon P) wanted to retain
> control
> > > of
> > > > > RFCs and protocols deemed part of the Internet architecture.  This
> > > > created
> > > > > a potential dilemma - if the IETF created its own document series,
> so
> > > > RFCs
> > > > > only saw final versions of specifications, that met Jon's need to
> not
> > > > > publish ephemeral stuff, but raised the possibility that the IETF
> > could
> > > > > weaponize its document series to undermine RFCs if specs did not
> > mature
> > > > to
> > > > > RFC status after IETF felt they were ready.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 9:58?AM Matt Mathis via Internet-history <
> > > > > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> One key development (that predates me, so I can't provide details)
> > was
> > > > the
> > > > >> codification (and evolution) of the Internet Draft and RFC
> > processes.
> > > >   I
> > > > >> believe that finding the right balance between ease of
> contribution,
> > > > >> permanence and implied or explicit (non)authority, embodied by the
> > use
> > > > of
> > > > >> the name "Request For Comments" was as important as any individual
> > > > >> technical detail.   The publication process substantially inspired
> > the
> > > > >> culture of the IETF (or perhaps vice-versa), which is what enabled
> > > > >> collaborative engineering between nominally competing
> organizations.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As far as I know RFCs were the first ever self published archival
> > > > series of
> > > > >> documents.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> --MM--
> > > > >> Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use
> > > > force to
> > > > >> apply it to others.
> > > > >> -------------------------------------------
> > > > >> Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
> > > > >> Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must
> call.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 6:09?PM Karl Auerbach via
> Internet-history <
> > > > >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On 12/18/25 12:21 PM, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> > > > >>>> And some of us thought, it was the continuation of building a
> > > > >>> resource-sharing network.  ;-)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> In the mid 1980's I spent a year or more at the Livermore Labs
> > > working
> > > > >>> on the MFE (magnetic confinement fusion energy) project. (Playing
> > > > tennis
> > > > >>> with a multi-million degree ball of plasma as the ball was kinda
> > > fun.)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I wasn't involved in the networking part but I certainly
> overheard
> > a
> > > > lot
> > > > >>> of expressed desire to share not only our simulations and
> > > measurements
> > > > >>> (we had a couple of seriously-gigantic fusion vessels across the
> > road
> > > > >>> from my office) as well as our boatload of Cray machines and data
> > > > >>> libraries.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> The folks at the labs were pretty good a jury rigging things and
> it
> > > is
> > > > >>> my understanding that they created some
> duct-tape-and-bailing-wire
> > > > >>> systems to do that kind of sharing.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Also, in the 1970's when I was at SDC I heard many tales about
> the
> > Q7
> > > > >>> and Q32 computers, and the desire to time share the latter among
> > > > >>> research institutions.  But I have no real memory of what was
> said
> > in
> > > > >>> those tales.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>       --karl--
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>> Internet-history mailing list
> > > > >>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > > > >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > > > >>> -
> > > > >>> Unsubscribe:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Internet-history mailing list
> > > > >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > > > >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > > > >> -
> > > > >> Unsubscribe:
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *****
> > > Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
> > > mailing lists.
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Subject: Digest Footer
> > >
> > > Internet-history mailing list
> > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > > -
> > > Unsubscribe:
> > >
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > End of Internet-history Digest, Vol 73, Issue 25
> > > ************************************************
> > >
> > --
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > -
> > Unsubscribe:
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> >
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>


-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Fri Dec 26 04:55:11 2025
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2025 12:55:11 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] Fw: History from 1960s to 2025 (role of NCAR and other
 labs)
In-Reply-To: <CAHQj4CeYAPpdTBrKmvdpKgBNNthgcupt1-YuQROCkSBeEcingA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <2d24492b-b261-415d-bebd-69c14050f77a@tamu.edu>
 <CAHQj4Cfgw7cVVM4y84SV8_5gEwnxk+UxQxL7W0nUNpqAX-FzfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <151317743.1970639.1766080526982@mail.yahoo.com>
 <CAMusaY-q73CJKUAk_YwTioUHO7AC0n3uWr9Nq3fa3ihCd0dCtw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHQj4CeYAPpdTBrKmvdpKgBNNthgcupt1-YuQROCkSBeEcingA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ba701e08-ff2e-48a4-97b2-9548aa00cc1c@dcrocker.net>

On 12/18/2025 10:36 AM, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote:
>     - Initially, NSF awarded CSNET to someone (I'm guessing UCAR) to oversee
>     two sites that created the initial CSNET - there were machines on both
>     sides of the US (I think one at Rand  on the west -- don't recall if east
>     coast was UDel or somewhere else -- Wisconsin was also involved?).


Larry Landweber, at U Wisconsin, collected several other universities to 
formulate a proposal to develop CSNet, as a collective activity to 
augment the Arpanet with cheaper access for other academic and research 
sites.? Since the proposal was about networking and NSF folk knew Dave 
Farber well, NSF sent him a copy (at U. Delaware) for commentary. I'd 
followed Dave to UDel, after working at Rand.? He gave me the proposal.? 
My assessment was that the idea of the proposal looked quite good but 
that none of the proposers had any networking experience.

NSF followed up with a meeting at the American Airlines Admirals Club in 
Philadelphia, with assorted notables attending, to discuss next steps.? 
Dave brought me along.? For some hours, the group learned that 
commercial networking was not yet as flexible at Arpanet, with almost no 
Host-Host services, and Telnet-like services were almost all that was 
available to customers.

Group frustration peaked with a question of what might be done, in the 
face of this.? Dave gave me a nod and I explained about dial-up email 
access to Arpanet.??I had MMDF operationally by then, which he'd gotten 
US Army Materiel Command funding for, since they too needed wider, 
cheaper networking access.

A new collective effort was formulated, with UDel applying MMDF and 
running the primary email relay, and Rand to be brought up as a second 
relay site.? UWisc was to do a directory service.? And Purdue was to 
develop an IP over X.25 driver.? Management of the project was conducted 
by a committee, comprising the PIs of the 4 sites.

The ISOC Postel Award was given to CSNet in 2009, at an IETF meeting.? 
Larry was down with an injury and I was asked to do the acceptance:

    *2009 ISOC Postel Award to CSNet*

    ? https://bbiw.net/recent.html#PostelCSNet
    <https://bbiw.net/recent.html#PostelCSNet>

    en.wikipedia.org

    CSNET - Wikipedia <#>

    ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSNET
    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSNET>

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker

Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social


From matt.mathis at gmail.com  Fri Dec 26 07:27:40 2025
From: matt.mathis at gmail.com (Matt Mathis)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2025 09:27:40 -0600
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <4e9f050c-959f-4581-9722-9171bdaae85a@gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aUPXndSDBewn9Sh8@noir.de> <37d703cc-246f-4bf8-90c7-56f7e5b41d13@gmail.com>
 <D9B6E884-0D28-433C-86CE-81F51929CF35@comcast.net>
 <b95714c9-492a-4e27-bc83-b2a4c2167f01@iwl.com>
 <CA+s1KQEd9yM_jAJfRx5zUG4JWtAYd7H8GMzfVxWK_32GV5kydw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHQj4CfV7T-O855qCHbpabatcoP8n8onqx+hdW6RDL7k-rBbzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f0b6c604-92b0-4dd3-94e0-0680d5e1b1f8@gmail.com>
 <CAHQj4CcE-cGWNb_=MQ_WaCzafYLb5cv488uaCtSbngPCpzcq3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <a4ffe1e2-1ac2-4d26-8917-db19ea6881bf@gih.com>
 <4e9f050c-959f-4581-9722-9171bdaae85a@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+s1KQHgrGgzaQMG=7Lp88QWi4trGmkgSG0RDsw7mKOcqiATHA@mail.gmail.com>

Another important (and recurrent) part of the RFC and I-D stories, were the
machinations to try to discourage^H^H^H prevent vendors from shipping "I-D
Compatible" products.

Again, I don't remember the details, but there was a WG that
was informed (by Jon?) that their protocol needed a version field.   Since
several WG members were already shipping products, they added the version
to the end of the header.   When the RFC finally came out, the RFC editor
(Jon) had reordered the header fields to put the version first, as it must
be to be useful.   The WG was really pissed, but Jon made his point.

The official I-D expirations were part of I-D vs RFC story.  I recall that
precise language changed from time to time in the early years.   I think
the ultimate solution was adding the required citation language "only cited
as work-in-progress" to the I-D boilerplate.

Thanks,
--MM--
Evil is defined by mortals who think they know "The Truth" and use force to
apply it to others.
-------------------------------------------
Matt Mathis  (Email is best)
Home & mobile: 412-654-7529 please leave a message if you must call.



On Thu, Dec 25, 2025 at 5:55?PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> On 26-Dec-25 12:06, Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 25/12/2025 23:59, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote:
> >>> 2. Is it true to say that the de facto standard tool for producing
> early
> >>> I-Ds was nroff?
> >>>
> >> Yes, Jon Postel had an nroff to RFC format script which we all used.
> >
> >
> https://github.com/oberstet/scratchbox/blob/master/docs/rfc/3-nroff.template
> ?
>
> Try this to get you back to 1991:
>
> https://www.potaroo.net/ietf/old-ids/2-nroff.template
>
> I'd forgotten all about pg and fix.sh, but I see that I still have them
> hiding in a folder called OldUnixStuff/bin.
>
>      Brian
>
>      Brian
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>


From dhc at dcrocker.net  Fri Dec 26 07:57:54 2025
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2025 15:57:54 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <bc1475a9-ab75-4149-a03c-53edc7c3e8d7@dcrocker.net>

On 12/17/2025 2:17 PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote:
> - 1980s: US government embraces COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) 
> policy, which encourages the development of commercial products for 
> use in the TCP environment;? corporate representatives from tech 
> companies begin to participate in Internet technology development and 
> standardization efforts (IETF); DoD limits funding of custom systems 
> and research in favor of using commercial products

Not sure how much influence the COTS policy had on broader adoption.? My 
impression was that the forces towards commercial adoption of Internet 
technology were really just organization operations benefits.

Best example I had at the time was with one of Wollongong's major 
European customers of TCP/IP software. In spite of Europe's being the 
hotbed of OSI, it was a major fraction of our TCP/IP revenue. Also, of 
course, it was arguably completely independent of US Gov't policy.

The exemplar customer was... ISO.? I chatted with their IT manager who 
was the customer and asked whether he got much push-back for this 
choice.? He snapped that they got to tell him what services they needed, 
not how to provide them.



> - 1990s: Commercial users, and the public, get tired of waiting for 
> the internet wars to end, notice that TCP technology is available, can 
> be observed to work, and can solve their immediate IT problems; the 
> TCP Internet grows rapidly in the general public worldwide; 
> corporations deploy private "intranets" using TCP products; all 
> competing internet architectures fade into oblivion

The wars were over by the latter 1980s.? As I like to report, by around 
1988, I was contacting customers to find out what sorts of transition 
tools they wanted, to move from TCP/IP to OSI and in every case they 
said they had no interest in that capability, but uirgently needed OSI 
to TCP/IP transition tools.

The simple fact was that by that time, Internet tech offered a complete 
set of capabilities for connectivity and basic application services.? 
Even better was that it had well-demonstrated an ability both to scale 
and to adapt.? And continued doing /that/ into the 1990s.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker

Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social



From dhc at dcrocker.net  Fri Dec 26 08:44:03 2025
From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2025 16:44:03 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <cd937f7d-cd25-4d44-8a20-271569543a06@gmail.com>
 <0c0ffb68-ce6e-455e-acd7-182d20fb9f6b@iwl.com>
 <ead33446-94bc-47af-aec3-cade8941bc9a@Julf.com>
 <CAHxHggeXVtX=jj=9aNJKP4x9o9osaH0_9mqTD5ceFiUc7BonMw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <13b47be9-8b9e-42b6-b58b-8316a2d429ae@dcrocker.net>

On 12/18/2025 2:21 AM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> Jack's summary and others seem to neglect the impact of the Web, but
> perhaps the intentional focus was only on the network layers (TCP/IP,
> QUIC/UDP)? It would be hard to explain the success of the Internet without
> the HTTP addition in the early 1990s.


Several notes in this thread have cited the role of applications, as 
distinctive.

I think there are multiple lines of parallel development that are worth 
distinguishing, even as thye interacted to produce the aggregate history.

Jack's note, and many tech-oriented discussions of the history, focus on 
*packet-switching technology* evolution.? Ie, connectivity 
infrastructure.? Here, for example, Arpanet vs. Internet is a 
fundamental and essential distinction.? So, for example, from this 
perspective 1969 was /not /the beginning of the Internet.

In turn, this produced *operational services*, with it's own set of 
characteristics, issues, and evolution. (Subidividing between 
/demonstration /vs. /production /is useful for distinguish first 
occurrences from operational maturity.)

And that evolution led to *shared management/governance* activities.? 
These might be counted as just part of growing services, but they have 
completely separate dynamics.

Lastly is *user experience*, which cares pretty much not at all about 
the technical detail but only what users can do.? They have no interest 
in connecting systems.? They have interest in exchanging messages, 
sharing content, chatting, and the like.

Note that they have been able to exchange messages and share content 
since the early 1970s.? The email example of this has been in continuous 
operation since then, in spite of massive changes. (As folk here know, 
but to get it into the archive, an email object from then is almost 
identical to the core of this email I am sending, 50+ years later.? The 
only major difference is the use of domain names.)

As for sharing content, Anonymous FTP worked fine, albeit with an 
atrocious user interface.? By the late 1980s, gopher worked a lot 
better.? So from the perspective of user experience, I think that saying 
the Arpanet was the early Internet is entirely reasonable.

Lastly, as nicely balanced -- and therefore as powerful -- as the Web's 
functionality, usability, and extensibility have obviously been, I think 
it facilitated Internet adoption and growth but was not essential to it.

That growth was already underway and it was fairly obvious by the time 
the Web was invented.? We are better for that niche being filled by the 
Web, but I think it clear that if it hadn't been created, both the 
global Internet and a usable form of general content sharing would have 
happened.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker

Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social


From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com  Fri Dec 26 12:08:50 2025
From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2025 09:08:50 +1300
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <bc1475a9-ab75-4149-a03c-53edc7c3e8d7@dcrocker.net>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <bc1475a9-ab75-4149-a03c-53edc7c3e8d7@dcrocker.net>
Message-ID: <a4b55318-689a-4590-8bd3-fe66e19c96ab@gmail.com>

On 27-Dec-25 04:57, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote:

<snip>
  
> The exemplar customer was... ISO.  I chatted with their IT manager
> who was the customer and asked whether he got much push-back for
> this choice.  He snapped that they got to tell him what services they
> needed, not how to provide them.

Was he called something like Steve Gneiss? But even if it wasn't
him, yes, that was reality. The ITU was in a similar situation, or
worse. I signed off on the ITU's first "Internet" account, which was
actually a login to CERNVAX, a VMS machine running Wollongong. The
approval form was signed on December 10, 1991** so I guess the ITU
got Internet access for Christmas. They were ituosg at cernvax.cern.ch
(OSG = Office of the Secretary General). The human behind the name
was Guy Girardet, an ITU official who had his eyes open.

** I should clarify that this was some months after Tony Rutkowski
and Carl Malamud had campaigned for ITU standards to be available
on-line, but when they had accessed the Internet from ITU offices
it hadn't been official. For that story, see Carl's book "Exploring
the Internet."

Regards
     Brian


From dcrocker at bbiw.net  Fri Dec 26 12:16:12 2025
From: dcrocker at bbiw.net (Dave Crocker)
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2025 12:16:12 -0800
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <a4b55318-689a-4590-8bd3-fe66e19c96ab@gmail.com>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <bc1475a9-ab75-4149-a03c-53edc7c3e8d7@dcrocker.net>
 <a4b55318-689a-4590-8bd3-fe66e19c96ab@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62f44110-e053-4870-ad9f-6d4d1b7567b7@bbiw.net>

On 12/26/2025 12:08 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Was he called something like Steve Gneiss? But even if it wasn't
> him, yes, that was reality.

I don't remember his name, but do remember his curt, direct 'operations' 
style of personality.? This was about 1988.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker

Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social



From frantisek.borsik at gmail.com  Sun Dec 28 05:05:38 2025
From: frantisek.borsik at gmail.com (Frantisek Borsik)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2025 14:05:38 +0100
Subject: [ih] Jacques Vallee also on the beginning of Internet,
 ARPANET - starting after 10 minute mark
Message-ID: <CAJUtOOiJ5GvFZxuH6WhWv6MyMsHvTAQTXYRcYzca8nP0dsQcaA@mail.gmail.com>

https://youtu.be/sOOAVlatb2E?si=fkHOGTUA18CB7dhQ&t=618

Maybe some of you met him in-person, too.

All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik


*In loving memory of Dave T?ht: *1965-2025

https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/


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

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik at gmail.com


From vint at google.com  Sun Dec 28 05:30:26 2025
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2025 08:30:26 -0500
Subject: [ih] Jacques Vallee also on the beginning of Internet,
 ARPANET - starting after 10 minute mark
In-Reply-To: <CAJUtOOiJ5GvFZxuH6WhWv6MyMsHvTAQTXYRcYzca8nP0dsQcaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJUtOOiJ5GvFZxuH6WhWv6MyMsHvTAQTXYRcYzca8nP0dsQcaA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggd1VTBnhF7QYvDqGdzhVFSt-TOC8O=_cJjJO=Pk3p_-2Q@mail.gmail.com>

Jacques is an old friend - I met him when he was at SRI International and I
was at Stanford. We have stayed sporadically in touch for many years.

v


On Sun, Dec 28, 2025 at 8:04?AM Frantisek Borsik via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> https://youtu.be/sOOAVlatb2E?si=fkHOGTUA18CB7dhQ&t=618
>
> Maybe some of you met him in-person, too.
>
> All the best,
>
> Frank
>
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>
>
> *In loving memory of Dave T?ht: *1965-2025
>
> https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/
>
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 <+421%20919%20416%20714>
>
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 <+420%20775%20230%20885>
>
> Skype: casioa5302ca
>
> frantisek.borsik at gmail.com
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=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 jeanjour at comcast.net  Mon Dec 29 06:59:05 2025
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 09:59:05 -0500
Subject: [ih] Question on Flow Control
Message-ID: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>

As we all know, there are two forms of sliding window flow control:
1) the static window, where an Ack causes the window to be moved and requires two extra commands, and
2) the dynamic window, with a credit field that is added to the Ack value to find the Right Window Edge (RWE) and doesn?t need the two extra commands.

Static window is found in datacomm protocols such as SDLC, HDLC, and variations on them.  (HDLC was created from SDLC.)
Dynamic window is found in most Transport protocols such as TCP, TS, TP4, SCTP, QUIC, etc.

Most textbooks present these as a progression from a simple stop-and-wait protocol with increasing complexity through static window to dynamic window as if this was the order of development. That dynamic winsdow was an enhancement of static window.

However, that does not seem to be borne out by the historical record, but it isn?t clear. This is what I have been able to determine:
1) Static window is in SDLC, an integral part of IBM?s SNA.

2) SNA was released in 1974 with SDLC.

3) I have not been able to find anyone (or any paper) who knows about the development inside IBM of SDLC, nor was SDLC based on precursors either inside or outside IBM.

4) I have not been able to find anything about a sliding window flow control protocol prior to 72 or 73.

5) Dynamic window first appeared in CYCLADES TS in late 1972 or early 73 and was incorporated into the early drafts of Sept 73.

That doesn?t give much time for overlap and IBM in this period kept their cards pretty close to their chest.

So the questions are:

1) Did fixed window originate at IBM with SDLC?

2) Was there an earlier fixed window precursor to SDLC that was inside or outside IBM?

3)  Was there an external fixed window precursor that was the example for both?

4)  Is this a case of independent invention?  Were static and dynamic window flow control invented independently?

It isn?t an earth-shattering question, but it is curious and does seem to run counter to the typical exposition in textbooks.

Take care,
John Day




From vint at google.com  Mon Dec 29 07:29:18 2025
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 10:29:18 -0500
Subject: [ih] Question on Flow Control
In-Reply-To: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
References: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggfcXFOY64=ahjVPOyC_Hb+nwLC_PwjW12LC9c8zAAi8GA@mail.gmail.com>

John,
there is another term "go-back-N" which sounds like a fixed window and is a
form of ARQ.
would the terminology uncover any earlier schemes?

v


On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 9:59?AM John Day via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> As we all know, there are two forms of sliding window flow control:
> 1) the static window, where an Ack causes the window to be moved and
> requires two extra commands, and
> 2) the dynamic window, with a credit field that is added to the Ack value
> to find the Right Window Edge (RWE) and doesn?t need the two extra commands.
>
> Static window is found in datacomm protocols such as SDLC, HDLC, and
> variations on them.  (HDLC was created from SDLC.)
> Dynamic window is found in most Transport protocols such as TCP, TS, TP4,
> SCTP, QUIC, etc.
>
> Most textbooks present these as a progression from a simple stop-and-wait
> protocol with increasing complexity through static window to dynamic window
> as if this was the order of development. That dynamic winsdow was an
> enhancement of static window.
>
> However, that does not seem to be borne out by the historical record, but
> it isn?t clear. This is what I have been able to determine:
> 1) Static window is in SDLC, an integral part of IBM?s SNA.
>
> 2) SNA was released in 1974 with SDLC.
>
> 3) I have not been able to find anyone (or any paper) who knows about the
> development inside IBM of SDLC, nor was SDLC based on precursors either
> inside or outside IBM.
>
> 4) I have not been able to find anything about a sliding window flow
> control protocol prior to 72 or 73.
>
> 5) Dynamic window first appeared in CYCLADES TS in late 1972 or early 73
> and was incorporated into the early drafts of Sept 73.
>
> That doesn?t give much time for overlap and IBM in this period kept their
> cards pretty close to their chest.
>
> So the questions are:
>
> 1) Did fixed window originate at IBM with SDLC?
>
> 2) Was there an earlier fixed window precursor to SDLC that was inside or
> outside IBM?
>
> 3)  Was there an external fixed window precursor that was the example for
> both?
>
> 4)  Is this a case of independent invention?  Were static and dynamic
> window flow control invented independently?
>
> It isn?t an earth-shattering question, but it is curious and does seem to
> run counter to the typical exposition in textbooks.
>
> Take care,
> John Day
>
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=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 jeanjour at comcast.net  Mon Dec 29 07:34:47 2025
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 10:34:47 -0500
Subject: [ih] Question on Flow Control
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggfcXFOY64=ahjVPOyC_Hb+nwLC_PwjW12LC9c8zAAi8GA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
 <CAHxHggfcXFOY64=ahjVPOyC_Hb+nwLC_PwjW12LC9c8zAAi8GA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <775A8BF7-0E63-426F-A10A-0527474F5683@comcast.net>

Yes, it appeared to come later. Or at least I thought so.

Does Go-Back-N require sequence numbers?  I guess not. Just go back N-messages.

Do we know when GBN appeared?

John

> On Dec 29, 2025, at 10:29, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
> 
> John,
> there is another term "go-back-N" which sounds like a fixed window and is a form of ARQ.
> would the terminology uncover any earlier schemes?
> 
> v
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 9:59?AM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>> As we all know, there are two forms of sliding window flow control:
>> 1) the static window, where an Ack causes the window to be moved and requires two extra commands, and
>> 2) the dynamic window, with a credit field that is added to the Ack value to find the Right Window Edge (RWE) and doesn?t need the two extra commands.
>> 
>> Static window is found in datacomm protocols such as SDLC, HDLC, and variations on them.  (HDLC was created from SDLC.)
>> Dynamic window is found in most Transport protocols such as TCP, TS, TP4, SCTP, QUIC, etc.
>> 
>> Most textbooks present these as a progression from a simple stop-and-wait protocol with increasing complexity through static window to dynamic window as if this was the order of development. That dynamic winsdow was an enhancement of static window.
>> 
>> However, that does not seem to be borne out by the historical record, but it isn?t clear. This is what I have been able to determine:
>> 1) Static window is in SDLC, an integral part of IBM?s SNA.
>> 
>> 2) SNA was released in 1974 with SDLC.
>> 
>> 3) I have not been able to find anyone (or any paper) who knows about the development inside IBM of SDLC, nor was SDLC based on precursors either inside or outside IBM.
>> 
>> 4) I have not been able to find anything about a sliding window flow control protocol prior to 72 or 73.
>> 
>> 5) Dynamic window first appeared in CYCLADES TS in late 1972 or early 73 and was incorporated into the early drafts of Sept 73.
>> 
>> That doesn?t give much time for overlap and IBM in this period kept their cards pretty close to their chest.
>> 
>> So the questions are:
>> 
>> 1) Did fixed window originate at IBM with SDLC?
>> 
>> 2) Was there an earlier fixed window precursor to SDLC that was inside or outside IBM?
>> 
>> 3)  Was there an external fixed window precursor that was the example for both?
>> 
>> 4)  Is this a case of independent invention?  Were static and dynamic window flow control invented independently?
>> 
>> It isn?t an earth-shattering question, but it is curious and does seem to run counter to the typical exposition in textbooks.
>> 
>> Take care,
>> John Day
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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
>> -
>> Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> Vint Cerf
> Google, LLC
> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> Reston, VA 20190
> +1 (571) 213 1346
> 
> 
> until further notice
> 
> 
> 



From vgcerf at gmail.com  Mon Dec 29 07:37:07 2025
From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 10:37:07 -0500
Subject: [ih] Question on Flow Control
In-Reply-To: <775A8BF7-0E63-426F-A10A-0527474F5683@comcast.net>
References: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
 <CAHxHggfcXFOY64=ahjVPOyC_Hb+nwLC_PwjW12LC9c8zAAi8GA@mail.gmail.com>
 <775A8BF7-0E63-426F-A10A-0527474F5683@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CAAFtm_VtMKnckftc4XsX28_4VA9VtCo6TKvqBhfS+VS_gWsc0w@mail.gmail.com>

not sure - try gemini?
v


On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 10:35?AM John Day via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Yes, it appeared to come later. Or at least I thought so.
>
> Does Go-Back-N require sequence numbers?  I guess not. Just go back
> N-messages.
>
> Do we know when GBN appeared?
>
> John
>
> > On Dec 29, 2025, at 10:29, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
> >
> > John,
> > there is another term "go-back-N" which sounds like a fixed window and
> is a form of ARQ.
> > would the terminology uncover any earlier schemes?
> >
> > v
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 9:59?AM John Day via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
> wrote:
> >> As we all know, there are two forms of sliding window flow control:
> >> 1) the static window, where an Ack causes the window to be moved and
> requires two extra commands, and
> >> 2) the dynamic window, with a credit field that is added to the Ack
> value to find the Right Window Edge (RWE) and doesn?t need the two extra
> commands.
> >>
> >> Static window is found in datacomm protocols such as SDLC, HDLC, and
> variations on them.  (HDLC was created from SDLC.)
> >> Dynamic window is found in most Transport protocols such as TCP, TS,
> TP4, SCTP, QUIC, etc.
> >>
> >> Most textbooks present these as a progression from a simple
> stop-and-wait protocol with increasing complexity through static window to
> dynamic window as if this was the order of development. That dynamic
> winsdow was an enhancement of static window.
> >>
> >> However, that does not seem to be borne out by the historical record,
> but it isn?t clear. This is what I have been able to determine:
> >> 1) Static window is in SDLC, an integral part of IBM?s SNA.
> >>
> >> 2) SNA was released in 1974 with SDLC.
> >>
> >> 3) I have not been able to find anyone (or any paper) who knows about
> the development inside IBM of SDLC, nor was SDLC based on precursors either
> inside or outside IBM.
> >>
> >> 4) I have not been able to find anything about a sliding window flow
> control protocol prior to 72 or 73.
> >>
> >> 5) Dynamic window first appeared in CYCLADES TS in late 1972 or early
> 73 and was incorporated into the early drafts of Sept 73.
> >>
> >> That doesn?t give much time for overlap and IBM in this period kept
> their cards pretty close to their chest.
> >>
> >> So the questions are:
> >>
> >> 1) Did fixed window originate at IBM with SDLC?
> >>
> >> 2) Was there an earlier fixed window precursor to SDLC that was inside
> or outside IBM?
> >>
> >> 3)  Was there an external fixed window precursor that was the example
> for both?
> >>
> >> 4)  Is this a case of independent invention?  Were static and dynamic
> window flow control invented independently?
> >>
> >> It isn?t an earth-shattering question, but it is curious and does seem
> to run counter to the typical exposition in textbooks.
> >>
> >> Take care,
> >> John Day
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
> >> -
> >> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> > Vint Cerf
> > Google, LLC
> > 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> > Reston, VA 20190
> > +1 (571) 213 1346
> >
> >
> > until further notice
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Mon Dec 29 07:44:33 2025
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 10:44:33 -0500
Subject: [ih] Question on Flow Control
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_VtMKnckftc4XsX28_4VA9VtCo6TKvqBhfS+VS_gWsc0w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
 <CAHxHggfcXFOY64=ahjVPOyC_Hb+nwLC_PwjW12LC9c8zAAi8GA@mail.gmail.com>
 <775A8BF7-0E63-426F-A10A-0527474F5683@comcast.net>
 <CAAFtm_VtMKnckftc4XsX28_4VA9VtCo6TKvqBhfS+VS_gWsc0w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <85218615-AA4B-48EE-B300-0CFA72716B6B@comcast.net>

;-) Just quickly, this is what google said:

The Go-Back-N (GBN) protocol wasn't invented at a single moment but evolved as an improvement over simpler methods like Stop-and-Wait, gaining prominence as a key sliding window technique for reliable data transfer, with core concepts solidifying in the late 1970s and 1980s, becoming integral to protocols like TCP and widely studied in the 1990s for applications like early ADSL, formalizing efficient pipelining for networks. 

Which if true, is wrong. That would put GBN later than the dynamic window in TCP and TS.

(From a practical experience, one has to get to fairly high bandwidth (for the time) before stop-and-wait is the best that is possible. Even 512 byte message at 56Kbps is over a hundred miles long, if memory serves.)

I will ask Gemini.

> On Dec 29, 2025, at 10:37, vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> not sure - try gemini?
> v
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 10:35?AM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>> Yes, it appeared to come later. Or at least I thought so.
>> 
>> Does Go-Back-N require sequence numbers?  I guess not. Just go back N-messages.
>> 
>> Do we know when GBN appeared?
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> > On Dec 29, 2025, at 10:29, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com <mailto:vint at google.com>> wrote:
>> > 
>> > John,
>> > there is another term "go-back-N" which sounds like a fixed window and is a form of ARQ.
>> > would the terminology uncover any earlier schemes?
>> > 
>> > v
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 9:59?AM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>> wrote:
>> >> As we all know, there are two forms of sliding window flow control:
>> >> 1) the static window, where an Ack causes the window to be moved and requires two extra commands, and
>> >> 2) the dynamic window, with a credit field that is added to the Ack value to find the Right Window Edge (RWE) and doesn?t need the two extra commands.
>> >> 
>> >> Static window is found in datacomm protocols such as SDLC, HDLC, and variations on them.  (HDLC was created from SDLC.)
>> >> Dynamic window is found in most Transport protocols such as TCP, TS, TP4, SCTP, QUIC, etc.
>> >> 
>> >> Most textbooks present these as a progression from a simple stop-and-wait protocol with increasing complexity through static window to dynamic window as if this was the order of development. That dynamic winsdow was an enhancement of static window.
>> >> 
>> >> However, that does not seem to be borne out by the historical record, but it isn?t clear. This is what I have been able to determine:
>> >> 1) Static window is in SDLC, an integral part of IBM?s SNA.
>> >> 
>> >> 2) SNA was released in 1974 with SDLC.
>> >> 
>> >> 3) I have not been able to find anyone (or any paper) who knows about the development inside IBM of SDLC, nor was SDLC based on precursors either inside or outside IBM.
>> >> 
>> >> 4) I have not been able to find anything about a sliding window flow control protocol prior to 72 or 73.
>> >> 
>> >> 5) Dynamic window first appeared in CYCLADES TS in late 1972 or early 73 and was incorporated into the early drafts of Sept 73.
>> >> 
>> >> That doesn?t give much time for overlap and IBM in this period kept their cards pretty close to their chest.
>> >> 
>> >> So the questions are:
>> >> 
>> >> 1) Did fixed window originate at IBM with SDLC?
>> >> 
>> >> 2) Was there an earlier fixed window precursor to SDLC that was inside or outside IBM?
>> >> 
>> >> 3)  Was there an external fixed window precursor that was the example for both?
>> >> 
>> >> 4)  Is this a case of independent invention?  Were static and dynamic window flow control invented independently?
>> >> 
>> >> It isn?t an earth-shattering question, but it is curious and does seem to run counter to the typical exposition in textbooks.
>> >> 
>> >> Take care,
>> >> John Day
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> -- 
>> >> Internet-history mailing list
>> >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
>> >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> >> -
>> >> Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > --
>> > Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
>> > Vint Cerf
>> > Google, LLC
>> > 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
>> > Reston, VA 20190
>> > +1 (571) 213 1346
>> > 
>> > 
>> > until further notice
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> -
>> Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history



From gbuday.irtf at gmail.com  Mon Dec 29 07:47:18 2025
From: gbuday.irtf at gmail.com (Gergely Buday)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 16:47:18 +0100
Subject: [ih] Question on Flow Control
In-Reply-To: <85218615-AA4B-48EE-B300-0CFA72716B6B@comcast.net>
References: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
 <CAHxHggfcXFOY64=ahjVPOyC_Hb+nwLC_PwjW12LC9c8zAAi8GA@mail.gmail.com>
 <775A8BF7-0E63-426F-A10A-0527474F5683@comcast.net>
 <CAAFtm_VtMKnckftc4XsX28_4VA9VtCo6TKvqBhfS+VS_gWsc0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <85218615-AA4B-48EE-B300-0CFA72716B6B@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CA+HOLVD24MhWd87dVXSKNyBRz9hR0YALTooruOP1OcvUm=w0Fw@mail.gmail.com>

Kurose & Ross' networking book covers these very well.

- Gergely

A segunda, 29/12/2025, 16:44, John Day via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> escreveu:

> ;-) Just quickly, this is what google said:
>
> The Go-Back-N (GBN) protocol wasn't invented at a single moment but
> evolved as an improvement over simpler methods like Stop-and-Wait, gaining
> prominence as a key sliding window technique for reliable data transfer,
> with core concepts solidifying in the late 1970s and 1980s, becoming
> integral to protocols like TCP and widely studied in the 1990s for
> applications like early ADSL, formalizing efficient pipelining for
> networks.
>
> Which if true, is wrong. That would put GBN later than the dynamic window
> in TCP and TS.
>
> (From a practical experience, one has to get to fairly high bandwidth (for
> the time) before stop-and-wait is the best that is possible. Even 512 byte
> message at 56Kbps is over a hundred miles long, if memory serves.)
>
> I will ask Gemini.
>
> > On Dec 29, 2025, at 10:37, vinton cerf <vgcerf at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > not sure - try gemini?
> > v
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 10:35?AM John Day via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
> wrote:
> >> Yes, it appeared to come later. Or at least I thought so.
> >>
> >> Does Go-Back-N require sequence numbers?  I guess not. Just go back
> N-messages.
> >>
> >> Do we know when GBN appeared?
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> > On Dec 29, 2025, at 10:29, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com <mailto:
> vint at google.com>> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > John,
> >> > there is another term "go-back-N" which sounds like a fixed window
> and is a form of ARQ.
> >> > would the terminology uncover any earlier schemes?
> >> >
> >> > v
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 9:59?AM John Day via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>> wrote:
> >> >> As we all know, there are two forms of sliding window flow control:
> >> >> 1) the static window, where an Ack causes the window to be moved and
> requires two extra commands, and
> >> >> 2) the dynamic window, with a credit field that is added to the Ack
> value to find the Right Window Edge (RWE) and doesn?t need the two extra
> commands.
> >> >>
> >> >> Static window is found in datacomm protocols such as SDLC, HDLC, and
> variations on them.  (HDLC was created from SDLC.)
> >> >> Dynamic window is found in most Transport protocols such as TCP, TS,
> TP4, SCTP, QUIC, etc.
> >> >>
> >> >> Most textbooks present these as a progression from a simple
> stop-and-wait protocol with increasing complexity through static window to
> dynamic window as if this was the order of development. That dynamic
> winsdow was an enhancement of static window.
> >> >>
> >> >> However, that does not seem to be borne out by the historical
> record, but it isn?t clear. This is what I have been able to determine:
> >> >> 1) Static window is in SDLC, an integral part of IBM?s SNA.
> >> >>
> >> >> 2) SNA was released in 1974 with SDLC.
> >> >>
> >> >> 3) I have not been able to find anyone (or any paper) who knows
> about the development inside IBM of SDLC, nor was SDLC based on precursors
> either inside or outside IBM.
> >> >>
> >> >> 4) I have not been able to find anything about a sliding window flow
> control protocol prior to 72 or 73.
> >> >>
> >> >> 5) Dynamic window first appeared in CYCLADES TS in late 1972 or
> early 73 and was incorporated into the early drafts of Sept 73.
> >> >>
> >> >> That doesn?t give much time for overlap and IBM in this period kept
> their cards pretty close to their chest.
> >> >>
> >> >> So the questions are:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1) Did fixed window originate at IBM with SDLC?
> >> >>
> >> >> 2) Was there an earlier fixed window precursor to SDLC that was
> inside or outside IBM?
> >> >>
> >> >> 3)  Was there an external fixed window precursor that was the
> example for both?
> >> >>
> >> >> 4)  Is this a case of independent invention?  Were static and
> dynamic window flow control invented independently?
> >> >>
> >> >> It isn?t an earth-shattering question, but it is curious and does
> seem to run counter to the typical exposition in textbooks.
> >> >>
> >> >> Take care,
> >> >> John Day
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Internet-history mailing list
> >> >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
> >> >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >> >> -
> >> >> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> >> > Vint Cerf
> >> > Google, LLC
> >> > 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> >> > Reston, VA 20190
> >> > +1 (571) 213 1346
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > until further notice
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Internet-history mailing list
> >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>
> >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> >> -
> >> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>


From craig at tereschau.net  Mon Dec 29 08:54:11 2025
From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 11:54:11 -0500
Subject: [ih] Question on Flow Control
In-Reply-To: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
References: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CAHQj4Cdcy92L36BDNtDj=8xfSVJW4ieSquX4c4OxSJWE4NgsmQ@mail.gmail.com>

This is a complete rabbit hole, in part because so many folks misunderstood
things in the late 1970s early 1980s.  (People used to say TCP used
go-back-N when, except for the very first implementations, it used
selective-repeat).

But hey, sometimes rabbit holes are fun.

Note that ALOHA was also around (1970 I believe) and once it got slotted, I
believe it used windows and used a pure go-back-N.  I don't have a precise
timing for when slotting came into fashion.

Side note for those who didn't track this stuff.  A key issue is whether
the receiver buffers packets received out of order.  If not, then if a
packet is lost, all following are discarded, and the receiver must resend
everything from the point of loss (go-back-N).  If the receiver buffers,
then the sender should simply send the missing packet and (with luck
assuming just one loss) transmission can proceed more efficiently assuming
a shared medium... (this is selective-repeat)

Craig

On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 9:59?AM John Day via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> As we all know, there are two forms of sliding window flow control:
> 1) the static window, where an Ack causes the window to be moved and
> requires two extra commands, and
> 2) the dynamic window, with a credit field that is added to the Ack value
> to find the Right Window Edge (RWE) and doesn?t need the two extra commands.
>
> Static window is found in datacomm protocols such as SDLC, HDLC, and
> variations on them.  (HDLC was created from SDLC.)
> Dynamic window is found in most Transport protocols such as TCP, TS, TP4,
> SCTP, QUIC, etc.
>
> Most textbooks present these as a progression from a simple stop-and-wait
> protocol with increasing complexity through static window to dynamic window
> as if this was the order of development. That dynamic winsdow was an
> enhancement of static window.
>
> However, that does not seem to be borne out by the historical record, but
> it isn?t clear. This is what I have been able to determine:
> 1) Static window is in SDLC, an integral part of IBM?s SNA.
>
> 2) SNA was released in 1974 with SDLC.
>
> 3) I have not been able to find anyone (or any paper) who knows about the
> development inside IBM of SDLC, nor was SDLC based on precursors either
> inside or outside IBM.
>
> 4) I have not been able to find anything about a sliding window flow
> control protocol prior to 72 or 73.
>
> 5) Dynamic window first appeared in CYCLADES TS in late 1972 or early 73
> and was incorporated into the early drafts of Sept 73.
>
> That doesn?t give much time for overlap and IBM in this period kept their
> cards pretty close to their chest.
>
> So the questions are:
>
> 1) Did fixed window originate at IBM with SDLC?
>
> 2) Was there an earlier fixed window precursor to SDLC that was inside or
> outside IBM?
>
> 3)  Was there an external fixed window precursor that was the example for
> both?
>
> 4)  Is this a case of independent invention?  Were static and dynamic
> window flow control invented independently?
>
> It isn?t an earth-shattering question, but it is curious and does seem to
> run counter to the typical exposition in textbooks.
>
> Take care,
> John Day
>
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>


-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.


From b_a_denny at yahoo.com  Mon Dec 29 09:05:25 2025
From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 17:05:25 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ih] Question on Flow Control
In-Reply-To: <CAAFtm_VtMKnckftc4XsX28_4VA9VtCo6TKvqBhfS+VS_gWsc0w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
 <CAHxHggfcXFOY64=ahjVPOyC_Hb+nwLC_PwjW12LC9c8zAAi8GA@mail.gmail.com>
 <775A8BF7-0E63-426F-A10A-0527474F5683@comcast.net>
 <CAAFtm_VtMKnckftc4XsX28_4VA9VtCo6TKvqBhfS+VS_gWsc0w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1181004291.5089247.1767027925961@mail.yahoo.com>

 A little off topic but I was curious how Gemini would answer the question "what is a packet radio network."
I wouldn't say it came up with a good answer.? It really focused on amateur packet radio. It mentioned PRNET in the evolution section but I wouldn't present the history or topic that way.
barbara

    On Monday, December 29, 2025 at 07:37:31 AM PST, vinton cerf via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:  
 
 not sure - try gemini?
v


On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 10:35?AM John Day via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Yes, it appeared to come later. Or at least I thought so.
>
> Does Go-Back-N require sequence numbers?? I guess not. Just go back
> N-messages.
>
> Do we know when GBN appeared?
>
> John
>
> > On Dec 29, 2025, at 10:29, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
> >
> > John,
> > there is another term "go-back-N" which sounds like a fixed window and
> is a form of ARQ.
> > would the terminology uncover any earlier schemes?
> >
> > v
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 9:59?AM John Day via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
> wrote:
> >> As we all know, there are two forms of sliding window flow control:
> >> 1) the static window, where an Ack causes the window to be moved and
> requires two extra commands, and
> >> 2) the dynamic window, with a credit field that is added to the Ack
> value to find the Right Window Edge (RWE) and doesn?t need the two extra
> commands.
> >>
> >> Static window is found in datacomm protocols such as SDLC, HDLC, and
> variations on them.? (HDLC was created from SDLC.)
> >> Dynamic window is found in most Transport protocols such as TCP, TS,
> TP4, SCTP, QUIC, etc.
> >>
> >> Most textbooks present these as a progression from a simple
> stop-and-wait protocol with increasing complexity through static window to
> dynamic window as if this was the order of development. That dynamic
> winsdow was an enhancement of static window.
> >>
> >> However, that does not seem to be borne out by the historical record,
> but it isn?t clear. This is what I have been able to determine:
> >> 1) Static window is in SDLC, an integral part of IBM?s SNA.
> >>
> >> 2) SNA was released in 1974 with SDLC.
> >>
> >> 3) I have not been able to find anyone (or any paper) who knows about
> the development inside IBM of SDLC, nor was SDLC based on precursors either
> inside or outside IBM.
> >>
> >> 4) I have not been able to find anything about a sliding window flow
> control protocol prior to 72 or 73.
> >>
> >> 5) Dynamic window first appeared in CYCLADES TS in late 1972 or early
> 73 and was incorporated into the early drafts of Sept 73.
> >>
> >> That doesn?t give much time for overlap and IBM in this period kept
> their cards pretty close to their chest.
> >>
> >> So the questions are:
> >>
> >> 1) Did fixed window originate at IBM with SDLC?
> >>
> >> 2) Was there an earlier fixed window precursor to SDLC that was inside
> or outside IBM?
> >>
> >> 3)? Was there an external fixed window precursor that was the example
> for both?
> >>
> >> 4)? Is this a case of independent invention?? Were static and dynamic
> window flow control invented independently?
> >>
> >> It isn?t an earth-shattering question, but it is curious and does seem
> to run counter to the typical exposition in textbooks.
> >>
> >> Take care,
> >> John Day
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
> >> -
> >> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> > Vint Cerf
> > Google, LLC
> > 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> > Reston, VA 20190
> > +1 (571) 213 1346
> >
> >
> > until further notice
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>
-- 
Internet-history mailing list
Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
-
Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
  

From jeanjour at comcast.net  Mon Dec 29 09:06:59 2025
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 12:06:59 -0500
Subject: [ih] Question on Flow Control
In-Reply-To: <CAHQj4Cdcy92L36BDNtDj=8xfSVJW4ieSquX4c4OxSJWE4NgsmQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4Cdcy92L36BDNtDj=8xfSVJW4ieSquX4c4OxSJWE4NgsmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <85644C39-AB6C-4C9E-B2F3-B1D32EF7797E@comcast.net>

To some extent you are right, it is a rat-hole. ;-)

However, it appears the belief that it was Go-Back-N is because textbooks gave that illusion. As near as I can tell, GBN didn?t exist in 1973 and if SDLC is the first fixed window, then it was still in development.

Gerard LeLann says he introduced sliding window to CYCLADES and TCP when he moved from Rennes to IRIA in 72, but I don?t know what form of sliding window it was. He presented his thoughts on it when Vint and Bob visited IRIA in March 1973. I haven?t found that presentation and later papers on the topic by Gerard don?t clarify it.

As for TCP initially using Selective-repeat or SACK, do you remember what the TCP retransmission time out was at that time? It makes a difference.  The nominal value in the textbooks is RTT + 4D, where D is the mean variation. There is an RFC that says if 4D < 1 sec, set it to 1 sec. which seems high, but that is what it says.

Take care,
John
 
> On Dec 29, 2025, at 11:54, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net> wrote:
> 
> This is a complete rabbit hole, in part because so many folks misunderstood things in the late 1970s early 1980s.  (People used to say TCP used go-back-N when, except for the very  first implementations, it used selective-repeat).
> 
> But hey, sometimes rabbit holes are fun.
> 
> Note that ALOHA was also around (1970 I believe) and once it got slotted, I believe it used windows and used a pure go-back-N.  I don't have a precise timing for when slotting came into fashion.
> 
> Side note for those who didn't track this stuff.  A key issue is whether the receiver buffers packets received out of order.  If not, then if a packet is lost, all following are discarded, and the receiver must resend everything from the point of loss (go-back-N).  If the receiver buffers, then the sender should simply send the missing packet and (with luck assuming just one loss) transmission can proceed more efficiently assuming a shared medium... (this is selective-repeat)
> 
> Craig
> 
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 9:59?AM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>> As we all know, there are two forms of sliding window flow control:
>> 1) the static window, where an Ack causes the window to be moved and requires two extra commands, and
>> 2) the dynamic window, with a credit field that is added to the Ack value to find the Right Window Edge (RWE) and doesn?t need the two extra commands.
>> 
>> Static window is found in datacomm protocols such as SDLC, HDLC, and variations on them.  (HDLC was created from SDLC.)
>> Dynamic window is found in most Transport protocols such as TCP, TS, TP4, SCTP, QUIC, etc.
>> 
>> Most textbooks present these as a progression from a simple stop-and-wait protocol with increasing complexity through static window to dynamic window as if this was the order of development. That dynamic winsdow was an enhancement of static window.
>> 
>> However, that does not seem to be borne out by the historical record, but it isn?t clear. This is what I have been able to determine:
>> 1) Static window is in SDLC, an integral part of IBM?s SNA.
>> 
>> 2) SNA was released in 1974 with SDLC.
>> 
>> 3) I have not been able to find anyone (or any paper) who knows about the development inside IBM of SDLC, nor was SDLC based on precursors either inside or outside IBM.
>> 
>> 4) I have not been able to find anything about a sliding window flow control protocol prior to 72 or 73.
>> 
>> 5) Dynamic window first appeared in CYCLADES TS in late 1972 or early 73 and was incorporated into the early drafts of Sept 73.
>> 
>> That doesn?t give much time for overlap and IBM in this period kept their cards pretty close to their chest.
>> 
>> So the questions are:
>> 
>> 1) Did fixed window originate at IBM with SDLC?
>> 
>> 2) Was there an earlier fixed window precursor to SDLC that was inside or outside IBM?
>> 
>> 3)  Was there an external fixed window precursor that was the example for both?
>> 
>> 4)  Is this a case of independent invention?  Were static and dynamic window flow control invented independently?
>> 
>> It isn?t an earth-shattering question, but it is curious and does seem to run counter to the typical exposition in textbooks.
>> 
>> Take care,
>> John Day
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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
>> -
>> Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> 
> 
> 
> --
> *****
> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists.



From vint at google.com  Mon Dec 29 09:46:56 2025
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 12:46:56 -0500
Subject: [ih] Question on Flow Control
In-Reply-To: <85644C39-AB6C-4C9E-B2F3-B1D32EF7797E@comcast.net>
References: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4Cdcy92L36BDNtDj=8xfSVJW4ieSquX4c4OxSJWE4NgsmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <85644C39-AB6C-4C9E-B2F3-B1D32EF7797E@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggdfuP5t8X=h1ePbRadn+KDuc-8gSSM5HqkmFS5jb5CYOg@mail.gmail.com>

inline comment

On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 12:07?PM John Day via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> To some extent you are right, it is a rat-hole. ;-)
>
> However, it appears the belief that it was Go-Back-N is because textbooks
> gave that illusion. As near as I can tell, GBN didn?t exist in 1973 and if
> SDLC is the first fixed window, then it was still in development.
>
> Gerard LeLann says he introduced sliding window to CYCLADES and TCP when
> he moved from Rennes to IRIA in 72, but I don?t know what form of sliding
> window it was. He presented his thoughts on it when Vint and Bob visited
> IRIA in March 1973. I haven?t found that presentation and later papers on
> the topic by Gerard don?t clarify it.
>
Gerard and I met in 1973 at INRIA and he came to stanford in 1974 during
the detailed specification of TCP. We used the sliding window and
mechanisms for accepting packets arriving out of order. SACK was a later
development in the evolution of TCP/IP and was allowed but not required, as
I recall.

>
> As for TCP initially using Selective-repeat or SACK, do you remember what
> the TCP retransmission time out was at that time? It makes a difference.
> The nominal value in the textbooks is RTT + 4D, where D is the mean
> variation. There is an RFC that says if 4D < 1 sec, set it to 1 sec. which
> seems high, but that is what it says.
>
> Take care,
> John
>
> > On Dec 29, 2025, at 11:54, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net> wrote:
> >
> > This is a complete rabbit hole, in part because so many folks
> misunderstood things in the late 1970s early 1980s.  (People used to say
> TCP used go-back-N when, except for the very  first implementations, it
> used selective-repeat).
> >
> > But hey, sometimes rabbit holes are fun.
> >
> > Note that ALOHA was also around (1970 I believe) and once it got
> slotted, I believe it used windows and used a pure go-back-N.  I don't have
> a precise timing for when slotting came into fashion.
> >
> > Side note for those who didn't track this stuff.  A key issue is whether
> the receiver buffers packets received out of order.  If not, then if a
> packet is lost, all following are discarded, and the receiver must resend
> everything from the point of loss (go-back-N).  If the receiver buffers,
> then the sender should simply send the missing packet and (with luck
> assuming just one loss) transmission can proceed more efficiently assuming
> a shared medium... (this is selective-repeat)
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 9:59?AM John Day via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
> wrote:
> >> As we all know, there are two forms of sliding window flow control:
> >> 1) the static window, where an Ack causes the window to be moved and
> requires two extra commands, and
> >> 2) the dynamic window, with a credit field that is added to the Ack
> value to find the Right Window Edge (RWE) and doesn?t need the two extra
> commands.
> >>
> >> Static window is found in datacomm protocols such as SDLC, HDLC, and
> variations on them.  (HDLC was created from SDLC.)
> >> Dynamic window is found in most Transport protocols such as TCP, TS,
> TP4, SCTP, QUIC, etc.
> >>
> >> Most textbooks present these as a progression from a simple
> stop-and-wait protocol with increasing complexity through static window to
> dynamic window as if this was the order of development. That dynamic
> winsdow was an enhancement of static window.
> >>
> >> However, that does not seem to be borne out by the historical record,
> but it isn?t clear. This is what I have been able to determine:
> >> 1) Static window is in SDLC, an integral part of IBM?s SNA.
> >>
> >> 2) SNA was released in 1974 with SDLC.
> >>
> >> 3) I have not been able to find anyone (or any paper) who knows about
> the development inside IBM of SDLC, nor was SDLC based on precursors either
> inside or outside IBM.
> >>
> >> 4) I have not been able to find anything about a sliding window flow
> control protocol prior to 72 or 73.
> >>
> >> 5) Dynamic window first appeared in CYCLADES TS in late 1972 or early
> 73 and was incorporated into the early drafts of Sept 73.
> >>
> >> That doesn?t give much time for overlap and IBM in this period kept
> their cards pretty close to their chest.
> >>
> >> So the questions are:
> >>
> >> 1) Did fixed window originate at IBM with SDLC?
> >>
> >> 2) Was there an earlier fixed window precursor to SDLC that was inside
> or outside IBM?
> >>
> >> 3)  Was there an external fixed window precursor that was the example
> for both?
> >>
> >> 4)  Is this a case of independent invention?  Were static and dynamic
> window flow control invented independently?
> >>
> >> It isn?t an earth-shattering question, but it is curious and does seem
> to run counter to the typical exposition in textbooks.
> >>
> >> Take care,
> >> John Day
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
> >> -
> >> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *****
> > Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
> mailing lists.
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=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 craig at tereschau.net  Mon Dec 29 09:57:35 2025
From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 12:57:35 -0500
Subject: [ih] Question on Flow Control
In-Reply-To: <85644C39-AB6C-4C9E-B2F3-B1D32EF7797E@comcast.net>
References: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4Cdcy92L36BDNtDj=8xfSVJW4ieSquX4c4OxSJWE4NgsmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <85644C39-AB6C-4C9E-B2F3-B1D32EF7797E@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <CAHQj4CcdgzARojk5HFp4b-ScGDJLYTcqr-GFH1s5=YYDd_=K8w@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 12:07?PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:

>
> As for TCP initially using Selective-repeat or SACK, do you remember what
> the TCP retransmission time out was at that time? It makes a difference.
> The nominal value in the textbooks is RTT + 4D, where D is the mean
> variation. There is an RFC that says if 4D < 1 sec, set it to 1 sec. which
> seems high, but that is what it says.
>
> Take care,
> John
>

Serious study of what the RTO should be didn't happen until the late
1980s.  Before that, it was rather ad hoc.

RFC 793 says min(upper bound,  beta * min(lower bound, SRTT)). where SRTT
was an incremental moving average, SRTT = (alpha * SRTT) +
(1-alpha)(measured RTT).  But this leaves open all sorts of questions such
as: what should alpha and beta be (RFC 793 suggests alpha of .8 or so and
beta of 1.3 to 2), and do you measure an RTT once per window (BSD's
approach) or once per segment (I think TENEX's approach).  Not to
mention the retransmission ambiguity problem, which Lixia Z. and Raj Jain
discovered in 1985-6.  (If you are wondering why we didn't use variance --
it required a square root which was strictly a no-no in kernels of that
era;  Van J. solved part of this issue by finding a variance calculation
that could be done without a square root).

This is an improvement on TCP v2 (which is silent on the topic) and IEN 15
(1976) which says use 2 * RTT estimate.

Ethernet and ALOHA were more explicit about this process but both had far
easier problems, with well bounded prop delay (and in ALOHA's case, a prop
delay so long it swamped queueing times).

Part of the reason TCP was slow to realize the issues, I think, were (1)
the expectation loss would be low (Dave Clark used to say that in the
1970s, the notion was loss was below 1%, which, in a time when windows were
often 4, mean the RTO was used about 4% of the time); and (2) failure to
realize congestion collapse was an issue (when loss rates soar to 80% or
more and your RTO estimator really needs to be good or you make congestion
worse).  It is not chance that RTO issues came to a head as the Internet
was suffering congestion collapse.  I got pulled into the issues (and
helped Phil Karn solve retransmission ambiguity) because I was playing with
RDP, which had selective acks, and was seeing also sorts of strange holes
in my windows (as out of order segments were being acked) and trying to
figure out what to retransmit and when.

Craig


-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.


From touch at strayalpha.com  Mon Dec 29 10:24:14 2025
From: touch at strayalpha.com (touch at strayalpha.com)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 10:24:14 -0800
Subject: [ih] Question on Flow Control
In-Reply-To: <CAHQj4CcdgzARojk5HFp4b-ScGDJLYTcqr-GFH1s5=YYDd_=K8w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4Cdcy92L36BDNtDj=8xfSVJW4ieSquX4c4OxSJWE4NgsmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <85644C39-AB6C-4C9E-B2F3-B1D32EF7797E@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4CcdgzARojk5HFp4b-ScGDJLYTcqr-GFH1s5=YYDd_=K8w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ABE055C7-EE95-415A-BF9E-1CC3C00D0F32@strayalpha.com>

On Dec 29, 2025, at 9:57?AM, Craig Partridge via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 12:07?PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> As for TCP initially using Selective-repeat or SACK, do you remember what
>> the TCP retransmission time out was at that time? It makes a difference.
>> The nominal value in the textbooks is RTT + 4D, where D is the mean
>> variation. There is an RFC that says if 4D < 1 sec, set it to 1 sec. which
>> seems high, but that is what it says.
>> 
>> Take care,
>> John
>> 
> 
> Serious study of what the RTO should be didn't happen until the late
> 1980s.  Before that, it was rather ad hoc.
> 
> RFC 793 says min(upper bound,  beta * min(lower bound, SRTT)). where SRTT
> was an incremental moving average, SRTT = (alpha * SRTT) +
> (1-alpha)(measured RTT).  But this leaves open all sorts of questions such
> as: what should alpha and beta be (RFC 793 suggests alpha of .8 or so and
> beta of 1.3 to 2), and do you measure an RTT once per window (BSD's
> approach) or once per segment (I think TENEX's approach).  Not to
> mention the retransmission ambiguity problem, which Lixia Z. and Raj Jain
> discovered in 1985-6.  (If you are wondering why we didn't use variance --
> it required a square root which was strictly a no-no in kernels of that
> era;  Van J. solved part of this issue by finding a variance calculation
> that could be done without a square root).

FWIW, I raised the point that the time window had a moving average but not a moving variance to Van at a DARPA PI meeting. I don?t know why everyone was stuck on square roots as a problem; it?s just as easy to just compare the squares instead of trying to take square roots.

The variance part came from some work I did at Cornell with Ken Birman as a grad student working on heartbeat trace analysis, as described in the first paragraph here: https://www.strayalpha.com/pubs/ecg1987.pdf I have an online version of the detail of that all, describing how the combination of avg and variance automatically adjusted for noise, which I can upload and link if there?s interest.

Joe

?
Dr. Joe Touch, temporal epistemologist
www.strayalpha.com



From jeanjour at comcast.net  Mon Dec 29 11:07:48 2025
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 14:07:48 -0500
Subject: [ih] Question on Flow Control
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggdfuP5t8X=h1ePbRadn+KDuc-8gSSM5HqkmFS5jb5CYOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4Cdcy92L36BDNtDj=8xfSVJW4ieSquX4c4OxSJWE4NgsmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <85644C39-AB6C-4C9E-B2F3-B1D32EF7797E@comcast.net>
 <CAHxHggdfuP5t8X=h1ePbRadn+KDuc-8gSSM5HqkmFS5jb5CYOg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D0F4AF7D-144F-461E-91CB-3A3C73B5FD87@comcast.net>

That was what I understood. And what was put into TCP was dynamic window.  I guess the question comes down is that what he had seen at Rennes?

Thanks,
John

> On Dec 29, 2025, at 12:46, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
> 
> inline comment
> 
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 12:07?PM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>> To some extent you are right, it is a rat-hole. ;-)
>> 
>> However, it appears the belief that it was Go-Back-N is because textbooks gave that illusion. As near as I can tell, GBN didn?t exist in 1973 and if SDLC is the first fixed window, then it was still in development.
>> 
>> Gerard LeLann says he introduced sliding window to CYCLADES and TCP when he moved from Rennes to IRIA in 72, but I don?t know what form of sliding window it was. He presented his thoughts on it when Vint and Bob visited IRIA in March 1973. I haven?t found that presentation and later papers on the topic by Gerard don?t clarify it.
> Gerard and I met in 1973 at INRIA and he came to stanford in 1974 during the detailed specification of TCP. We used the sliding window and mechanisms for accepting packets arriving out of order. SACK was a later development in the evolution of TCP/IP and was allowed but not required, as I recall. 
>> 
>> As for TCP initially using Selective-repeat or SACK, do you remember what the TCP retransmission time out was at that time? It makes a difference.  The nominal value in the textbooks is RTT + 4D, where D is the mean variation. There is an RFC that says if 4D < 1 sec, set it to 1 sec. which seems high, but that is what it says.
>> 
>> Take care,
>> John
>> 
>> > On Dec 29, 2025, at 11:54, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net <mailto:craig at tereschau.net>> wrote:
>> > 
>> > This is a complete rabbit hole, in part because so many folks misunderstood things in the late 1970s early 1980s.  (People used to say TCP used go-back-N when, except for the very  first implementations, it used selective-repeat).
>> > 
>> > But hey, sometimes rabbit holes are fun.
>> > 
>> > Note that ALOHA was also around (1970 I believe) and once it got slotted, I believe it used windows and used a pure go-back-N.  I don't have a precise timing for when slotting came into fashion.
>> > 
>> > Side note for those who didn't track this stuff.  A key issue is whether the receiver buffers packets received out of order.  If not, then if a packet is lost, all following are discarded, and the receiver must resend everything from the point of loss (go-back-N).  If the receiver buffers, then the sender should simply send the missing packet and (with luck assuming just one loss) transmission can proceed more efficiently assuming a shared medium... (this is selective-repeat)
>> > 
>> > Craig
>> > 
>> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 9:59?AM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>> wrote:
>> >> As we all know, there are two forms of sliding window flow control:
>> >> 1) the static window, where an Ack causes the window to be moved and requires two extra commands, and
>> >> 2) the dynamic window, with a credit field that is added to the Ack value to find the Right Window Edge (RWE) and doesn?t need the two extra commands.
>> >> 
>> >> Static window is found in datacomm protocols such as SDLC, HDLC, and variations on them.  (HDLC was created from SDLC.)
>> >> Dynamic window is found in most Transport protocols such as TCP, TS, TP4, SCTP, QUIC, etc.
>> >> 
>> >> Most textbooks present these as a progression from a simple stop-and-wait protocol with increasing complexity through static window to dynamic window as if this was the order of development. That dynamic winsdow was an enhancement of static window.
>> >> 
>> >> However, that does not seem to be borne out by the historical record, but it isn?t clear. This is what I have been able to determine:
>> >> 1) Static window is in SDLC, an integral part of IBM?s SNA.
>> >> 
>> >> 2) SNA was released in 1974 with SDLC.
>> >> 
>> >> 3) I have not been able to find anyone (or any paper) who knows about the development inside IBM of SDLC, nor was SDLC based on precursors either inside or outside IBM.
>> >> 
>> >> 4) I have not been able to find anything about a sliding window flow control protocol prior to 72 or 73.
>> >> 
>> >> 5) Dynamic window first appeared in CYCLADES TS in late 1972 or early 73 and was incorporated into the early drafts of Sept 73.
>> >> 
>> >> That doesn?t give much time for overlap and IBM in this period kept their cards pretty close to their chest.
>> >> 
>> >> So the questions are:
>> >> 
>> >> 1) Did fixed window originate at IBM with SDLC?
>> >> 
>> >> 2) Was there an earlier fixed window precursor to SDLC that was inside or outside IBM?
>> >> 
>> >> 3)  Was there an external fixed window precursor that was the example for both?
>> >> 
>> >> 4)  Is this a case of independent invention?  Were static and dynamic window flow control invented independently?
>> >> 
>> >> It isn?t an earth-shattering question, but it is curious and does seem to run counter to the typical exposition in textbooks.
>> >> 
>> >> Take care,
>> >> John Day
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> -- 
>> >> Internet-history mailing list
>> >> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org> <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:Internet-history at elists.isoc.org>>
>> >> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> >> -
>> >> Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > --
>> > *****
>> > Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists.
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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
>> -
>> Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> Vint Cerf
> Google, LLC
> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> Reston, VA 20190
> +1 (571) 213 1346
> 
> 
> until further notice
> 
> 
> 



From jack at 3kitty.org  Mon Dec 29 11:18:34 2025
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 11:18:34 -0800
Subject: [ih] Question on Flow Control
In-Reply-To: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
References: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <f801e9d7-271f-45c5-97fb-311e98c11eb4@3kitty.org>

Whenever there's a question about who invented some protocol or 
algorithm in the computer world, IMHO it's useful to remember that 
humans have been communicating for a very long time -- well before 
computers existed.? My impression has always been that many "inventions" 
in the computer world were simply translations of older "protocols" and 
"algorithms" that humans used before computers were available to do the 
tedious work.

In 1960s high school, I got involved in ham radio, and in particular in 
"message traffic".? We passed messages (think "telegrams") from sender 
to receiver through as many intervening "hops" as needed to get from 
source to destination.? Routes were dynamically determined, depending on 
who showed up on the radio channel at the time.? Radio is a lossy 
environment, with fading, static crashes, and such events corrupting 
messages in transit between two operators.? There was a rather elaborate 
protocol for detecting such errors, retransmitting missing pieces, and 
making sure the message got through intact on each hop through the route 
from sender to recipient.

Ham operators didn't invent such protocols and algorithms.? ?Morse code 
had existed for a century or more, with professional operators 
performing similar protocols and algorithms.? Before electricity and 
telegraphy, messages were passed using balloons, lights, and signal fires.

Tom Standage's book "The Victorian Internet" tells a fascinating tale of 
how all that pre-computer technology was developed and used.? From 
Amazon:? "The Victorian Internet tells the colorful story of the 
telegraph's creation and remarkable impact, and of the visionaries, 
oddballs, and eccentrics who pioneered it, from the eighteenth-century 
French scientist Jean-Antoine Nollet to Samuel F. B. Morse and Thomas 
Edison. The electric telegraph nullified distance and shrank the world 
quicker and further than ever before or since, and its story mirrors and 
predicts that of the Internet in numerous ways."

Also in high school, I had a teacher who was interested in Greek and 
Roman history.? ?We learned a bit about communications as practiced 
several thousand years ago.? The Roman Empire covered much of Europe and 
extended into Asia and Africa.? ?Communications was a big problem, 
especially between the generals in the battlefield and the decision 
makers back in Rome.

They addressed that need with technology.? Couriers carried messages, 
and an extensive network of roads really did lead to Rome.? Today we use 
other terminology, such as "datagrams" and "packets".? ?We use fiber 
optics in place of paved roadways.

Messages were on scrolls.? ?I recall an Internet meeting sometime in the 
late 1970s when Vint explained the origin of the term "protocol".? At 
the beginning of a scroll was the "protokolon" (Greek terminology).? ?It 
contained a short description of what that scroll contained.? Today we'd 
call it a "header".

If a message was very important and critical, the sender would send 
multiple copies, and use alternate routes.? Slaves were cheap and in 
good supply.? One slave courier might be sent overland, and hopefully 
survive encounters with enemies, tribal warlords, and other hazards 
along the way.? Another might be sent by sea, in a trireme (boat with 
human-powered engine) that might survive encounters with pirates.

Latency was pretty high, measured in days, weeks, or even months, so 
acknowledgement and retransmission schemes were impractical. ?Better to 
just send lots of datagrams.? ?Errr, -- I meant couriers.

Security was often a concern.? You didn't want the enemy to know your 
plans and weaknesses.? Scrolls could be ripped into pieces, and each 
piece sent by a separate courier, travelling over different routes.? 
Putting the pieces together at the destination would reveal the 
message.? ?Today, we have "fragmentation" and "reassembly" in the 
Internet.? ?Our computers are the "scribes". ?Our circuits are the 
"couriers".

At the Internet meetings in the late 1970s, I remember discussions where 
we talked about such "prior art", and used the lessons of history to 
make Internet design decisions.? The Internet was designed to serve as a 
communications infrastructure for the US/Nato military, which had the 
same needs as their predecessors in Roman times.? ?Some of the protocols 
and algorithms used today were invented long ago -- probably well before 
even Roman and Greek times.

/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/20251229/44bb66bf/attachment.asc>

From jeanjour at comcast.net  Mon Dec 29 13:23:10 2025
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 16:23:10 -0500
Subject: [ih] Question on Flow Control
In-Reply-To: <CAHQj4CcdgzARojk5HFp4b-ScGDJLYTcqr-GFH1s5=YYDd_=K8w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4Cdcy92L36BDNtDj=8xfSVJW4ieSquX4c4OxSJWE4NgsmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <85644C39-AB6C-4C9E-B2F3-B1D32EF7797E@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4CcdgzARojk5HFp4b-ScGDJLYTcqr-GFH1s5=YYDd_=K8w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01916815-A8B1-4BFD-ACAE-9CEF32857488@comcast.net>



> On Dec 29, 2025, at 12:57, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 12:07?PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> As for TCP initially using Selective-repeat or SACK, do you remember what the TCP retransmission time out was at that time? It makes a difference.  The nominal value in the textbooks is RTT + 4D, where D is the mean variation. There is an RFC that says if 4D < 1 sec, set it to 1 sec. which seems high, but that is what it says.
>> 
>> Take care,
>> John
> 
> Serious study of what the RTO should be didn't happen until the late 1980s.  Before that, it was rather ad hoc.

I only brought up RTO because of the comment about SACK. For SACK to be useful, RTO can?t be too short. 3 seconds sounds like plenty of time.

> RFC 793 says min(upper bound,  beta * min(lower bound, SRTT)). where SRTT was an incremental moving average, SRTT = (alpha * SRTT) + (1-alpha)(measured RTT).  But this leaves open all sorts of questions such as: what should alpha and beta be (RFC 793 suggests alpha of .8 or so and beta of 1.3 to 2), and do you measure an RTT once per window (BSD's approach) or once per segment (I think TENEX's approach).  Not to mention the retransmission ambiguity problem, which Lixia Z. and Raj Jain discovered in 1985-6.  \\

Yes, this is pretty much what the textbooks say these days. Although RFC 6298 has an equation for calculating RTO, the RFC says that if equation yields a value less than 1 sec, then set it to 1 sec. It also says that the previous value was 3 sec and there is no problem continuing to use that.  So it would seem RTO should be between 1 and 3 seconds.  This seems to be a long time.

> (If you are wondering why we didn't use variance -- it required a square root which was strictly a no-no in kernels of that era;  Van J. solved part of this issue by finding a variance calculation that could be done without a square root).

Yes, it was clear why variance wasn?t used. It required by both squares and square root. I tell students that in Operating Systems,  multiplication is higher math. ;-)

> 
> This is an improvement on TCP v2 (which is silent on the topic) and IEN 15 (1976) which says use 2 * RTT estimate.

For RTO? Yea, that would something to start with.
> 
> Ethernet and ALOHA were more explicit about this process but both had far easier problems, with well bounded prop delay (and in ALOHA's case, a prop delay so long it swamped queueing times).
> 
> Part of the reason TCP was slow to realize the issues, I think, were (1) the expectation loss would be low (Dave Clark used to say that in the 1970s, the notion was loss was below 1%, which, in a time when windows were often 4, mean the RTO was used about 4% of the time); and (2) failure to realize congestion collapse was an issue (when loss rates soar to 80% or more and your RTO estimator really needs to be good or you make congestion worse).  It is not chance that RTO issues came to a head as the Internet was suffering congestion collapse.  I got pulled into the issues (and helped Phil Karn solve retransmission ambiguity) because I was playing with RDP, which had selective acks, and was seeing also sorts of strange holes in my windows (as out of order segments were being acked) and trying to figure out what to retransmit and when.

It doesn?t help that the Internet adopted what is basically CUTE+AIMD.

But back to the flow control issue. This is a digression on a rat hole. ;-)

But also a useful discussion.  ;-)

The question remains was dynamic window an enhancement of static window or were they independently developed?

Take care,
John
> 
> Craig
> 
> 
> --
> *****
> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists.



From jack at 3kitty.org  Mon Dec 29 16:05:32 2025
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 16:05:32 -0800
Subject: [ih] Question on Flow Control
In-Reply-To: <01916815-A8B1-4BFD-ACAE-9CEF32857488@comcast.net>
References: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4Cdcy92L36BDNtDj=8xfSVJW4ieSquX4c4OxSJWE4NgsmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <85644C39-AB6C-4C9E-B2F3-B1D32EF7797E@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4CcdgzARojk5HFp4b-ScGDJLYTcqr-GFH1s5=YYDd_=K8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <01916815-A8B1-4BFD-ACAE-9CEF32857488@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <2a736b08-98c1-4007-8ef7-0163238b4288@3kitty.org>

A little more rathole history...

In 1977/78, I implemented TCPV2 for Unix on a PDP-11/40.? It was based 
on the TCPV2 code which Jim Mathis at SRI had already created for the 
LSI-11.? ?So most of the "state diagram", buffer management, and 
datagram handling were compatible with a PDP-11, with a lot of 
shoehorning to get it into the Unix environment (not easy on an 11/40).

Jim's code set the Retransmission timer at 3 seconds.? When I asked why, 
the answers revealed that no one really knew what it should be.? It also 
didn't matter much at the time, since the underlying ARPANET which 
carried most traffic delivered everything sent, in order, intact, and 
with no duplicates.? Gateways might drop datagrams, and did -- 
especially the ones interconnecting ARPANET to SATNET for 
intercontinental traffic.

SATNET involved a geosynchronous satellite, with delays of perhaps a 
good fraction of a second even under no load.? So 3 seconds seemed 
reasonable for RTO.? ?I left the RTO in my Unix implementation set to 3 
seconds.? ?We also closely monitored the "core gateways" to detect 
situations with high loss rates of datagrams; gateways had no choice but 
discarding packets when no buffers were available.? It happened a lot in 
the intercontinental path.

A lot of us TCPV2 implementers just picked 3 seconds, while waiting for 
further research to produce a better answer.? Subsequently VanJ and 
others thought about it a lot and invented schemes for adjusting TCP 
behavior, documented in numerous RFCs.

...

More than a decade later, I was involved in operating a corporate 
network, using TCPV4 and 100+ Cisco routers.? We used SNMP to monitor 
the network behavior.? Since we were also responsible for many of the 
"host" computers, we also monitored TCP behavior in the hosts, also by 
using SNMP.? Not all TCP implementations implemented that capability, 
but for some we could watch retransmissions, duplicates, checksum 
errors, and collect such data from inside the hosts' TCPs.

It became obvious that there was a wide range of implementation 
decisions that the various TCP implementers had made.? At one point, 
before Microsoft embraced TCP, there were more than 30 separate TCP 
implementations available just for use in PCs.? All sorts of companies 
were also marketing workstations to attach to the proliferating Ethernets.

We had to test our own software with each of these.? ?They exhibited 
quite varied behavior.? Some were optimized for fastest network 
transfers -- including one that accomplished that by violating part of 
the Ethernet specifications for timing, effectively stealing service 
from others on the LAN.? Others were optimized for minimizing load on 
the PC, either CPU or memory resources or both. Some were optimized for 
simplicity -- I recall one which only accepted the "next" datagram for 
its current window, discarding anything else.? It was simple and took 
advantage of the fact that out-of-order datagrams it discarded would be 
retransmitted anyway.

All of these implementations "worked", in the sense that TCP traffic 
would flow.? We could observe their behavior by monitoring both the 
gateways (called routers by that time) and the TCPs in computers 
attached to our intranet.

Whether or not they were "legal" and conformed to the specifications and 
standards was unclear.? ?Marketing literature might say lots of things, 
but independent certification labs were scarce or non-existent.? ?Caveat 
emptor.

...

Fast forward to today.? My home LAN now has 50+ devices on it.? ?All of 
them presumably have implemented TCP.? I don't watch any of them.? I 
have no idea which algorithms, RFCs, standards, or optimizations each 
has chosen to implement.? Or if their implementation is correct.? Or 
"legal" in conforming to whatever the specifications are today.

Does anybody monitor the behavior of the Internet today at the host 
computers and their TCPs?? ?How does anyone know that the TCP in their 
device today is operating as expected and as the mathematical analyses 
promised?

/Jack Haverty


On 12/29/25 13:23, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>
>> On Dec 29, 2025, at 12:57, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 12:07?PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>> As for TCP initially using Selective-repeat or SACK, do you remember what the TCP retransmission time out was at that time? It makes a difference.  The nominal value in the textbooks is RTT + 4D, where D is the mean variation. There is an RFC that says if 4D < 1 sec, set it to 1 sec. which seems high, but that is what it says.
>>>
>>> Take care,
>>> John
>> Serious study of what the RTO should be didn't happen until the late 1980s.  Before that, it was rather ad hoc.
> I only brought up RTO because of the comment about SACK. For SACK to be useful, RTO can?t be too short. 3 seconds sounds like plenty of time.
>
>> RFC 793 says min(upper bound,  beta * min(lower bound, SRTT)). where SRTT was an incremental moving average, SRTT = (alpha * SRTT) + (1-alpha)(measured RTT).  But this leaves open all sorts of questions such as: what should alpha and beta be (RFC 793 suggests alpha of .8 or so and beta of 1.3 to 2), and do you measure an RTT once per window (BSD's approach) or once per segment (I think TENEX's approach).  Not to mention the retransmission ambiguity problem, which Lixia Z. and Raj Jain discovered in 1985-6.  \\
> Yes, this is pretty much what the textbooks say these days. Although RFC 6298 has an equation for calculating RTO, the RFC says that if equation yields a value less than 1 sec, then set it to 1 sec. It also says that the previous value was 3 sec and there is no problem continuing to use that.  So it would seem RTO should be between 1 and 3 seconds.  This seems to be a long time.
>
>> (If you are wondering why we didn't use variance -- it required a square root which was strictly a no-no in kernels of that era;  Van J. solved part of this issue by finding a variance calculation that could be done without a square root).
> Yes, it was clear why variance wasn?t used. It required by both squares and square root. I tell students that in Operating Systems,  multiplication is higher math. ;-)
>
>> This is an improvement on TCP v2 (which is silent on the topic) and IEN 15 (1976) which says use 2 * RTT estimate.
> For RTO? Yea, that would something to start with.
>> Ethernet and ALOHA were more explicit about this process but both had far easier problems, with well bounded prop delay (and in ALOHA's case, a prop delay so long it swamped queueing times).
>>
>> Part of the reason TCP was slow to realize the issues, I think, were (1) the expectation loss would be low (Dave Clark used to say that in the 1970s, the notion was loss was below 1%, which, in a time when windows were often 4, mean the RTO was used about 4% of the time); and (2) failure to realize congestion collapse was an issue (when loss rates soar to 80% or more and your RTO estimator really needs to be good or you make congestion worse).  It is not chance that RTO issues came to a head as the Internet was suffering congestion collapse.  I got pulled into the issues (and helped Phil Karn solve retransmission ambiguity) because I was playing with RDP, which had selective acks, and was seeing also sorts of strange holes in my windows (as out of order segments were being acked) and trying to figure out what to retransmit and when.
> It doesn?t help that the Internet adopted what is basically CUTE+AIMD.
>
> But back to the flow control issue. This is a digression on a rat hole. ;-)
>
> But also a useful discussion.  ;-)
>
> The question remains was dynamic window an enhancement of static window or were they independently developed?
>
> Take care,
> John
>> Craig
>>
>>
>> --
>> *****
>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists.

-------------- 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/20251229/5f2acc69/attachment.asc>

From lk at cs.ucla.edu  Mon Dec 29 20:40:17 2025
From: lk at cs.ucla.edu (Leonard Kleinrock)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 20:40:17 -0800
Subject: [ih] Question on Flow Control
In-Reply-To: <2a736b08-98c1-4007-8ef7-0163238b4288@3kitty.org>
References: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4Cdcy92L36BDNtDj=8xfSVJW4ieSquX4c4OxSJWE4NgsmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <85644C39-AB6C-4C9E-B2F3-B1D32EF7797E@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4CcdgzARojk5HFp4b-ScGDJLYTcqr-GFH1s5=YYDd_=K8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <01916815-A8B1-4BFD-ACAE-9CEF32857488@comcast.net>
 <2a736b08-98c1-4007-8ef7-0163238b4288@3kitty.org>
Message-ID: <EF242A5F-8CD2-4D76-B074-0BD911E1F9D4@cs.ucla.edu>

As this discussion group has been reaching back in time to the early RFC?s, the early Host-Host protocol, the NCP, other early protocols and rathole history, and how they informed TCP and its many improvements, let?s not forget that Steve Crocker was a key contributor (e.g, RFC 1 and much more).  I may have missed mention of Steve, but surely we should be including his name in our discussions  about those early protocol and system developers.

Len



> On Dec 29, 2025, at 4:05?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> A little more rathole history...
> 
> In 1977/78, I implemented TCPV2 for Unix on a PDP-11/40.  It was based on the TCPV2 code which Jim Mathis at SRI had already created for the LSI-11.   So most of the "state diagram", buffer management, and datagram handling were compatible with a PDP-11, with a lot of shoehorning to get it into the Unix environment (not easy on an 11/40).
> 
> Jim's code set the Retransmission timer at 3 seconds.  When I asked why, the answers revealed that no one really knew what it should be.  It also didn't matter much at the time, since the underlying ARPANET which carried most traffic delivered everything sent, in order, intact, and with no duplicates.  Gateways might drop datagrams, and did -- especially the ones interconnecting ARPANET to SATNET for intercontinental traffic.
> 
> SATNET involved a geosynchronous satellite, with delays of perhaps a good fraction of a second even under no load.  So 3 seconds seemed reasonable for RTO.   I left the RTO in my Unix implementation set to 3 seconds.   We also closely monitored the "core gateways" to detect situations with high loss rates of datagrams; gateways had no choice but discarding packets when no buffers were available.  It happened a lot in the intercontinental path.
> 
> A lot of us TCPV2 implementers just picked 3 seconds, while waiting for further research to produce a better answer.  Subsequently VanJ and others thought about it a lot and invented schemes for adjusting TCP behavior, documented in numerous RFCs.
> 
> ...
> 
> More than a decade later, I was involved in operating a corporate network, using TCPV4 and 100+ Cisco routers.  We used SNMP to monitor the network behavior.  Since we were also responsible for many of the "host" computers, we also monitored TCP behavior in the hosts, also by using SNMP.  Not all TCP implementations implemented that capability, but for some we could watch retransmissions, duplicates, checksum errors, and collect such data from inside the hosts' TCPs.
> 
> It became obvious that there was a wide range of implementation decisions that the various TCP implementers had made.  At one point, before Microsoft embraced TCP, there were more than 30 separate TCP implementations available just for use in PCs.  All sorts of companies were also marketing workstations to attach to the proliferating Ethernets.
> 
> We had to test our own software with each of these.   They exhibited quite varied behavior.  Some were optimized for fastest network transfers -- including one that accomplished that by violating part of the Ethernet specifications for timing, effectively stealing service from others on the LAN.  Others were optimized for minimizing load on the PC, either CPU or memory resources or both. Some were optimized for simplicity -- I recall one which only accepted the "next" datagram for its current window, discarding anything else.  It was simple and took advantage of the fact that out-of-order datagrams it discarded would be retransmitted anyway.
> 
> All of these implementations "worked", in the sense that TCP traffic would flow.  We could observe their behavior by monitoring both the gateways (called routers by that time) and the TCPs in computers attached to our intranet.
> 
> Whether or not they were "legal" and conformed to the specifications and standards was unclear.   Marketing literature might say lots of things, but independent certification labs were scarce or non-existent.   Caveat emptor.
> 
> ...
> 
> Fast forward to today.  My home LAN now has 50+ devices on it.   All of them presumably have implemented TCP.  I don't watch any of them.  I have no idea which algorithms, RFCs, standards, or optimizations each has chosen to implement.  Or if their implementation is correct.  Or "legal" in conforming to whatever the specifications are today.
> 
> Does anybody monitor the behavior of the Internet today at the host computers and their TCPs?   How does anyone know that the TCP in their device today is operating as expected and as the mathematical analyses promised?
> 
> /Jack Haverty
> 
> 
> On 12/29/25 13:23, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>> 
>>> On Dec 29, 2025, at 12:57, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 12:07?PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>>> As for TCP initially using Selective-repeat or SACK, do you remember what the TCP retransmission time out was at that time? It makes a difference.  The nominal value in the textbooks is RTT + 4D, where D is the mean variation. There is an RFC that says if 4D < 1 sec, set it to 1 sec. which seems high, but that is what it says.
>>>> 
>>>> Take care,
>>>> John
>>> Serious study of what the RTO should be didn't happen until the late 1980s.  Before that, it was rather ad hoc.
>> I only brought up RTO because of the comment about SACK. For SACK to be useful, RTO can?t be too short. 3 seconds sounds like plenty of time.
>> 
>>> RFC 793 says min(upper bound,  beta * min(lower bound, SRTT)). where SRTT was an incremental moving average, SRTT = (alpha * SRTT) + (1-alpha)(measured RTT).  But this leaves open all sorts of questions such as: what should alpha and beta be (RFC 793 suggests alpha of .8 or so and beta of 1.3 to 2), and do you measure an RTT once per window (BSD's approach) or once per segment (I think TENEX's approach).  Not to mention the retransmission ambiguity problem, which Lixia Z. and Raj Jain discovered in 1985-6.  \\
>> Yes, this is pretty much what the textbooks say these days. Although RFC 6298 has an equation for calculating RTO, the RFC says that if equation yields a value less than 1 sec, then set it to 1 sec. It also says that the previous value was 3 sec and there is no problem continuing to use that.  So it would seem RTO should be between 1 and 3 seconds.  This seems to be a long time.
>> 
>>> (If you are wondering why we didn't use variance -- it required a square root which was strictly a no-no in kernels of that era;  Van J. solved part of this issue by finding a variance calculation that could be done without a square root).
>> Yes, it was clear why variance wasn?t used. It required by both squares and square root. I tell students that in Operating Systems,  multiplication is higher math. ;-)
>> 
>>> This is an improvement on TCP v2 (which is silent on the topic) and IEN 15 (1976) which says use 2 * RTT estimate.
>> For RTO? Yea, that would something to start with.
>>> Ethernet and ALOHA were more explicit about this process but both had far easier problems, with well bounded prop delay (and in ALOHA's case, a prop delay so long it swamped queueing times).
>>> 
>>> Part of the reason TCP was slow to realize the issues, I think, were (1) the expectation loss would be low (Dave Clark used to say that in the 1970s, the notion was loss was below 1%, which, in a time when windows were often 4, mean the RTO was used about 4% of the time); and (2) failure to realize congestion collapse was an issue (when loss rates soar to 80% or more and your RTO estimator really needs to be good or you make congestion worse).  It is not chance that RTO issues came to a head as the Internet was suffering congestion collapse.  I got pulled into the issues (and helped Phil Karn solve retransmission ambiguity) because I was playing with RDP, which had selective acks, and was seeing also sorts of strange holes in my windows (as out of order segments were being acked) and trying to figure out what to retransmit and when.
>> It doesn?t help that the Internet adopted what is basically CUTE+AIMD.
>> 
>> But back to the flow control issue. This is a digression on a rat hole. ;-)
>> 
>> But also a useful discussion.  ;-)
>> 
>> The question remains was dynamic window an enhancement of static window or were they independently developed?
>> 
>> Take care,
>> John
>>> Craig
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *****
>>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists.
> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history



From steve at shinkuro.com  Wed Dec 31 08:00:48 2025
From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2025 11:00:48 -0500
Subject: [ih] Question on Flow Control
In-Reply-To: <EF242A5F-8CD2-4D76-B074-0BD911E1F9D4@cs.ucla.edu>
References: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4Cdcy92L36BDNtDj=8xfSVJW4ieSquX4c4OxSJWE4NgsmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <85644C39-AB6C-4C9E-B2F3-B1D32EF7797E@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4CcdgzARojk5HFp4b-ScGDJLYTcqr-GFH1s5=YYDd_=K8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <01916815-A8B1-4BFD-ACAE-9CEF32857488@comcast.net>
 <2a736b08-98c1-4007-8ef7-0163238b4288@3kitty.org>
 <EF242A5F-8CD2-4D76-B074-0BD911E1F9D4@cs.ucla.edu>
Message-ID: <CABf5zv+EPwRDQWFxFRnAw_3fQdFfnwfomU-G1=553me+yDipRQ@mail.gmail.com>

Len,

Thanks for mentioning me.  In the design of the Arpanet protocols flow
control was indeed a major concern.  However, there were some key
differences between designing flow control for the Arpanet and flow control
for the Internet.

The initial version of the Arpanet was designed, implemented and deployed
with the conviction that no messages would ever be lost.  Hence there was
no reason to include retransmission in the Host-Host protocol.  (For those
not familiar with the original nomenclature, I used Host-Host protocol as
the name of the abstract bitstream.  Telnet and FTP were built on top of
it.   I used the term Network Control Program to refer to the software that
had to be added to each time-shared computer's operating system to support
interactions between user process and the IMP.  Over time, the abbreviation
"NCP" became repurposed to mean Network Control Protocol as the name of the
Host-Host protocol.)

Even though we didn't expect the Arpanet to drop messages, we anticipated
there might be congestion in the receiving host, and thus we needed a way
for the receiving host to have some control over the quantity or rate of
data the sending host.  The resulting design, allocations of both messages
and bits by the receiving host reflected a best guess.  We left it to the
implementers, operators and future researchers to work out quantitative
details.  (N.B. I said "bits."  Eight bit bytes were not yet the universal
quantity of exchange.  This changed by the time the Internet protocols were
being designed.)

Thus, when the Internet protocols were being designed there were two
significant differences.  First, it was clear there had to be a way to
retransmit messages that had been lost.  Second, the community had gained
some experience with the performance of the protocol.  And, of course, with
the Arpanet in operation, it was possible to try out different designs.
Retransmission strategies added a lot of complexity to the design problem.
But even the "simple" problem of controlling congestion without considering
lost messages was surprisingly complex.  In the early days, memory was very
limited.  When memory became plentiful, allocating too much space brought
forth the phenomenon of bufferbloat.

Returning to the relationship between the early work on flow control in the
Arpanet NCP and the later work on flow control and retransmission in the
Internet, I'd say the main contribution from the Arpanet initial period was
the identification of the need for flow control and an initial design that
provided a basis for measurement and experimentation.

Steve




On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 11:40?PM Leonard Kleinrock via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> As this discussion group has been reaching back in time to the early
> RFC?s, the early Host-Host protocol, the NCP, other early protocols and
> rathole history, and how they informed TCP and its many improvements, let?s
> not forget that Steve Crocker was a key contributor (e.g, RFC 1 and much
> more).  I may have missed mention of Steve, but surely we should be
> including his name in our discussions  about those early protocol and
> system developers.
>
> Len
>
>
>
> > On Dec 29, 2025, at 4:05?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> > A little more rathole history...
> >
> > In 1977/78, I implemented TCPV2 for Unix on a PDP-11/40.  It was based
> on the TCPV2 code which Jim Mathis at SRI had already created for the
> LSI-11.   So most of the "state diagram", buffer management, and datagram
> handling were compatible with a PDP-11, with a lot of shoehorning to get it
> into the Unix environment (not easy on an 11/40).
> >
> > Jim's code set the Retransmission timer at 3 seconds.  When I asked why,
> the answers revealed that no one really knew what it should be.  It also
> didn't matter much at the time, since the underlying ARPANET which carried
> most traffic delivered everything sent, in order, intact, and with no
> duplicates.  Gateways might drop datagrams, and did -- especially the ones
> interconnecting ARPANET to SATNET for intercontinental traffic.
> >
> > SATNET involved a geosynchronous satellite, with delays of perhaps a
> good fraction of a second even under no load.  So 3 seconds seemed
> reasonable for RTO.   I left the RTO in my Unix implementation set to 3
> seconds.   We also closely monitored the "core gateways" to detect
> situations with high loss rates of datagrams; gateways had no choice but
> discarding packets when no buffers were available.  It happened a lot in
> the intercontinental path.
> >
> > A lot of us TCPV2 implementers just picked 3 seconds, while waiting for
> further research to produce a better answer.  Subsequently VanJ and others
> thought about it a lot and invented schemes for adjusting TCP behavior,
> documented in numerous RFCs.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > More than a decade later, I was involved in operating a corporate
> network, using TCPV4 and 100+ Cisco routers.  We used SNMP to monitor the
> network behavior.  Since we were also responsible for many of the "host"
> computers, we also monitored TCP behavior in the hosts, also by using
> SNMP.  Not all TCP implementations implemented that capability, but for
> some we could watch retransmissions, duplicates, checksum errors, and
> collect such data from inside the hosts' TCPs.
> >
> > It became obvious that there was a wide range of implementation
> decisions that the various TCP implementers had made.  At one point, before
> Microsoft embraced TCP, there were more than 30 separate TCP
> implementations available just for use in PCs.  All sorts of companies were
> also marketing workstations to attach to the proliferating Ethernets.
> >
> > We had to test our own software with each of these.   They exhibited
> quite varied behavior.  Some were optimized for fastest network transfers
> -- including one that accomplished that by violating part of the Ethernet
> specifications for timing, effectively stealing service from others on the
> LAN.  Others were optimized for minimizing load on the PC, either CPU or
> memory resources or both. Some were optimized for simplicity -- I recall
> one which only accepted the "next" datagram for its current window,
> discarding anything else.  It was simple and took advantage of the fact
> that out-of-order datagrams it discarded would be retransmitted anyway.
> >
> > All of these implementations "worked", in the sense that TCP traffic
> would flow.  We could observe their behavior by monitoring both the
> gateways (called routers by that time) and the TCPs in computers attached
> to our intranet.
> >
> > Whether or not they were "legal" and conformed to the specifications and
> standards was unclear.   Marketing literature might say lots of things, but
> independent certification labs were scarce or non-existent.   Caveat emptor.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Fast forward to today.  My home LAN now has 50+ devices on it.   All of
> them presumably have implemented TCP.  I don't watch any of them.  I have
> no idea which algorithms, RFCs, standards, or optimizations each has chosen
> to implement.  Or if their implementation is correct.  Or "legal" in
> conforming to whatever the specifications are today.
> >
> > Does anybody monitor the behavior of the Internet today at the host
> computers and their TCPs?   How does anyone know that the TCP in their
> device today is operating as expected and as the mathematical analyses
> promised?
> >
> > /Jack Haverty
> >
> >
> > On 12/29/25 13:23, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Dec 29, 2025, at 12:57, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 12:07?PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net
> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
> >>>> As for TCP initially using Selective-repeat or SACK, do you remember
> what the TCP retransmission time out was at that time? It makes a
> difference.  The nominal value in the textbooks is RTT + 4D, where D is the
> mean variation. There is an RFC that says if 4D < 1 sec, set it to 1 sec.
> which seems high, but that is what it says.
> >>>>
> >>>> Take care,
> >>>> John
> >>> Serious study of what the RTO should be didn't happen until the late
> 1980s.  Before that, it was rather ad hoc.
> >> I only brought up RTO because of the comment about SACK. For SACK to be
> useful, RTO can?t be too short. 3 seconds sounds like plenty of time.
> >>
> >>> RFC 793 says min(upper bound,  beta * min(lower bound, SRTT)). where
> SRTT was an incremental moving average, SRTT = (alpha * SRTT) +
> (1-alpha)(measured RTT).  But this leaves open all sorts of questions such
> as: what should alpha and beta be (RFC 793 suggests alpha of .8 or so and
> beta of 1.3 to 2), and do you measure an RTT once per window (BSD's
> approach) or once per segment (I think TENEX's approach).  Not to mention
> the retransmission ambiguity problem, which Lixia Z. and Raj Jain
> discovered in 1985-6.  \\
> >> Yes, this is pretty much what the textbooks say these days. Although
> RFC 6298 has an equation for calculating RTO, the RFC says that if equation
> yields a value less than 1 sec, then set it to 1 sec. It also says that the
> previous value was 3 sec and there is no problem continuing to use that.
> So it would seem RTO should be between 1 and 3 seconds.  This seems to be a
> long time.
> >>
> >>> (If you are wondering why we didn't use variance -- it required a
> square root which was strictly a no-no in kernels of that era;  Van J.
> solved part of this issue by finding a variance calculation that could be
> done without a square root).
> >> Yes, it was clear why variance wasn?t used. It required by both squares
> and square root. I tell students that in Operating Systems,  multiplication
> is higher math. ;-)
> >>
> >>> This is an improvement on TCP v2 (which is silent on the topic) and
> IEN 15 (1976) which says use 2 * RTT estimate.
> >> For RTO? Yea, that would something to start with.
> >>> Ethernet and ALOHA were more explicit about this process but both had
> far easier problems, with well bounded prop delay (and in ALOHA's case, a
> prop delay so long it swamped queueing times).
> >>>
> >>> Part of the reason TCP was slow to realize the issues, I think, were
> (1) the expectation loss would be low (Dave Clark used to say that in the
> 1970s, the notion was loss was below 1%, which, in a time when windows were
> often 4, mean the RTO was used about 4% of the time); and (2) failure to
> realize congestion collapse was an issue (when loss rates soar to 80% or
> more and your RTO estimator really needs to be good or you make congestion
> worse).  It is not chance that RTO issues came to a head as the Internet
> was suffering congestion collapse.  I got pulled into the issues (and
> helped Phil Karn solve retransmission ambiguity) because I was playing with
> RDP, which had selective acks, and was seeing also sorts of strange holes
> in my windows (as out of order segments were being acked) and trying to
> figure out what to retransmit and when.
> >> It doesn?t help that the Internet adopted what is basically CUTE+AIMD.
> >>
> >> But back to the flow control issue. This is a digression on a rat hole.
> ;-)
> >>
> >> But also a useful discussion.  ;-)
> >>
> >> The question remains was dynamic window an enhancement of static window
> or were they independently developed?
> >>
> >> Take care,
> >> John
> >>> Craig
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> *****
> >>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities
> and mailing lists.
> >
> > --
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > -
> > Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>


-- 
Sent by a Verified

sender


From vint at google.com  Wed Dec 31 08:18:54 2025
From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2025 11:18:54 -0500
Subject: [ih] Question on Flow Control
In-Reply-To: <CABf5zv+EPwRDQWFxFRnAw_3fQdFfnwfomU-G1=553me+yDipRQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4Cdcy92L36BDNtDj=8xfSVJW4ieSquX4c4OxSJWE4NgsmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <85644C39-AB6C-4C9E-B2F3-B1D32EF7797E@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4CcdgzARojk5HFp4b-ScGDJLYTcqr-GFH1s5=YYDd_=K8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <01916815-A8B1-4BFD-ACAE-9CEF32857488@comcast.net>
 <2a736b08-98c1-4007-8ef7-0163238b4288@3kitty.org>
 <EF242A5F-8CD2-4D76-B074-0BD911E1F9D4@cs.ucla.edu>
 <CABf5zv+EPwRDQWFxFRnAw_3fQdFfnwfomU-G1=553me+yDipRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHxHggdhQ50T83A-jic-i4q0FxFcJ1doY7rK8eVxZc2H14otNw@mail.gmail.com>

That's a very crisp summary, Steve. Thanks!

V

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




On Wed, Dec 31, 2025, 11:01 Steve Crocker via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Len,
>
> Thanks for mentioning me.  In the design of the Arpanet protocols flow
> control was indeed a major concern.  However, there were some key
> differences between designing flow control for the Arpanet and flow control
> for the Internet.
>
> The initial version of the Arpanet was designed, implemented and deployed
> with the conviction that no messages would ever be lost.  Hence there was
> no reason to include retransmission in the Host-Host protocol.  (For those
> not familiar with the original nomenclature, I used Host-Host protocol as
> the name of the abstract bitstream.  Telnet and FTP were built on top of
> it.   I used the term Network Control Program to refer to the software that
> had to be added to each time-shared computer's operating system to support
> interactions between user process and the IMP.  Over time, the abbreviation
> "NCP" became repurposed to mean Network Control Protocol as the name of the
> Host-Host protocol.)
>
> Even though we didn't expect the Arpanet to drop messages, we anticipated
> there might be congestion in the receiving host, and thus we needed a way
> for the receiving host to have some control over the quantity or rate of
> data the sending host.  The resulting design, allocations of both messages
> and bits by the receiving host reflected a best guess.  We left it to the
> implementers, operators and future researchers to work out quantitative
> details.  (N.B. I said "bits."  Eight bit bytes were not yet the universal
> quantity of exchange.  This changed by the time the Internet protocols were
> being designed.)
>
> Thus, when the Internet protocols were being designed there were two
> significant differences.  First, it was clear there had to be a way to
> retransmit messages that had been lost.  Second, the community had gained
> some experience with the performance of the protocol.  And, of course, with
> the Arpanet in operation, it was possible to try out different designs.
> Retransmission strategies added a lot of complexity to the design problem.
> But even the "simple" problem of controlling congestion without considering
> lost messages was surprisingly complex.  In the early days, memory was very
> limited.  When memory became plentiful, allocating too much space brought
> forth the phenomenon of bufferbloat.
>
> Returning to the relationship between the early work on flow control in the
> Arpanet NCP and the later work on flow control and retransmission in the
> Internet, I'd say the main contribution from the Arpanet initial period was
> the identification of the need for flow control and an initial design that
> provided a basis for measurement and experimentation.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 11:40?PM Leonard Kleinrock via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> > As this discussion group has been reaching back in time to the early
> > RFC?s, the early Host-Host protocol, the NCP, other early protocols and
> > rathole history, and how they informed TCP and its many improvements,
> let?s
> > not forget that Steve Crocker was a key contributor (e.g, RFC 1 and much
> > more).  I may have missed mention of Steve, but surely we should be
> > including his name in our discussions  about those early protocol and
> > system developers.
> >
> > Len
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 29, 2025, at 4:05?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > A little more rathole history...
> > >
> > > In 1977/78, I implemented TCPV2 for Unix on a PDP-11/40.  It was based
> > on the TCPV2 code which Jim Mathis at SRI had already created for the
> > LSI-11.   So most of the "state diagram", buffer management, and datagram
> > handling were compatible with a PDP-11, with a lot of shoehorning to get
> it
> > into the Unix environment (not easy on an 11/40).
> > >
> > > Jim's code set the Retransmission timer at 3 seconds.  When I asked
> why,
> > the answers revealed that no one really knew what it should be.  It also
> > didn't matter much at the time, since the underlying ARPANET which
> carried
> > most traffic delivered everything sent, in order, intact, and with no
> > duplicates.  Gateways might drop datagrams, and did -- especially the
> ones
> > interconnecting ARPANET to SATNET for intercontinental traffic.
> > >
> > > SATNET involved a geosynchronous satellite, with delays of perhaps a
> > good fraction of a second even under no load.  So 3 seconds seemed
> > reasonable for RTO.   I left the RTO in my Unix implementation set to 3
> > seconds.   We also closely monitored the "core gateways" to detect
> > situations with high loss rates of datagrams; gateways had no choice but
> > discarding packets when no buffers were available.  It happened a lot in
> > the intercontinental path.
> > >
> > > A lot of us TCPV2 implementers just picked 3 seconds, while waiting for
> > further research to produce a better answer.  Subsequently VanJ and
> others
> > thought about it a lot and invented schemes for adjusting TCP behavior,
> > documented in numerous RFCs.
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > More than a decade later, I was involved in operating a corporate
> > network, using TCPV4 and 100+ Cisco routers.  We used SNMP to monitor the
> > network behavior.  Since we were also responsible for many of the "host"
> > computers, we also monitored TCP behavior in the hosts, also by using
> > SNMP.  Not all TCP implementations implemented that capability, but for
> > some we could watch retransmissions, duplicates, checksum errors, and
> > collect such data from inside the hosts' TCPs.
> > >
> > > It became obvious that there was a wide range of implementation
> > decisions that the various TCP implementers had made.  At one point,
> before
> > Microsoft embraced TCP, there were more than 30 separate TCP
> > implementations available just for use in PCs.  All sorts of companies
> were
> > also marketing workstations to attach to the proliferating Ethernets.
> > >
> > > We had to test our own software with each of these.   They exhibited
> > quite varied behavior.  Some were optimized for fastest network transfers
> > -- including one that accomplished that by violating part of the Ethernet
> > specifications for timing, effectively stealing service from others on
> the
> > LAN.  Others were optimized for minimizing load on the PC, either CPU or
> > memory resources or both. Some were optimized for simplicity -- I recall
> > one which only accepted the "next" datagram for its current window,
> > discarding anything else.  It was simple and took advantage of the fact
> > that out-of-order datagrams it discarded would be retransmitted anyway.
> > >
> > > All of these implementations "worked", in the sense that TCP traffic
> > would flow.  We could observe their behavior by monitoring both the
> > gateways (called routers by that time) and the TCPs in computers attached
> > to our intranet.
> > >
> > > Whether or not they were "legal" and conformed to the specifications
> and
> > standards was unclear.   Marketing literature might say lots of things,
> but
> > independent certification labs were scarce or non-existent.   Caveat
> emptor.
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Fast forward to today.  My home LAN now has 50+ devices on it.   All of
> > them presumably have implemented TCP.  I don't watch any of them.  I have
> > no idea which algorithms, RFCs, standards, or optimizations each has
> chosen
> > to implement.  Or if their implementation is correct.  Or "legal" in
> > conforming to whatever the specifications are today.
> > >
> > > Does anybody monitor the behavior of the Internet today at the host
> > computers and their TCPs?   How does anyone know that the TCP in their
> > device today is operating as expected and as the mathematical analyses
> > promised?
> > >
> > > /Jack Haverty
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/29/25 13:23, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Dec 29, 2025, at 12:57, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 12:07?PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net
> > <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
> > >>>> As for TCP initially using Selective-repeat or SACK, do you remember
> > what the TCP retransmission time out was at that time? It makes a
> > difference.  The nominal value in the textbooks is RTT + 4D, where D is
> the
> > mean variation. There is an RFC that says if 4D < 1 sec, set it to 1 sec.
> > which seems high, but that is what it says.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Take care,
> > >>>> John
> > >>> Serious study of what the RTO should be didn't happen until the late
> > 1980s.  Before that, it was rather ad hoc.
> > >> I only brought up RTO because of the comment about SACK. For SACK to
> be
> > useful, RTO can?t be too short. 3 seconds sounds like plenty of time.
> > >>
> > >>> RFC 793 says min(upper bound,  beta * min(lower bound, SRTT)). where
> > SRTT was an incremental moving average, SRTT = (alpha * SRTT) +
> > (1-alpha)(measured RTT).  But this leaves open all sorts of questions
> such
> > as: what should alpha and beta be (RFC 793 suggests alpha of .8 or so and
> > beta of 1.3 to 2), and do you measure an RTT once per window (BSD's
> > approach) or once per segment (I think TENEX's approach).  Not to mention
> > the retransmission ambiguity problem, which Lixia Z. and Raj Jain
> > discovered in 1985-6.  \\
> > >> Yes, this is pretty much what the textbooks say these days. Although
> > RFC 6298 has an equation for calculating RTO, the RFC says that if
> equation
> > yields a value less than 1 sec, then set it to 1 sec. It also says that
> the
> > previous value was 3 sec and there is no problem continuing to use that.
> > So it would seem RTO should be between 1 and 3 seconds.  This seems to
> be a
> > long time.
> > >>
> > >>> (If you are wondering why we didn't use variance -- it required a
> > square root which was strictly a no-no in kernels of that era;  Van J.
> > solved part of this issue by finding a variance calculation that could be
> > done without a square root).
> > >> Yes, it was clear why variance wasn?t used. It required by both
> squares
> > and square root. I tell students that in Operating Systems,
> multiplication
> > is higher math. ;-)
> > >>
> > >>> This is an improvement on TCP v2 (which is silent on the topic) and
> > IEN 15 (1976) which says use 2 * RTT estimate.
> > >> For RTO? Yea, that would something to start with.
> > >>> Ethernet and ALOHA were more explicit about this process but both had
> > far easier problems, with well bounded prop delay (and in ALOHA's case, a
> > prop delay so long it swamped queueing times).
> > >>>
> > >>> Part of the reason TCP was slow to realize the issues, I think, were
> > (1) the expectation loss would be low (Dave Clark used to say that in the
> > 1970s, the notion was loss was below 1%, which, in a time when windows
> were
> > often 4, mean the RTO was used about 4% of the time); and (2) failure to
> > realize congestion collapse was an issue (when loss rates soar to 80% or
> > more and your RTO estimator really needs to be good or you make
> congestion
> > worse).  It is not chance that RTO issues came to a head as the Internet
> > was suffering congestion collapse.  I got pulled into the issues (and
> > helped Phil Karn solve retransmission ambiguity) because I was playing
> with
> > RDP, which had selective acks, and was seeing also sorts of strange holes
> > in my windows (as out of order segments were being acked) and trying to
> > figure out what to retransmit and when.
> > >> It doesn?t help that the Internet adopted what is basically CUTE+AIMD.
> > >>
> > >> But back to the flow control issue. This is a digression on a rat
> hole.
> > ;-)
> > >>
> > >> But also a useful discussion.  ;-)
> > >>
> > >> The question remains was dynamic window an enhancement of static
> window
> > or were they independently developed?
> > >>
> > >> Take care,
> > >> John
> > >>> Craig
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> *****
> > >>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities
> > and mailing lists.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Internet-history mailing list
> > > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > > -
> > > Unsubscribe:
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> >
> > --
> > Internet-history mailing list
> > Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > -
> > Unsubscribe:
> >
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
> >
>
>
> --
> Sent by a Verified
>
> sender
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe:
> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>


From jeanjour at comcast.net  Wed Dec 31 08:20:25 2025
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2025 11:20:25 -0500
Subject: [ih] Question on Flow Control
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggdhQ50T83A-jic-i4q0FxFcJ1doY7rK8eVxZc2H14otNw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4Cdcy92L36BDNtDj=8xfSVJW4ieSquX4c4OxSJWE4NgsmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <85644C39-AB6C-4C9E-B2F3-B1D32EF7797E@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4CcdgzARojk5HFp4b-ScGDJLYTcqr-GFH1s5=YYDd_=K8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <01916815-A8B1-4BFD-ACAE-9CEF32857488@comcast.net>
 <2a736b08-98c1-4007-8ef7-0163238b4288@3kitty.org>
 <EF242A5F-8CD2-4D76-B074-0BD911E1F9D4@cs.ucla.edu>
 <CABf5zv+EPwRDQWFxFRnAw_3fQdFfnwfomU-G1=553me+yDipRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHxHggdhQ50T83A-jic-i4q0FxFcJ1doY7rK8eVxZc2H14otNw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8765CE13-F78C-4D00-9A8C-08E2E11002FD@comcast.net>

Totally agree.

> On Dec 31, 2025, at 11:18, Vint Cerf via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> That's a very crisp summary, Steve. Thanks!
> 
> V
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2025, 11:01 Steve Crocker via Internet-history <
> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
>> Len,
>> 
>> Thanks for mentioning me.  In the design of the Arpanet protocols flow
>> control was indeed a major concern.  However, there were some key
>> differences between designing flow control for the Arpanet and flow control
>> for the Internet.
>> 
>> The initial version of the Arpanet was designed, implemented and deployed
>> with the conviction that no messages would ever be lost.  Hence there was
>> no reason to include retransmission in the Host-Host protocol.  (For those
>> not familiar with the original nomenclature, I used Host-Host protocol as
>> the name of the abstract bitstream.  Telnet and FTP were built on top of
>> it.   I used the term Network Control Program to refer to the software that
>> had to be added to each time-shared computer's operating system to support
>> interactions between user process and the IMP.  Over time, the abbreviation
>> "NCP" became repurposed to mean Network Control Protocol as the name of the
>> Host-Host protocol.)
>> 
>> Even though we didn't expect the Arpanet to drop messages, we anticipated
>> there might be congestion in the receiving host, and thus we needed a way
>> for the receiving host to have some control over the quantity or rate of
>> data the sending host.  The resulting design, allocations of both messages
>> and bits by the receiving host reflected a best guess.  We left it to the
>> implementers, operators and future researchers to work out quantitative
>> details.  (N.B. I said "bits."  Eight bit bytes were not yet the universal
>> quantity of exchange.  This changed by the time the Internet protocols were
>> being designed.)
>> 
>> Thus, when the Internet protocols were being designed there were two
>> significant differences.  First, it was clear there had to be a way to
>> retransmit messages that had been lost.  Second, the community had gained
>> some experience with the performance of the protocol.  And, of course, with
>> the Arpanet in operation, it was possible to try out different designs.
>> Retransmission strategies added a lot of complexity to the design problem.
>> But even the "simple" problem of controlling congestion without considering
>> lost messages was surprisingly complex.  In the early days, memory was very
>> limited.  When memory became plentiful, allocating too much space brought
>> forth the phenomenon of bufferbloat.
>> 
>> Returning to the relationship between the early work on flow control in the
>> Arpanet NCP and the later work on flow control and retransmission in the
>> Internet, I'd say the main contribution from the Arpanet initial period was
>> the identification of the need for flow control and an initial design that
>> provided a basis for measurement and experimentation.
>> 
>> Steve
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 11:40?PM Leonard Kleinrock via Internet-history <
>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> As this discussion group has been reaching back in time to the early
>>> RFC?s, the early Host-Host protocol, the NCP, other early protocols and
>>> rathole history, and how they informed TCP and its many improvements,
>> let?s
>>> not forget that Steve Crocker was a key contributor (e.g, RFC 1 and much
>>> more).  I may have missed mention of Steve, but surely we should be
>>> including his name in our discussions  about those early protocol and
>>> system developers.
>>> 
>>> Len
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Dec 29, 2025, at 4:05?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
>>> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> A little more rathole history...
>>>> 
>>>> In 1977/78, I implemented TCPV2 for Unix on a PDP-11/40.  It was based
>>> on the TCPV2 code which Jim Mathis at SRI had already created for the
>>> LSI-11.   So most of the "state diagram", buffer management, and datagram
>>> handling were compatible with a PDP-11, with a lot of shoehorning to get
>> it
>>> into the Unix environment (not easy on an 11/40).
>>>> 
>>>> Jim's code set the Retransmission timer at 3 seconds.  When I asked
>> why,
>>> the answers revealed that no one really knew what it should be.  It also
>>> didn't matter much at the time, since the underlying ARPANET which
>> carried
>>> most traffic delivered everything sent, in order, intact, and with no
>>> duplicates.  Gateways might drop datagrams, and did -- especially the
>> ones
>>> interconnecting ARPANET to SATNET for intercontinental traffic.
>>>> 
>>>> SATNET involved a geosynchronous satellite, with delays of perhaps a
>>> good fraction of a second even under no load.  So 3 seconds seemed
>>> reasonable for RTO.   I left the RTO in my Unix implementation set to 3
>>> seconds.   We also closely monitored the "core gateways" to detect
>>> situations with high loss rates of datagrams; gateways had no choice but
>>> discarding packets when no buffers were available.  It happened a lot in
>>> the intercontinental path.
>>>> 
>>>> A lot of us TCPV2 implementers just picked 3 seconds, while waiting for
>>> further research to produce a better answer.  Subsequently VanJ and
>> others
>>> thought about it a lot and invented schemes for adjusting TCP behavior,
>>> documented in numerous RFCs.
>>>> 
>>>> ...
>>>> 
>>>> More than a decade later, I was involved in operating a corporate
>>> network, using TCPV4 and 100+ Cisco routers.  We used SNMP to monitor the
>>> network behavior.  Since we were also responsible for many of the "host"
>>> computers, we also monitored TCP behavior in the hosts, also by using
>>> SNMP.  Not all TCP implementations implemented that capability, but for
>>> some we could watch retransmissions, duplicates, checksum errors, and
>>> collect such data from inside the hosts' TCPs.
>>>> 
>>>> It became obvious that there was a wide range of implementation
>>> decisions that the various TCP implementers had made.  At one point,
>> before
>>> Microsoft embraced TCP, there were more than 30 separate TCP
>>> implementations available just for use in PCs.  All sorts of companies
>> were
>>> also marketing workstations to attach to the proliferating Ethernets.
>>>> 
>>>> We had to test our own software with each of these.   They exhibited
>>> quite varied behavior.  Some were optimized for fastest network transfers
>>> -- including one that accomplished that by violating part of the Ethernet
>>> specifications for timing, effectively stealing service from others on
>> the
>>> LAN.  Others were optimized for minimizing load on the PC, either CPU or
>>> memory resources or both. Some were optimized for simplicity -- I recall
>>> one which only accepted the "next" datagram for its current window,
>>> discarding anything else.  It was simple and took advantage of the fact
>>> that out-of-order datagrams it discarded would be retransmitted anyway.
>>>> 
>>>> All of these implementations "worked", in the sense that TCP traffic
>>> would flow.  We could observe their behavior by monitoring both the
>>> gateways (called routers by that time) and the TCPs in computers attached
>>> to our intranet.
>>>> 
>>>> Whether or not they were "legal" and conformed to the specifications
>> and
>>> standards was unclear.   Marketing literature might say lots of things,
>> but
>>> independent certification labs were scarce or non-existent.   Caveat
>> emptor.
>>>> 
>>>> ...
>>>> 
>>>> Fast forward to today.  My home LAN now has 50+ devices on it.   All of
>>> them presumably have implemented TCP.  I don't watch any of them.  I have
>>> no idea which algorithms, RFCs, standards, or optimizations each has
>> chosen
>>> to implement.  Or if their implementation is correct.  Or "legal" in
>>> conforming to whatever the specifications are today.
>>>> 
>>>> Does anybody monitor the behavior of the Internet today at the host
>>> computers and their TCPs?   How does anyone know that the TCP in their
>>> device today is operating as expected and as the mathematical analyses
>>> promised?
>>>> 
>>>> /Jack Haverty
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 12/29/25 13:23, John Day via Internet-history wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Dec 29, 2025, at 12:57, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 12:07?PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net
>>> <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>>>>>> As for TCP initially using Selective-repeat or SACK, do you remember
>>> what the TCP retransmission time out was at that time? It makes a
>>> difference.  The nominal value in the textbooks is RTT + 4D, where D is
>> the
>>> mean variation. There is an RFC that says if 4D < 1 sec, set it to 1 sec.
>>> which seems high, but that is what it says.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Take care,
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>> Serious study of what the RTO should be didn't happen until the late
>>> 1980s.  Before that, it was rather ad hoc.
>>>>> I only brought up RTO because of the comment about SACK. For SACK to
>> be
>>> useful, RTO can?t be too short. 3 seconds sounds like plenty of time.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> RFC 793 says min(upper bound,  beta * min(lower bound, SRTT)). where
>>> SRTT was an incremental moving average, SRTT = (alpha * SRTT) +
>>> (1-alpha)(measured RTT).  But this leaves open all sorts of questions
>> such
>>> as: what should alpha and beta be (RFC 793 suggests alpha of .8 or so and
>>> beta of 1.3 to 2), and do you measure an RTT once per window (BSD's
>>> approach) or once per segment (I think TENEX's approach).  Not to mention
>>> the retransmission ambiguity problem, which Lixia Z. and Raj Jain
>>> discovered in 1985-6.  \\
>>>>> Yes, this is pretty much what the textbooks say these days. Although
>>> RFC 6298 has an equation for calculating RTO, the RFC says that if
>> equation
>>> yields a value less than 1 sec, then set it to 1 sec. It also says that
>> the
>>> previous value was 3 sec and there is no problem continuing to use that.
>>> So it would seem RTO should be between 1 and 3 seconds.  This seems to
>> be a
>>> long time.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> (If you are wondering why we didn't use variance -- it required a
>>> square root which was strictly a no-no in kernels of that era;  Van J.
>>> solved part of this issue by finding a variance calculation that could be
>>> done without a square root).
>>>>> Yes, it was clear why variance wasn?t used. It required by both
>> squares
>>> and square root. I tell students that in Operating Systems,
>> multiplication
>>> is higher math. ;-)
>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is an improvement on TCP v2 (which is silent on the topic) and
>>> IEN 15 (1976) which says use 2 * RTT estimate.
>>>>> For RTO? Yea, that would something to start with.
>>>>>> Ethernet and ALOHA were more explicit about this process but both had
>>> far easier problems, with well bounded prop delay (and in ALOHA's case, a
>>> prop delay so long it swamped queueing times).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Part of the reason TCP was slow to realize the issues, I think, were
>>> (1) the expectation loss would be low (Dave Clark used to say that in the
>>> 1970s, the notion was loss was below 1%, which, in a time when windows
>> were
>>> often 4, mean the RTO was used about 4% of the time); and (2) failure to
>>> realize congestion collapse was an issue (when loss rates soar to 80% or
>>> more and your RTO estimator really needs to be good or you make
>> congestion
>>> worse).  It is not chance that RTO issues came to a head as the Internet
>>> was suffering congestion collapse.  I got pulled into the issues (and
>>> helped Phil Karn solve retransmission ambiguity) because I was playing
>> with
>>> RDP, which had selective acks, and was seeing also sorts of strange holes
>>> in my windows (as out of order segments were being acked) and trying to
>>> figure out what to retransmit and when.
>>>>> It doesn?t help that the Internet adopted what is basically CUTE+AIMD.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But back to the flow control issue. This is a digression on a rat
>> hole.
>>> ;-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> But also a useful discussion.  ;-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> The question remains was dynamic window an enhancement of static
>> window
>>> or were they independently developed?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Take care,
>>>>> John
>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> *****
>>>>>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities
>>> and mailing lists.
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>>> -
>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> 
>> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Internet-history mailing list
>>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>>> -
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> 
>> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Sent by a Verified
>> 
>> sender
>> --
>> Internet-history mailing list
>> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> -
>> Unsubscribe:
>> https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history
>> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history



From jeanjour at comcast.net  Wed Dec 31 13:06:13 2025
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2025 16:06:13 -0500
Subject: [ih] Question on Flow Control
In-Reply-To: <01916815-A8B1-4BFD-ACAE-9CEF32857488@comcast.net>
References: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4Cdcy92L36BDNtDj=8xfSVJW4ieSquX4c4OxSJWE4NgsmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <85644C39-AB6C-4C9E-B2F3-B1D32EF7797E@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4CcdgzARojk5HFp4b-ScGDJLYTcqr-GFH1s5=YYDd_=K8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <01916815-A8B1-4BFD-ACAE-9CEF32857488@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <F765CA6B-A8F4-4918-9B7E-4EE1D2C7C609@comcast.net>

This discussions seems to have run its course and there is still no answer to the origins of sliding window flow control.

I will continue to look for information on the question. In the meantime, I will probably guess that that fixed window preceded dynamic window in some private developments. That LeLann encountered fixed sliding window in Rennes, where it had been circulating in some datacomm circles (where it was also picked up by IBM) and the CYCLADES project generalized it to the dynamic window most likely in J.F. Chambon, M. ?lie, J. Le Bihan, G. Le Lann, and H. Zimmerman, ?Functional specification of the transmission station in the CYCLADES network -- The STST protocol? (in French), I.R.I.A. Tech. Rep. SCH502.3, May 1973.

Independent invention is still a real possibility.

I am probably wrong, but I have found that is the best way to find out what is right. ;-)

Thanks for all of the input,
John


> On Dec 29, 2025, at 16:23, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Dec 29, 2025, at 12:57, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 12:07?PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> As for TCP initially using Selective-repeat or SACK, do you remember what the TCP retransmission time out was at that time? It makes a difference.  The nominal value in the textbooks is RTT + 4D, where D is the mean variation. There is an RFC that says if 4D < 1 sec, set it to 1 sec. which seems high, but that is what it says.
>>> 
>>> Take care,
>>> John
>> 
>> Serious study of what the RTO should be didn't happen until the late 1980s.  Before that, it was rather ad hoc.
> 
> I only brought up RTO because of the comment about SACK. For SACK to be useful, RTO can?t be too short. 3 seconds sounds like plenty of time.
> 
>> RFC 793 says min(upper bound,  beta * min(lower bound, SRTT)). where SRTT was an incremental moving average, SRTT = (alpha * SRTT) + (1-alpha)(measured RTT).  But this leaves open all sorts of questions such as: what should alpha and beta be (RFC 793 suggests alpha of .8 or so and beta of 1.3 to 2), and do you measure an RTT once per window (BSD's approach) or once per segment (I think TENEX's approach).  Not to mention the retransmission ambiguity problem, which Lixia Z. and Raj Jain discovered in 1985-6.  \\
> 
> Yes, this is pretty much what the textbooks say these days. Although RFC 6298 has an equation for calculating RTO, the RFC says that if equation yields a value less than 1 sec, then set it to 1 sec. It also says that the previous value was 3 sec and there is no problem continuing to use that.  So it would seem RTO should be between 1 and 3 seconds.  This seems to be a long time.
> 
>> (If you are wondering why we didn't use variance -- it required a square root which was strictly a no-no in kernels of that era;  Van J. solved part of this issue by finding a variance calculation that could be done without a square root).
> 
> Yes, it was clear why variance wasn?t used. It required by both squares and square root. I tell students that in Operating Systems,  multiplication is higher math. ;-)
> 
>> 
>> This is an improvement on TCP v2 (which is silent on the topic) and IEN 15 (1976) which says use 2 * RTT estimate.
> 
> For RTO? Yea, that would something to start with.
>> 
>> Ethernet and ALOHA were more explicit about this process but both had far easier problems, with well bounded prop delay (and in ALOHA's case, a prop delay so long it swamped queueing times).
>> 
>> Part of the reason TCP was slow to realize the issues, I think, were (1) the expectation loss would be low (Dave Clark used to say that in the 1970s, the notion was loss was below 1%, which, in a time when windows were often 4, mean the RTO was used about 4% of the time); and (2) failure to realize congestion collapse was an issue (when loss rates soar to 80% or more and your RTO estimator really needs to be good or you make congestion worse).  It is not chance that RTO issues came to a head as the Internet was suffering congestion collapse.  I got pulled into the issues (and helped Phil Karn solve retransmission ambiguity) because I was playing with RDP, which had selective acks, and was seeing also sorts of strange holes in my windows (as out of order segments were being acked) and trying to figure out what to retransmit and when.
> 
> It doesn?t help that the Internet adopted what is basically CUTE+AIMD.
> 
> But back to the flow control issue. This is a digression on a rat hole. ;-)
> 
> But also a useful discussion.  ;-)
> 
> The question remains was dynamic window an enhancement of static window or were they independently developed?
> 
> Take care,
> John
>> 
>> Craig
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> *****
>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists.
> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history



From jeanjour at comcast.net  Wed Dec 31 13:28:59 2025
From: jeanjour at comcast.net (John Day)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2025 16:28:59 -0500
Subject: [ih] Question on Flow Control
In-Reply-To: <F765CA6B-A8F4-4918-9B7E-4EE1D2C7C609@comcast.net>
References: <3D0F7BBE-F103-4854-A9E5-51C32EE7410B@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4Cdcy92L36BDNtDj=8xfSVJW4ieSquX4c4OxSJWE4NgsmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <85644C39-AB6C-4C9E-B2F3-B1D32EF7797E@comcast.net>
 <CAHQj4CcdgzARojk5HFp4b-ScGDJLYTcqr-GFH1s5=YYDd_=K8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <01916815-A8B1-4BFD-ACAE-9CEF32857488@comcast.net>
 <F765CA6B-A8F4-4918-9B7E-4EE1D2C7C609@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <EA4591EF-9EE7-4387-85F5-64CF6EC25ABB@comcast.net>

This discussions seems to have run its course and there is still no answer to the origins of sliding window flow control.

I will continue to look for information on the question. In the meantime, I will probably guess that that fixed window preceded dynamic window in some private developments. That LeLann encountered fixed sliding window in Rennes, where it had been circulating in some datacomm circles (where it was also picked up by IBM) and the CYCLADES project generalized it to the dynamic window most likely in J.F. Chambon, M. ?lie, J. Le Bihan, G. Le Lann, and H. Zimmerman, ?Functional specification of the transmission station in the CYCLADES network -- The STST protocol? (in French), I.R.I.A. Tech. Rep. SCH502.3, May 1973.

Independent invention is still a real possibility.

I am probably wrong, but I have found that is the best way to find out what is right. ;-)

I forgot to add, given the RTO discussion of yesterday, I was a little disappointed in RFC 6298 recommending that if the calculated RTT and 4 times mean variation, D, were less than 1 second to round it up to 1 second.  Previously it said that the accepted value had been 3 seconds.  
In a way, this reminded me of the old software engineering rule: the only two constants that should be in code are 0 and 1, all others should have a macro that says what they are. Not quite the same thing but close. (I never did find out what Godzilla?sPhoneNumber was for in the MCP.)

There are lot of assumptions buried in that recommendation that limits it applicability. For example, in data centers or other environments where RTT is much shorter, a value under a second might be appropriate. An expression for RTO would be more in keeping with the role of the RFC, something like n*(RTT+4D). Although I am sure that those who understand the issues better than I do have much better ideas what it should be and probably some experimentation would be necessary.

Thanks for all of the input,
John


> On Dec 29, 2025, at 16:23, John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Dec 29, 2025, at 12:57, Craig Partridge <craig at tereschau.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 12:07?PM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> As for TCP initially using Selective-repeat or SACK, do you remember what the TCP retransmission time out was at that time? It makes a difference.  The nominal value in the textbooks is RTT + 4D, where D is the mean variation. There is an RFC that says if 4D < 1 sec, set it to 1 sec. which seems high, but that is what it says.
>>> 
>>> Take care,
>>> John
>> 
>> Serious study of what the RTO should be didn't happen until the late 1980s.  Before that, it was rather ad hoc.
> 
> I only brought up RTO because of the comment about SACK. For SACK to be useful, RTO can?t be too short. 3 seconds sounds like plenty of time.
> 
>> RFC 793 says min(upper bound,  beta * min(lower bound, SRTT)). where SRTT was an incremental moving average, SRTT = (alpha * SRTT) + (1-alpha)(measured RTT).  But this leaves open all sorts of questions such as: what should alpha and beta be (RFC 793 suggests alpha of .8 or so and beta of 1.3 to 2), and do you measure an RTT once per window (BSD's approach) or once per segment (I think TENEX's approach).  Not to mention the retransmission ambiguity problem, which Lixia Z. and Raj Jain discovered in 1985-6.  \\
> 
> Yes, this is pretty much what the textbooks say these days. Although RFC 6298 has an equation for calculating RTO, the RFC says that if equation yields a value less than 1 sec, then set it to 1 sec. It also says that the previous value was 3 sec and there is no problem continuing to use that.  So it would seem RTO should be between 1 and 3 seconds.  This seems to be a long time.
> 
>> (If you are wondering why we didn't use variance -- it required a square root which was strictly a no-no in kernels of that era;  Van J. solved part of this issue by finding a variance calculation that could be done without a square root).
> 
> Yes, it was clear why variance wasn?t used. It required by both squares and square root. I tell students that in Operating Systems,  multiplication is higher math. ;-)
> 
>> 
>> This is an improvement on TCP v2 (which is silent on the topic) and IEN 15 (1976) which says use 2 * RTT estimate.
> 
> For RTO? Yea, that would something to start with.
>> 
>> Ethernet and ALOHA were more explicit about this process but both had far easier problems, with well bounded prop delay (and in ALOHA's case, a prop delay so long it swamped queueing times).
>> 
>> Part of the reason TCP was slow to realize the issues, I think, were (1) the expectation loss would be low (Dave Clark used to say that in the 1970s, the notion was loss was below 1%, which, in a time when windows were often 4, mean the RTO was used about 4% of the time); and (2) failure to realize congestion collapse was an issue (when loss rates soar to 80% or more and your RTO estimator really needs to be good or you make congestion worse).  It is not chance that RTO issues came to a head as the Internet was suffering congestion collapse.  I got pulled into the issues (and helped Phil Karn solve retransmission ambiguity) because I was playing with RDP, which had selective acks, and was seeing also sorts of strange holes in my windows (as out of order segments were being acked) and trying to figure out what to retransmit and when.
> 
> It doesn?t help that the Internet adopted what is basically CUTE+AIMD.
> 
> But back to the flow control issue. This is a digression on a rat hole. ;-)
> 
> But also a useful discussion.  ;-)
> 
> The question remains was dynamic window an enhancement of static window or were they independently developed?
> 
> Take care,
> John
>> 
>> Craig
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> *****
>> Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists.
> 
> -- 
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> -
> Unsubscribe: https://app.smartsheet.com/b/form/9b6ef0621638436ab0a9b23cb0668b0b?The%20list%20to%20be%20unsubscribed%20from=Internet-history




From jack at 3kitty.org  Wed Dec 31 18:00:37 2025
From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2025 18:00:37 -0800
Subject: [ih] History from 1960s to 2025
In-Reply-To: <62f44110-e053-4870-ad9f-6d4d1b7567b7@bbiw.net>
References: <ceb0ebc3-2bf0-465d-a92d-8c7aff59d90b@3kitty.org>
 <bc1475a9-ab75-4149-a03c-53edc7c3e8d7@dcrocker.net>
 <a4b55318-689a-4590-8bd3-fe66e19c96ab@gmail.com>
 <62f44110-e053-4870-ad9f-6d4d1b7567b7@bbiw.net>
Message-ID: <ee9a4dfd-7736-4f60-a62d-5ee34567f8ab@3kitty.org>

For anyone interested in the history, and/or in watching, or doing, 
historical reconstructions:

https://obsolescence.dev/arpanet_home.html

Much more to be done.? You probably could help.? You'll be able to "log 
in" to a computer on the ARPANET, just like we did in 1972.

For anyone with questions about how things were done in the caveman era 
of networking -- the most accurate documentation is the ancient code, as 
was true in 1972.

Happy New Year!
/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/20251231/932c4a26/attachment.asc>