[ih] History from 1960s to 2025 (Craig Partridge)
John Shoch
j at shoch.com
Thu Dec 25 21:19:45 PST 2025
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
> ************************************************
>
More information about the Internet-history
mailing list