[ih] History from 1960s to 2025 (Craig Partridge)
Craig Partridge
craig at tereschau.net
Fri Dec 26 04:12:48 PST 2025
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.
More information about the Internet-history
mailing list