[ih] Correct name for early TCP/IP working group?

[vinton cerf]

On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 5:15 PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> My recollections, all IIRC of course, after almost 50 years (not
> necessarily in chronological order):
>
> - The "Internet Project" was, circa 1977, actually an informal
> collection of separate ARPA projects.  Packet Radio (PRNET) was building
> wireless networks with mobility to be used in jeeps, helicopters, etc.
> SATNET was building transatlantic networking by satellite.  WBNET
> (WideBand NETwork) was building a "high bandwidth" (3 Mb/sec) satellite
> network spanning the continental US.  The ARPANET had been operating for
> almost a decade and was now run by DCA instead of ARPA. The "Gateway
> Project" was building a device to attach to a PRNET and pass TCP traffic
> across the boundaries as an initial experiment in the new Cerf/Kahn
> concept of TCP.
>
Jack, the Internet project started in 1973, about four years after the
first IMPs were delivered. The Packet Radio and Packet Satellite networks
were working around 1976

>
> - Each of these groups had its own set of contractors working on that
> project, using what was available at the time to colaborate and
> communicate, e.g., meetings and email across the ARPANET.
>
> - At the time, the "ARPANET crowd" was skeptical that the "datagram"
> nature of TCP could be made to work.   Traditional networks, including
> the ARPANET, had elaborate internal mechanisms to provide a "virtual
> circuit" service to its users.  Although the ARPANET had a simple
> "datagram mode" (aka messages of "subtype 3"?), there was strong
> reluctance to permit its use other than for very limited experiments,
> for fear such use would crash the ARPANET.
>
> - There was some work however within the ARPANET IMP software to
> acknowledge the need for multiple networks.   For example, some of the
> formats of data as it passed through the ARPANET included fields
> labelled "Network Number".  AFAIK this was never actually fully
> implemented so the ARPANET itself never achieved connectivity between
> multiple networks until TCP was deployed.
>
> - My recollection is that I had heard of INWG, but never knew much about
> their work (still don't).   IIRC, none of the people involved in
> implementation (building, coding, operating) of the various "Internet
> projects" were also involved in INWG.

I don't think that is correct. INWG had a blend of people from the US and
Europe and Japan (I had some of these people at Stanford).

> I had the impression that the
> INWG was part of the group that thought the datagram architecture was
> unworkable.   Mentally, I associated it with X.25 and X.75 style of
> interconnecting networks.   But perhaps that was a mistake.
>
yes - there were factions favoring virtual circuits but others who were
persuaded that datagram operation was preferable.

>
> - As the various ARPA projects matured and were interconnected with
> Gateways, people involved in each project saw a need to interact with
> people involved in other projects.  Meetings of the "Internet Project"
> began, but the scope was very broad, so everyone wanted to attend all
> such meetings.  At one point ARPA restricted attendance to 2 people per
> contractor as a way to manage the meeting size and cost.
>
> - When TCPV2 was evolving into TCP/IPV4, two separate groups were
> formed: the "TCP Working Group" and the "Internet Working Group". These
> met and interacted separately.
>
This must have been after I got to ARPA because I don't recall such a
grouping.

>
> - After a few months, we observed that the main results of the TCP WG
> were changes to the IP Header, and the main results of the IP WG were
> changes to the TCP Header.   The decision was made to fold the groups
> back together as the "Internet Working Group".   That decision was of
> course Vint's, but by then I think the ICCB had been formed and had a role.
>
ICCB was formed in 1979

>
> - At about the time that Vint was moving from ARPA to MCI, the technical
> work was reorganized into two components.  I recall it happened at the
> final ICCB meeting, sometime in early 1983.  The IETF was formed to
> Engineer the operational Internet as it grew. The IRTF was formed to
> pursue the Research into all of the unsolved research issues - things
> like congestion, multi-path routing, etc.
>
I think you skipped a step or three here. Barry Leiner took over the
Internet, Packet Radio and Packet Satellite programs around 1983 (late?).
He morphed the ICCB into the Internet Activities Board

>
> - At some point in this progression, Jon started collected IENs rather
> than RFCs.   IENs were part of the Internet Experiment, while RFCs were
> more associated with ARPANET issues.
>
IENs and INWG Notes were more or less concurrent. The latter included a lot
of European participants and the INWG eventually became IFIP 6.1

>
> - The size of "Internet Meetings" continued to grow, despite efforts to
> constrain attendance.  It was difficult to find a location with large
> enough rooms to accommodate the next meeting.  The ultimate Internet
> Wheeler Dealer (Dan Lynch) noticed this mismatch of supply and demand.
> He organized some early meeting venues, e.g., one in a hotel in Monterey
> California, which became known as "Geeks On The Bay In Monterey".  That
> led quickly to the Interop shows.   Problem solved. That would have been
> about 1986 which is also the time that the IETF was formed, along with the
> IRTF by merging a number of IAB working groups into these two categories.
>
> Jack Haverty
>
>
>
> On 1/24/25 07:28, Tom Lyon via Internet-history wrote:
> > Here's some physical evidence in support of INWG:
> > https://mastodon.social/@aka_pugs/111093333460402486
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 7:07 AM Dave Crocker via Internet-history <
> > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/24/2025 6:28 AM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history wrote:
> >>> notes called INWG Notes
> >>
> >> As an outsider to the effort, who was vaguely 'around', when I read
> >> Noel's note and before reading Vint's, INWG was the name that I thought
> >> of.  Count this as an informal survey result of community perception...
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
>
> --
> Internet-history mailing list
> Internet-history at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>