[ih] Confusion in the RFCs

[John Day]

I agree and yes, drafts of what became standards were usually sent out as RFCs to make sure the author had done what the group agreed to.  But the majority of RFCs in those early days were really Comments, which I thought was a great idea and that agreed documents should have a different status.

I agree with you that it was quite odd that Host-Host Protocol became NCP and not HHP. (Although for some reason, NCP rolls of the tongue easier.)  In fact, even NCP is a bit of an odd choice.  We were using the Burroughs 5500* at the time and its OS is called the MCP, Master Control Program. So it always seemed to be related, although that system was relatively unknown in ARPANET circles. Although I have read elsewhere that it had an influence, even early on, on Hollywood, so it being coined in the LA area perhaps isn’t that far off. (Much earlier than the use of MCP in TRON.)

Take care,
John

* And of course, B5500 was the finest system design ever done and nearly decade ahead of everyone else.

> On Sep 5, 2025, at 08:05, Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
> 
> FWIW, I was slightly bemused to see the host-host protocol (later called NCP) published as a standard outside of the RFC series.  I don't recall seeing a formal decision to do that.  In my mind, although the RFCs certainly included drafts and preliminary versions of protocols, it seemed natural to me they would also include the culmination of that process.  The term "Request for Comments" was intended to convey a spirit of openness and invitation but it was not intended to be restrictive or exclusionary.  It was a pro forma requirement that each document be labeled "Request for Comments," but it was not intended to exclude completed pieces of work.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 7:56 AM John Day via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org <mailto:internet-history at elists.isoc.org>> wrote:
>> Well, the Telnet meeting (in 1972) occurred considerably before the FTP meeting* (Mar 73), so I am not so sure it was a typo.
>> 
>> As I said before back then, RFCs were Requests for *Comments*, not Internet Standards, which always seemed pretty absurd. Official documents were published separately.
>> 
>> Take care,
>> John
>> 
>> * Where Padlipsky made his famous comment: “Sometimes when changing apples into oranges, you get lemons.” ;-)
>> 
>> > On Sep 5, 2025, at 06:17, Jim Carpenter <jim at deitygraveyard.com <mailto:jim at deitygraveyard.com>> wrote:
>> > 
>> > Yup. RFC 854 *obsoleted* NIC 18639. I wasn't paying attention. Sorry.
>> > 
>> > But RFC 542 is listed in that handbook for FTP. So including it for
>> > TELNET was just a typo.
>> > 
>> > Jim
>> > 
>> > On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 5:36 AM John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net <mailto:jeanjour at comcast.net>> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> Doubtful.  Unless they had a time machine. RFC 854 is dated May 1983.
>> >> As I pointed out (or should have) the NIC number is the same as on the official Aug 1973 version.
>> >> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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