[ih] Confusion in the RFCs

[vinton cerf]

I used the B5500 from 1961 to 1965 while a math undergrad at Stanford.
Really amazing instruction set.

V

On Fri, Sep 5, 2025, 08:15 John Day via Internet-history <
internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> 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
>
> --
> 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
>