[ih] Confusion in the RFCs

Fri Sep 5 08:35:49 PDT 2025

DC-Algol was the Algol they did for the transition form the 5500 to the 6700. We had serial #2 of the 6700.

Never heard of CANDE. Was it a local development. The OS was called the MCP.

Yes, it was an impressive machine.

> On Sep 5, 2025, at 09:35, Nigel Roberts via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> I used a B6700 as a Chemistry undergrad at Warwick University in 1975 aged 17. (In fact it was what really got me into a lifetime of computer science as I left there after a year and went to Essex to do Comp. Sci.)
> 
> 
> The monitor was called CANDE and it indeed had the coherence and elegance that mentioned in respect of the 5500 earlier in this thread.
> 
> The OS was written in a variant of ALGOL called, IIRC, DC-ALGOL.
> 
> On 05/09/2025 14:20, Steve Crocker via Internet-history wrote:
>> I don't think there was a Burrough's machine anywhere on the UCLA campus.
>> I would have known if there was.  Vint and I were freshmen at Stanford and
>> UCLA respectively starting in fall 1961.  I had hung around UCLA for more
>> than a year before that, and I was pretty aware of essentially all the
>> machines on campus.  I was also aware of the Burrough's machine at Stanford
>> and its elegant architecture.
>> 
>> It's possible there was a Burrough's machine somewhere else in Los Angeles,
>> but I wasn't aware of it.  UCLA was "blessed" with three IBM 7094s, each
>> run by a different organization.  The culture surrounding each machine was
>> distinct and not particularly friendly toward any of the others.  In
>> 1965-66 I participated in an ARPA-sponsored attempt to build a three node
>> network connecting the three computing centers.  It failed for multiple
>> reasons, one of which was the hostility between the three centers.
>> (Nonetheless, I learned a lot.)
>> 
>> Steve
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 8:44 AM John Day<jeanjour at comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> It inspired everything we did. It was a revelation. That is why our PDP-11
>>> OS language was called PDP-11 Espol, their OS language.
>>> 
>>> I knew there was one around UCLA somewhere and at Stanford. Knuth wrote
>>> the early Algol compiler for it. It was the first system to use a stack for
>>> procedures, as well as arithmetic. Tagged architecture, descriptor based
>>> memory. The system had a coherence I have never seen again.
>>> 
>>> Trivial example: 48-bit word. Floating point format was a 39-bit mantissa
>>> (sign bit, 8-bit exponent) but the decimal point was at the right end of
>>> the word. Integers were merely unnormalized floating point numbers. No
>>> integer to real conversion. It just worked. Also, it was pointed out to me
>>> recently that there was a hardware operator that convert an integer to BCD.
>>> A 39-bit binary integer would convert within 48 bits.  (The Burros 3500 was
>>> a COBOL machine and all decimal including the addressing!) Burros was
>>> architecture-agnostic. One could go on and on.
>>> 
>>> Why can’t we build systems like that any more.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sep 5, 2025, at 08:23, vinton cerf<vgcerf at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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
>>>> 
>>> 
> -- 
> 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