From mfidelman at protocoltechnologiesgroup.com Mon Mar 2 14:18:02 2026 From: mfidelman at protocoltechnologiesgroup.com (Miles Fidelman) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2026 22:18:02 +0000 Subject: [ih] May 10, 1963 - Was There A Meeting, Was Anybody Here, There? Message-ID: Hi Folks, Way back on April 23, 1963 JCR Licklider sent a "MEMORANDUM FOR: Members and Affiliates of the Intergalactic Computer Network SUBJECT: Topics for Discussion at the Forthcoming Meeting" Calling for a meeting on May 10th, in Palo Alto. Lick's memo is generally considered the seed that grew into the Internet we all know & love. It occurs to me to wonder: Did that meeting actually happen? If so, what transpired? And, was anybody on this list at the meeting? (Reason for asking:) I'm using the letter, and what transpired, as a model for launching the next generation of Civic.Net & a "Civic Engineering Task Force" focused on rebuilding aging infrastructure - through something very much like the IETF process. (Also, the earlier example of the Boston Pamphlet and Committees of Correspondence.) As I start writing think pieces and my own version of a "MEMORANDUM FOR: Members and Affiliates of the Planetary Civic Internet" - I want to as true to actual history as possible.) Thanks Folks, Miles Fidelman From carsten at schiefner.berlin Tue Mar 3 04:59:23 2026 From: carsten at schiefner.berlin (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2026 13:59:23 +0100 Subject: [ih] May 10, 1963 - Was There A Meeting, Was Anybody Here, There? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0918d235-9c0f-752a-6078-4daf175e2cf1@schiefner.berlin> Miles, On 02.03.2026 23:18, Miles Fidelman via Internet-history wrote: > [...] As I start writing think pieces and my own version of a "MEMORANDUM FOR: Members and Affiliates of the Planetary Civic Internet" - I want to as true to actual history as possible.) I am already looking forward to read - others here might call it "to review"... ;-) - that piece of text if you intend to eventually publish it. Thanks, all the best and good luck with the writing -C. From joly at punkcast.com Tue Mar 10 03:44:28 2026 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2026 06:44:28 -0400 Subject: [ih] Alexander Graham Bell's Telephone Patent: 150 years, a world of connection Message-ID: Not exactly Internet History, but pre-history, perhaps. Vint makes a couple of appearances. [image: ISOC LIVE] VIDEO | RECAP | ARCHIVE | PERMALINK On March 5, 2026, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) hosted a commemorative event ?Alexander Graham Bell?s Telephone Patent: 150 years, a world of connection ? marking the 150th anniversary of Bell?s telephone patent (granted March 7, 1876). The program brought together historians, technologists, policy experts, and descendants of the Bell family to reflect on the invention of the telephone, its impact on communications and society, and the continuing role of intellectual property in shaping innovation. - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Wed Mar 11 23:58:01 2026 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 19:58:01 +1300 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone Message-ID: <153c8e7a-659f-421c-9a58-4a12a5ad26a7@gmail.com> If anyone is in the least interested, I have posted a rather personal review of TimBL's recent book: https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/timbl-crits.html Regards/Ng? mihi Brian Carpenter From dhc at dcrocker.net Thu Mar 12 08:09:41 2026 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 15:09:41 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: <153c8e7a-659f-421c-9a58-4a12a5ad26a7@gmail.com> References: <153c8e7a-659f-421c-9a58-4a12a5ad26a7@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200d49b3-f85f-4658-90f0-c9eac6eba087@dcrocker.net> On 3/11/2026 11:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > If anyone is in the least interested, I have posted a rather personal > review of TimBL's recent book: "p.94 describes the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) as a "non-profit". This is inaccurate. The IETF itself isn't incorporated in any way and has no formal membership model." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonprofit_organization: > A *nonprofit organization* (*NPO*), also known as a *nonbusiness > entity*,^[1] > > *nonprofit institution*,^[2] > > *not-for-profit organization* (*NFPO*),^[3] > or > simply *nonprofit*,^[a] > is > a non-governmental entity > that operates > for a collective, public, or social benefit, rather than to generate > profit for private owners. 'non-profit' seems entirely apt. d/ -- Dave Crocker dhc at dcrocker.net bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social +1.408.329.0791 Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter Northern California Coastal Region Information & Planning Coordinator American Red Cross dave.crocker2 at redcross.org From ajs at crankycanuck.ca Thu Mar 12 08:34:29 2026 From: ajs at crankycanuck.ca (Andrew Sullivan) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 11:34:29 -0400 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: <200d49b3-f85f-4658-90f0-c9eac6eba087@dcrocker.net> References: <153c8e7a-659f-421c-9a58-4a12a5ad26a7@gmail.com> <200d49b3-f85f-4658-90f0-c9eac6eba087@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 03:09:41PM -0500, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > >'non-profit' seems entirely apt. Quite apart from that, with essentially all the administrative responsibility controlled by bodies the members of which are mostly appointed by the IETF NomCom, with the disregarded entity structure of the IETF Administration LLC, with multiple staff members employed by IETF Administration LLC, with active fundraising efforts ongoing, and with a budget if memory serves some distance north of $10 MM annually, it's getting a little precious to maintain that the IETF isn't the organization--indeed, that the IETF isn't an organization at all--and that IETF Administration LLC is some other entity, accidentally named similarly but that _isn't_ the IETF. I think this pose mostly worked as long as the IETF was an "organized activity" of the Internet Society, but I don't believe anyone can take it really seriously as a description of the facts of the world any more. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs at crankycanuck.ca From dhc at dcrocker.net Thu Mar 12 08:42:48 2026 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 15:42:48 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: References: <153c8e7a-659f-421c-9a58-4a12a5ad26a7@gmail.com> <200d49b3-f85f-4658-90f0-c9eac6eba087@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <8e28d5c9-6f00-4e76-ab5d-cfca7e0892be@dcrocker.net> On 3/12/2026 8:34 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 03:09:41PM -0500, Dave Crocker via > Internet-history wrote: >> >> 'non-profit' seems entirely apt. > > Quite apart from that, with essentially all the administrative > responsibility controlled by bodies the members of which are mostly > appointed by the IETF NomCom, with the disregarded entity structure of > the IETF Administration LLC, with multiple staff members employed by > IETF Administration LLC, with active fundraising efforts ongoing, and > with a budget if memory serves some distance north of $10 MM annually, > it's getting a little precious to maintain that the IETF isn't the > organization--indeed, that the IETF isn't an organization at all--and > that IETF Administration LLC is some other entity, accidentally named > similarly but that _isn't_ the IETF.? I think this pose mostly worked > as long as the IETF was an "organized activity" of the Internet > Society, but I don't believe anyone can take it really seriously as a > description of the facts of the world any more. Except is isn't an activity of ISOC.? And never has been. The relationship between the IETF and ISOC is interesting, IMO, since it is quite unusual and nuanced, and has typically been publicly presented as neither. At base, the IETF contracts with ISOC for a collection of services.? Funding, oversight, etc. So, it looks as if ISOC is 'over' the IETF and it has usually been presented that way, but it isn't the actual nature of the locus of control. d/ -- Dave Crocker dhc at dcrocker.net bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social +1.408.329.0791 Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter Northern California Coastal Region Information & Planning Coordinator American Red Cross dave.crocker2 at redcross.org From craig at tereschau.net Thu Mar 12 08:52:09 2026 From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 09:52:09 -0600 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: <8e28d5c9-6f00-4e76-ab5d-cfca7e0892be@dcrocker.net> References: <153c8e7a-659f-421c-9a58-4a12a5ad26a7@gmail.com> <200d49b3-f85f-4658-90f0-c9eac6eba087@dcrocker.net> <8e28d5c9-6f00-4e76-ab5d-cfca7e0892be@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: I find it amusing, given what ISOC has become, that the initial goal for ISOC was to set up an organization that did some nice things (e.g. a conference, maybe a few awards, etc) and could be the not-worth-suing entity that backstopped the IETF. (Speaking as someone who was in the conference room in DC in January/February 1990 when the idea of ISOC was hatched.) Craig On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 9:42?AM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > On 3/12/2026 8:34 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 03:09:41PM -0500, Dave Crocker via > > Internet-history wrote: > >> > >> 'non-profit' seems entirely apt. > > > > Quite apart from that, with essentially all the administrative > > responsibility controlled by bodies the members of which are mostly > > appointed by the IETF NomCom, with the disregarded entity structure of > > the IETF Administration LLC, with multiple staff members employed by > > IETF Administration LLC, with active fundraising efforts ongoing, and > > with a budget if memory serves some distance north of $10 MM annually, > > it's getting a little precious to maintain that the IETF isn't the > > organization--indeed, that the IETF isn't an organization at all--and > > that IETF Administration LLC is some other entity, accidentally named > > similarly but that _isn't_ the IETF. I think this pose mostly worked > > as long as the IETF was an "organized activity" of the Internet > > Society, but I don't believe anyone can take it really seriously as a > > description of the facts of the world any more. > > > Except is isn't an activity of ISOC. And never has been. > > The relationship between the IETF and ISOC is interesting, IMO, since it > is quite unusual and nuanced, and has typically been publicly presented > as neither. > > At base, the IETF contracts with ISOC for a collection of services. > Funding, oversight, etc. > > So, it looks as if ISOC is 'over' the IETF and it has usually been > presented that way, but it isn't the actual nature of the locus of control. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > > dhc at dcrocker.net > bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social > mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social > +1.408.329.0791 > > Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter > Northern California Coastal Region > Information & Planning Coordinator > American Red Cross > dave.crocker2 at redcross.org > > -- > 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. From ajs at crankycanuck.ca Thu Mar 12 09:28:29 2026 From: ajs at crankycanuck.ca (Andrew Sullivan) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 12:28:29 -0400 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: <8e28d5c9-6f00-4e76-ab5d-cfca7e0892be@dcrocker.net> References: <8e28d5c9-6f00-4e76-ab5d-cfca7e0892be@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <50731AA6-CD67-4BB5-A7DF-D20BCAF2D131@crankycanuck.ca> Hi, RFC 2028 (among other places) says, ?Internet standardization is an organized activity of the ISOC,? and also said that the IETF, ?is the principal body engaged in the development of new Internet Standard specifications.? By substitution, that appears to me to say that the IETF is engaged in an organized activity of ISOC. So it?s true that it doesn?t say the IETF is itself an organized activity of the Internet Society, but I?m not sure my glasses have the magnification necessary to split the hairs involved in the distinction I think you?re making. Like it or not, all the legal existence of the IETF is subordinate to the Internet Society. I?m perfectly aware of the practicalities of how the relationship really operates, but this got started due to Brian?s nit on Sir Tim?s book. Given the purposes to which the ordinary reader is likely to put the definition in that book, I suspect what was intended was a short and simple statement about the legal arrangements surrounding the ietf so that a reader can put their arms around ?what?s an ietf?? I suppose that a footnote sending the interested reader to all the IETF documents about this might encourage a fully informed view. (I don?t really have any dog in this fight though, so if people think I?m wrong I will be cheerfully silent while I am corrected by others. I will note that I did for 6 years bear legal responsibility of the upshot of all this, so I have more than a passing familiarity with the relevant documents.) Best regards, A ? Andrew Sullivan Please excuse my clumbsy thums > On Mar 12, 2026, at 11:42, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > ?On 3/12/2026 8:34 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 03:09:41PM -0500, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >>> 'non-profit' seems entirely apt. >> >> Quite apart from that, with essentially all the administrative responsibility controlled by bodies the members of which are mostly appointed by the IETF NomCom, with the disregarded entity structure of the IETF Administration LLC, with multiple staff members employed by IETF Administration LLC, with active fundraising efforts ongoing, and with a budget if memory serves some distance north of $10 MM annually, it's getting a little precious to maintain that the IETF isn't the organization--indeed, that the IETF isn't an organization at all--and that IETF Administration LLC is some other entity, accidentally named similarly but that _isn't_ the IETF. I think this pose mostly worked as long as the IETF was an "organized activity" of the Internet Society, but I don't believe anyone can take it really seriously as a description of the facts of the world any more. > > > Except is isn't an activity of ISOC. And never has been. > > The relationship between the IETF and ISOC is interesting, IMO, since it is quite unusual and nuanced, and has typically been publicly presented as neither. > > At base, the IETF contracts with ISOC for a collection of services. Funding, oversight, etc. > > So, it looks as if ISOC is 'over' the IETF and it has usually been presented that way, but it isn't the actual nature of the locus of control. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > > dhc at dcrocker.net > bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social > mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social > +1.408.329.0791 > > Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter > Northern California Coastal Region > Information & Planning Coordinator > American Red Cross > dave.crocker2 at redcross.org > > -- > 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 From dhc at dcrocker.net Thu Mar 12 09:40:17 2026 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 16:40:17 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: <50731AA6-CD67-4BB5-A7DF-D20BCAF2D131@crankycanuck.ca> References: <8e28d5c9-6f00-4e76-ab5d-cfca7e0892be@dcrocker.net> <50731AA6-CD67-4BB5-A7DF-D20BCAF2D131@crankycanuck.ca> Message-ID: <48a15952-6d4f-4862-97d8-ce9cced92e78@dcrocker.net> On 3/12/2026 9:28 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote: > Like it or not, all the legal existence of the IETF is subordinate to the Internet Society. Ahh.? So the IETF did not exist before ISOC.? And if ISOC disappeared, so would the IETF. Good to know. d/ -- Dave Crocker dhc at dcrocker.net bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social +1.408.329.0791 Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter Northern California Coastal Region Information & Planning Coordinator American Red Cross dave.crocker2 at redcross.org From craig at tereschau.net Thu Mar 12 09:56:28 2026 From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 10:56:28 -0600 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: <48a15952-6d4f-4862-97d8-ce9cced92e78@dcrocker.net> References: <8e28d5c9-6f00-4e76-ab5d-cfca7e0892be@dcrocker.net> <50731AA6-CD67-4BB5-A7DF-D20BCAF2D131@crankycanuck.ca> <48a15952-6d4f-4862-97d8-ce9cced92e78@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 10:40?AM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > On 3/12/2026 9:28 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote: > > Like it or not, all the legal existence of the IETF is subordinate to > the Internet Society. > > > Ahh. So the IETF did not exist before ISOC. And if ISOC disappeared, > so would the IETF. > > Dave... :-) As you well know, the IETF did exist before ISOC. But we had to reverse engineer things so that when ISOC was created, IETF was subordinate to it, so you that you and I (and others) as members of the then IESG and IETF would not be sued for standards decisions. As a result, I suspect if ISOC disappeared now, yes IETF would too... Craig -- ***** Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. From ajs at crankycanuck.ca Thu Mar 12 12:11:49 2026 From: ajs at crankycanuck.ca (Andrew Sullivan) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 15:11:49 -0400 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: <48a15952-6d4f-4862-97d8-ce9cced92e78@dcrocker.net> References: <48a15952-6d4f-4862-97d8-ce9cced92e78@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <72AE53EB-B2FF-47BF-B57B-73AE479BF9C1@crankycanuck.ca> Dave, I did not say that, as I think you know perfectly well. I also think it?s tiresome (not to say rude) to make your interlocutors routinely need to point out a straw person. Regards, A ? Andrew Sullivan Please excuse my clumbsy thums > On Mar 12, 2026, at 12:40, Dave Crocker wrote: > ?On 3/12/2026 9:28 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote: >> Like it or not, all the legal existence of the IETF is subordinate to the Internet Society. > > > Ahh. So the IETF did not exist before ISOC. And if ISOC disappeared, so would the IETF. > > Good to know. > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > > dhc at dcrocker.net > bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social > mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social > +1.408.329.0791 > > Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter > Northern California Coastal Region > Information & Planning Coordinator > American Red Cross > dave.crocker2 at redcross.org From jack at 3kitty.org Thu Mar 12 12:25:51 2026 From: jack at 3kitty.org (Jack Haverty) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 12:25:51 -0700 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: <48a15952-6d4f-4862-97d8-ce9cced92e78@dcrocker.net> References: <8e28d5c9-6f00-4e76-ab5d-cfca7e0892be@dcrocker.net> <50731AA6-CD67-4BB5-A7DF-D20BCAF2D131@crankycanuck.ca> <48a15952-6d4f-4862-97d8-ce9cced92e78@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <3b3f2413-07be-4c66-af46-435d3e7a27ff@3kitty.org> On 3/12/26 09:40, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > On 3/12/2026 9:28 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote: >> Like it or not, all the legal existence of the IETF is subordinate to >> the Internet Society. > > > Ahh.? So the IETF did not exist before ISOC.? And if ISOC disappeared, > so would the IETF. > > Good to know. > > d/ > Not what I remember..... In early 1983, I was a member of the ICCB - the precursor to the IAB.? ?The ICCB was formed by Vint several years earlier, to serve as an advisory board to Vint at ARPA, setting priorities and plans, and then making them happen.? The ICCB was composed of individuals from the various organizations related to the Internet, e.g., Jon Postel, Dave Mills, Jim Mathis, Dave Clark, Bob Braden, Ed Cain, Ray McFarland, and myself, all invited by Vint to be members.? Hope I didn't miss anyone....? ?Bob Kahn called it "Vint's Cabinet".? ?After each meeting we would all go back to our respective organizations and do what we could to focus on the plans and priorities. I recall one ICCB meeting, sometime around early 1983, when Vint announced he was leaving ARPA to go to MCI.? ARPA's Internet projects would subsequently be led by Barry Leiner.? In the ICCB discussions a plan emerged to organize the various projects on two tracks as part of the handoff.? The "research" efforts would be organized as the IRTF (Internet Research Task Force), led by Dave Clark.? The "engineering" efforts would be organized as the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force), led by Phil Gross. Subsequently Barry made some more changes, such as evolving the ICCB into the IAB, where each member would be the lead of some subgroup of the IETF or IRTF.? ?Coincidentally, in July 1983 BBN did a major reorganization which split apart its own "research" and "operations" projects into separate divisions (and buildings).? I ended up on the "operations" side and lost track of the research activities. ISOC happened much later IIRC, trigged by some legal issues that arose, as the Internet became noticed by commercial and non-governmental interests, and the government focus shifted to use of COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) products rather than expensive custom-built technical systems. Prior to that, the Internet had largely been a project focused on military needs, with a "pipeline" driving technology from research to operations.? The most prominent example of full progress through that pipeline was the ARPANET, which evolved into the DDN as the comprehensive data communications system for all military needs.? But there were other projects proceeding down the pipeline, such as SATNET, which evolved into MATNET as a US Navy prototype, and Packet Radio, which evolved into prototype testing in Army exercises.? ?I don't know if either of those technologies advanced further down the pipeline. Lots of actions helped propel projects down that pipeline.? ?I don't know for sure, but I always thought that the government members of the ICCB (Vint from Arpa and Ed and Ray from DoD) played a role in getting some of the non-technical actions to occur.? One example is the change in procurement regulations so that all the big government contractors were required to have TCP implemented in their deliverables.? Another was the creation by NBS (now NIST) of a program to certify that TCP had been implemented correctly, thus providing a means for all those contractors to contractually "prove" that they had actually implemented TCP. I don't know much about the history of ISOC and the IETF.? But I've always wondered how and why things changed between 1983 and now. In 1983 the Internet was an orchestrated project focused on meeting military communications requirements.? The government(s) controlled the direction and deployment through funding and regulations. Today, the Internet is a global project with fuzzy requirements to meet all sorts of business and human needs, and seems driven mostly by market forces. The early IETF was an organization of engineers focused on making the technology work to meet the requirements.? The IETF has evolved into a standards body, which puts technical solutions "on the shelf" and assumes someone who needs them will adopt and deploy as they see fit, but there seems to be no way to verify that a technology from the shelf is actually in place. How did that evolution happen...? /Jack Haverty -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 665 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Thu Mar 12 13:14:56 2026 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 09:14:56 +1300 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: <72AE53EB-B2FF-47BF-B57B-73AE479BF9C1@crankycanuck.ca> References: <48a15952-6d4f-4862-97d8-ce9cced92e78@dcrocker.net> <72AE53EB-B2FF-47BF-B57B-73AE479BF9C1@crankycanuck.ca> Message-ID: <37eee495-a9eb-4b60-add9-661ebd383f03@gmail.com> So, I'm sticking to my guns. It's IETF LLC which now gets financial support from ISOC; before IETF LLC existed, IETF monies were managed by an ISOC employee. In neither case were IETF participants (including the IETF Chair) in any formal way identified as members or part of or employed by an incorporated entity. So the IETF isn't a legal entity, actually. Regards/Ng? mihi Brian On 13-Mar-26 08:11, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote: > Dave, > > I did not say that, as I think you know perfectly well. I also think it?s tiresome (not to say rude) to make your interlocutors routinely need to point out a straw person. > > Regards, > > A > ? > Andrew Sullivan > Please excuse my clumbsy thums > >> On Mar 12, 2026, at 12:40, Dave Crocker wrote: >> ?On 3/12/2026 9:28 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote: >>> Like it or not, all the legal existence of the IETF is subordinate to the Internet Society. >> >> >> Ahh. So the IETF did not exist before ISOC. And if ISOC disappeared, so would the IETF. >> >> Good to know. >> >> d/ >> >> -- >> Dave Crocker >> >> dhc at dcrocker.net >> bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social >> mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social >> +1.408.329.0791 >> >> Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter >> Northern California Coastal Region >> Information & Planning Coordinator >> American Red Cross >> dave.crocker2 at redcross.org > From vint at google.com Thu Mar 12 13:23:52 2026 From: vint at google.com (Vint Cerf) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 16:23:52 -0400 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: <37eee495-a9eb-4b60-add9-661ebd383f03@gmail.com> References: <48a15952-6d4f-4862-97d8-ce9cced92e78@dcrocker.net> <72AE53EB-B2FF-47BF-B57B-73AE479BF9C1@crankycanuck.ca> <37eee495-a9eb-4b60-add9-661ebd383f03@gmail.com> Message-ID: IETF spun out of government-sponsored IAB, as you all know. It eventually had supporting structure such as the secretariat which was itself funded for a time by NSF through CNRI. When NSF funding went away, ISOC was formed with the help of CNRI as a non-profit that could support IETF among other things. Support for IETF was high in my mind at the time and was my major motivation, anyway, for promoting ISOC's creation. As time has passed, there have emerged needs for legal entities to be created to hold intellectual property, provide operational support, protect IETF participants from legal risks, etc. Given the level of activity, it would be hard for IETF to function without the support of these entities. v On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 4:15?PM Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > So, I'm sticking to my guns. It's IETF LLC which now gets financial > support from ISOC; before IETF LLC existed, IETF monies were managed by an > ISOC employee. In neither case were IETF participants (including the IETF > Chair) in any formal way identified as members or part of or employed by an > incorporated entity. So the IETF isn't a legal entity, actually. > > Regards/Ng? mihi > Brian > > On 13-Mar-26 08:11, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote: > > Dave, > > > > I did not say that, as I think you know perfectly well. I also think > it?s tiresome (not to say rude) to make your interlocutors routinely need > to point out a straw person. > > > > Regards, > > > > A > > ? > > Andrew Sullivan > > Please excuse my clumbsy thums > > > >> On Mar 12, 2026, at 12:40, Dave Crocker wrote: > >> ?On 3/12/2026 9:28 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote: > >>> Like it or not, all the legal existence of the IETF is subordinate to > the Internet Society. > >> > >> > >> Ahh. So the IETF did not exist before ISOC. And if ISOC disappeared, > so would the IETF. > >> > >> Good to know. > >> > >> d/ > >> > >> -- > >> Dave Crocker > >> > >> dhc at dcrocker.net > >> bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social > >> mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social > >> +1.408.329.0791 <(408)%20329-0791> > >> > >> Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter > >> Northern California Coastal Region > >> Information & Planning Coordinator > >> American Red Cross > >> dave.crocker2 at redcross.org > > > -- > 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 > -- Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: Vint Cerf Google, LLC 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor Reston, VA 20190 +1 (571) 213 1346 until further notice From dhc at dcrocker.net Thu Mar 12 14:53:18 2026 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 21:53:18 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: References: <8e28d5c9-6f00-4e76-ab5d-cfca7e0892be@dcrocker.net> <50731AA6-CD67-4BB5-A7DF-D20BCAF2D131@crankycanuck.ca> <48a15952-6d4f-4862-97d8-ce9cced92e78@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <325177db-5a07-487d-b2a9-aa5db4cb06bb@dcrocker.net> On 3/12/2026 9:56 AM, Craig Partridge wrote: > > As you well know, the IETF did exist before ISOC.? But we had to > reverse engineer things so that when ISOC was created, IETF was > subordinate to it, so you that you and I (and others) as members of > the then IESG and IETF would not be sued for standards decisions. > > As a result, I suspect if ISOC disappeared now, yes IETF would too... I suspect it wouldn't.? And I was not (merely) being snarky. Unless things have changed profoundly, in recent years, ISOC provides no operational direction to the IETF and never has.? When I say the IETF 'contracted with' ISOC for some services, I mean that as substantive, relational reality. It's not that the services ISOC provides are not valuable, but that they were delegated /to/ ISOC, rather than coming /from/ within ISOC and then being imposed on t/he IETF. In operational terms, nothing about the way IETF has ever conducted its decision-processes has ever had a feeling of subordination to ISOC.? (I suppose annual funding discussions might be taken as, at most, roughly egalitarian.) I'll add that nothing about ISOC's conduct -- unless this has changed in very recent years -- has ever had the tone of a superior.? Quite the opposite, based on the diligent caution I always saw, in how ISOC interacted with the IETF. Ignoring who generated what and why, note that be basic creation history was: 1986: IAB and IETF formed 1989: IETF Area Directors first appointed 1992:? Kobe Trauma, Poised working group, authority revision 1992: ISOC formed. As one of those first Area directors, the facts and tone of that sequence were interesting. The IETF was fully subordinate to IAB authority, which was quite vigorously asserted. What I'm calling the Kobe Trauma happened three years later, producing what was largely a reversal of the authority relationship, in terms of IETF operations. Up through the formation of ISOC, these activities survived with what was sometimes called a "Daddy Pays" model.? Arguably, that's still the model, although Daddy now pays only a percentage.? But even when it was earlier Daddies, the sources of funding exerted close to no visible control over the processes. If ISOC went away, the IETF would have a funding shortfall, and it would have some holes in its oversight and appointment model. Funding is called that because it is never fun to satisfy the requirement, but I suspect it would at least be a tractable task. Filling the other holes would probably be no more than a hassle. d/ -- Dave Crocker dhc at dcrocker.net bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social +1.408.329.0791 Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter Northern California Coastal Region Information & Planning Coordinator American Red Cross dave.crocker2 at redcross.org From vgcerf at gmail.com Thu Mar 12 14:58:00 2026 From: vgcerf at gmail.com (vinton cerf) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 17:58:00 -0400 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: <3b3f2413-07be-4c66-af46-435d3e7a27ff@3kitty.org> References: <8e28d5c9-6f00-4e76-ab5d-cfca7e0892be@dcrocker.net> <50731AA6-CD67-4BB5-A7DF-D20BCAF2D131@crankycanuck.ca> <48a15952-6d4f-4862-97d8-ce9cced92e78@dcrocker.net> <3b3f2413-07be-4c66-af46-435d3e7a27ff@3kitty.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 3:26?PM Jack Haverty via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > On 3/12/26 09:40, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > > On 3/12/2026 9:28 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote: > >> Like it or not, all the legal existence of the IETF is subordinate to > >> the Internet Society. > > > > > > Ahh. So the IETF did not exist before ISOC. And if ISOC disappeared, > > so would the IETF. > > > > Good to know. > > > > d/ > > > Not what I remember..... > > In early 1983, I was a member of the ICCB - the precursor to the IAB. > The ICCB was formed by Vint several years earlier, to serve as an > advisory board to Vint at ARPA, setting priorities and plans, and then > making them happen. The ICCB was composed of individuals from the > various organizations related to the Internet, e.g., Jon Postel, Dave > Mills, Jim Mathis, Dave Clark, Bob Braden, Ed Cain, Ray McFarland, and > myself, all invited by Vint to be members. Hope I didn't miss > anyone.... Bob Kahn called it "Vint's Cabinet". After each meeting > we would all go back to our respective organizations and do what we > could to focus on the plans and priorities. > > I recall one ICCB meeting, sometime around early 1983, when Vint > announced he was leaving ARPA to go to MCI. ARPA's Internet projects > would subsequently be led by Barry Leiner. In the ICCB discussions a > plan emerged to organize the various projects on two tracks as part of > the handoff. The "research" efforts would be organized as the IRTF > (Internet Research Task Force), led by Dave Clark. The "engineering" > efforts would be organized as the IETF (Internet Engineering Task > Force), led by Phil Gross. > Jack - Internet Activities Board had a bunch of working groups and IETF was one of them. GADS was run by Dave Mills. IETF, run by Phill Gross, grew larger than all the others. It was around 1990 that the various research group were combined into IRTF, run by Dave Clark and IETF continued. Subsequently Barry made some more changes, such as evolving the ICCB > into the IAB, where each member would be the lead of some subgroup of > the IETF or IRTF. I don't think this parse is correct, Jack. IRTF came much later (see above) > Coincidentally, in July 1983 BBN did a major > reorganization which split apart its own "research" and "operations" > projects into separate divisions (and buildings). I ended up on the > "operations" side and lost track of the research activities. > > ISOC happened much later IIRC, trigged by some legal issues that arose, > as the Internet became noticed by commercial and non-governmental > interests, and the government focus shifted to use of COTS (Commercial > Off The Shelf) products rather than expensive custom-built technical > systems. > No it arose because NSF stopped funding the IETF Secretariat. > > Prior to that, the Internet had largely been a project focused on > military needs, with a "pipeline" driving technology from research to > operations. The most prominent example of full progress through that > pipeline was the ARPANET, which evolved into the DDN as the > comprehensive data communications system for all military needs. But > there were other projects proceeding down the pipeline, such as SATNET, > which evolved into MATNET as a US Navy prototype, and Packet Radio, > which evolved into prototype testing in Army exercises. I don't know > if either of those technologies advanced further down the pipeline. > > Lots of actions helped propel projects down that pipeline. I don't > know for sure, but I always thought that the government members of the > ICCB (Vint from Arpa and Ed and Ray from DoD) played a role in getting > some of the non-technical actions to occur. One example is the change > in procurement regulations so that all the big government contractors > were required to have TCP implemented in their deliverables. Another > was the creation by NBS (now NIST) of a program to certify that TCP had > been implemented correctly, thus providing a means for all those > contractors to contractually "prove" that they had actually implemented > TCP. > > I don't know much about the history of ISOC and the IETF. But I've > always wondered how and why things changed between 1983 and now. > > In 1983 the Internet was an orchestrated project focused on meeting > military communications requirements. The government(s) controlled the > direction and deployment through funding and regulations. > > Today, the Internet is a global project with fuzzy requirements to meet > all sorts of business and human needs, and seems driven mostly by market > forces. > > The early IETF was an organization of engineers focused on making the > technology work to meet the requirements. The IETF has evolved into a > standards body, which puts technical solutions "on the shelf" and > assumes someone who needs them will adopt and deploy as they see fit, > but there seems to be no way to verify that a technology from the shelf > is actually in place. > > How did that evolution happen...? > > /Jack Haverty > > > -- > 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 > From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Thu Mar 12 16:18:59 2026 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 12:18:59 +1300 Subject: [ih] This Review is for No One [Re: This Review is for Everyone] In-Reply-To: <153c8e7a-659f-421c-9a58-4a12a5ad26a7@gmail.com> References: <153c8e7a-659f-421c-9a58-4a12a5ad26a7@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2fb1735b-2069-4cfd-ad4b-b320b976760f@gmail.com> Just at the moment, the whole of www.cs.auckland.ac.nz is broken for some reason. Regards/Ng? mihi Brian Carpenter On 12-Mar-26 19:58, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > If anyone is in the least interested, I have posted a rather personal review of TimBL's recent book: > > https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/timbl-crits.html > > Regards/Ng? mihi > Brian Carpenter From u.speidel at auckland.ac.nz Thu Mar 12 16:21:54 2026 From: u.speidel at auckland.ac.nz (Ulrich Speidel) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 12:21:54 +1300 Subject: [ih] This Review is for No One [Re: This Review is for Everyone] In-Reply-To: <2fb1735b-2069-4cfd-ad4b-b320b976760f@gmail.com> References: <153c8e7a-659f-421c-9a58-4a12a5ad26a7@gmail.com> <2fb1735b-2069-4cfd-ad4b-b320b976760f@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1181579e-5e23-4d92-a058-5661df5fb929@auckland.ac.nz> UoA and servers ... sigh. On 13/03/2026 12:18 pm, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > Just at the moment, the whole of www.cs.auckland.ac.nz is broken for > some reason. > > Regards/Ng? mihi > ?? Brian Carpenter > > On 12-Mar-26 19:58, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> If anyone is in the least interested, I have posted a rather personal >> review of TimBL's recent book: >> >> https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/timbl-crits.html >> >> Regards/Ng? mihi >> ???? Brian Carpenter -- **************************************************************** Dr. Ulrich Speidel School of Computer Science Room 303S.594 (City Campus) The University of Auckland u.speidel at auckland.ac.nz http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/ **************************************************************** From steve at shinkuro.com Thu Mar 12 16:39:09 2026 From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 05:09:09 +0530 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: <325177db-5a07-487d-b2a9-aa5db4cb06bb@dcrocker.net> References: <8e28d5c9-6f00-4e76-ab5d-cfca7e0892be@dcrocker.net> <50731AA6-CD67-4BB5-A7DF-D20BCAF2D131@crankycanuck.ca> <48a15952-6d4f-4862-97d8-ce9cced92e78@dcrocker.net> <325177db-5a07-487d-b2a9-aa5db4cb06bb@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: Adding one minor but relevant detail to Dave's note, Carl Malmud and I chaired the POISED working group thatresulted from the Kobe Trauma. POISED made two significant changes to the IETF's organizational structure. The authority for approving RFCs moved from the IAB to the IESG, and a Nomcom was created to fill IETF leadership positions and the IAB. These changes also established a judicial function. The IAB became the primary body to hear appeals, but ISOC was given an appellate role above the IAB. If I recall correctly, ISOC never expressed any desire or need to take on this role, but they were a convenient choice for a level above the IAB. I don't know whether this was ever exercised, and I don't know if this role still persists. (POISSON was the follow-on effort to POISED. I did not track the details., so I don;t know if ISOC's role continued, expanded or was diminished.) Steve On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 3:23?AM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > On 3/12/2026 9:56 AM, Craig Partridge wrote: > > > > As you well know, the IETF did exist before ISOC. But we had to > > reverse engineer things so that when ISOC was created, IETF was > > subordinate to it, so you that you and I (and others) as members of > > the then IESG and IETF would not be sued for standards decisions. > > > > As a result, I suspect if ISOC disappeared now, yes IETF would too... > > > I suspect it wouldn't. And I was not (merely) being snarky. > > Unless things have changed profoundly, in recent years, ISOC provides no > operational direction to the IETF and never has. When I say the IETF > 'contracted with' ISOC for some services, I mean that as substantive, > relational reality. > > It's not that the services ISOC provides are not valuable, but that they > were delegated /to/ ISOC, rather than coming /from/ within ISOC and then > being imposed on t/he IETF. > > In operational terms, nothing about the way IETF has ever conducted its > decision-processes has ever had a feeling of subordination to ISOC. (I > suppose annual funding discussions might be taken as, at most, roughly > egalitarian.) > > I'll add that nothing about ISOC's conduct -- unless this has changed in > very recent years -- has ever had the tone of a superior. Quite the > opposite, based on the diligent caution I always saw, in how ISOC > interacted with the IETF. > > Ignoring who generated what and why, note that be basic creation history > was: > > 1986: IAB and IETF formed > > 1989: IETF Area Directors first appointed > > 1992: Kobe Trauma, Poised working group, authority revision > > 1992: ISOC formed. > > As one of those first Area directors, the facts and tone of that > sequence were interesting. > > The IETF was fully subordinate to IAB authority, which was quite > vigorously asserted. > > What I'm calling the Kobe Trauma happened three years later, producing > what was largely a reversal of the authority relationship, in terms of > IETF operations. > > Up through the formation of ISOC, these activities survived with what > was sometimes called a "Daddy Pays" model. Arguably, that's still the > model, although Daddy now pays only a percentage. But even when it was > earlier Daddies, the sources of funding exerted close to no visible > control over the processes. > > If ISOC went away, the IETF would have a funding shortfall, and it would > have some holes in its oversight and appointment model. > > Funding is called that because it is never fun to satisfy the > requirement, but I suspect it would at least be a tractable task. > Filling the other holes would probably be no more than a hassle. > > > d/ > > -- > Dave Crocker > > dhc at dcrocker.net > bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social > mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social > +1.408.329.0791 > > Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter > Northern California Coastal Region > Information & Planning Coordinator > American Red Cross > dave.crocker2 at redcross.org > -- > 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 > -- Sent by a Verified sender From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Thu Mar 12 18:00:53 2026 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 14:00:53 +1300 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: References: <8e28d5c9-6f00-4e76-ab5d-cfca7e0892be@dcrocker.net> <50731AA6-CD67-4BB5-A7DF-D20BCAF2D131@crankycanuck.ca> <48a15952-6d4f-4862-97d8-ce9cced92e78@dcrocker.net> <325177db-5a07-487d-b2a9-aa5db4cb06bb@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: Hi Steve, On 13-Mar-26 12:39, Steve Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > Adding one minor but relevant detail to Dave's note, > > Carl Malmud and I chaired the POISED working group thatresulted from the > Kobe Trauma. POISED made two significant changes to the IETF's > organizational structure. The authority for approving RFCs moved from the > IAB to the IESG, and a Nomcom was created to fill IETF leadership > positions and the IAB. These changes also established a judicial > function. The IAB became the primary body to hear appeals, but ISOC was > given an appellate role above the IAB. If I recall correctly, ISOC never > expressed any desire or need to take on this role, but they were a > convenient choice for a level above the IAB. I don't know whether this was > ever exercised, I believe not. > and I don't know if this role still persists. It does, and it remains in the current rfc2026bis draft. Brian > (POISSON was > the follow-on effort to POISED. I did not track the details., so I don;t > know if ISOC's role continued, expanded or was diminished.) > > Steve > > > On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 3:23?AM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> On 3/12/2026 9:56 AM, Craig Partridge wrote: >>> >>> As you well know, the IETF did exist before ISOC. But we had to >>> reverse engineer things so that when ISOC was created, IETF was >>> subordinate to it, so you that you and I (and others) as members of >>> the then IESG and IETF would not be sued for standards decisions. >>> >>> As a result, I suspect if ISOC disappeared now, yes IETF would too... >> >> >> I suspect it wouldn't. And I was not (merely) being snarky. >> >> Unless things have changed profoundly, in recent years, ISOC provides no >> operational direction to the IETF and never has. When I say the IETF >> 'contracted with' ISOC for some services, I mean that as substantive, >> relational reality. >> >> It's not that the services ISOC provides are not valuable, but that they >> were delegated /to/ ISOC, rather than coming /from/ within ISOC and then >> being imposed on t/he IETF. >> >> In operational terms, nothing about the way IETF has ever conducted its >> decision-processes has ever had a feeling of subordination to ISOC. (I >> suppose annual funding discussions might be taken as, at most, roughly >> egalitarian.) >> >> I'll add that nothing about ISOC's conduct -- unless this has changed in >> very recent years -- has ever had the tone of a superior. Quite the >> opposite, based on the diligent caution I always saw, in how ISOC >> interacted with the IETF. >> >> Ignoring who generated what and why, note that be basic creation history >> was: >> >> 1986: IAB and IETF formed >> >> 1989: IETF Area Directors first appointed >> >> 1992: Kobe Trauma, Poised working group, authority revision >> >> 1992: ISOC formed. >> >> As one of those first Area directors, the facts and tone of that >> sequence were interesting. >> >> The IETF was fully subordinate to IAB authority, which was quite >> vigorously asserted. >> >> What I'm calling the Kobe Trauma happened three years later, producing >> what was largely a reversal of the authority relationship, in terms of >> IETF operations. >> >> Up through the formation of ISOC, these activities survived with what >> was sometimes called a "Daddy Pays" model. Arguably, that's still the >> model, although Daddy now pays only a percentage. But even when it was >> earlier Daddies, the sources of funding exerted close to no visible >> control over the processes. >> >> If ISOC went away, the IETF would have a funding shortfall, and it would >> have some holes in its oversight and appointment model. >> >> Funding is called that because it is never fun to satisfy the >> requirement, but I suspect it would at least be a tractable task. >> Filling the other holes would probably be no more than a hassle. >> >> >> d/ >> >> -- >> Dave Crocker >> >> dhc at dcrocker.net >> bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social >> mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social >> +1.408.329.0791 >> >> Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter >> Northern California Coastal Region >> Information & Planning Coordinator >> American Red Cross >> dave.crocker2 at redcross.org >> -- >> 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 >> > > From ajs at crankycanuck.ca Thu Mar 12 18:09:27 2026 From: ajs at crankycanuck.ca (Andrew Sullivan) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 21:09:27 -0400 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: References: <8e28d5c9-6f00-4e76-ab5d-cfca7e0892be@dcrocker.net> <50731AA6-CD67-4BB5-A7DF-D20BCAF2D131@crankycanuck.ca> <48a15952-6d4f-4862-97d8-ce9cced92e78@dcrocker.net> <325177db-5a07-487d-b2a9-aa5db4cb06bb@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 05:09:09AM -0500, Steve Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >expressed any desire or need to take on this role, but they were a >convenient choice for a level above the IAB. I don't know whether this was >ever exercised I can report for certain that there has been at least one _attempt_ to appeal an IAB decision to the Internet Society BoT, but at least in the case I recall it was rejected. The appeal to the BoT is very narrowly scoped: the BoT may not rule on substance, but rather may rule where the procedures themselves were inadequate. In the case I am thinking of, that was not the contention of the would-be appellant, so the appeal was rejected on the grounds that the appeal was beyond the scope of the body to decide. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs at crankycanuck.ca From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Thu Mar 12 18:45:36 2026 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 14:45:36 +1300 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: References: <8e28d5c9-6f00-4e76-ab5d-cfca7e0892be@dcrocker.net> <50731AA6-CD67-4BB5-A7DF-D20BCAF2D131@crankycanuck.ca> <48a15952-6d4f-4862-97d8-ce9cced92e78@dcrocker.net> <325177db-5a07-487d-b2a9-aa5db4cb06bb@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <7f08ab82-6046-4e1d-a84e-f280d8b53e10@gmail.com> Hi Andrew, On 13-Mar-26 14:09, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 05:09:09AM -0500, Steve Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >> expressed any desire or need to take on this role, but they were a >> convenient choice for a level above the IAB. I don't know whether this was >> ever exercised > > I can report for certain that there has been at least one _attempt_ to appeal an IAB decision to the Internet Society BoT, but at least in the case I recall it was rejected. The appeal to the BoT is very narrowly scoped: the BoT may not rule on substance, but rather may rule where the procedures themselves were inadequate. In the case I am thinking of, that was not the contention of the would-be appellant, so the appeal was rejected on the grounds that the appeal was beyond the scope of the body to decide. The IAB (https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iab/appeals/) and the IESG (https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iesg/appeals/) have made a best effort at publishing all appeals and responses. (I think a few earlier IESG appeals are missing.) Is the case that reached ISOC also published somewhere? Rgds Brian From ajs at crankycanuck.ca Thu Mar 12 19:15:24 2026 From: ajs at crankycanuck.ca (Andrew Sullivan) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 22:15:24 -0400 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: <7f08ab82-6046-4e1d-a84e-f280d8b53e10@gmail.com> References: <8e28d5c9-6f00-4e76-ab5d-cfca7e0892be@dcrocker.net> <50731AA6-CD67-4BB5-A7DF-D20BCAF2D131@crankycanuck.ca> <48a15952-6d4f-4862-97d8-ce9cced92e78@dcrocker.net> <325177db-5a07-487d-b2a9-aa5db4cb06bb@dcrocker.net> <7f08ab82-6046-4e1d-a84e-f280d8b53e10@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 02:45:36PM -0500, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >The IAB (https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iab/appeals/) and the IESG (https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iesg/appeals/) have made a best effort at publishing all appeals and responses. (I think a few earlier IESG appeals are missing.) Is the case that reached ISOC also published somewhere? > To be clear, what I was saying was that it did _not_ reach the Internet Society Board of Trustees, because it did not qualify under the rules. Someone wanted it, but the condtions of the process were not met. Such a case is more like an unfiled appeal: it can't appear anywhere because the formal conditions for a decision were not met. I'd like to think it is good to know that at least in living memory there were processes in place to ensure that, if some request came in, it wouldn't just get dropped on the floor. (I of course can't speak for what the Internet Society does now. I don't work there any more and haven't for over a year.) Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs at crankycanuck.ca From agmalis at gmail.com Fri Mar 13 05:55:49 2026 From: agmalis at gmail.com (Andrew G. Malis) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 08:55:49 -0400 Subject: [ih] Today's Dinosaur Comics Message-ID: They're doing repeats from 2020, but today's Dinosaur Comic was too good to not share. https://www.gocomics.com/dinosaur-comics If there are any paywall issues, this leads directly to the image: https://featureassets.gocomics.com/assets/420111a0d8ef013d93dc005056a9545d?optimizer=image&width=2400&quality=85 Cheers, Andy From u.speidel at auckland.ac.nz Mon Mar 16 13:25:37 2026 From: u.speidel at auckland.ac.nz (Ulrich Speidel) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2026 09:25:37 +1300 Subject: [ih] This Review is for No One [Re: This Review is for Everyone] In-Reply-To: <2fb1735b-2069-4cfd-ad4b-b320b976760f@gmail.com> References: <153c8e7a-659f-421c-9a58-4a12a5ad26a7@gmail.com> <2fb1735b-2069-4cfd-ad4b-b320b976760f@gmail.com> Message-ID: It's back up now. Web pages for staff here are a legacy system now that the comms and marketing department controls most of what's outward facing. But they finally found a team that they could task with rolling back the changes that were made. On 13/03/2026 12:18 pm, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > Just at the moment, the whole of www.cs.auckland.ac.nz is broken for > some reason. > > Regards/Ng? mihi > ?? Brian Carpenter > > On 12-Mar-26 19:58, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> If anyone is in the least interested, I have posted a rather personal >> review of TimBL's recent book: >> >> https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/timbl-crits.html >> >> Regards/Ng? mihi >> ???? Brian Carpenter -- **************************************************************** Dr. Ulrich Speidel School of Computer Science Room 303S.594 (City Campus) The University of Auckland u.speidel at auckland.ac.nz http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/ **************************************************************** From gregskinner0 at icloud.com Tue Mar 17 00:33:49 2026 From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:33:49 -0700 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: <153c8e7a-659f-421c-9a58-4a12a5ad26a7@gmail.com> References: <153c8e7a-659f-421c-9a58-4a12a5ad26a7@gmail.com> Message-ID: <059BF7D3-2FD9-44BE-8577-D2F2447A0B86@icloud.com> On Mar 11, 2026, at 11:58?PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > > If anyone is in the least interested, I have posted a rather personal review of TimBL's recent book: > > https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/timbl-crits.html > > Regards/Ng? mihi > Brian Carpenter > From the review: p.94 describes the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) as a "non-profit". This is imprecise. The IETF itself isn't incorporated in any way and has no formal membership model. It's loosely associated with the Internet Society, which is a non-profit under US law. It's supported technically by something called IETF Administration LLC, which is another non-profit under US law, but the IETF itself is just a group of people who've chosen to collaborate voluntarily. The W3C is a much more corporate model, largely because Tim didn't like the IETF model of rough consensus, especially when he didn't agree with it. To this day Tim dislikes the fact that the rough consensus was to say "Uniform Resource Locator" (instead of his preferred "Universal"). [RFC 1738, published December 1994] ==== I didn?t realize he felt that way about rough consensus. To see what might have caused him to feel that way, I looked at some old URI WG email, and found some rather spirited (IMO) discussions between himself and several of the other WG participants, such as [1]. --gregbo [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri/muZuR_O6Y8hY3ylD2RkWZm27MI4/ From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Tue Mar 17 13:04:34 2026 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 09:04:34 +1300 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: <059BF7D3-2FD9-44BE-8577-D2F2447A0B86@icloud.com> References: <153c8e7a-659f-421c-9a58-4a12a5ad26a7@gmail.com> <059BF7D3-2FD9-44BE-8577-D2F2447A0B86@icloud.com> Message-ID: On 17-Mar-26 20:33, Greg Skinner wrote: > On Mar 11, 2026, at 11:58?PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: >> >> If anyone is in the least interested, I have posted a rather personal review of TimBL's recent book: >> >> https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/timbl-crits.html >> >> Regards/Ng? mihi >> Brian Carpenter >> > > From the review: > > p.94 describes the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) as a "non-profit". This is imprecise. The IETF itself isn't incorporated in any way and has no formal membership model. It's loosely associated with the Internet Society, which is a non-profit under US law. It's supported technically by something called IETF Administration LLC, which is another non-profit under US law, but the IETF itself is just a group of people who've chosen to collaborate voluntarily. The W3C is a much more corporate model, largely because Tim didn't like the IETF model of rough consensus, especially when he didn't agree with it. To this day Tim dislikes the fact that the rough consensus was to say "Uniform Resource Locator" (instead of his preferred "Universal"). [RFC 1738, published December 1994] > > ==== > > I didn?t realize he felt that way about rough consensus. To see what might have caused him to feel that way, I looked at some old URI WG email, and found some rather spirited (IMO) discussions between himself and several of the other WG participants, such as [1]. And to be fair to Tim, he worked within the IETF process for more than two years, before the W3C took over. In fact he first attended the IETF (IETF 23) before I did (IETF 25). The Universal vs Uniform debate must have been during 1992 [2]. Brian [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri/lVkHRA5fUvZyJ80qFX1dPpL1UVM/ > > --gregbo > > [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri/muZuR_O6Y8hY3ylD2RkWZm27MI4/ > From bpurvy at gmail.com Wed Mar 18 10:03:21 2026 From: bpurvy at gmail.com (Bob Purvy) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 10:03:21 -0700 Subject: [ih] Early LANs Message-ID: I'm writing a screenplay for a TV series on my book *The Big Bucks, *which takes place in the early 80's. I'm thinking the rule in storytelling is always "show, don't tell" and so I'm thinking of dramatizing the process of stringing ARCnet between three faculty offices. This is a guerilla effort, not an official University project. Matt is a grad student who's helping the two junior faculty, Dr. Liu and Dr. Srinivasan. I hope some of you have enough knowledge to spot any howlers. It's OK to leave details out, but I don't want to have any IN that are wrong. The time is mid 1983. What I'm thinking is, Matt uses the return-air plenum to string the coax. The initial installation would just be three adjacent faculty offices in the CS department. It would be a star configuration, like this: Unnamed Dr. Srinivasan Dr. Liu ---------------------------------------------------- PC and -- coax --- Hub and PC -- coax -- PC printer ====== INT. FACULTY OFFICE AT U. OF MINN. - NIGHT Matt is carrying a ladder into Dr. Liu?s office. The building is deserted except for his and the two offices left of his, which have the lights on. Matt has a bundle of coaxial cable, and there is a box of electronic components and floppies on Dr. Liu?s desk. Dr. Srinivasan is a young Indian man, wearing jeans and a horizontally striped polo shirt. MATT Everybody?s got their Datapoint manuals? They both nod. MATT Alright then, let?s get this show on the road. Can you clear out the back corner there? He points to the left rear corner of the office. Dr. Liu and Dr. Srinivasan move the filing cabinets forward, and Matt sets up the ladder in the corner. He hands one end of the cable to Dr. Liu. MATT Hold this. You?re going to be attaching it to your adapter. He goes up the ladder, carrying the bundle of cable with him, and pushes up the ceiling panel. A cloud of dust falls on him. He pushes the bundle in, then comes back down. MATT OK, let?s go next door. Hold that end down with something. Dr. Liu puts a stack of books on the end of the cable and he and Dr. Srinivasan follow Matt out the door. They go into Dr. Srinivasan?s office and set up the ladder at the right back corner. Matt goes up the ladder and pushes up the ceiling panel. Another cloud of dust comes down. He reaches in, grabs the bundle of cable, and hands it to Dr. Liu, who?s standing at the foot of the ladder. Then he comes down. DR. SRINIVASAN Let me guess: now we go next door? MATT No, now we set up the hub. And you?re hosting it! Dr. Srinivasan points to himself with a ?me?? expression. Matt goes back to Dr. Liu?s office. He returns with a small box and a pair of diagonal cutters. MATT Where do you want it? Dr. Srinivasan points to the right corner of his office. Matt cuts the cable with his cutters, then hands a stripping tool to Dr. Srinivasan. MATT Your job is to get all the ends stripped and ready for the BNC connectors. You up for it? DR. LIU I?ll help. I?ve been reading up on this. MATT Hold the ends. I?m going next door to finish the cabling. Then we?re going to install the software and connect your PC?s. DR. LIU And next door is where the printer is! DR. SRINIVASAN So fun. The mainframe guys are going to be so jealous! From touch at strayalpha.com Wed Mar 18 10:46:42 2026 From: touch at strayalpha.com (Joe Touch) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 10:46:42 -0700 Subject: [ih] Early LANs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: HI, Bob (et al.), While discussions of Internet history are welcome on this list, soliciting collaboration on external projects is out of scope. Anyone interested, please contact Bob directly. Bob - please do not continue this discussion on this list. Joe / list owner & admin > On Mar 18, 2026, at 10:03?AM, Bob Purvy via Internet-history wrote: > > ?I'm writing a screenplay for a TV series? From joly at punkcast.com Sat Mar 21 05:43:54 2026 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2026 08:43:54 -0400 Subject: [ih] RECORDING - Telecom Act at 30: Universal Service as the North Star (Benton) Message-ID: I got a couple of things from this 1) that in the 90s sausage making, the word "internet' was taboo, because nominally it was still a DoD / NSF project and thus would involve whole areas of government beyond telecom, thus the euphemism "advanced networks' was used 2) that E-rate, which provided many connections to schoold and libraries, only got funded because (Later Trump AG) Bill Barr totally fumbled the ball in court, and 3) yes, Al Gore was key. Please note that ISOC LIVE recaps are now mirrored at https://isoclive.substack.com/ [image: ISOC LIVE] VIDEO | RECAP | ARCHIVE | PERMALINK On March 5, 2026, the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society marked the 30th anniversary of the 1996 Telecommunications Act with an event ?Telecom Act at 30: Universal Service as the North Star ? in Washington DC. Policymakers, advocates, academics, and industry leaders convened to examine how the law, drafted at the dawn of dial-up internet, codified the national commitment to universal connectivity. Participants explored how the act has shaped today?s broadband landscape and what universal service must mean in the next era of connectivity. 01 Introduction Senator Al Gore & Lily Tomlin (video) Revati Prasad ? Executive Director ? Benton Institute for Broadband & Society VIDEO | AUDIO | RECAP EN / ES / FR 02 Keynote Speaker ? Ed Markey Ed Markey ? U.S. Senator, Massachusetts VIDEO | AUDIO | RECAP EN / ES / FR 03 How a Bill Becomes a Law Katie King ? Former Special Counsel, Federal Communications Commission Chip Pickering ? Chief Executive Officer, INCOMPAS Gina Keeney ? Founder, Keeney Consulting John Windhausen Jr. ? President, Telepoly Moderator: Andy Schwartzman ? Benton Senior Counselor VIDEO | AUDIO | RECAP EN / ES / FR 04 Best Laid Plans Rachelle Chong ? Former Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission Larry Irving ? President & Chief Executive Officer, Irving Group Jim Kohlenberger ? President, JK Strategies Christopher Wright ? Partner, Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis LLP Blair Levin ? Policy Advisor, New Street Research Moderator: Mignon Clyburn, Former FCC Commissioner VIDEO | AUDIO | RECAP EN / ES / FR 05 Fireside Chat ? Philip L. Verveer & Gigi Sohn Philip L. Verveer ? Former Deputy Assistant Secretary and Ambassador, U.S. Department of State Gigi Sohn ? Benton Senior Fellow and Public Advocate VIDEO | AUDIO | RECAP EN / ES / FR 06 Conclusion Revati Prasad ? Executive Director ? Benton Institute for Broadband & Society VIDEO | AUDIO | RECAP EN / ES / FR -- - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - From karl at iwl.com Sat Mar 21 08:10:40 2026 From: karl at iwl.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2026 08:10:40 -0700 Subject: [ih] RECORDING - Telecom Act at 30: Universal Service as the North Star (Benton) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53aa7535-3bbd-4611-932c-8dfecaeae3be@iwl.com> That kind of linguistic game may have been the norm in DC, but here on the west coast where by the mid-to-late 1980's we had began wiring things together (BARRnet, Little Garden, Interop show net, etc) we had little to no knowledge, nor would we have had much respect for such naming constraints.? We were having too much fun starting companies and building stuff (not to mention putting on some glorious parties [for instance at the Air & Space in DC, the?La Grande Arche in Paris, the Howard Hughes penthouse in Las Vegas, the Exploritorium (sp) in San Francisco, etc]. For instance, what year was the first meeting of the "*Internet* Engineering Task Force"?? 1986 ? ? ? ? --karl-- On 3/21/26 5:43 AM, Joly MacFie via Internet-history wrote: > I got a couple of things from this 1) that in the 90s sausage making, the > word "internet' was taboo, because nominally it was still a DoD / NSF > project and thus would involve whole areas of government > - From gregskinner0 at icloud.com Sun Mar 22 10:51:11 2026 From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2026 10:51:11 -0700 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: <3b3f2413-07be-4c66-af46-435d3e7a27ff@3kitty.org> References: <8e28d5c9-6f00-4e76-ab5d-cfca7e0892be@dcrocker.net> <50731AA6-CD67-4BB5-A7DF-D20BCAF2D131@crankycanuck.ca> <48a15952-6d4f-4862-97d8-ce9cced92e78@dcrocker.net> <3b3f2413-07be-4c66-af46-435d3e7a27ff@3kitty.org> Message-ID: On Mar 12, 2026, at 12:25?PM, Jack Haverty via Internet-history wrote: > > On 3/12/26 09:40, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: >> On 3/12/2026 9:28 AM, Andrew Sullivan via Internet-history wrote: >>> Like it or not, all the legal existence of the IETF is subordinate to the Internet Society. >> >> >> Ahh. So the IETF did not exist before ISOC. And if ISOC disappeared, so would the IETF. >> >> Good to know. >> >> d/ >> > Not what I remember..... > > In early 1983, I was a member of the ICCB - the precursor to the IAB. The ICCB was formed by Vint several years earlier, to serve as an advisory board to Vint at ARPA, setting priorities and plans, and then making them happen. The ICCB was composed of individuals from the various organizations related to the Internet, e.g., Jon Postel, Dave Mills, Jim Mathis, Dave Clark, Bob Braden, Ed Cain, Ray McFarland, and myself, all invited by Vint to be members. Hope I didn't miss anyone.... Bob Kahn called it "Vint's Cabinet". After each meeting we would all go back to our respective organizations and do what we could to focus on the plans and priorities. > > I recall one ICCB meeting, sometime around early 1983, when Vint announced he was leaving ARPA to go to MCI. ARPA's Internet projects would subsequently be led by Barry Leiner. In the ICCB discussions a plan emerged to organize the various projects on two tracks as part of the handoff. The "research" efforts would be organized as the IRTF (Internet Research Task Force), led by Dave Clark. The "engineering" efforts would be organized as the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force), led by Phil Gross. > I have seen references to an ?Internet Engineering Task Force? that existed prior to the first meeting of the IETF [1] in articles such as this one about Barry Leiner. [2] A quote from the article: A number of Task Forces were created under the IAB including one called "Internet Engineering", which ultimately gained responsibility for managing the other task forces; these were later renamed "working groups" except for those that were clearly associated with research, which were assembled into "research groups" of the Internet Research Task Force. By agreement with the IAB in the early 1990s, the hands-on responsibility for the Internet standards was passed from the IAB to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) leadership. The IAB continued to play an important role in overseeing certain aspects of the work of the IETF and in developing independent views on critical architectural matters concerning the Internet. For many years, Leiner had the ultimate responsibility for the development of this part of the Internet organizational structure, which he oversaw during the mid-1980s. > Lots of actions helped propel projects down that pipeline. I don't know for sure, but I always thought that the government members of the ICCB (Vint from Arpa and Ed and Ray from DoD) played a role in getting some of the non-technical actions to occur. One example is the change in procurement regulations so that all the big government contractors were required to have TCP implemented in their deliverables. Another was the creation by NBS (now NIST) of a program to certify that TCP had been implemented correctly, thus providing a means for all those contractors to contractually "prove" that they had actually implemented TCP. > > I don't know much about the history of ISOC and the IETF. But I've always wondered how and why things changed between 1983 and now. > > In 1983 the Internet was an orchestrated project focused on meeting military communications requirements. The government(s) controlled the direction and deployment through funding and regulations. > > Today, the Internet is a global project with fuzzy requirements to meet all sorts of business and human needs, and seems driven mostly by market forces. > > The early IETF was an organization of engineers focused on making the technology work to meet the requirements. The IETF has evolved into a standards body, which puts technical solutions "on the shelf" and assumes someone who needs them will adopt and deploy as they see fit, but there seems to be no way to verify that a technology from the shelf is actually in place. > > How did that evolution happen...? > > /Jack Haverty > Unfortunately, I don?t have time to go into details right now, but I believe that such activities are still occurring. They're just not something that someone who is not involved in those activities would know about. At the very least, one has to follow the IETF working groups who are involved in those activities. For example, there is an Internet Technologies Research Group within NIST that is actively involved with IETF working groups. [3] --gregbo [1] https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/01.pdf [2] https://www.ithistory.org/honor-roll/barry-m-leiner [3] https://www.nist.gov/ctl/wireless-networks-division/internet-technologies-research-group From craig at tereschau.net Sun Mar 22 11:23:06 2026 From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2026 12:23:06 -0600 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: References: <8e28d5c9-6f00-4e76-ab5d-cfca7e0892be@dcrocker.net> <50731AA6-CD67-4BB5-A7DF-D20BCAF2D131@crankycanuck.ca> <48a15952-6d4f-4862-97d8-ce9cced92e78@dcrocker.net> <3b3f2413-07be-4c66-af46-435d3e7a27ff@3kitty.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 22, 2026 at 11:51?AM Greg Skinner via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > I have seen references to an ?Internet Engineering Task Force? that > existed prior to the first meeting of the IETF [1] in articles such as this > one about Barry Leiner. [2] A quote from the article: > > A number of Task Forces were created under the IAB including one called > "Internet Engineering", which ultimately gained responsibility for managing > the other task forces; these were later renamed "working groups" except for > those that were clearly associated with research, which were assembled into > "research groups" of the Internet Research Task Force. By agreement with > the IAB in the early 1990s, the hands-on responsibility for the Internet > standards was passed from the IAB to the Internet Engineering Task Force > (IETF) leadership. The IAB continued to play an important role in > overseeing certain aspects of the work of the IETF and in developing > independent views on critical architectural matters concerning the > Internet. For many years, Leiner had the ultimate responsibility for the > development of this part of the Internet organizational structure, which he > oversaw during the mid-1980s. > Not quite as I remember it, as someone getting into that community around 1984/1985. There were several Task Forces created under the IAB c. 1983, roughly a Task Force for every IAB member not the chair. These included the End2End TF, the Privacy and Security TF, and (I may get the name wrong), the Internet Architecture TF (INarc). INarc split in 1986 into IETF, centered on right-now Internet challenges, and a more experiment/future-focused task force (may still have been called INarc, I can't recall -- Dave Mills chaired it and it persisted until c. 1991). I was not privy to the dynamics that led to the split other than hearing rumors that there were too many operational problems that required attention and having them co-exist in a task force that was also trying to be looking multiple years in the future was awkward. (Useful to remember that IAB "Task Forces" at the time were typically about 10-15 people, participating by invitation only, who met a few times a year. So imagine you're in 1986: the Internet desperately needs vendor-independent Intra-AS routing protocols, a working inter-AS routing protocol [EGP is struggling], a network management solution beyond Telnetting to each router, a mechanism to address congestion storms, standard profiles for routers [aka Router requirements], etc... and that's all on the desk of 10 people who are also trying to figure out how to deal with impending 100Mbps, soon gigabit networks, and whatever interesting problems that future portends. Creating IETF [which was initially invitation only] and then opening its membership was a logical solution.) As the pressing Internet challenges grew, and because about half the IAB TFs weren't regularly meeting, the IETF scope grew and c. 1989, the major Internet standards efforts were 95% IETF plus about 5% End2End and Privacy and Security. In some cases, the efforts were collaborative: Host Requirements had a core of End2End folks (the chair of E2E chaired Host Requirements) but was in IETF, similarly the TCP extensions for high performance (which were developed in E2E and brought to IETF), and, I think, IPsec had a similar dynamic with Privacy and Security. Then the Kobe restructuring happened and there were just two Task Forces: IETF and a new Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) and the non-IETF IAB TFs that still functioned became part of the IRTF. Craig -- ***** Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. From b_a_denny at yahoo.com Sun Mar 22 11:47:50 2026 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2026 18:47:50 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: References: <8e28d5c9-6f00-4e76-ab5d-cfca7e0892be@dcrocker.net> <50731AA6-CD67-4BB5-A7DF-D20BCAF2D131@crankycanuck.ca> <48a15952-6d4f-4862-97d8-ce9cced92e78@dcrocker.net> <3b3f2413-07be-4c66-af46-435d3e7a27ff@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <186663613.1614978.1774205270780@mail.yahoo.com> My recollection is closer to Craig's description.? There was a recognition there was a need to split things into near term problems and longer term research issues.? To me there seemed a lull in creating research groups,? except for the few surviving entities, like E2E. barbara On Sunday, March 22, 2026 at 11:23:27 AM PDT, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote: On Sun, Mar 22, 2026 at 11:51?AM Greg Skinner via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > I have seen references to an ?Internet Engineering Task Force? that > existed prior to the first meeting of the IETF [1] in articles such as this > one about Barry Leiner. [2] A quote from the article: > > A number of Task Forces were created under the IAB including one called > "Internet Engineering", which ultimately gained responsibility for managing > the other task forces; these were later renamed "working groups" except for > those that were clearly associated with research, which were assembled into > "research groups" of the Internet Research Task Force. By agreement with > the IAB in the early 1990s, the hands-on responsibility for the Internet > standards was passed from the IAB to the Internet Engineering Task Force > (IETF) leadership. The IAB continued to play an important role in > overseeing certain aspects of the work of the IETF and in developing > independent views on critical architectural matters concerning the > Internet. For many years, Leiner had the ultimate responsibility for the > development of this part of the Internet organizational structure, which he > oversaw during the mid-1980s. > Not quite as I remember it, as someone getting into that community around 1984/1985. There were several Task Forces created under the IAB c. 1983,? roughly a Task Force for every IAB member not the chair. These included the End2End TF, the Privacy and Security TF,? and (I may get the name wrong), the Internet Architecture TF (INarc).? INarc split in 1986 into IETF, centered on right-now Internet challenges, and a more experiment/future-focused task force (may still have been called INarc, I can't recall -- Dave Mills chaired it and it persisted until c. 1991).? I was not privy to the dynamics that led to the split other than hearing rumors that there were too many operational problems that required attention and having them co-exist in a task force that was also trying to be looking multiple years in the future was awkward. (Useful to remember that IAB "Task Forces" at the time were typically about 10-15 people, participating by invitation only, who met a few times a year.? So imagine you're in 1986: the Internet desperately needs vendor-independent Intra-AS routing protocols, a working inter-AS routing protocol [EGP is struggling], a network management solution beyond Telnetting to each router, a mechanism to address congestion storms, standard profiles for routers [aka Router requirements], etc... and that's all on the desk of 10 people who are also trying to figure out how to deal with impending 100Mbps, soon gigabit networks, and whatever interesting problems that future portends. Creating IETF [which was initially invitation only] and then opening its membership was a logical solution.) As the pressing Internet challenges grew, and because about half the IAB TFs weren't regularly meeting, the IETF scope grew and c. 1989, the major Internet standards efforts were 95% IETF plus about 5% End2End and Privacy and Security.? In some cases, the efforts were collaborative: Host Requirements had a core of End2End folks (the chair of E2E chaired Host Requirements) but was in IETF, similarly the TCP extensions for high performance (which were developed in E2E and brought to IETF), and, I think, IPsec had a similar dynamic with Privacy and Security. Then the Kobe restructuring happened and there were just two Task Forces: IETF and a new Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) and the non-IETF IAB TFs that still functioned became part of the IRTF. Craig -- ***** Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. -- 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 From dhc at dcrocker.net Sun Mar 22 12:12:57 2026 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2026 19:12:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: References: <8e28d5c9-6f00-4e76-ab5d-cfca7e0892be@dcrocker.net> <50731AA6-CD67-4BB5-A7DF-D20BCAF2D131@crankycanuck.ca> <48a15952-6d4f-4862-97d8-ce9cced92e78@dcrocker.net> <3b3f2413-07be-4c66-af46-435d3e7a27ff@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <9b25d6fe-011d-44e9-a271-8b3905c8a296@dcrocker.net> On 3/22/2026 11:23 AM, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote: > INarc split in 1986 > into IETF, centered on right-now Internet challenges, The time-frame included another change that is probably relevant and related:? growth of purely-commercial Internet tech activities. In 1986 I started work at Ungermann-Bass, which was one of the original Local Area Networking (actually enterprise networking) companies, and was using a derivative of the XNS protocols. But it started seeing a demand for TCP/IP-based capabilities, as Internet tech was starting to flow on customers' independent enterprise networks, unrelated to the 'public' Internet. So I managed an effort to put this onto UB's 'smart' PC cards (which an Intel 80186 on it.) Staying current on technical changes coming out of the Internet engineering community was obviously essential.(*)? And I think it was around 1987 that I asked to attend the technical meetings. The problem was that the these meetings were restricted to government-related groups.? Any commercial companies that were participating were related to government work.? We weren't. I pressed the question and there was some extended discussion. (Hmmm.? Perhaps the mailing list(s) were open membership, but not the f2f meetings.) I don't remember who it was but someone broke the impasse by noting that, after all, everyone knew me from the Arpanet.??So I was allowed to attend the next meeting. Which created the precedent for independent, commercial participation.? And by the next meeting, attendance was open to all. d/ (*) A special version of 'staying current' was actually introducing new work. ? ?A timely case in point was that we were one of 3 companies that had done independent development of IBM's Netbios over TCP/IP.? IBM (and Sytek) had only published the API, with no details about the underlying protocols.? So all 3 of us made whatever choices we felt appropriate.? For example, we even added the ability to link Netbios across different locations. ? ?Some of had experience with the 'co-opetition' model of collaborative specification effort common the the networking community.? Others did not.? This eventually led to an impasse that required call on Vint to come in and mediate.? RFC 1001/1002 was the result:? March, 1987. -- Dave Crocker dhc at dcrocker.net bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social +1.408.329.0791 Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter Northern California Coastal Region Information & Planning Coordinator American Red Cross dave.crocker2 at redcross.org From karl at iwl.com Sun Mar 22 15:12:41 2026 From: karl at iwl.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2026 15:12:41 -0700 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: <9b25d6fe-011d-44e9-a271-8b3905c8a296@dcrocker.net> References: <8e28d5c9-6f00-4e76-ab5d-cfca7e0892be@dcrocker.net> <50731AA6-CD67-4BB5-A7DF-D20BCAF2D131@crankycanuck.ca> <48a15952-6d4f-4862-97d8-ce9cced92e78@dcrocker.net> <3b3f2413-07be-4c66-af46-435d3e7a27ff@3kitty.org> <9b25d6fe-011d-44e9-a271-8b3905c8a296@dcrocker.net> Message-ID: <359fefd9-e4c0-43d6-a5ed-40c0599bfdf1@iwl.com> Yeah, that Netbios-over-TCP/UDP was a tough thing. (By-the-way, on my desk I still have a post-it-note holder with the Ungermann-Bass name that you gave me when we were working on - or fighting over - all of this stuff.) I'm not particularly proud of the standard we developed but then again we were trying to stuff a local broadcast domain protocol into a potentially wide area box.? We kinda ended up doing a Procrustean effort of stretching this and cutting off that.? I think the result was preordained to be a battered and bruised shadow of the original Netbios. I am sure that many who have extended our work to be the basis of Microsoft's CFS have cursed my name for some of the choices we made.? I kinda deserve it. I can't remember whether the Air Force ULANA project had started by that time, but I had long known many of the developers of the original Netbios code at Sytek - David Kaufman and Greg Ennis. Much of that original code was quite clever in how it used the particular aspects of the Sytek and IBM ring networks and much of what became the original IBM/Sytek Netbios was designed to fit that hardware - so the code was actually quite small.? (As an aside, the Sytek ring contained various ideas from Dave Farber's DCS via Frank Heinrich who flew through many of these efforts like a bee?pollinizing?flowers with ideas and insights.) I do remember that as we tried to move Netbios into an Internet world we ran into a lot of technical problems, not the least of which is that the Netbios service had a lot of assumptions about broadcasts and fast response from all pieces of a Netbios community - something that is sensible on a LAN, particularly a LAN based on a ring with a rotating token, but doesn't fit well on a wide area (and thus slower and less reliable) network. Amatzia Ben-Artzi (Sytek) and I came up with what was a unified design that tried to preserve much of the Netbios service interface in both local and wide area contexts.? There were other designs that bifurcated things into a local mode and wide area mode.? The latter was adopted.? That, in hindsight, was probably the wiser choice, but it certainly made things more complicated. The reason that I mentioned ULANA was that netbios-over-TCP was a requirement.? So we had to implement what we had done.? I remember working with a small company in Petaluma, California that had expertise in putting original netbios into various devices.? (I wonder how many times I crossed the Golden Gate bridge on my often daily travels between Santa Cruz and Petaluma?) Although our team (TRW) won the ULANA bid, the project never took flight because another major bidder, AT&T, protested and the whole thing sank, so we never really had the chance to test whether our ideas really worked.? Microsoft picked up the flag and ran with it via SMB and CIFS - and as I mentioned, my name is probably mudd in those quarters. But I want to put in a plug for the vast good that the often forgotten ULANA procurement incentivized.? ULANA built a serious and hot fire under commercial-off-the-shelf products for TCP/IP based networks.? I remember Dave Kaufman telling me about how he visited Cisco when it was still essentially a garage operation.? I think my initial implementation of John Romkey's Packet Driver module for PC-DOS was picked up by Russel Nelson (Crynwr) created a standard and easy to use packet send/receive API for code on PCs (until Windows came along.)? That, in turned enabled a lot of applications to be developed with the need for those to worry about device drivers for the rather large number of Ethernet cards that were appearing. ? ? --karl-- On 3/22/26 12:12 PM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > ? ?A timely case in point was that we were one of 3 companies that had > done independent development of IBM's Netbios over TCP/IP.? IBM (and > Sytek) had only published the API, with no details about the > underlying protocols.? So all 3 of us made whatever choices we felt > appropriate.? For example, we even added the ability to link Netbios > across different locations. > > ? ?Some of had experience with the 'co-opetition' model of > collaborative specification effort common the the networking > community.? Others did not.? This eventually led to an impasse that > required call on Vint to come in and mediate.? RFC 1001/1002 was the > result:? March, 1987. > From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Sun Mar 22 17:20:52 2026 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2026 20:20:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone Message-ID: <20260323002052.C963D18C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Craig Partridge > the Internet Architecture TF (INarc). INarc split in 1986 into IETF, > ... and a more experiment/future-focused task force (may still have > been called INarc, I can't recall -- Dave Mills chaired it and it > persisted until c. 1991). I was not privy to the dynamics that led to > the split other than hearing rumors that there were too many > operational problems that required attention Now that Dave is no longer with us, I guess I can be blunt and frank about this. Dave did the best he could, but he just did not have the skills needed to be in charge of a large group of people working on something that needed major attention Right Now. Don't get me wrong, he was a nice guy, smart, and all, but the person in charge of the nascent IETF needed a rare mix of skills - and Dave didn't have them all. I have the impression that this was made clear to us all, watching the job he did running a meeting or two of the pre-split InArc; IIRC, among other issues, he tended to get diverted onto interesting technical issues which weren't on the 'fix this _today_' path. It's not that we needed someone to land on people - the group all knew we had a tremendous opportunity available (in fact, a _far_ bigger one than I think any of us saw), no pushing was needed. But 'herding cats' is a rare skill (especially at the start, when we didn't have any history in the organizational to guide us as to the style of leadersip needed to achieve that). Noel From dhc at dcrocker.net Sun Mar 22 17:25:44 2026 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 00:25:44 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: <20260323002052.C963D18C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20260323002052.C963D18C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: On 3/22/2026 5:20 PM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: > but the person in charge of the nascent IETF needed a rare mix of skills It is indeed a rare mix.? And I think many of us worked very hard -- and very well -- over the decades, demonstrating just how rare it is. d/ -- Dave Crocker dhc at dcrocker.net bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social +1.408.329.0791 Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter Northern California Coastal Region Information & Planning Coordinator American Red Cross dave.crocker2 at redcross.org From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Sun Mar 22 18:25:59 2026 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2026 21:25:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone Message-ID: <20260323012559.E38EA18C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> PS: I should hasten to add that I did not operate in the circles that made the decision to split the InArc WG into two; that was done way over my (then) 'pay grade'. The move to effectively sideline Dave by splitting it in two was an elegant, and somewhat gentle, solution to a real problem. I am reminded of a similarly elegant solution to a similar problem at Bletchley, during WW2, by Hugh Alexander (described in Hodges, "Enigma", at the bottom of pg. 227). My memory dropped a bit, though, because I thought the shift supervisor involved was Turing, but I see it was someone else. Noel From lixia at cs.ucla.edu Sun Mar 22 18:41:30 2026 From: lixia at cs.ucla.edu (Lixia Zhang) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2026 18:41:30 -0700 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: <20260323002052.C963D18C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20260323002052.C963D18C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: My memory is a bit vague too, I largely agree with what Noel said below and I'd add just a bit more of my own observation: starting from the first GADS meeting, the split of interests showed up clearly: some people really wanted/needed to address burning issues from operations, while some others, especially Dave (Mills), were interested in more of blue sky research ideas (I recall he already started on the NTP work). I agree with Noel about Dave's skills, but I think his interest is a factor too. Lixia > On Mar 22, 2026, at 5:20?PM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: > >> From: Craig Partridge > >> the Internet Architecture TF (INarc). INarc split in 1986 into IETF, >> ... and a more experiment/future-focused task force (may still have >> been called INarc, I can't recall -- Dave Mills chaired it and it >> persisted until c. 1991). I was not privy to the dynamics that led to >> the split other than hearing rumors that there were too many >> operational problems that required attention > > Now that Dave is no longer with us, I guess I can be blunt and frank about > this. Dave did the best he could, but he just did not have the skills needed > to be in charge of a large group of people working on something that needed > major attention Right Now. Don't get me wrong, he was a nice guy, smart, and > all, but the person in charge of the nascent IETF needed a rare mix of skills > - and Dave didn't have them all. I have the impression that this was made > clear to us all, watching the job he did running a meeting or two of the > pre-split InArc; IIRC, among other issues, he tended to get diverted onto > interesting technical issues which weren't on the 'fix this _today_' path. > > It's not that we needed someone to land on people - the group all knew we had > a tremendous opportunity available (in fact, a _far_ bigger one than I think > any of us saw), no pushing was needed. But 'herding cats' is a rare skill > (especially at the start, when we didn't have any history in the > organizational to guide us as to the style of leadersip needed to achieve > that). > > Noel From craig at tereschau.net Sun Mar 22 18:49:40 2026 From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2026 19:49:40 -0600 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: <20260323012559.E38EA18C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20260323012559.E38EA18C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 22, 2026 at 7:26?PM Noel Chiappa via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > The move to effectively sideline Dave by splitting it in two was an > elegant, > and somewhat gentle, solution to a real problem. I am reminded of a > similarly > elegant solution to a similar problem at Bletchley, during WW2, by Hugh > Alexander (described in Hodges, "Enigma", at the bottom of pg. 227). My > memory dropped a bit, though, because I thought the shift supervisor > involved > was Turing, but I see it was someone else. > Speculating here, but I would guess Dave [Mills -- too many important Daves in the early Internet*] might have, in retrospect, felt it was a good thing too. It freed Dave to focus on desperately important problems that he was uniquely positioned to address. Notably: - Dave's Fuzzballs were the NSFNET routers in 1986/1987 and so regular software engineering attention from Dave was required to simply keep the (under resourced) NSFNET backbone working. - EGP was breaking and the community needed to understand if that was breakage because EGP was critically flawed or simply needed fixing. Dave led the effort to fix EGP and, in my view, it was his SIGCOMM '87 paper with Hans-Werner Braun that said "this isn't gonna work". It was another 18 months (and substantial arguments about what was and was not feasible) until BGP came along, but Dave M. and HWB were able to refine the problem definition substantially. - AND he got to push NTP to a mature state (probably his greatest contribution) It was these contributions that made Dave an ACM and IEEE fellow and member of the National Academy of Engineering and a person for whom a New York Times obituary was appropriate. Craig PS: Digging a bit as I wrote this I discovered the name of the IAB Task force that split into IETF and INarc -- it was GADS (Gateway Algorithms and Data Structures Task Force). PPS: Too many Daves: Dave Clark, Dave Crocker, Dave Farber, Dave Mills, Dave Sincoskie, etc. In the early 1990s there was a major research project called DAWN and the joke was it was an acronym for "Dave's Awesome and Wonderful Network". -- ***** Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. From craig at tereschau.net Sun Mar 22 19:31:11 2026 From: craig at tereschau.net (Craig Partridge) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2026 20:31:11 -0600 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: References: <20260323002052.C963D18C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 22, 2026 at 6:25?PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > On 3/22/2026 5:20 PM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: > > but the person in charge of the nascent IETF needed a rare mix of skills > > > It is indeed a rare mix. And I think many of us worked very hard -- and > very well -- over the decades, demonstrating just how rare it is. > Expanding here (and recognizing that Dave and Noel were both on the initial IESG with me), figuring out how to get the IETF to work was a tortuous effort (and we can argue about definitions of "work"). If a working group (WG), especially one working on a critical problem, failed to make progress between successive meetings (which were roughly every 3.5 months) that was a red flag, and failure to make progress over three meetings was an emergency. The IETF leadership tried different things, including: - snap WG meetings, scheduled on short-notice, where in-person participation was required. This was used by SNMP and MIB WGs to deal with efforts to slow down the WG to favor impending non-SNMP products (it worked but I think in retrospect feels expedient and anti-openness); - changing WG chairs -- notably worked well for 8-bit SMTP (John Klensin stepped in and averted a disaster [with a LOT of technical help from others]); - splitting WGs and/or allowing competing WGs -- e.g. IS-IS and OSPF (generally worked well and continues as a practice to this day); - advertising that certain decisions would happen at the WG's next meeting e.g. for IP over ATM (worked well because it shut off debate -- a form of a closure vote); - closed WGs -- most notably the ROAD group, which sought to find a solution to IPv4 address exhaustion (mixed reviews on whether this worked or caused problems and I don't think has been done again) Part of what allowed things to come out OK in the end as we experimented with different management solutions was that the vast majority of IETF attendees wanted the Internet to work -- the cats were all trying to get to the same destination -- the challenge was getting them to move briskly together in that direction (which is less bad than the usual cat herding problem). Craig -- ***** Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. From dhc at dcrocker.net Sun Mar 22 20:07:04 2026 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 03:07:04 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: References: <20260323002052.C963D18C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: On 3/22/2026 7:31 PM, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote: > splitting WGs and/or allowing competing WGs To add to this choice: In 1990, Vint pressed for the email folks to add 'international' characters to email.? Animated discussed ensued among sub-group for about a years, with no convergence. Or, rather, with two sub-groups emerging.? One wanted to modify the email object, to support international characters and the other was dominated by the phrase "just send 8-bits" which went in the direction of modifying email transport. Two wgs were created, with what has often been a problematic and competitive expectation.? Each had their considerable challenges. Each eventually produced (very) useful results. And I hold this case study up as an unusual example of competitive efforts become highly complementary. d/ -- Dave Crocker dhc at dcrocker.net bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social +1.408.329.0791 Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter Northern California Coastal Region Information & Planning Coordinator American Red Cross dave.crocker2 at redcross.org From brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com Sun Mar 22 21:01:23 2026 From: brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com (Brian E Carpenter) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 17:01:23 +1300 Subject: [ih] ROAD [was: This Review is for Everyone] In-Reply-To: References: <20260323002052.C963D18C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <44173617-b658-4964-a309-9382b0ae4c04@gmail.com> On 23-Mar-26 15:31, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2026 at 6:25?PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < > internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> On 3/22/2026 5:20 PM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: >>> but the person in charge of the nascent IETF needed a rare mix of skills >> >> >> It is indeed a rare mix. And I think many of us worked very hard -- and >> very well -- over the decades, demonstrating just how rare it is. >> > > Expanding here (and recognizing that Dave and Noel were both on the initial > IESG with me), figuring out how to get the IETF to work was a tortuous > effort (and we can argue about definitions of "work"). If a working group > (WG), especially one working on a critical problem, failed to make progress > between successive meetings (which were roughly every 3.5 months) that was > a red flag, and failure to make progress over three meetings was an > emergency. The IETF leadership tried different things, including: > > - snap WG meetings, scheduled on short-notice, where in-person > participation was required. This was used by SNMP and MIB WGs to deal with > efforts to slow down the WG to favor impending non-SNMP products (it worked > but I think in retrospect feels expedient and anti-openness); > - changing WG chairs -- notably worked well for 8-bit SMTP (John Klensin > stepped in and averted a disaster [with a LOT of technical help from > others]); > - splitting WGs and/or allowing competing WGs -- e.g. IS-IS and OSPF > (generally worked well and continues as a practice to this day); > - advertising that certain decisions would happen at the WG's next > meeting e.g. for IP over ATM (worked well because it shut off debate -- a > form of a closure vote); > - closed WGs -- most notably the ROAD group, which sought to find a > solution to IPv4 address exhaustion (mixed reviews on whether this worked > or caused problems and I don't think has been done again) Was ROAD actually a WG, or just an ad hoc committee formed by the IESG? Either way, I think it *did* work, and (without going back to check the documents), I believe it identified three separate work items that all had to be tackled: 1. Classful addressing was harmful 2. BGP3 was on the edge of disaster 3. IPv4 would run out of addresses and then the IESG did stimulate the necessary work on those three topics. (I only got roped in to help with #3 some time after Kobe.) Brian > > Part of what allowed things to come out OK in the end as we experimented > with different management solutions was that the vast majority of IETF > attendees wanted the Internet to work -- the cats were all trying to get to > the same destination -- the challenge was getting them to move briskly > together in that direction (which is less bad than the usual cat herding > problem). > > Craig From gregskinner0 at icloud.com Sun Mar 22 22:05:08 2026 From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2026 22:05:08 -0700 Subject: [ih] ROAD [was: This Review is for Everyone] In-Reply-To: <44173617-b658-4964-a309-9382b0ae4c04@gmail.com> References: <20260323002052.C963D18C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <44173617-b658-4964-a309-9382b0ae4c04@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mar 22, 2026, at 9:01?PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > > On 23-Mar-26 15:31, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 22, 2026 at 6:25?PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>> On 3/22/2026 5:20 PM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: >>>> but the person in charge of the nascent IETF needed a rare mix of skills >>> >>> >>> It is indeed a rare mix. And I think many of us worked very hard -- and >>> very well -- over the decades, demonstrating just how rare it is. >>> >> Expanding here (and recognizing that Dave and Noel were both on the initial >> IESG with me), figuring out how to get the IETF to work was a tortuous >> effort (and we can argue about definitions of "work"). If a working group >> (WG), especially one working on a critical problem, failed to make progress >> between successive meetings (which were roughly every 3.5 months) that was >> a red flag, and failure to make progress over three meetings was an >> emergency. The IETF leadership tried different things, including: >> - snap WG meetings, scheduled on short-notice, where in-person >> participation was required. This was used by SNMP and MIB WGs to deal with >> efforts to slow down the WG to favor impending non-SNMP products (it worked >> but I think in retrospect feels expedient and anti-openness); >> - changing WG chairs -- notably worked well for 8-bit SMTP (John Klensin >> stepped in and averted a disaster [with a LOT of technical help from >> others]); >> - splitting WGs and/or allowing competing WGs -- e.g. IS-IS and OSPF >> (generally worked well and continues as a practice to this day); >> - advertising that certain decisions would happen at the WG's next >> meeting e.g. for IP over ATM (worked well because it shut off debate -- a >> form of a closure vote); >> - closed WGs -- most notably the ROAD group, which sought to find a >> solution to IPv4 address exhaustion (mixed reviews on whether this worked >> or caused problems and I don't think has been done again) > > Was ROAD actually a WG, or just an ad hoc committee formed by the IESG? > > Either way, I think it *did* work, and (without going back to check the documents), > I believe it identified three separate work items that all had to be tackled: > > 1. Classful addressing was harmful > 2. BGP3 was on the edge of disaster > 3. IPv4 would run out of addresses > > and then the IESG did stimulate the necessary work on those three topics. > > (I only got roped in to help with #3 some time after Kobe.) > > Brian > The IETF Datatracker identifies ROAD as a BOF (Birds of a Feather). [1] However, Phill Gross called it a WG in his IETF 22 Chair?s Message. [2] ROAD activities were documented as a draft [3] and eventually published as RFC 1380. [4] --gregbo [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/road/about/ [2] https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/22.pdf [3] https://www.sobco.com/ipng/archive/iesg/iesg-roadplan-00.txt [4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1380/ From b_a_denny at yahoo.com Sun Mar 22 23:32:48 2026 From: b_a_denny at yahoo.com (Barbara Denny) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 06:32:48 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] ROAD [was: This Review is for Everyone] In-Reply-To: References: <20260323002052.C963D18C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <44173617-b658-4964-a309-9382b0ae4c04@gmail.com> Message-ID: <406982694.1747945.1774247568127@mail.yahoo.com> The initial ROAD get together certainly? was closed. I happened to hear about the meeting while attending the IETF.? I was not on the invitee list and couldn't find out about when and where the meeting was when I asked someone who obviously was going.? I didn't appreciate this approach. Relating to early problems, BOOTP was pretty high on the discussion list. Anybody remember when IETF meetings went from? 4 per year to 3? At least that is what I recall happening. barbara On Sunday, March 22, 2026 at 10:05:33 PM PDT, Greg Skinner via Internet-history wrote: On Mar 22, 2026, at 9:01?PM, Brian E Carpenter via Internet-history wrote: > > On 23-Mar-26 15:31, Craig Partridge via Internet-history wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 22, 2026 at 6:25?PM Dave Crocker via Internet-history < >> internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: >>> On 3/22/2026 5:20 PM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: >>>> but the person in charge of the nascent IETF needed a rare mix of skills >>> >>> >>> It is indeed a rare mix.? And I think many of us worked very hard -- and >>> very well -- over the decades, demonstrating just how rare it is. >>> >> Expanding here (and recognizing that Dave and Noel were both on the initial >> IESG with me), figuring out how to get the IETF to work was a tortuous >> effort (and we can argue about definitions of "work").? If a working group >> (WG), especially one working on a critical problem, failed to make progress >> between successive meetings (which were roughly every 3.5 months) that was >> a red flag, and failure to make progress over three meetings was an >> emergency.? The IETF leadership tried different things, including: >>? ? - snap WG meetings, scheduled on short-notice, where in-person >>? ? participation was required.? This was used by SNMP and MIB WGs to deal with >>? ? efforts to slow down the WG to favor impending non-SNMP products (it worked >>? ? but I think in retrospect feels expedient and anti-openness); >>? ? - changing WG chairs -- notably worked well for 8-bit SMTP (John Klensin >>? ? stepped in and averted a disaster [with a LOT of technical help from >>? ? others]); >>? ? - splitting WGs and/or allowing competing WGs -- e.g. IS-IS and OSPF >>? ? (generally worked well and continues as a practice to this day); >>? ? - advertising that certain decisions would happen at the WG's next >>? ? meeting e.g. for IP over ATM (worked well because it shut off debate -- a >>? ? form of a closure vote); >>? ? - closed WGs -- most notably the ROAD group, which sought to find a >>? ? solution to IPv4 address exhaustion (mixed reviews on whether this worked >>? ? or caused problems and I don't think has been done again) > > Was ROAD actually a WG, or just an ad hoc committee formed by the IESG? > > Either way, I think it *did* work, and (without going back to check the documents), > I believe it identified three separate work items that all had to be tackled: > > 1. Classful addressing was harmful > 2. BGP3 was on the edge of disaster > 3. IPv4 would run out of addresses > > and then the IESG did stimulate the necessary work on those three topics. > > (I only got roped in to help with #3 some time after Kobe.) > >? Brian > The IETF Datatracker identifies ROAD as a BOF (Birds of a Feather). [1] However, Phill Gross called it a WG in his IETF 22 Chair?s Message. [2] ROAD activities were documented as a draft [3] and eventually published as RFC 1380. [4] --gregbo [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/road/about/ [2] https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/22.pdf [3] https://www.sobco.com/ipng/archive/iesg/iesg-roadplan-00.txt [4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1380/ -- 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 From gregskinner0 at icloud.com Sun Mar 22 23:54:36 2026 From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2026 23:54:36 -0700 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: References: <8e28d5c9-6f00-4e76-ab5d-cfca7e0892be@dcrocker.net> <50731AA6-CD67-4BB5-A7DF-D20BCAF2D131@crankycanuck.ca> <48a15952-6d4f-4862-97d8-ce9cced92e78@dcrocker.net> <3b3f2413-07be-4c66-af46-435d3e7a27ff@3kitty.org> Message-ID: <8FAC8BA2-7D30-46C5-81CC-EF8BC942D41F@icloud.com> On Mar 22, 2026, at 11:23?AM, Craig Partridge wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2026 at 11:51?AM Greg Skinner via Internet-history > wrote: >> >> I have seen references to an ?Internet Engineering Task Force? that existed prior to the first meeting of the IETF [1] in articles such as this one about Barry Leiner. [2] A quote from the article: >> >> A number of Task Forces were created under the IAB including one called "Internet Engineering", which ultimately gained responsibility for managing the other task forces; these were later renamed "working groups" except for those that were clearly associated with research, which were assembled into "research groups" of the Internet Research Task Force. By agreement with the IAB in the early 1990s, the hands-on responsibility for the Internet standards was passed from the IAB to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) leadership. The IAB continued to play an important role in overseeing certain aspects of the work of the IETF and in developing independent views on critical architectural matters concerning the Internet. For many years, Leiner had the ultimate responsibility for the development of this part of the Internet organizational structure, which he oversaw during the mid-1980s. > > Not quite as I remember it, as someone getting into that community around 1984/1985. > > There were several Task Forces created under the IAB c. 1983, roughly a Task Force for every IAB member not the chair. > These included the End2End TF, the Privacy and Security TF, and (I may get the name wrong), the Internet Architecture TF (INarc). INarc split in 1986 into IETF, centered on right-now Internet challenges, and a more experiment/future-focused task force (may still have been called INarc, I can't recall -- Dave Mills chaired it and it persisted until c. 1991). I was not privy to the dynamics that led to the split other than hearing rumors that there were too many operational problems that required attention and having them co-exist in a task force that was also trying to be looking multiple years in the future was awkward. > > (Useful to remember that IAB "Task Forces" at the time were typically about 10-15 people, participating by invitation only, who met a few times a year. So imagine you're in 1986: the Internet desperately needs vendor-independent Intra-AS routing protocols, a working inter-AS routing protocol [EGP is struggling], a network management solution beyond Telnetting to each router, a mechanism to address congestion storms, standard profiles for routers [aka Router requirements], etc... and that's all on the desk of 10 people who are also trying to figure out how to deal with impending 100Mbps, soon gigabit networks, and whatever interesting problems that future portends. Creating IETF [which was initially invitation only] and then opening its membership was a logical solution.) > > As the pressing Internet challenges grew, and because about half the IAB TFs weren't regularly meeting, the IETF scope grew and c. 1989, the major Internet standards efforts were 95% IETF plus about 5% End2End and Privacy and Security. In some cases, the efforts were collaborative: Host Requirements had a core of End2End folks (the chair of E2E chaired Host Requirements) but was in IETF, similarly the TCP extensions for high performance (which were developed in E2E and brought to IETF), and, I think, IPsec had a similar dynamic with Privacy and Security. > > Then the Kobe restructuring happened and there were just two Task Forces: IETF and a new Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) and the non-IETF IAB TFs that still functioned became part of the IRTF. > > Craig > > -- > ***** > Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and mailing lists. There was some discussion on the tcp-ip list during December 1985 indicating that a split was in the works. [1] Mike Muuss had complained to the list about the core gateways running out of space. The ensuing discussion included a response by Dave Mills that the issue would be brought up at the GADS meeting in January 1986, which is identifed in (current) IETF literature as the first IETF. --gregbo [1] https://github.com/matthewgream/www-securitydigest-org/blob/master/tcp-ip/archive/1985/12.txt.gz From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Mon Mar 23 04:34:39 2026 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 07:34:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone Message-ID: <20260323113439.5040118C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > From: Craig Partridge > (and recognizing that Dave and Noel were both on the initial IESG with > me), figuring out how to get the IETF to work was a tortuous effort Speaking of the IESG, it should be recognized that creating the IESG was a stroke of genius _and_ humility (an even rarer personal quality in this day and age than genius, it seems - apparently the observation that "There is no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets the credit", Ralph Waldo Emerson, has been lost track of) on the part of Phill Gross. I know it's a truism that committees are worse than useless ("If you want to kill any idea in the world today, get a committee working on it." - Charles F. Kettering), but I think Phill calling in a group to help him run the show was (perhaps unforseeingly) a big part of what made the early IETF so effective. In a group which consists of sharp members, and is prepared to work together, without squabbling for power (as I think the early IESG was - we, like the IETF in general, could see the magnitude of the opportunty that was before us, so, like them, we set to it), together they will produce better thinking than any one person alone. (This is, after all, how scholarship works - debate among like-minded people.) I have no idea whether Phill's selection of the members was pure chance (there's a quotation from an earlyish American military person hovering at the edge of my brain, to the effect of 'pick any one, they are all the same', but I can't locate it), or whether he had an idea of how they would work together. I _suspect_ he just picked people who were smart, and had expertise in the area they were to oversee. Noel From steve at shinkuro.com Mon Mar 23 04:48:37 2026 From: steve at shinkuro.com (Steve Crocker) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 07:48:37 -0400 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: <20260323113439.5040118C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20260323113439.5040118C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: Indeed! The Security Area was created in 1989 and I was selected as the Area Director. I thus became a member of the IESG. It was an excellent experience. Collegial and effective. I was impressed with Phill's light touch and the group's cohesiveness. Steve On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 7:34?AM Noel Chiappa via Internet-history < internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > > From: Craig Partridge > > > (and recognizing that Dave and Noel were both on the initial IESG > with > > me), figuring out how to get the IETF to work was a tortuous effort > > Speaking of the IESG, it should be recognized that creating the IESG was a > stroke of genius _and_ humility (an even rarer personal quality in this day > and age than genius, it seems - apparently the observation that "There is > no > limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets the > credit", > Ralph Waldo Emerson, has been lost track of) on the part of Phill Gross. > > I know it's a truism that committees are worse than useless ("If you want > to > kill any idea in the world today, get a committee working on it." - Charles > F. Kettering), but I think Phill calling in a group to help him run the > show > was (perhaps unforseeingly) a big part of what made the early IETF so > effective. > > In a group which consists of sharp members, and is prepared to work > together, > without squabbling for power (as I think the early IESG was - we, like the > IETF in general, could see the magnitude of the opportunty that was before > us, so, like them, we set to it), together they will produce better > thinking > than any one person alone. (This is, after all, how scholarship works - > debate among like-minded people.) > > I have no idea whether Phill's selection of the members was pure chance > (there's a quotation from an earlyish American military person hovering at > the edge of my brain, to the effect of 'pick any one, they are all the > same', > but I can't locate it), or whether he had an idea of how they would work > together. I _suspect_ he just picked people who were smart, and had > expertise > in the area they were to oversee. > > Noel > -- > 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 > -- Sent by a Verified sender From dhc at dcrocker.net Mon Mar 23 12:30:16 2026 From: dhc at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 19:30:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: References: <20260323113439.5040118C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <99fd1e19-37da-4c02-8eb0-59b045862959@dcrocker.net> On 3/23/2026 4:48 AM, Steve Crocker via Internet-history wrote: > Collegial and effective. Initially, it was very much both, IMO.? Each of us had an area, but anyone could raise questions or suggestions about someone else's area.? But after awhile, one new AD showed up and told everyone to stay out of that AD's area.? Changed the entire tone (and probably effectiveness) of the group. > I was impressed with Phill's light > touch and the group's cohesiveness. Within the IESG, yes.?Definitely. He was in a difficult and delicate position, given the limitations on the IESG imposed by the IAB.? I'd heard he was not treated very well by the rest of the IAB, but then we had a joint meeting and, indeed, comments to him seemed tense to me. d/ -- Dave Crocker dhc at dcrocker.net bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social mast: @dcrocker at mastodon.social +1.408.329.0791 Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter Northern California Coastal Region Information & Planning Coordinator American Red Cross dave.crocker2 at redcross.org From gregskinner0 at icloud.com Mon Mar 23 14:07:40 2026 From: gregskinner0 at icloud.com (Greg Skinner) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 14:07:40 -0700 Subject: [ih] This Review is for Everyone In-Reply-To: <20260323002052.C963D18C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> References: <20260323002052.C963D18C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <80008B78-EEF7-4DAA-9137-7F79AAFB03CD@icloud.com> On Mar 22, 2026, at 5:20?PM, Noel Chiappa via Internet-history wrote: > >> From: Craig Partridge > >> the Internet Architecture TF (INarc). INarc split in 1986 into IETF, >> ... and a more experiment/future-focused task force (may still have >> been called INarc, I can't recall -- Dave Mills chaired it and it >> persisted until c. 1991). I was not privy to the dynamics that led to >> the split other than hearing rumors that there were too many >> operational problems that required attention > > Now that Dave is no longer with us, I guess I can be blunt and frank about > this. Dave did the best he could, but he just did not have the skills needed > to be in charge of a large group of people working on something that needed > major attention Right Now. Don't get me wrong, he was a nice guy, smart, and > all, but the person in charge of the nascent IETF needed a rare mix of skills > - and Dave didn't have them all. I have the impression that this was made > clear to us all, watching the job he did running a meeting or two of the > pre-split InArc; IIRC, among other issues, he tended to get diverted onto > interesting technical issues which weren't on the 'fix this _today_' path. > > It's not that we needed someone to land on people - the group all knew we had > a tremendous opportunity available (in fact, a _far_ bigger one than I think > any of us saw), no pushing was needed. But 'herding cats' is a rare skill > (especially at the start, when we didn't have any history in the > organizational to guide us as to the style of leadersip needed to achieve > that). > > Noel > -- > 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 On this subject, some remarks from Dave Mills in an interview he gave for the Charles Babbage Institute: [1] Mills: When GADS was split into IETF and INARC?I was chairman of INARC for many years?looking back at that time, I?m not sure what my charter was, I?m not sure what others expected me to do. ?Do good works.? I think what kind of cemented my position then was the fact that NSF had just adopted my software, and now the genie was out of the box. So the issue you had to do technically was how do you take all these crazy universities, with all of their crazy networking systems, formerly connected to the ARPANET, and now they have to look out the back door and be connected by this dinky 56 kilobit NSFNET. That had a lifetime of 2 years, and it was grossly overloaded, and I learned an awful lot, and that was a very useful experience for me, probably not less so for some of the researchers, but after 2 years? --gregbo [1] https://conservancy.umn.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/7f2677f4-2eb5-46d1-b9eb-fbe8e62ea47f/content From crypto at glassblower.info Fri Mar 27 07:19:09 2026 From: crypto at glassblower.info (Tony Patti) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2026 10:19:09 -0400 Subject: [ih] =?utf-8?q?NYT=3A_Tracy_Kidder=2C_Author_of_=E2=80=98The_Sou?= =?utf-8?q?l_of_a_New_Machine=2C=E2=80=99_Dies_at_80?= In-Reply-To: <44173617-b658-4964-a309-9382b0ae4c04@gmail.com> References: <20260323002052.C963D18C07A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <44173617-b658-4964-a309-9382b0ae4c04@gmail.com> Message-ID: <021501dcbdf4$ad6ca280$0845e780$@glassblower.info> Tracy Kidder's book ?The Soul of a New Machine? was formative for me. To this day, I recall a single sentence from the book, that captured the essence of "burnout" long before it became a modern buzzword: "I?m going to a commune in Vermont and will measure time by the seasons." [instead of by microseconds] Quoting a few sentences below from the NYT at https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/books/tracy-kidder-dead.html A Pulitzer Prize-winning narrative journalist, he wrote deeply reported books that often focused on heroic goodness in people. Tracy Kidder, a wide-ranging journalist and author whose deep reporting and novelistic prose illuminated worlds as diverse as home construction, disease prevention and ? as portrayed in his prizewinning 1981 breakthrough book, ?The Soul of a New Machine? ? the computer industry, died on Tuesday in Boston. He was 80. His most lauded book, ?The Soul of a New Machine,? introduced readers to the physical parts and electronic bits that go into creating a business computer. The book arrived just as the PC revolution was gearing up. When he took on the project, he told a reporter for The New York Times, he was not familiar with the field and relied on his subjects at Data General Corporation to teach him. ?Some of them despaired over my lack of technological background,? Mr. Kidder said, ?but most of them were pleased that an outsider was interested in what they were doing.? While he had to get the technology right, it was not what he most cared about. ?It was the people themselves,? he said, ?their incredible passion for this thing.? Tony Patti (ARPAnet NIC IDENT "TP4") From beebe at math.utah.edu Tue Mar 31 15:44:27 2026 From: beebe at math.utah.edu (Nelson H. F. Beebe) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2026 16:44:27 -0600 Subject: [ih] another memoriam for David J. Farber Message-ID: The just-announced April 2026 issue of the Communications of the ACM has another memoriam for network pioneer David J. Farber: In Memoriam: David J. Farber Communications of the ACM, Volume 69, Issue 4, pages 18--20 https://doi.org/10.1145/3797904 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Nelson H. F. Beebe Tel: +1 801 581 5254 - - University of Utah - - Department of Mathematics, 110 LCB Internet e-mail: beebe at math.utah.edu - - 155 S 1400 E RM 233 beebe at acm.org beebe at computer.org - - Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090, USA URL: https://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------