From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
Subject: [TUHS] Early Internet work (Was: History of select(2))
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 08:19:44 -0500 (EST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170113131944.6EC7918C085@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> (raw)
> From: Paul Ruizendaal
>> On 12 Jan 2017, at 4:54 , Clem Cole wrote:
>> The specifications for what would become IP and TCP were kicking around
>> ... in the late 1970s.
The whole works actually started considerably earlier than that; the roots go
back to 1972, with the formation of the International Packet Network Working
Group - although that group went defunct before TCP/IP itself was developed
under DARPA's lead.
I don't recall the early history well, in detail - there's a long draft
article by Ronda Hauben which goes into it in detail, and there's also "INWG
and the Conception of the Internet: An Eyewitness Account" by Alexander
McKenzie which covers it too.
By 1977 the DARPA-led effort had produced several working prototype
implementations, and TCP/IP (originally there was only TCP, without a separate
data packet carriage layer) were up to version 3.
> My understanding is that all RFC's and IEN's were available to all legit
> users of the Arpanet.
Yes and no. The earliest distribution mechanism (for the initial NCP/ARPANet
work) was hardcopy (you can't distribute things over the 'net before you have
it working :-), and in fact until a recent effort to put them all online, not
all RFC's were available in machine-readable form. (I think some IEN's still
aren't.) So for many of them, if you wanted a copy, you had to have someone at
ISI make a photocopy (although I think they stocked them early on) and
physically mail it to you!
> Apparently nobody had the idea to put all RFC's in a directory and give
> FTP access to it.
I honestly don't recall when that happened; it does seem obvious in
retrospect! Most of us were creating document in online text systems, and it
would have been trivial to make them available in machine-readable form. Old
habits die hard, I guess... :-)
> I think I should put a question out about this, over on the internet
> history mailing list.
Yes, good idea.
> As an aside: IMHO, conceptually the difference between NCP and TCP
> wasn't all that big.
Depends. Yes, the service provided to the _clients_ was very similar (which
can be seen in how similar the NCP and TCP versions of thing like TELNET, FTP,
etc were), but internally, they are very different.
> In my current understanding the big difference that was NCP assumes
> in-order, reliable delivery of packets ... and that TCP allows for
> unreliable links.
Yes, that's pretty accurate (but it does mean that there are _a lot_ of
differences internally - re-transmissions, etc). One other important
difference is that there's no flow control in the underlying network
(something that took years to understand and deal with properly).
> yes, these concepts were kicking around for over a decade in academia
> before BSD.
TCP/IP was the product of a large, well-organized, DARPA-funded and -led
effort which involved industry, academic and government players (the first
two, for the most part, DARPA-funded). So I wouldn't really call it an
'academic' project.
Noel
next reply other threads:[~2017-01-13 13:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-13 13:19 Noel Chiappa [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-01-30 16:15 Noel Chiappa
2017-01-30 16:41 ` Clem Cole
2017-01-30 16:44 ` Clem Cole
2017-01-30 15:34 Noel Chiappa
2017-01-30 21:20 ` Paul Ruizendaal
2017-01-30 2:50 Noel Chiappa
2017-01-30 3:33 ` Nick Downing
2017-01-30 3:38 ` Ron Natalie
2017-02-08 3:58 ` Dave Horsfall
2017-01-30 8:26 ` Paul Ruizendaal
2017-01-30 1:44 Noel Chiappa
2017-01-29 18:35 Noel Chiappa
2017-01-29 17:41 Noel Chiappa
2017-01-29 20:28 ` Paul Ruizendaal
2017-01-30 1:34 ` Nick Downing
2017-01-30 2:19 ` Clem Cole
2017-01-30 2:30 ` Larry McVoy
2017-01-30 2:43 ` Ron Natalie
2017-01-30 2:43 ` Clem Cole
2017-01-30 2:32 ` Larry McVoy
2017-01-30 2:39 ` Clem Cole
2017-01-30 13:13 ` Dave Horsfall
2017-01-30 13:37 ` Larry McVoy
2017-01-16 15:17 Noel Chiappa
2017-01-16 14:42 Noel Chiappa
[not found] <mailman.1.1484532001.2693.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
2017-01-16 10:21 ` Johnny Billquist
2017-01-16 1:47 Noel Chiappa
2017-01-16 10:06 ` Paul Ruizendaal
2017-01-16 1:01 Noel Chiappa
2017-01-16 10:31 ` Paul Ruizendaal
2017-01-16 12:07 ` Tony Finch
2017-01-15 2:30 Noel Chiappa
2017-01-09 2:35 [TUHS] History of select(2) Warren Toomey
2017-01-09 10:36 ` Paul Ruizendaal
2017-01-12 3:54 ` Clem Cole
2017-01-13 9:13 ` Paul Ruizendaal
[not found] ` <20170114164102.GA31665@yeono.kjorling.se>
2017-01-16 0:13 ` [TUHS] Early Internet work (Was: History of select(2)) Paul Ruizendaal
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170113131944.6EC7918C085@mercury.lcs.mit.edu \
--to=jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).