From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 29187 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2020 18:33:15 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 27 Aug 2020 18:33:15 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 59C069C1BA; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:33:11 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 614CD9C16B; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:32:45 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ccc.com header.i=@ccc.com header.b="BYwooIlP"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 78C4C9C16B; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:32:43 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qv1-f49.google.com (mail-qv1-f49.google.com [209.85.219.49]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE31E9C166 for ; Fri, 28 Aug 2020 04:32:42 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qv1-f49.google.com with SMTP id dd12so3105658qvb.0 for ; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 11:32:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccc.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gnK7L67evQWEnBrIU5VcasRL9GWodsfC1A9ZFoLgOJU=; b=BYwooIlP5qHsZOzKe5sL623HT3r92872sqeFclge+XhgudSZtzLg/DpNgYFj2MmKNu 7yU5gMZ58tWi3jmncKxdq1H+DGzC/1ZWR4mKrQ2NRIVJf1zeoGW2hOYFiIIIUB/Nup6i OVl/T7JYsH/v/uRPHS2oNxmQmBH9hW1wjVMKM= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gnK7L67evQWEnBrIU5VcasRL9GWodsfC1A9ZFoLgOJU=; b=czPG+oxwG9EOGtg9DjxesL5lYuy+S62rRuXe0cppr4NRSg7PJB+GOa3D4GGN3mGT8g ebtVbceNw41kDrJWRQ4PjelEbZwlvFKbj77TdtQCdqGA9FJZqpESRiNJtksPjCCLVrlO ltD75F2SAC1HgH2C2ZTyzrzg60azWO2Ilu3YqQbgNfuMosamq5RYG/G6pe2WThGrHvRZ wTHIsCYrvBIOX4Rk59BT/YdtFJMkSNiUe+7ypof9MO02MI9YaGdgFq8ykWMytkpZGEbR wW/xc+enrQHSMdGaUzFkjdoSj6Du8JRAJHimW/Qk73jYIyyQZYuwMWg+3gk9p7am8/C/ L5TA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533yHmrRUpP0HSbPxfJ3BNbxCueyv6iR0Bd1DsIK1BJG8R4uapIx D570BxaDI1f8wvB5vFp1CwZ2+G96tSMf4ljjANEmWw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw5JV9y43ijgK8+hwJ5KsTM2KtPPMztvpyOKZlvJwWNWHfRL18++CSiSyHOZLQIC6E4+9XMfZMR2e6hba6Y8Wo= X-Received: by 2002:ad4:40cb:: with SMTP id x11mr20496140qvp.176.1598553161674; Thu, 27 Aug 2020 11:32:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Clem Cole Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 14:32:15 -0400 Message-ID: To: Tony Finch Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005b4b1805ade0299b" Subject: Re: [TUHS] Unix tools to aid in the production of Internet RFCs? X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --0000000000005b4b1805ade0299b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 1:51 PM Tony Finch wrote: > Yes, very Not Unix. As Dan wondered, the best list for this question is internet-history, > I think :-) > Maybe - certainly true for the first 1K (more in a minute...) > > The Network Information Center was at SRI, and they used the ARC NLS: Doug > Englebart's Augmentation Research Center oN-Line System [1] SRI just published them, my experience/memory from the time, was the authors wrote them locally, which as I said was more often than not, PDP6/10 in the 70s. Certainly was true at CMU, Stanford, and MIT. The problem was we all had XGPs (later Dovers) and original the Stanford PUB system (folks with PDP-10s seemed to have tended to switch to Scribe after it became available) but those without a custom output device, many other folks did not. PUB really wanted an XGP, not a line printer and the runoff family pretty much assumed an ASCII printer page. Scribe could handle either, as well as the newly emerging 'daisy wheel' printers. Actually, typesetters like the C/A/T or the APS-5 were not as popular in CS departments (probably because the cost per page, the nuisance of the chemistry *et al*. Although a lot of places that had a 'publications' team (DEC, BBN, *etc*) had them. Lasers printers (particularly PS based ones) were really another 3-5 years away, first Apple, then Imagen, and finally, HP licensed PS. So the RFC/IENs et al would have followed the preferred/economic technology of the time. > but I get the impression that by the 1990s nroff on Unix was the main > tool for producing RFCs. > Certainly true, but I would think that the transition was at least 5 years earlier, maybe 7-8 given the rise of the Vaxen, and using tools like vcat(1) like we used at UCB (and I had done previous to that at Tektronix). But that was really the important thing for the IEN/RFCs. When the 10's stopped being the backbone of the Arpanet (now Internet) and UNIX took the helm, the troff family started to be the primary tool. To be fair, the Pascal version of Tex appeared in the early 1980s, but it was not until the Latex (Scribe style Tex macros) and the UNIX/C support that it really began to take off. There were a number of reasons for this, but maybe because Pascal was a second class citizen to C may have hindered its acceptance. I can not say. I have friends that swear by it and have cursed troff forever, and others like me, that tend the other way (emacs *vs.* vi I think). It's funny, I learned runoff, PUB, Scribe, troff, or sort of tex in that order. I have a soft spot for Scribe, but I used it for such a short time, and troff became my primary tool. Like Larry, I still prefer troff (groff) today to the tex family as I have fewer problems doing complex stuff with it; but that may be the familiarity with it being the best tool available to me for so long. I suspect, the RFC publishers could be a similar story. --0000000000005b4b1805ade0299b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 1:51= PM Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> wro= te:
Yes, very No= t Unix. As Dan wondered, the best list for this question is inte= rnet-history, I think :-)
Maybe - certainly true f= or the first 1K=C2=A0 (more in a minute...)

The Network Information Center was at SRI, and they used the ARC NLS: Doug<= br> Englebart's Augmentation Research Center oN-Line System [1]
SRI just published them, my experience/memory from the time, was = the authors wrote them locally, which as I said was more often than not, PD= P6/10 in the 70s.=C2=A0 Certainly was true at CMU, Stanford, and MIT.=C2=A0= The problem=C2=A0was we all had XGPs (later Dovers) and original the Stanf= ord PUB system (folks with PDP-10s seemed to have tended to switch to Scrib= e after it became available) but those without a custom output device, many= other folks=C2=A0did not.=C2=A0 =C2=A0PUB really wanted an XGP, not a line= printer and the runoff family pretty much assumed an ASCII printer page.= =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Scribe could handle either, as well as the newly emerging = 9;daisy wheel' printers.
Actually, typesetters like the C/A/T o= r the APS-5 were not as popular in CS departments (probably because the cos= t per page, the nuisance of the chemistry et al.=C2=A0 Although a lo= t of places that had a 'publications' team (DEC, BBN, etc) h= ad them.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Lasers printers (particularly PS based ones) were real= ly another 3-5 years away, first Apple, then Imagen, and finally, HP licens= ed PS.

So the RFC/IENs et al would have followed the p= referred/economic technology of the time.

=C2=A0
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l= eft:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">but I get the impression that by the 1990s nroff on Unix was the main tool for producing= RFCs.
Certainly true, but I would thi= nk that the transition was at least 5 years earlier, maybe 7-8 given the ri= se of the Vaxen, and using tools like vcat(1) like we used at UCB (and I ha= d done previous to=C2=A0that at Tektronix).

But = that was really the important thing for the IEN/RFCs.=C2=A0 =C2=A0When the = 10's stopped being the backbone of the Arpanet (now Internet) and UNIX = took the helm, the troff family started to be the primary tool.=C2=A0 =C2= =A0To be fair, the Pascal version of Tex appeared in the early 1980s, but i= t was not until the Latex (Scribe style Tex macros) and the UNIX/C support = that it really began to take off.=C2=A0 There were a number of reasons for = this, but maybe because Pascal was a second class citizen to C may have hin= dered its acceptance.=C2=A0 I can not say.=C2=A0 I have friends that swear = by it and have cursed troff forever, and others like me, that tend the othe= r way (emacs vs. vi I think).

It's funny, I= learned runoff, PUB, Scribe, troff, or sort of tex in that order.=C2=A0 = =C2=A0I have a soft spot for Scribe, but I used it for such a short time, a= nd troff became my primary tool.=C2=A0 Like Larry, I still prefer troff (gr= off) today to the=C2=A0tex family as I have fewer problems doing complex st= uff with it; but that may be the familiarity with it being the best tool av= ailable to me for so long.=C2=A0 I suspect, the RFC publishers could be a s= imilar story.

--0000000000005b4b1805ade0299b--