[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ih] XEROX/PUP and Commercialization (was Re: FYI - Gordon Crovitz/WSJ on "Who Really Invented the Internet?")

ARPANET (the subnet of IMPs) did not change when TCP/IP was put into
the hosts and gateways were  fielded. The Internet persisted after the
demise of ARPANET, NSFNET, PRNETs, Packet Satellite Net, etc.
The term "internet" (as opposed to the more general term
"internetworking") has always been associated with the TCP/IP
protocols and their associated suite of other protocols.

ARPANET was not part of an internet until the addition of TCP/IP in
the hosts and the addition of gateways interconnecting distinctly
managed "autonomous systems".

I think it is baloney that "no one can define the Internet"


On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net> wrote:
> On 7/23/2012 6:07 PM, Jack Haverty wrote:
>> No one can really define "The Internet".  Or maybe just everyone has
>> their own idea.
> There was a discussion on this list some time ago, that converged on a
> relatively small set of alternative definitions, each with a legitimate
> rationale, IMO.  People varied in which they preferred.  My feeling is
> that that's fine, as long as the choice is stated, when declaring when
> and who invented the net.
> An incomplete list of the alternatives includes a cross-product of:
>   * Proposal vs. initial implementation vs. initial operation
>   * packet-switching vs. heterogeneous comms h/w interconnect vs.
> heterogeneous administration interconnect
> The distinction between a category of technology, a particular
> technology, and a particular service operation also make it worth some
> notational alternatives such as 'internetworking' vs. "The Internet".
>> DEC had DECNet.  Novell had Netware.  PTTs had X.25/X.75.  Banyan
>> did Vines. Apple did Appletalk.  Microsoft joined the fray.   ARPANet
>> had its own technology.
> ...
>> All of those "internets" shared a common characteristic.  Computers,
>> and applications, could interact in powerful ways - as long as they
>> all adopted the same candidate technology.
> Well, several of those connected very different kinds of comms hardware, but
> yes, they put a layer of service technology on top that homogenized things.
> I think X.75 was the exception and, in its is way, really did permit
> Internetworking.
> Except for X.75, the thing about your list is that each of those had to be
> run under a homogeneous administration.
> That's why I prefer to the non-hardware definition of "internetworking" as
> the inter-connection of networks under independent administration.
> However I prefer to define "The Internet" as the start of Arpanet operation,
> since it's been in continuous operation since then, with all of its
> original, user-level applications still in use.
> I'm also obviously biased to buttress this view by noting the remarkable
> similarity between the email messages sent by Tomlinson in 1971 and the core
> of mail formats we we today.  This end-to-end service orientation prompted
> RFC 1775, To be "On" the Internet.
>> Somewhere along that path, over the 30+ years or so of the journey
>> so far, The Internet was invented.  It's hard to define...the
> Per the above, I don't think it is hard to define.  There is a relatively
> small range of credible definitions.  What's difficult is getting everyone
> to agree on just one.  I suspect it's not that difficult to get agreement on
> the plausibility of the small range.
> So the real requirement when discussion the invention is to first state the
> definition that provides criteria.
> d/
> --
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net