Then what am I mis-remembering? ;-) Was it that Multics didn't use
CRLF and only NL? I remember this as quite a point of discussion
when we were defining Telnet and FTP.
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, John Day wrote:
>
> IIR, Multics from several years earlier. I'd have to di
was hardly
vestigial in either case. Crude, yes. But
served a very distinct purpose.
John Day
At 11:29 PM +0100 1/23/13, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Jan 23, 2013, at 20:56, John C Klensin wrote:
But having CR as an unambiguous "return to first
character position on line" was import
IIR, Multics from several years earlier. I'd have to dig
through old manuals to remember what CTSS did, but that system
(and the IBM Model 1050 and 2741 devices often used as terminals
with it) were somewhat pre-ASCII (and long before ECMA-48/ ANSI
X3.64 and the VT100 and friends) and, IIR, sen
d was a bug.
There is a much greater range of interpreting these things than it
appears that you imagine.
At 2:46 AM + 1/9/13, Dick Franks wrote:
On 9 January 2013 01:19, John Day wrote:
[snip]
One person's gap is another person's bug. What may be obvious to one as
something th
At 1:36 AM +0100 1/9/13, Martin Rex wrote:
John Day wrote:
The reasons have been discussed or at least alluded to previously in this
thread. The short answer is we have been there and done that: 30
years ago.
All those tools were developed and used successfully in the 80s.
I know of
g,
the better.
Thanks,
Donald
=
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e...@gmail.com
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:45 AM, John Day wrote:
The reasons have been discussed or at least alluded to previously in this
thread. The shor
The reasons have been discussed or at least alluded to previously in
this thread. The short answer is we have been there and done that:
30 years ago.
All those tools were developed and used successfully in the 80s. I
know of cases where doing the formal specification alongside the
design p
I have spent more than a little time on this problem and have
probably looked at more approaches to specification than most,
probably well over a 100. I would have to agree. Most of the very
formal methods such as VDL or those based on writing predicates in
the equivalent of first-order logic
thought the new Telnet spec (1973) was a
paragon of clarity until a new site joined the Net that had not been
part of the commuity and came up with an implementation that bore no
relation to what anyone else had done.
This problem is a lot more subtle than you imagine.
Take care,
John Day
At
Alas, indeed. ;-)
At 3:50 PM + 1/7/13, John Scudder wrote:
On Jan 6, 2013, at 11:50 PM, "John Day" wrote:
However, in the IETF there is also a requirement that there be two
independent but communicating implementations for an RFC to
standards-track. Correct?
Alas, no.
--John
Let me get this straight, Brian. It would seem you are pointing out
that the IETF does not have a clear idea of what it is doing? ;-) I
could believe that.
No, your example is not an example of what I suggested at all.
Yours is an example of not specifying the conditions that a
congestion
As you are guessing that is unlikely, however, the more pertinent
question is whether it has prevented some innovative approach to
implementations. This would be the more interesting question.
We tend to think of these as state machines and describe them
accordingly. There are other approach
,
John Day
At 9:41 AM +0100 1/6/13, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Hi Marc Petit-Huguenin ,
I read the responses so far, and what can be said today is that there is 2
philosophies, with supporters in both camps. The goal of the IETF is to make
the Internet work better, and I do believe that RFC 2119 is
Interesting as always.
At 9:14 AM -0500 1/2/13, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:33 AM, SM
<<mailto:s...@resistor.net>s...@resistor.net> wrote:
At 13:08 31-12-2012, John Day wrote:
jumped all over. Generally, ITU meetings require unanimity to have
a cons
At 4:33 AM -0800 1/2/13, SM wrote:
At 13:08 31-12-2012, John Day wrote:
jumped all over. Generally, ITU meetings require unanimity to have
a consensus. This
There seems to be different definitions of consensus; each body has
its own meaning for that word.
No, it isn't that. I have
At 9:03 AM + 1/2/13, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 01/01/2013 18:32, John Day wrote:
...
Not only tariffs. Historically, it was national enforcement of
international
regulations set by CCITT (now known as ITU-T) that prevented
interconnection
of leased lines**.
But creating a VPN
s that need to be understood:
On 31/12/2012 21:08, John Day wrote:
At 1:05 PM -0500 12/31/12, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:51 AM, John Day
>>
<mailto:jeanj...@comcast.net>jeanj...@comcast.net><mailto:jeanj...@comcast.net>jeanj...@comcast.net&g
Dave,
I was thinking about that after I sent my email. I actually don't
think there is an argument for ITU holding the IANA function. The
assignment of addresses should be done in such a way as to facilitate
routing. This requires agreements among providers, but not
governments. Going bac
John Day wrote:
At 1:05 PM -0500 12/31/12, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:51 AM, John Day
<<mailto:jeanj...@comcast.net>jeanj...@comcast.net> wrote:
...
MPs and Congressmen are elected decision makers. ITU participants can
make decisions but they are not
At 1:05 PM -0500 12/31/12, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:51 AM, John Day
<<mailto:jeanj...@comcast.net>jeanj...@comcast.net> wrote:
Phillip,
The reason that rule is useful is that just as it is ridiculous for
the US representative to the ITU to attempt t
egulate what
is said over the phone. Clearly outside their purview. But *we* act
like it isn't. By not clearly distinguishing between the two in the
discussions, we have already given up considerable ground.
Take care,
John Day
--
Website: <http://hallambaker.com/>http://hallambaker.com/
What you say is true of "communication or network protocols."
The statement below was written in the context of the wider use of
the word protocol (and what you would probably find in the
dictionary) in the fields of biology, chemistry, and diplomacy.
In this case, one could view our use of t
At 6:39 -0800 2012/01/09, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 1/8/2012 12:03 AM, t.petch wrote:
I agree that a message is not the right word, but I think that protocol is:-)
There is a specific distinction that is intended by having two
different words: description vs. operation.
A program is a descrip
At 15:29 +0900 2012/01/09, Martin Sustrik wrote:
On 01/09/2012 01:35 PM, John Day wrote:
At 23:38 +0100 2012/01/08, Martin Sustrik wrote:
On 08/01/12 13:00, John Day wrote:
You are also correct that strictly speaking the words "protocol" and
"algorithm" are probably th
At 23:38 +0100 2012/01/08, Martin Sustrik wrote:
On 08/01/12 13:00, John Day wrote:
You are also correct that strictly speaking the words "protocol" and
"algorithm" are probably the same.
That is an interesting point.
What I encounter often is the belief that protocol i
Your are correct. In fact, from the beginning the ARPANET and
CYCLADES groups saw this as a distributed computing problem. We have
often said that much of the reason that early effort was a success is
that we were operating systems guys not telecom guys.
The early applications were all aimed
thms are usually not layered.
A protocol between two entities often involves algorithms on both sides,
but an association does not necessarily link two processes on the
communicating sides.
Sorry but this is incorrect. An association (as defined by X.200
does) link two processes on the communicat
Yes, "association" was an application level term in OSI.
This was because the wire stringers, i.e. PTT types, had forced a
definition of "connection" that was wrong. In OSI, a "connection"
was between the (N+1)-entities (protocol machines). Not the
(N)-entities as it should be. TCP gets thi
At 11:34 -0500 2008/12/29, John Leslie wrote:
John Day wrote:
At 14:22 +0100 2008/12/29, R?mi Despr?s wrote:
To pick a local interface for an outgoing connection[,]
isn't the transport layer, e.g. SCTP, well placed to do the job
(or some intermediate layer function like Shim6)?
At 17:04 +0100 2008/12/29, Rémi Després wrote:
John Day - le (m/j/a) 12/29/08 4:24 PM:
Re: The internet architecture
No it isn't Transport's job. Transport has one
and only one purpose: end-to-end reliability
and flow control.
"Managing" the resources of the network is
happen. You
don't have to go very far to run into why. The question is why have
we insisted on not doing it right for so long?
Take care,
John
At 7:56 -0500 2008/12/29, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, 28 December, 2008 16:22 -0500 John Day
wrote:
Why should an application ever see
12/29/08 1:56 PM:
--On Sunday, 28 December, 2008 16:22 -0500 John Day
<mailto:jeanj...@comcast.net> wrote:
Why should an application ever see an IP address?
Applications manipulating IP addresses is like a Java program
manipulating absolute memory pointers. A recipe for problems,
but
Why should an application ever see an IP address?
Applications manipulating IP addresses is like a Java program
manipulating absolute memory pointers. A recipe for problems, but
then you already know that.
At 11:42 -0800 2008/12/28, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Content-class: urn:content-cl
y bug and of
course it was staring you right in the face all the time, someone
would say, "Well, you know . . . if you don't do it right, it won't
work." ;-)
We seem to have that problem in spades. ;-)
At 11:29 -0500 2008/12/05, Keith Moore wrote:
John Day wrote:
W
In other words the failure of a university education.
At 8:46 -0800 2008/12/05, Dave CROCKER wrote:
John Day wrote:
Speak for yourself David. These problems have been well understood
and discussed since 1972. But you are correct, that there were
still a large unwashed that didn't and
Not sure when the RAND work was. But if you were worrying about UDP
it was much later. When Illinois put UNIX on the Net in the summer of
75, we ran into several initial problems. There were real limits on
kernel size. So the NCP was in the kernel, telnet, etc. were
applications.
In the in
Speak for yourself David. These problems have been well understood
and discussed since 1972. But you are correct, that there were still
a large unwashed that didn't and I am still not sure why that was.
This seems to be elementary system architecture.
At 6:59 -0800 2008/12/05, Dave CROCKER
When our group put the first Unix system on the Net in the summer of
1975, this is how we did it. The hosts were viewed as part of the
file system. It was a natural way to do it.
At 15:01 + 2008/12/05, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMO, one of the biggest challenges surrounding IPv6
ad
It is so reassuring when "modern" is a third of a century old.
Sorry, but I am finding this new found wisdom just a little frustrating.
At 9:40 -0500 2008/12/05, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
Wouldn't it have been nice if the de facto APIs in use today were more
along the lines of ConnectTo(DNS
Wouldn't it have been nice if the de facto APIs in use today were more
along the lines of ConnectTo(DNS name, service/port).
That had been the original plan and there were APIs that did that.
But for some reason, the lunacy of the protocol specific sockets
interface was preferred. I know peo
Please elaborate. I agree that the current resolution protocol is not
perfect but what is wrong with the semantics of domain names?
As we have known since the early 80s, naming the host has nothing to
do with the problem at hand. It is sloppy and gets in the way of
getting it right. Curren
If IANA had any resolve there are at least 25 -30 Class A blocks that
should be reclaimed and are not or should not be part of the public
Internet address space.
At 6:56 -0400 2007/10/03, Ray Plzak wrote:
Brian,
My comment was regarding a head in the sand approach when it comes
to the recu
At 15:07 +0100 2007/09/17, Tony Finch wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007, John Day wrote:
I am afraid that I must agree with Fred. There is nothing very new in this
paper and its publication is merely another indication of how far down the
blind alley we have gone. I was surprised SIGCOMM even publ
I am afraid that I must agree with Fred. There is nothing very new
in this paper and its publication is merely another indication of how
far down the blind alley we have gone. I was surprised SIGCOMM even
published dressing up X.25 Fast Select with fancy words. Amazing.
At 2:13 -0700 2007/0
What we need to do is figure out how to let the intelligent network
core work cooperatively with the intelligent edge to let it do
intelligent things. Right now, the core and the edge are ships in
the night, passing and occasionally bumping into each other. No, we
don't want unnecessary i
Does this discussion suggest that it is time to start taking a
look at TCPng? If not now, at some point in the future that we
can anticipate?
(those are questions, not proposals, requests, or statements of
belief)
Perhaps, but aren't we about 30 years late in getting rid of the
kludge of wel
The best solution is to remove all authorship from all Internet
standards, then there will be no problems. This isn't suppose to be
an ego trip. If people really think the documents are important, they
don't need their names on them. If they need their name on it, they
are doing it for the wr
At 23:46 -0400 4/8/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 22:17:02 EDT, John Day said:
> > I do not know about other countries, but I do know that the US
> > government has taken action against companies for announcing products
> > and then deciding later to not
At 14:00 -0700 4/8/01, James P. Salsman wrote:
>Patrik,
>
>If you or Ned are not already aware from the context of my disputed
>question and my previous posts, I tried private emails and phone calls,
>prior to my working group question, which was only a footnote to a longer
>list of requested solu
ded at further imposing US
imperialism on the rest of the world. How can that many people be
wrong? I was just going with the majority opinion.
Take care,
John Day
>
>
>The electronic outdoor temperature sign in the skyway reading
>"39". The units aren't mentioned. Kelvins?
Wow!!! It must be Spring in Minneapolis. I hadn't realized it would
be so warm. Nice that it worked out that way.
>
>The stockbroker's electronic sign showing the Dow trying to break
At 10:10 -0600 12/20/00, Robert G. Ferrell wrote:
> >We *should* worry about people
> >who come to the IETF once and never come back - because they probably came
> >to the wrong meeting, and went home unhappy.
>
>Well, you've certainly convinced me never to attend a meeting.
>
>The attitude bei
At 10:47 -0700 10/18/00, James P. Salsman wrote:
>Klass,
>
>Thanks for your reply:
>
> >> Is there any compelling reason why wireless IP needs to
> >> be "mobile" in the sense of traversing networks?
> >
> > yes, I don't want to pay my expensive cellular operator when near a
> > wireless LAN
At 15:34 + 9/20/00, Bob Braden wrote:
>The RFC series has long been THE archival series for the Internet. To
>avoid Internet Drafts becoming another archival series, thus creating
>great confusion, the IETF has chosen to make Internet Draft ephemeral,
>timing out after 6 months. Indeed, that
>
>Sorry, this makes no sense at all. There is no way to "restrict"
>certain types of domain name that has any meaningful effect, given the
>absence of international jurisdiction, and IP addresses
>relate to network topology not to content, so they can't be used
>in this way, whatever misapprehens
At 6:44 -0400 8/12/00, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>> Let me try and say this kindly (since after it is
>> pointed out several hundred times it gets quite
>> frustrating). If you don't see the processing
>> requirements then you have *no* understanding of how
>> routing works.
>
>You need not go to
At 19:38 -0400 8/10/00, Fred Baker wrote:
>At 01:33 PM 8/10/00 -0400, Corzine, Gordie wrote:
>>Wouldn't it be better by far, to assign new addresses from 000...1, and map
>>to routing information however we may code it?
>
>well, that is essentially what has happened in the telephone network, at
>l
At 11:43 PM -0400 8/10/00, Vijay Gill wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>
> > > The problem is that we (as a profession) don't know
> > > how to do that. We have to make routing scale, and
> > > that demands aggregation, which in turn demands
> > > structured addresses.
>
At 8:00 PM -0700 8/10/00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Well, there is a big difference between WAP's breaking the e2e model
> > > and i-mode. WAP does an application gateway and uses no Internet
> > > protocols. At least, i-mode is using IP, TCP, HTTP, etc.
>
> > Who cares what protocol a
At 12:20 PM +0100 8/10/00, Lloyd Wood wrote:
>On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, James P. Salsman wrote:
>
> > >... breaks the end-to-end model of IP (as Imode and WAP do as they are
> > > implemented today).
> >
> > WAP does, but apparently i-Mode does not.
>
>No. it's the world's biggest NAT, and NAT *brea
At 12:27 PM -0400 8/9/00, Brijesh Kumar wrote:
>James,
>
>We have gone through WAP v/s non-WAP threads several times on this
>list. Let us hope this does not become another meaningless thread with
>little technical merits in the arguments.
>
>What is the use of criticizing a technology? If it is n
At 19:45 -0400 8/4/00, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> How many Ethernet address blocks has 3com gone through?
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> How many Ethernet address blocks has 3com gone through?
>
>MAC addresses do not affect routing. They are just numbers. IP addre
we ever find out how many people were on that elevator? :-)
John Day
At 3:40 PM +0800 8/3/00, Hans E. Kristiansen wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 03:58:47PM -0400, Scott Lawrence wrote:
> > > > - elevators (in the US) go 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15...
> > > > they skip 13! Does this make 14 a prime number ? ;-)
> >
> > > No - it makes 26 a prime numb
At 4:39 PM -0400 8/2/00, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 03:58:47PM -0400, Scott Lawrence wrote:
> > > - elevators (in the US) go 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15...
> > > they skip 13! Does this make 14 a prime number ? ;-)
>
> > No - it makes 26 a prime number.
>
>
At 3:09 PM -0400 8/2/00, Randall D. Hayes wrote:
>Don't forget about thirteen, we'd have to add that back in.
>
I can see that this is a very busy IETF meeting. ;-)
At 4:57 PM +0530 8/1/00, Ashish Sood wrote:
Hi all
Can anyone suggest me an efficient technique of bit pattern matching in a stream of bits.
Have checked Ullman's book on Algorithms?
At 9:41 -0400 4/25/00, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Graham
>Klyne wri
>tes:
>>At 11:06 PM 4/23/00 -0500, Richard Shockey wrote:
>>>With "always on" IP and IP on anything this is closer to reality than we
>>>might think. In order to permit a reasonable allocation of ad
At 10:20 -0500 12/5/99, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>At 09:31 30.11.99 -0500, John Day wrote:
>
>>I would tend to agree. As I have said elsewhere, NATs in and of themselves
>>do nothing wrong. They are doing things within the Internet/Network Layer
>>that are perfe
At 7:06 -0500 12/1/99, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>At 22:52 30.11.99 -0500, John Day wrote:
>>At 18:12 -0500 11/30/99, Mark Atwood wrote:
>> >John Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>
>> >> Correct. Lets get an application nam
At 11:50 -0500 12/1/99, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Bob Braden wrote:
>>
>>*>
>> *> The problem is not to make applications "NAT aware" or "NAT
>>friendly". The
>> *> problem is to make applications "IP address unaware". What is an
>> *> application doing exchanging and using nam
>John,
>
>> You are absolutely right. Time should be spent developing "good
>> algorithms" which is common "good architecture". What NAT does is just
>> another form of the same thing that X.25, ATM, and MPLS do with different
>> identifiers. It is not bad algorithm there nor bad architecture.
At 18:12 -0500 11/30/99, Mark Atwood wrote:
>John Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> Correct. Lets get an application name space so we don't need to worry
>> about it.
>>
>
>Please gods below, not more ASN.1
What a strange reaction!? What do
At 11:28 -0500 11/30/99, Tony Dal Santo wrote:
>Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
>
>> However, I do agree that anybody designing a protocol in the last 3-4
>> years *should* have designed it to be firewall and NAT friendly.
>> (Yes, I know that can be difficult in practice. I guess that's today's
>> "Welc
At 3:04 -0500 11/30/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 22:45:17 PST, Ian King said:
>> any "lack" because of it. I don't play UDP-based games or employ any of the
>> other relatively new protocols that are so sensitive to end-to-end-ness
>> (should they be? was that a valid assumpt
75 matches
Mail list logo
