Subject: RE: What is at stake?

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 09:19:12 -0800

As well as a number of gateways using UUCP, BITNET or even X.400...

> From: vint cerf [mailto:[email-masked]]
> 
> yes - Phone Net (University of Delaware developed) and the Telenet
(X.25)
> 
> vint
> 
> At 11:03 AM 1/24/2002 -0500, Michael Hammer wrote:
> >Quick question:  Could one university communicate to another
university
> without going through the ARPANET?
> >
> >Mike

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 10:09:38 -0800

From a policy standpoint, I believe CSNet was unique.

The CSNet project had explicit permission from Arpa (the project started in 
1979) for adding its phonenet sites to the Arpa community.  In those days, 
joining the Arpanet required explicit permission from Arpa for each new 
site.  Arpa formally delegated authority to CSNet (after reviewing its 
membership rules; CSNet was limited to computer science research and 
academic organizations.)  Hence, Arpa did not need to be consulted for each 
new CSNet site.

However, yes, uucp email relaying -- especially through Berkeley -- was 
relatively common at that time, with BITNET become a major player also 
around that time.

d/

At 09:19 AM 1/24/2002 -0800, Christian Huitema wrote:
> > yes - Phone Net (University of Delaware developed) and the Telenet X.25)
>
> > >Quick question:  Could one university communicate to another university

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

---

From: Julia Finnegan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 14:18:32 -0500

Please take me off this string.

*Julia*

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	John  W Noerenberg II [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Thursday, January 24, 2002 1:55 PM
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	Re: What is at stake?

At 8:23 AM -0800 1/24/02, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Conformance discussions like the current one have been regular 
>fodder for Internet mailing lists for, perhaps, 15 years.  They crop 
>up every couple of years.  The group "script" for the discussion is 
>highly consistent.
>
>As a consequence, citing the current occurrence as being for new 
>reasons is entirely unfounded.
>
>And wrong.

At least one other membership organization that develops 
telecommunication protocols does not impose any overt sanctions 
against those members who fail to comply (3GPP2).

It is a practical impossibility for ISOC (and by extension, the IETF) 
to act as a protocol compliance judge.

But can a society have a rule of law, if there is no explicit cost to 
the member who fails to conform? This is the essence of Ed's question.

Is it wrong for the IETF?  In a practical sense, yes.  Is this a 
question which applies to the IETF or to ISOC?  To ask this a 
different way, does the IETF and its protocols constitute a society? 
(Looking up the etymology of society, its root is also found in the 
word "persecute".)

best,
-- 

john noerenberg
[email-masked]
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   While the belief we  have found the Answer can separate us
   and make us forget our humanity, it is the seeking that continues
   to bring us together, the makes and keeps us human.
   -- Daniel J. Boorstin, "The Seekers", 1998
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 22:59:04 +0000 (GMT)

Dave Crocker wrote:

> There have now been multiple postings that explained how reality was
> substantially different than you have been claiming.
>
> As a consequence, actual history does not support your conclusion.
>
> In other words, Ed, the Internet does not have the problem that you
> are so tenaciously promoting.

A syllogism has three parts. But that's about all it has in common
with your statements above.

L.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>