From lars at nocrew.org Tue May 10 15:23:49 2022 From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff) Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 05:23:49 +0000 Subject: [COFF] [TUHS] conventions around zero padding in ip4 In-Reply-To: <20220509161416.EDB2F18C073@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> (Noel Chiappa's message of "Mon, 9 May 2022 12:14:16 -0400 (EDT)") References: <20220509161416.EDB2F18C073@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <7w4k1yq7tm.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Noel Chiappa writes: > [The Terminal Interface Unit TCP/IP] is an interesting implementation, > because it was definitely one of the first 4 TCP implementations done > (before any UNIX ones); likely one of the first two, along with the > TENEX one. Any idea when the TENEX implementation was made? These files seem to be from 1982: https://github.com/PDP-10/tenex/blob/master/135-tenex/tcpip.mac From jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Wed May 11 08:19:12 2022 From: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Date: Tue, 10 May 2022 18:19:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [COFF] [TUHS] conventions around zero padding in ip4 Message-ID: <20220510221912.06EAE18C085@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> > [the TIU] was definitely one of the first 4 TCP implementations done There may have been some other early ones; see e.g. IEN-3 Jon Postel "Meeting Notes 15 August 1977". I was thinking of the TCP's which showed up for the first TCP Bakeoff, on 27 January, 1979. > From: Lars Brinkhoff > Any idea when the TENEX implementation was made? > These files seem to be from 1982: 1982? That's almost up to Linux time, in early internet time! :-) It's like 'dog years'; a year back then was an aeon! OK, to start with, a few 'definitions': TCP 2 - the earliest version that was really implemented much; no separate IP layer TCP 2.5 - basically the same as TCP 2 (packet formats, algorithms), but with things re-labelled into 'TCP' and 'IP' TCP 3 - variable length addresses (later discarded, sadly) (The archaeology in the IENs is a little complicated, because meeting notes aren't in temporal order, IEN-number-wise. E.g. the notes for the meeting on 2-4 August 1978 (the first one I went to, BTW) are IEN-53, which came out on 21-Aug-78; but the notes for the 14-15 July 1977 meeting are IEN-65, which came out on 5-Aug-78.) Anyway, about the first details about the TENEX TCP implementation (done by Bill Pluumer, whom we have now sadly lost) I could find are in IEN-67 ("Meeting Notes - 30 & 31 January 1978"): https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien67.pdf where he reports that an implementation of TCP-2 (in the OS, not in a user process, as an early version was). In IEN-53 ("Meeting Notes - 2,3&4 August 1978"): https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien53.pdf Action Items 6 and 7 refer to 6) the installation of presumably somewhat working TCP 2.5's at SRI, BBN and SRI, and 7) the installation of test version of TCP 4 at BBN. Finally, IEN-57: https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien57.pdf by Bill Plummer, "Provisional TCP Development Plan" (for TENEX/TOPS-20 TCP) gives sime interesting details. Noel From lars at nocrew.org Wed May 11 15:30:16 2022 From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff) Date: Wed, 11 May 2022 05:30:16 +0000 Subject: [COFF] [TUHS] conventions around zero padding in ip4 In-Reply-To: <20220510221912.06EAE18C085@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> (Noel Chiappa's message of "Tue, 10 May 2022 18:19:12 -0400 (EDT)") References: <20220510221912.06EAE18C085@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> Message-ID: <7w5ymcprfb.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Noel Chiappa wrote: > > Any idea when the TENEX implementation was made? > > Anyway, about the first details about the TENEX TCP implementation > (done by Bill Pluumer, whom we have now sadly lost) I could find are > in IEN-67 ("Meeting Notes - 30 & 31 January 1978"): > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/ien/ien67.pdf Thanks! I found this from "19SEP76" which must have been a very early version. https://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/2020-March/005912.html From wkt at tuhs.org Sat May 14 15:37:44 2022 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 15:37:44 +1000 Subject: [COFF] Oops, re hello to COFF Message-ID: <20220514053744.GA3895@minnie.tuhs.org> All, if you got a strange 'hello' message on the COFF mailing list, my apologies. I have mailman3 set up on the new "minnie" machine, and I am going to also set up a mailman2 instance. The idea is that mailman3 will do the normal list processing and have its own archive using the Hyperkitty software. But mailman2 will be subscribed to the list, so mail can be also archived using the old pipermail software. That way, I can import the existing TUHS and COFF mailing list archives and augment them, rather than lose them entirely. I thought I'd deleted all the COFF subscribers on the new "minnie" system, but I can see in the logs that some test e-mail might have escaped. Cheers, Warren From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net Sat May 14 17:59:47 2022 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 01:59:47 -0600 Subject: [COFF] Oops, re hello to COFF In-Reply-To: <20220514053744.GA3895@minnie.tuhs.org> References: <20220514053744.GA3895@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: <8b44986a-3ea8-5b85-53dd-b7fe6531686c@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 5/13/22 11:37 PM, Warren Toomey via COFF wrote: > I thought I'd deleted all the COFF subscribers on the new "minnie" > system, but I can see in the logs that some test e-mail might have > escaped. I didn't receive a hello message. But I did receive a "You have been unsubscribed from the COFF mailing list" which appears to have come from newmin.tuhs.org. Is this expected? Or have I messed something up? -- Grant. . . . unix || die -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4017 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From ralph at inputplus.co.uk Sat May 14 18:08:13 2022 From: ralph at inputplus.co.uk (Ralph Corderoy) Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 09:08:13 +0100 Subject: [COFF] Oops, re hello to COFF In-Reply-To: <20220514053744.GA3895@minnie.tuhs.org> References: <20220514053744.GA3895@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: <20220514080813.AE7041F939@orac.inputplus.co.uk> Hi Warren, > I thought I'd deleted all the COFF subscribers on the new "minnie" > system Ah, would that explain the ‘You have been unsubscribed from the COFF...’ email dated eight minutes before your one? Presumably, any who received it haven't really been unsubscribed from the real COFF list? $ scan -forma '%{date}' prev . Sat, 14 May 2022 15:29:44 +1000 Sat, 14 May 2022 15:37:44 +1000 $ -- Cheers, Ralph. From wkt at tuhs.org Sun May 15 09:03:48 2022 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 09:03:48 +1000 Subject: [COFF] Oops, re hello to COFF In-Reply-To: <8b44986a-3ea8-5b85-53dd-b7fe6531686c@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> References: <20220514053744.GA3895@minnie.tuhs.org> <8b44986a-3ea8-5b85-53dd-b7fe6531686c@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> Message-ID: <20220514230348.GA31240@minnie.tuhs.org> On 5/13/22 11:37 PM, Warren Toomey via COFF wrote: > > I thought I'd deleted all the COFF subscribers on the new "minnie" > > system, but I can see in the logs that some test e-mail might have > > escaped. > On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 01:59:47AM -0600, Grant Taylor via COFF wrote: > I didn't receive a hello message. > But I did receive a "You have been unsubscribed from the COFF mailing list" > which appears to have come from newmin.tuhs.org. > Is this expected? I cloned the COFF list over on newmin, then removed everybody from the cloned list. What I didn't realise was that mailman2 would e-mail out to those that had been removed. However, the existing COFF list on minnie is still working! Cheers, Warren From gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net Mon May 16 02:25:29 2022 From: gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net (Grant Taylor) Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 10:25:29 -0600 Subject: [COFF] Oops, re hello to COFF In-Reply-To: <20220514230348.GA31240@minnie.tuhs.org> References: <20220514053744.GA3895@minnie.tuhs.org> <8b44986a-3ea8-5b85-53dd-b7fe6531686c@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> <20220514230348.GA31240@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: <854a8ee7-db84-1877-06e7-29d15f04d0ac@spamtrap.tnetconsulting.net> On 5/14/22 5:03 PM, Warren Toomey via COFF wrote: > I cloned the COFF list over on newmin, then removed everybody from > the cloned list. What I didn't realise was that mailman2 would e-mail > out to those that had been removed. However, the existing COFF list > on minnie is still working! That makes perfect sense Warren. Not that it needs to make sense to us subscribers. But understanding what's happening is very nice and appreciated. :-) Thank you and have a good day Warren. -- Grant. . . . unix || die -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4017 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: