Talk:Internet

Resynchronizing

I have taken the article back to before the numerous large recent changes started. There's certainly no reason there cannot be changes. The changed text is in Internet/Alternate article.

It is my understanding, Dan, that the lede (i.e., before the first heading) is generally acceptable. You have questions about having the history, or as much of it, here. I can discuss why I believe it should be, but it may be shortened.

Some of the services you have in mind may be in the article convergence of communications, which could be merged here in whole or part. Services that Peter mentioned, such as newsgroups, are, I think, there, but certainly could be added.

It is my ruling that Comer is not as authoritative as RFCs, and I'm simply not familiar with the second book that was cited. Let's work to build from what is here, not replace it en masse. Let's make links to Internet Protocol Suite, which perhaps should become more of an architectural model, and be sure that when there is a wikilink to a protocol, and there is an article extant on that protocol, we don't get a redlink. Many of the redlinks came from writing such things as Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) rather than Simple Network Management Protocol, or not having the precise name of a protocol such as UDP.

Howard C. Berkowitz 04:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Howard. Before you rolled back the article text, I stated my position why I think that is a bad idea in a new section on this talk page. Would you respond to that? Dan Nessett 05:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have done so. My rollback, however, is largely procedural -- CZ customs do not approve of major unilateral rewrites without discussion, especially when a workgroup Editor is available for active participation.

Now, within those customs and rules, if we agree on the need to change the earlier articles, we will then change the article. We do not do bold-rewrite-revert as does WP. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete most of the text in the Internet architecture section?

Howard,

Most of the material in the Internet architecture section is deleted. Why did you do that? Dan Nessett 17:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. This is a mystery. I just looked at the history of the article and it doesn't look like Howard deleted anything. And yet, the text is now missing. I will contact CZ admins for some help with this. Dan Nessett 17:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

See my note on Matt's talk page. Hayford Peirce 18:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Newsgroups

In the first paragraph, newsgroups/usenet should be mentioned along with email and ftp. (I don't add it myself, so that noone can claim I added content in case of an approval.) Peter Schmitt 01:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Dan Nessett 03:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Need to expand section on history of the Internet

In some side conversations, it is noted that an article on the Internet would benefit from a discussion of its history. This would include a discussion of the technologies that led up to the internet as well as a discussion of the technologies used currently. This is a reasonable point and deserves discussion. So, let me open the discussion in this section. Those who have an opinion on this issue are hereby invited to provide it here. Dan Nessett 04:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I will start this conversation by providing my view. I would expect that an article named Internet would provide a broad overview of the subject. This includes its history, its structure and its uses. I think the article would benefit from an expansion of the history section, but I think the level of detail in the article Development of the Internet is inappropriate for a high-level article. So, my position is those who are interested in expanding the history section should summarize the material in the Development of the Internet article and place that summary in the history section of the Internet article. Some have suggested rolling back the Internet article to the old material (which was renamed Development of the Internet). I am opposed to this because it misrepresents the meaning of the article title (i.e., Internet). If an article with the title Jet Planes contained only a detailed description of their history and no description of their design and use, I would say the article is misnamed. By the same argument, I think an article titled Internet that only discusses its development is misnamed. Dan Nessett 04:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, while composing the above text, Howard decided to rollback the article to the old text. As I state above, I am opposed to this. I won't get into an edit war with Howard, because that wouldn't accomplish anything. I think the ball is now in Howard's court to explain his action. Dan Nessett 04:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My action, as a Computers Workgroup Editor, was to put the text back to a version level before large rewrites were made without discussion. This is more basic than what your view or my view is of the definition of the Internet; it has to do with CZ procedure about large edits without consensus.

I am willing to discuss changes in the development section, perhaps better linking it to the material that is in the lede and perhaps moving some of it, but I am not willing to start with an essentially new article and new definition of the Internet and the scope of the Internet article. If you want to make arguments on changing what was there, in a conversational way on the talk page, I'll be happy to do so — although I don't agree to agree with rewrite of the initial paragraphs. If an architecture article is appropriate, fine -- I would note that I was an IETF reviewer of some of the draft architecture documents, as well as being directly involved in OSI architecture; this is not just a side area of my being a Computers editor as a compiler expert, but as a specialist in network architecture and network architecture standards. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You still have not addressed the point I made. I am happy to follow CZ procedures and perhaps I violated some of these unknowingly. Let me restate my position. An article titled Internet is misnamed if all it does is cover the history of its development. That material is better named something like Development of the Internet, which is why I moved it there (I thought with your agreement, but it seems I was mistaken). So, at the very least a great deal of the material in the rolled back version of the article should be moved somewhere else. The current material is too detailed for an overview article. Dan Nessett 05:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me ask you a serious question: what do you consider the starting date of the Internet in this article?

In my mind, it does not only cover the history, certainly not in the introduction. I have a suspicion, however, that convergence of communications may be what you have in mind. Just as a guess, you tend to think more Internet applications and I tend to think more from an ISP standpoint.

Let's start systematically. Do you have any problem with the 3-4 paragraphs before the first heading? Next, might we introduce a new next section that speaks of motivations and broad architectural assumptions (e.g., end-to-end principle) that might substitute for a more detailed development? Howard C. Berkowitz 05:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

[unindent]

I am about to go out of the door and don't have much time to craft a reply, so I will only add a few comments. There is no way to identify a starting date of the Internet. The concept was "hanging in the air" when I became involved back in the late 70s, when most of what eventually became the internet was still running on the ARPAnet. At that time RFCs really were "Request for Comments" and not standards, as they are today. Even at that time there was activity focusing on what eventually became each of the 4 layers in the Internet protocol architecture. Email was running and DNS was in development. So, early on applications were part of the design and implementation activity. Cerf and Kahn were developing TCP/IP, so transport and internet layer services were part of the mix. When I joined LLNL (then simply LLL) in 1977, Network Systems Corporation had just put its 50 Mbps product on the market. This preceded the commercialization of Ethernet and involved network adapters, which offloaded link layer services from the supercomputers of the time. So, link layer activity was also part of the mix. So, I would not characterize what I have in mind as limited to convergence of communications, which seems to focus specifically on Internet applications. Dan Nessett 15:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Dan, I'm trying to focus on what you would change here, not in another article.

For the record, I might have come to this a little earlier and been a little closer to the development. In 1970, I was running a medical computing facility for Georgetown University Medical Center, in Bethesda, MD, with NIH and NIST, both on ARPANET, a few miles away; I then moved over to military networks for a while. My first internetworking involvement besides proprietary and military and ARPANET was in the X.25 world, and I would drop in on Barry Wessler at Telenet when it was still over a strip club on 14th Street in Washington in 1972; Larry Roberts was out doing fundraising. From 1976, I was on the Federal Telecommunications Standards Committee, and in the ANSI DISY project in 1979, which was the U.S. feeder to ISO. Simultaneously, I grew more involved in OSI as the first technical staff member at the Corporation for Open Systems, but also with TCP/IP as Vint Cerf was chair of our User Committee and, while I had met him earlier, saw him with some regularity from about 1986, when I still went to OSI meetings. Bob Metcalfe was our chairman, so we had Ethernet/link layer involvement, as well as his stage magic tricks. Vint, along with Scott Bradner and Lyman Chapin, were later book advisers of mine at Wiley. My first in-person IETF meeting was Danvers in 1995, but I had been contributing remotely long before, as well as in IEEE 802 and ISO.

I agree that it is somewhat hard to assign a date to "the Internet" as an administrative entity, but it is certainly not uncertain when ARPANET cut over to the TCP/IP protocol suite: 1 January 1983.

This article could do well to set aside some myths such as the Internet being created to be a survivable nuclear warfighting network, which is what we were doing in the Minimum Essential Emergency Communications Network (MEECN), although packet switching later came to military networks.

Again, what would you change in the starting paragraphs? Would you introduce new transitional sections following it? Howard C. Berkowitz 15:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the current article has far too much history and nowhere near enough about architecture, principles and applications. The history should be summarised in at most two paragraphs. The section on Architcture in the saved version should be restored. Sandy Harris 03:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Changed name of the Internet subgroup to the Internetworking subgroup

For those who are intested, I have changed the name of the Internet subgroup to the Internetworking subgroup. I have copied the text from Internet/Alternate_article to the Internetworking subgroup main article page. This allows us to continue our discussions of the Internet article without those discussions becoming entangled with discussion of the subgroup formation. I did this because I created this subgroup and am currently its only member. I have not yet edited the main article to reflect its title, but will do that in the next few days. Dan Nessett 05:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

After going to bed to get some much needed rest, I think I should explain the motivation behind the change of subgroup name in more detail. We have two activities under way, which unfortunately seem to have been conflated. There is the writing and editing of the Internet article and there is the formation of an Internet (currently Internetworking) subgroup. These two activities have unfortunately collided simply because the name of the subgroup happens to be the same as that of an existing article. This was causing a great deal of confusion and unnecessary friction. Perhaps more importantly, some of us were working on the definition of the scope of the subgroup and had provided edits to what is now the Internet/Alternate_article article. I think it is important to understand that defining the scope of the subgroup is independent of working on the structure and content of the existing Internet article. In my original conception, the subgroup would focus on the design, implementation and use of the technologies/services defined by the Internet protocol architecture. As we worked on the article that defined this scope, it developed into a much more articulate description than what I originally wrote. So, I moved the subgroup name and the article content to a new name so we would not lose that work.

Since I have other things I have to handle today, I cannot provide a comprehensive discussion of this issue. However, I would like to observe that separating the deliberations associated with subgroup formation from those involved with editing the Internet article simply recognizes that two different sets of policies and procedures apply. The first activity is directed by the guidance provided in CZ:Subgroups, which roughly is 1) a Citizen forms a subgroup, 2) its main article is developed and moved toward approval, 3) once approval is obtained, the subgroup members ask for the association of the subgroup with existing workgroups. If these steps all succeed, the subgroup is established. The second activity involves editorial decisions and the crafting of text that eventually becomes part of the article main namespace. Dan Nessett 15:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I will note, and for this reason am starting long-needed top-level articles on network architecture, that internetworking has a fairly well-defined meaning, a superset of the Internet, of the interconnection of dissimilar networks. The scope of the proposed subgroup is still very unclear to me.

Now, rather than confuse the main namespace further, I had taken your rewritten Internet article and put it as Internet/Alternate article. "Internetworking", to me, has a quite different meaning that includes some aspects of the Internet, but applied just as well to X.25, SNA, and mu-law versus A-law digital telephony. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I chose the term "Internetworking" because it allows the formation of a subgroup that focuses on the design, implementation and use of those technologies/services that comprise the Internet protocol architecture without the confusion that has arisen when the subgroup's name was "Internet". We have regrettably conflated two subjects: 1) the editing of an existing article in the main namespace with the title "Internet", and 2) the formation of a subgroup specified as described. Changing the subgroup's name allows these two activities to proceed in parallel and without the sort of unproductive churning that has recently occurred. The subgroup I have created, the continued existence of which depends on an approved main article titled with the subgroup's name and the association of at least one workgroup, is not focused primarily on the history or development of the Internet, although that topic would fall within its purview. Using different names for the two articles solves a significant problem and allows progress on both activities.

In regards to the definition of the term "Internetworking" here is a sample: 1) "The process of interconnecting two or more individual networks to facilitate communications among their respective nodes. Note: The interconnected networks may be different types. Each network is distinct, with its own addresses, internal protocols, access methods, and administration." This is taken from Federal Standard 1037C ("Glossary of Telecommunication Terms"), a publication of the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences, the research and engineering branch of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), a part of the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC). 2) From our competitor WP, "Internetworking involves connecting two or more computer networks via gateways using a common routing technology. The result is called an internetwork (often shortened to internet)." 3) Cisco offers the following definition (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/internetworking/technology/handbook/Intro-to-Internet.html): "An internetwork is a collection of individual networks, connected by intermediate networking devices, that functions as a single large network. Internetworking refers to the industry, products, and procedures that meet the challenge of creating and administering internetworks."

So, I think it is reasonable to conclude that internetworking is the activity that results in an internet. By making this change, the focus of the subgroup remains virtually the same, achieving the objective given above, viz., working on the two activities in parallel. Dan Nessett 01:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I note you quote FED-STD-1037C; the emphasis is that it is a Federal Standard, to which ITS/NTIA/DOC submitted it for approval. The original 1037 came under the direction of Neal Seitz at ITS, and I was both a reviewer for ITS, and the Library of Congress representative to the Federal Telecommunications Standards Committee that approved it in 1978 or so. I think I drafted a few of the definitions. So, I think I have some fairly good insight into what and when went into that document. The update you cite is from 1996, so it's not the best of references for today's Internet. Neal is, however, absolutely authoritative on restoring Ford Mustangs.

We simply don't use WP as a reference.

Well, I am an (inactive) Certified Cisco Systems Instructor (#93005) and course developer, and, again, have some first-hand experience with how that was brought about. Those definitions largely come from tech writers. On the other hand, Fred Baker, Cisco Fellow and past chair of the IETF, was the lead editor of RFC 1812, which, while older, is still fairly definitive. The several IAB/IETF informational architectural documents, by Brian Carpenter, Randy Bush, Dave Meyer et al., might be a little more appropriate. After all, if one is trying to define the Internet, shouldn't the IETF be the primary reference? Howard C. Berkowitz 01:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood why I supplied those definitions. My only objective was to support the argument that Internetworking is the activity that results in the Internet. The terms are similar enough that we can work on the main namespace article titled "Internet" in parallel with the main article of the Internetworking subgroup without those two activities inappropriately interfering with one another. Dan Nessett 01:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We haven't had a situation before where there wasn't a substantial consensus, by several people, that a subgroup was needed. "Chemical engineering" is a good example, where the base article was in existence and stable. This particular situation, when we have one person pushing strongly for a subgroup for which he has a vision that may be a great one, but isn't clear to others and doesn't have a broad consensus, is something with which we have not dealt.

I don't know how best to proceed, without getting heavy-handed as an Editor. It would help, I suspect, if you'd work on this article, checking redlinks to be sure there isn't an existing article with a slightly different title. If you have problems with those existing articles, let us know.

If I were you, which I am not, I would have concentrated on trying to get consensus on changes to the Internet article first, so there were a consensus of what the Internet means. Really, I'm puzzled about the push for a subgroup; subgroups have been essentially indexing conveniences. Yes, there have been some suggestions about getting external involvement, for which there needs to be consensus whether there is a subgroup or not.

We are in the midst of charter group elections and then a charter process, and I believe we have cleared some obstacles to an Editorial Council election and, I hope, reviving. Those, and the Forums, are the place to present initiatives such as external relations -- and, in my opinion, generating sentiment for a subgroup if one is needed. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[unindent]

On Monday, per our agreement, I will start a thread discussing whether an Internetworking subgroup is desirable. I think that is the next step in the determination of whether there is any interest other than my own in its creation. In the meantime, I think the policy articulated in the CZ:Subgroups article allows any Citizen, author or editor, to create a subgroup. So, I think the establishment of the Internetworking subgroup has followed the specified procedure (with the exception of modifying an existing article that seemed required and with which I thought I had your approval). There may be some technical problems that need attention. For example, it appears you can't move a subgroup cluster to another name without the intervention of the constables. There is no move tab on the "All Articles", "Approved", and "Members" subpages. So, at present, the Internetworking cluster is in an inconsistent state. I have asked the constables to help with that. Dan Nessett 02:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Policy shmolicy. If you create a Subgroup and it's got a

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.) name that's inconsistent with the terminological and conceptual understanding of everyone on the planet, it ought to be overruled. An Internet subgroup would, of course, focus on the underlying technology, infrastructure and development that led to the Internet. But it could also include work from anyone who wants to write about how the Internet is used: about services that run on the Internet, about products and companies, social practices, communities and all the other things that make the Internet great. "Internetworking" would include lengthy discussion of TCP/IP, but not lengthy discussions of wikis or USENET or Facebook or whatever the latest thing the kids are doing is. Therefore, you cannot simply say "Well, really 'Internet' is short for 'Internetworking' and change it without any loss of meaning. If we need a subgroup to cover simply the technology and implementation of computer networks, just call it the "Computer Networking" subgroup. If policy can be used to justify "Internetworking Subgroup", policy needs to be changed. If it's too technical for an Internet subgroup, then do it in the Computer Networking subgroup. I can't see a scenario where an article about the Internet's infrastructure would not fit inside the Computer Networking subgroup. Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.) –Tom Morris 11:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

When this issue came up, I thought it was pointed out there was no good place for the intersection of culture, social science, and technology as impacted by the Internet, and indeed by new communications. For example, instant messaging had a very large role in a bloodless revolution in the Phillipines. There may be every reason for an interdisciplinary workgroup dealing with social interactions and end user perceptions, even human factors, privacy, etc.

As far as Internet technology and architecture, that is fairly well defined by the IETF. Given the convergence of communications and such things as software-defined radio, it's hard to draw a bright line between "upper layers" and "lower layers". Even optical networks have their physical paths set up by IP routing.

Some clusters/loosely coupled multiprocessors are clearly networked. Do the cores inside a multicore chip have traditional chip-level connections, or are they on a bus that looks like a very small LAN? It depends.

So, I'm saying that there may be a need but we have to figure it out. When the policy was created, it was in response to some specific situations, where there was a noncontroversial article such as chemical engineering and several people thinking the group was a good idea. While I can certainly see a subgroup as a starting point for something that just isn't well covered by the workgroup structure -- Social Work comes to mind -- when the policy was set up, I don't think it foresaw a solo evangelist for a single subgroup.

There may well be a good reason for some sort of networking and communications group, but

• It's going to contain media not usually comsidered "Internet" (instant messaging, HDTV, software-defined radio)
• It may well hit social and legal issues
• It may or may not be the place for advanced discussion of architecture and protocols. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to the comments by Tom Morris, I would love to use the term Internet as the subgroup's name. That was my original choice. It was always my intention that the subgroup would focus on all aspects of the Internet, not just the networking technology part of it. However, there already was an existing article with the title Internet. In a side discussion with Howard, I thought I had permission to move that article to Development of the Internet, since the content of the article focuses on that topic. However, it seems I misunderstood him, since when I effected the move, he objected and rolled back the article to the old text. So that two activities (editing the existing article and formation of a subgroup that focuses on all aspects of the Internet) did not become confused and generate unproductive interactions, I changed the subgroup name to Internetworking. This allowed me to link it with the current main article text.

If there is consensus that the subgroup should be called Internet and that the current subgroup main article more completely describes the focus of the subgroup than the current Internet article, then no one would be more happy than I to switch the name of the group back to Internet, move the existing Internet article to some other title and move the existing Internetworking article to Internet. Dan Nessett 16:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

May a dumb Constable make a few comments? Was there originally an article called Internet, which told more or less what the average, non-technical person would understand to be about the Internet and its workings in general? If so, THEN IT MUST BE LEFT WITH THAT TITLE. Period. We have an article called Bread -- it CANNOT be changed, at one person's whim, to an article called The History of Bread. Whether or not Internet can be used as the title of a Subgroup, I have no idea. If the various people interested in the subject AGREE that a subgroup called "Internet" should be created, then fine, go ahead. As to an article called Internetworking that is a non-starter. First of all, the word does not exist, at least not in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. It *may* have a specialist meaning among a group of technicians, but it CANNOT be used as the name of a general encyclopedia article in Citizendium about the Internet as it is understood by a broad consensus of average people. Period. We don't need a decision by the Editor in Chief to tell us that. Do we have an article called Breadworking or Automobileworking? No. There will not be an article called Internetworking -- unless is it a *very* narrowly directed, very focused article on whatever it may mean to people within the field. And even here, I think it would fall to an Editor's judgment about whether it should exist as a stand-alone article or be incorporated into some other, large article. Hayford Peirce 17:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have just checked in order to make certain: Howard is both an Engineering Editor and a Computer Editor. Whether or not Internet should fall under the purvey of Engineers I dunno. I do know that it falls under the category of Computers. Without computers, there is no Internet. Period. So that's the prime Workgroup for an article called Internet. Howard, therefore, and OTHER Editors are the people who decide major questions about the content of this and related articles. If Howard makes a formal decision about what the general content of the article should be, then that's a closed judgment. Dan, if you disagree with Howard's decision, you may discuss it with him and try to change his mind. OR you may try to find some OTHER Editor in the Workgroup and see if he/she will back your own views. Then that other Editor could try to work out a agreement with Howard about what should be done. I know nothing about the merits of whatever views you are trying to incorporate here -- it may well be that Howard is completely wrong in what he is saying, but I do know that he is the guiding Editor here and that this is the way Citizendium works. Hayford Peirce 17:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There is, indeed, a specialist term called internetworking, and, for that matter, one called interworking. I was a contributor to one of the references being cited, and no one was thinking Internet -- it was a government standard with mostly military networks in mind. Now, are there interworking and internetworking inside the Internet? Yes! Are there internetworking and interworking in a Black Helicopter net that never connects to the Internet? Yes! Howard C. Berkowitz 17:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Then anyone who's interested in those two subjects (internetworking and interworking) can start and write two articles about them, I would say -- subject to an Editor's judgment as to whether they would be better as stand-alones or as part of some other article. We have an article called Folk music; we also have articles called Peter, Paul and Mary and the Kingston Trio. The first article *refers* to the latter two, but, of course, no Editor has tried to insist that the latter two *have* to exist only within the first. I would think that the same thing would obtain here. Hayford Peirce 17:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(raises a toast to the memory of Mary Travers) Howard C. Berkowitz 19:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[unindent]

In the first of Hayford's contributions to this discussion, he writes, "[w]as there originally an article called Internet, which told more or less what the average, non-technical person would understand to be about the Internet and its workings in general?" Unfortunately, the answer to that question is very likely no. The text in the article called Internet does not describe what Hayford specifies. I would observe that the answer to that question is not something an editor is uniquely qualified to answer, since by virtue of his expertise, he is not an average, non-technical person. So, the question really can only be answered by someone other than Howard, me or any other person with expertise in the area. On the other hand, it doesn't take expertise in a particular area to determine whether an article is talking about a subject or about the history of a subject. That is decidable by anyone with even the most rudimentary intellectual faculties. It seems clear to me that anyone who maintains an objective attitude toward the question will agree that the existing article is about the history or development (whichever word you prefer) of the Internet.

In regards to Hayford's observation that it is editors who make the content decisions at CZ, I have no objection with that. One of the reasons I decided to leave WP was because the decision processes there are chaotic and sometimes completely irrational. If Howard insists on maintaining the current Internet article text and thereby forcing the Internet(working) subgroup to concentrate only on the history or development of the Internet and if no other editor steps up to disagree with him, then there is no option but to let him have his way. I guess those who want to discuss aspects of the Internet that are not related to its development or to its lower level technology would have to form a subgroup that concentrates on their interests and not those of Howard.

Finally, while I recognize Hayford's authority as a Constable to enforce CZ policy, I think he has overstepped his remit somewhat in ruling on what is or what is not a technical term and what that term means. As Howard points out, the term Internetworking is an accepted term of art. I provided a number of definitions of this term that establish this. I would only suggest that whether there is an article called Internetworking is not really his call. It is an editor's call. In addition, I don't think Hayford is sufficiently knowledgeable about the technologies that underly the Internet to authoritatively proclaim which workgroups it properly belongs to. I think anyone who understands the subject would agree that it belongs to at least the computers and engineering workgroups, but there are others that are equally valid. For example, the applications that run on the Internet are from a vast range of application areas, including just about any workgroup that exists at CZ. So, it would be perfectly valid to form a subgroup on, say, Internet applications in Physics or Internet applications in the Media. Dan Nessett 19:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying

Dan, I will restate this. In no way do I believe that the Internet article should be purely about its development, but I do believe that at least some material about its development does belong in the main article, perhaps with some summation there and the details moved to a subarticle. Again, I ask,

1. Are there problems with the first four paragraphs? If so, what are they?
2. Am I correct in assuming that you believe there should be other major subtopics following the introduction, more important than the historical development? If so, what are they? I suggested some were the Internet applications in convergence of communications, but my sense was you dismissed these as applications. There is a substantial, although not immense, body of CZ work on things including Autonomous System and Border Gateway Protocol and Internet Protocol/IPv4/IPv6 and Routing and potato routing and virtual private networks. If applications do not come next, then does the infrastructure, including DNS and SNMP?

If it is Internet architecture, as opposed to problem analysis, you are moving into a more specialist area, but certainly some architectural principles could form a next major section, explaining how the Internet has design concepts fundamentally different than those of earlier networks. Those differences, however, are best explained in other than a discussion of layering, which is not my opinion alone but published in IETF documents that deprecate layering. Significantly, the early IETF documents mentioning layering preceded the layer-intensive Open Systems Interconnection Reference Model, and the documents that are more emphatic on deprecating layering are relatively recent.

Howard is not forcing an Internet subgroup to do anything, because, as far as I can see, there is not yet an Internet subgroup. Repeatedly, I have asked how you would improve this article, not by ripping things out of it, but by collaborating in improving it. Collaborative improvement may, indeed, result in an article that can guide a subgroup. I'm not at all opposed to subgroups, although I'm rapidly coming to an opinion there may need to be more than one: a subgroup emphasizing both transmission engineering and the routing and end-to-end levels of the Internet, and a subgroup dealing with Internet applications but also social and economic consequences. See, for example, cloud computing--is that not a new business model, Internet-technology-enabled, for delivering applications? Howard C. Berkowitz 20:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How would I modify the existing article so its focus is the Internet and not the history/development of the Internet? I would summarize the material in the existing article in one or two paragraphs; move the bulk of the material to an article that focuses on the Internet's history/development; add sections that summarize Internet applications and the technology underlying the lower level Internet services (transport, internetwork and link); add references to external sources; and indicate the professional groups that focus on Internet technologies and their use. In short I would summarize the material in the existing article, put that summary in the history section of the current Internetworking article and move that article to Internet.

Are there problems with the first four paragraphs of the existing article? I think it is too technology focused and mentions things like Virtual Private Networks and the Border Gateway Protocol that are better addressed in subsequent sections that address the internet layer. I would mention the importance of the world wide web and also point out that other applications drove the development of the Internet before it arrived.

Do I believe there should be other major subtopics following the introduction, more important than the historical development? No. I think a section of one or two paragraphs on the history/development of the Internet should come immediately after the lede.

Did I dismiss a mention of convergence of communications? No. In fact you added mention of it to the Internetworking article and I did not (nor do not) object.

Your suggestion of mentioning some architectural principles before diving into the Internet protocol architecture itself has merit. In the Internetworking article you added material that identifies two important principles: 1) the end-to-end principle, and 2) the robustness principle. I think articulating these is a good idea.

I don't think a discussion of the controversies about whether the Internet 4 layer protocol/service architecture or the OSI-RM 7 layer protocol/service architecture is the appropriate conceptual framework is something to address in a top-level article. This is something that is more properly the subject of a more specialized/detailed article.

There is in fact an Internetworking subgroup. I recommend taking the time to read CZ:Subgroups. That document describes the procedure for forming a subgroup. Doing so does not require editor or constable approval. However, if in a reasonable amount of time the subgroup does not attract more than one member or its main article is not moved to approved status or at least one workgroup doesn't associate with it, then it is probably best to dissolve it. However, determining whether these conditions obtain should take a reasonable amount of time (3 months? CZ:Subgroups doesn't really specify a time frame).

Should there be more than one subgroup that concentrates on various aspects of the Internet? Well, like you I am beginning to think so. For example, other workgroups than computers and engineering may wish to form a subgroup that focuses on Internet applications that are important to them. When I worked at LLNL, I was the leader of a project that developed programming infrastructure for scientific applications. I was a member of the group that standardized MPI-1, an applications library for scientific distributed/parallel applications. Articles that focus on how to use the Internet to implement scientific distributed applications might be a suitable subgroup for the physical sciences workgroups. Dan Nessett 21:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. Maybe we are making some progress. I'd like to see some sample text, just for the beginning section, on the talk page, along with a major section outline for the article.

Dan, it doesn't really help to tell me to read the CZ:Subgroups section, given I was involved in the discussions and know the intent. I will repeat that the intention, in the subgroups created and still in existence, were for some indexing and outside contexts, and there was absolutely nothing controversial about the subject definition. Frankly, no one considered someone might propose a controversial subgroup.

No, the IP vs. OSI argument doesn't belong in a top level, or even a subordinate level. This is a topic on which I will rule and back it with primary IETF sources and personal experience, not textbooks.

Applications that drove the "net" are important, especially to get across to people that still have a very severe misconception that Web = Internet.

Internet-enabled scientific computation is indeed a valid topic, although we need input from the scientist citizens. I have much more direct experience of Internet use in telemedicine. Ignoring that the military doesn't use the public Internet, though, it would be hard to think of a military networking subgroup, since, in modern militaries, they are networked down to the soldier and the projectile. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Howard, making progress is always good. However, I wonder if you understood what I wrote. To improve the existing Internet article, I would summarize the material in the existing article and put it into the history section of the Internetworking article. I would then move the existing article to a different title and move the Internetworking article to Internet. Do you really want me to put the Internetworking article, modified as I suggest on the Internet Talk page? Dan Nessett 22:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but until I have more of a sense of your concepts, I want to move by small steps of a few paragraphs. Even in history articles here when I believed the author had twisted materials for ideological reasons, the early stems were small.

I do not work by the kind of article moves, or large part of article moves, you seem to be suggesting. As an Editor, I do not consider doing so compatible with the collaborative style in which all can see the reasons for changes. What you call summaries, so far, seem to be replacements with different assumptions.

No, I don't want you to move the Internetworking article. I want you to move an alternate lede and convince me it is better, or, perhaps, that points should merge. I want you to work within a section at a time; we can always go back for global changes. I simply don't follow many of your points in the internetworking article, perhaps, in part, because it has a number of redlinks either because the article name isn't right, or that you have something different in mind. As far as article naming, our article names do not include abbreviations; abbreviations are redirects although they certainly can follow the wikilinked text as a parenthesized expression. UDP, incidentally, is the User Datagram Protocol. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Howard, this is becoming

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.). You will have to convince me that moving the text in the Internet(working) article one bit at a time to the Internet article will achieve some useful goal. Since you have the expertise to evaluate both articles, you can determine what "works" and what doesn't. Furthermore, I am not especially interested in summarizing the history/development material in the existing Internet article, since you wrote the majority of it. You would be the appropriate person to do that. Dan Nessett 22:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

Why would I want to evaluate the "Internetworking" article when I don't know what problem it's solving that is broken here? Further, I see a substantial number of red links to subjects where articles exist, which does not fill me with great confidence that the article is trying to fit in with existing work if it doesn't even get the links done.

Going further, however, I have some very substantial concerns with the layering discussion, the discussion of routers, and other areas. While distinguishing among types of routers seems out of place here, given there is a router article (again not working within the framework with what exists), RFC4098 should give the definitions for those redlinks -- although it refines them further. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Internetworking

In IETF specifications, the name of the layer in which IP operates is called the Internetworking Layer. That usage refers to IP being "agnostic" of the underlying link/interface layer, so that the packet is largely not affected by it.

One internetworking function that does affect the packet, although in a way transparent to the destination, is coping with different link-level maximum packet lengths. The fragmentation function, although gone in IPv6, will, if there is a need to take a 9K jumbogram frame and put it onto an outbound link with a maximum size of 1500, will split it into six packets. Router interfaces will deal with things such as the different bit ordering of 802.3 and 802.5. Of course, it was always a need between different subnetworks, such as IP and X.25 and SNA.

Interworking is at the application level. For example, interworking between European/ITU digital telephony, which digitizes using the A-law algorithm, has to be transcoded into mu-law digitizing before a North American telephone can understand it. Character representation might need to change. Rate-limiting at the end-to-end level arguably goes here, as well as resource requesting. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Internet(working) subgroup formation announcement on Editorial workgroups and granularity forum

Fulfilling a commitment I made to Howard and Hayford in a private email, I have announced the formation of the Internet(working) subgroup on the Editorial workgroups and granularity forum. Dan Nessett 22:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Confused

Though I haven't been on the internet :-) so much the last days I tried to follow this thread and have to confess that I am confused. What is this all about?

There ie an article about the internet (which is not yet devoloped) and has a good outline on the development of internet. For the final article other aspects will have to be added, and (may be) the historical section will prove to be too long. But instead of improving the balance, Dan, you (try to) replace it by an article whose focus is too much on the (not yet well explained) architecture of the internet.

Then the same content is supposed to cover "Internetworking" -- invented or redefined for this purpose?

And all that because you want a subgroup "Internet". Why not simply improve the Internet article, add some missing related articles (Internet architecture, Society and the internet, or whatever interests you)? This will help to show what you are aiming at, and if "Internet subgroup" should prove to be inadequate, another name will certainly be found.

(Personally, I think it is the wrong order first to create a subgroup without authors and articles, investing much time and effort trying to define its scope. It should be the other way round: Some (more than one) authors write articles, and when it turns out that a subgroup would be helpful, then such a subgroup is created.)

Peter Schmitt 22:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: This has been written while the discussion above continued. Peter Schmitt 22:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter. Don't feel bad. I also would be confused if I tried to make sense of this discussion without having actually written much of it. The problem started when I wanted to create an Internet subgroup. It turns out there are quite a few existing articles that would fit into the scope of this subgroup (many written by Howard, but some written by others or with major contributions by them), So, I don't think things are proceeding out of order. My motivation for forming the group was two-fold: 1) gather together a number of Citizens who are interested in the Internet and sponsor some article writing. I can think of a number of articles I could write that would, I think, benefit CZ; 2) create a group within CZ that would form a natural point of collaboration with some outside professional organizations. Why do the second thing? Again, there are two reasons: 1) tap into a source of tutorial material that CZ could host that would increase its visibility to the outside world; and 2) by involving members from the outside professional organization, hopefully recruit some new authors and especially new editors.

We really are very thin on editors. This shows up in the number of articles that are approved. If you look at the statistics page Special:Statistics, you will see that there are (at of this point in time) 12,126 live articles, of which 114 are approved and 978 are developed. If you look at WP, they have about 2 orders of magnitude more articles. So, if we are to proclaim that CZ is in someway superior to WP, we have to use some other measure than number of articles. The obvious measure is approved articles. But, the number of approved articles is less than 1% of the total, which is less than 1% of the articles on WP.

It is absolutely deadly to conceive of the world as you would like it to be, rather than how it is. An objective evaluation of CZ's performance, I think, would rate it close to failing. We are woefully understaffed. We spend all our time in pointless discussions. We do just about everything other than getting our developed articles approved. (As a side note, this is one reason why I have been pushing to get the Associated Legendre Functions and S-L theory articles approved.) So, when I say we need more editors, I mean if we don't get more editors we are going to sink to the bottom without a bubble.

My vision was a possible collaboration between CZ and an internet group. My first choice is IETF/IRTF, but if they aren't interested, others are possible. Furthermore, once we get a collaboration going we can expand it to include some other organizations. The idea is a collaboration between CZ and organizations with an Internet focus would act as a pilot for collaborations between CZ and professional organizations in other areas. We can apply what we learn in the internet collaboration pilot to establishing contacts with a wide variety of organizations.

That is the motivation for the Internet subgroup. However, there was a technical problem. The way subgroups are set up, their main article must have the same name as the subgroup. But, there is already an Internet article. It really is not suitable for an Internet subgroup main article. Simply stated, it is mistitled. It covers the development of the Internet, not the Internet as it exists. So, in a private conversation with Howard, I proposed moving the Internet article to a better title and use the "Internet" title for a broader description. I thought I had his approval to do that, but when I did the move, he objected and reverted the article back to its former text. The situation was then that I could not form the subgroup because an article with its name already existed. So, to separate the subgroup formation from the editing of the existing article, I noticed there was no article with the title Internetworking. Contrary to what you may have read, this term is actually quite legitimate. In fact, Internet is an abbreviation of Internetwork. Internetworking is the activity that establishes and maintains an Internetwork. So, I changed the subgroup name to Internetworking. This is not ideal. I would really like to use the name Internet, but Howard is insisting that I change the Internet article incrementally. This is simply <word omitted here because Hayford would delete it>.

That is where we are at the moment. Sorry if this has been too long-winded.Dan Nessett 01:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

my personal opinion, for what it's worth

I know very little about the Internet, aside from having used it extensively for 13 years now and minor stuff about it that I glean from PCWorld and tech. columns in the New York Times. Given that, I would say that as an average general reader who wanted to find out "what is this Internet thingee?", the opening two paragraphs of the Wikipedia article are *far* superior to the opening paragraphs of the CZ article. A *lot* more info, with links to various things that I *also* know a little about. Why can't some of that material be incorporated into our article? Hayford Peirce 02:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the WP article is vastly superior to both CZ's Internet article and the Internetworking article. Why not simply use it as a base for the Internet article, modifying it to fit into CZs Internet article structure. We could enhance it by adding some of the material in both the existing Internet article and the Internetworking article. I think the result would be better than either of the two CZ articles or the WP article. Dan Nessett 03:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the lede of the WP article is better, though I think there's one important point our lede makes that WP doesn't, "The Internet itself has no direct human interfaces; every user-visible function must go through a program resident on a client or server computer. There are literally hundreds of different protocols, applications and services that run over the Internet." Sandy Harris 03:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And again, I ask for draft text, on the talk page. This has been a reasonably stable article, but there are strong views, and, as Editor, I don't want the lede changing back and forth. Yes, the point about no direct human interfaces is important.