[ih] Peter Salus / Baran's work

[dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker)]

On 1/9/2015 3:04 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> So, if not, why is the meme that Baran's work was 'classified and not
> widely available' so common (and, given the evidence of the '64 IEEE
> publication, apparently entirely wrong)?


Possibly for the same reasons as the oft-uttered claim that the Arpanet
work was intended to survive a nuclear holocaust.  (That is, dramatic
effect, research laziness, etc.)

As merely one more data point from that time, as a junior participant
from the early 70s, I had not ever heard that the paper was classified,
but in fact had frequently heard that essentially all of the packet work
was UNclassified.

Similarly, I always heard that "survival of hostile battlefield
conditions" was a goal, but that's quite different from "nuclear".

In recent years, I've asked about this some more and the most any of the
folk from that time and activity have offered is that maybe someone,
somewhere tried to sell a congress-critter with the nuclear reference.
But as I say, the regular reference I heard was "hostile battlefield".

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net