Difference between revisions of "Early Internet & RPC"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Readings== | ==Readings== | ||
kahn1972-resource.pdf | *'''[http://www.scs.carleton.ca/~soma/distos/2008-01-14/kahn1972-resource.pdf Robert E. Kahn, "Resource-Sharing Computer Communications Networks" (1972)]:''' | ||
This is one of the early papers describing the rationale behind the | |||
ARPANET (which later evolved into the Internet). For more | |||
background on the ARPANET, see [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4989933629762859961 Computer Networks - The Heralds of Resource Sharing] (optional). | |||
Note how both the ARPANET and and standard operating systems were | |||
developed to facilitate resource sharing. | |||
*'''[http://www.scs.carleton.ca/~soma/distos/2008-01-14/nelson1981-rpc.pdf Bruce J. Nelson, ''Remote Procedure Call'' (1981)]:''' | |||
You only need to read the thesis summary which starts at page 224 in | |||
the PDF. If you have time, however, I'd suggest looking at the | |||
rest, particularly the introduction and related work. | |||
birrell1984-rpcimpl.pdf | *'''[http://www.scs.carleton.ca/~soma/distos/2008-01-14/birrell1984-rpcimpl.pdf Birrell & Nelson, "Implementing Remote Procedure Calls" (1984)]''' | ||
Compare the perspective of this RPC implementation description with | |||
the more design-oriented focus of Nelson's thesis. | |||
==Questions to be discussed== | ==Questions to be discussed== | ||
Revision as of 17:14, 11 January 2008
Readings
This is one of the early papers describing the rationale behind the ARPANET (which later evolved into the Internet). For more background on the ARPANET, see Computer Networks - The Heralds of Resource Sharing (optional).
Note how both the ARPANET and and standard operating systems were developed to facilitate resource sharing.
You only need to read the thesis summary which starts at page 224 in the PDF. If you have time, however, I'd suggest looking at the rest, particularly the introduction and related work.
Compare the perspective of this RPC implementation description with the more design-oriented focus of Nelson's thesis.
Questions to be discussed
1. What did the (technical) world look like when this paper was
published?
2. What is the paper about? What are the key ideas? 3. What is the basic argument of the paper, and what sort of evidence
is used to make the argument?
4. To what extent do you "believe" the argument? Why? 5. What did the authors get right about the future?
What did they miss about the future?
6. What has been forgotten since this paper?