|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|WikiProject Biography||(Rated Start-class)|
žI think that he is rihgt,Everyone in the computer research field calls him "Bob Kahn". Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) says we're supposed to use "the most common name of a person or thing". So I have moved the article to that name. Noel 03:23, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Removed the following pieces of text from the article because they were so wrong:
- "Any computer could connect to the network without making any internal changes to it."
Anyone who was working on the project in the late 70's will remember the pain we had to go through to get TCP/IP software into the operating system on most machines. "[no] internal changes"? Pfui.
- "TCP, which they modelled after another network protocol, the Networking Control Protocol."
NCP is so totally different from TCP that the connection is tenuous at best. (Also, NCP is usually given as "Network Control Protocol" - although the correct expansion of NCP is actually "Network Control Program" - but the latter is something even I didn't realize until I actually read the old manuals, so I'll give a pass on that).
The whole question of who should be given credit for what in the development of TCP/IP is a lot more complicated that this article makes it sound. Many of the fundamental idea (moving the ack process into the hosts) came from work down by Louis Pouzin, and the people at Xerox PARC had done important precursor work as well. What's in the article is possibly still a bit too thickly laid on, but it's reasonably close to being correct now. Noel 04:10, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The photograph needs a caption as to when it it was taken. Better yet, it should be replaced with something current. That photo must be 30 years old. --angrykeyboarder (a/k/a:Scott) 17:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)