1996-04-12 - Re: Digital Cash Escrow

Header Data

From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
To: John Deters <cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: da62e04f4818f220e6d57370abacf6ead98f9ed247c3a3bf755a32b3ad3574b1
Message ID: <m0u7VIU-0008zAC@pacifier.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-04-12 03:58:03 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:58:03 +0800

Raw message

From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 11:58:03 +0800
To: John Deters <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Digital Cash Escrow
Message-ID: <m0u7VIU-0008zAC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 09:17 AM 4/11/96 -0500, John Deters wrote:
  Go dig up the manuals for a
>UNIVAC 1100, Jim.  Why do you think the RFCs for IP specifically refer to
>"octets" as opposed to "bytes"?  Because (they explain) "octet" is
>unambiguous, which then infers a certain ambiguity to "byte", now, doesn't it?

Wasn't the original development of the Internet done in the middle 1960's?  
And thus, does its development pre-date the coinage of the term, "byte"?  

If that's true, doesn't this answer your question?  The terminology used for 
the definition of a standard often tends to be frozen in time.  Lacking the 
term "byte" they used "octet."  The subsequent invention of the term "byte" 
would not have displaced the original term, at least in Internet standards.






Thread