Displayed to two decimal places.
PERSON · STARLIGHT
Steve Crocker
Recorded name: 史蒂夫·克罗克
Steve Crocker was an early ARPANET researcher, organizer of the RFC documentation mechanism, and network-protocol author. His verifiable work centers on recording cross-site technical exchange and early host-to-host communication.
Original Chinese introduction
史蒂夫·克罗克是早期ARPANET研究者、RFC文档机制的组织者和网络协议作者。他的可核工作集中在跨站点技术交流的记录方式，以及早期主机到主机通信。
In 1969, Crocker participated at UCLA in early ARPANET host-software discussions and used RFC 1 to record message format, connections, error checking, initial experiments, and questions then unresolved. The RFC's short-memorandum form later became a convention for engineers to openly propose, revise, and preserve network specifications; NCP served early ARPANET host-to-host communication.
Original Chinese context
1969年，Crocker在UCLA参与早期ARPANET主机软件讨论，并用RFC 1记录消息格式、连接、差错检查、初始实验和当时尚未解决的问题。RFC的简短备忘录形式后来成为工程师公开提出、修订和保存网络规范的一种惯例；NCP则服务于ARPANET早期主机间通信。
Introduction sources
Derived from the current score.
Contribution groups assessed so far; coverage is still being expanded.
ASSESSMENT SCOPEWhat this score covers
All included contribution titles and notes are available in English. The complete original text remains available in Chinese; both editions use the same scores and source links.
Uncovered contributions and unresolved harms are not treated as zero. This is not a complete assessment of a lifetime.
2 included contributions have incomplete evidence; the relevant gap appears with that contribution.
Original scope note
This research record currently includes 2 outcomes within a limited scope; M and attribution shares are revisable judgments. Uncovered content and negative effects not yet clarified are not treated as zero; specific gaps appear in the item-by-item explanations.
Original Chinese scope
本轮当前已列2项有限研究账；M与归功份额为可修订判断。未覆盖内容和未核清的负面作用不按零处理，具体缺口见逐项说明。
CALCULATIONHow the score is calculated
Q = 10^(M/2) − 1; Lᵢ = aᵢ × Qᵢ; L = Σ Lᵢ; S = 2 × log₁₀(1 + L).
M is an outcome’s assessed magnitude and a is the person’s allocated share. A standalone score is only a per-item reference; the attributed light from distinct contributions is what can be combined.
SCORE DETAILS
2 evaluated contributions
M is the assessed magnitude of an outcome; attribution is the person’s share of credit. Attributed light can be added. The standalone score is only a per-item reference and must not be added across rows.
Scroll sideways for scores and attribution.
| Outcome | M | Attribution share | Attributed light | Standalone score | Share of total | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01Network Working Group and the RFC open technical documentation mechanism.Network Working Group与RFC开放技术文档机制OUT-SL4358-1968-1969-NWG-RFC-OPEN-DOCUMENTATION-MECHANISM · 1969–present (RFC mechanism) | 5.8 | 29% | 230.065188 | 4.73 | 59.3633% | Provisional estimate · incomplete evidence |
| 02ARPANET initial host-to-host protocol NCPARPANET初始主机到主机协议NCPOUT-SL4358-1969-1972-ARPANET-NCP-HOST-PROTOCOL · 1969–1983 (before NCP-to-TCP/IP migration) | 5.6 | 25% | 157.489336 | 4.40 | 40.6367% | Provisional estimate · incomplete evidence |
On small screens, scroll this table horizontally to reach every numeric column.
NOTES AND SOURCES
Contribution notes and source links
English translations of the included notes appear below, with their Chinese originals available for comparison.
01Network Working Group and the RFC open technical documentation mechanism.Network Working Group与RFC开放技术文档机制OUT-SL4358-1968-1969-NWG-RFC-OPEN-DOCUMENTATION-MECHANISM
Record year1969–present (RFC mechanism)
Original Chinese · record year
1969–至今（RFC机制）
summaryIn 1969, Crocker participated in organizing the Network Working Group and used RFC memoranda to support cross-site discussions, record provisional consensus, and open issues. RFC 1 explicitly states it comes from a multi-site working group; subsequent RFC authors, editors, implementers, and standards bodies jointly formed a long-term mechanism.
Original Chinese · summary
1969年，Crocker参与组织Network Working Group并以RFC备忘录支持跨站点讨论、记录暂定共识和开放问题。RFC 1明确其来自多站点工作组；后续RFC作者、编辑、实现者及标准机构共同形成长期机制。
M rationaleThe original text of RFC 1 shows open issues, multi-person provisional consensus, and invitations for response. The Internet Society explicitly states Crocker initiated the series and organized the NWG, taking M5.8. M measures the collaborative system; it does not compress the value of the Internet into that single point.
Original Chinese · M rationale
RFC 1原文显示开放问题、多人暂定共识和回应邀请，Internet Society明确Crocker启动系列并组织NWG，取M5.8。M计协作制度，不把互联网价值压入该点。
attribution rationaleCrocker 0.29; early NWG 0.22; prior development of the documentation system 0.14; drafters/responders/implementers during the initial 1968–69 period 0.12; institutions 0.10; engineering teams 0.06; unresolved 0.07.
Original Chinese · attribution rationale
Crocker 0.29；早期NWG 0.22；文档制度前史0.14；1968–69初建期起草/回应/实现者0.12；机构0.10；工程团队0.06；未解析0.07。
overlap boundaryThe early NWG organization from 1968 to 1969, RFC 1, and the collaborative mechanism for quickly publishing open issues and provisional consensus via numbered memoranda; subsequent each RFC, IETF, formal standards, and the overall effect of the Internet are excluded.
Original Chinese · overlap boundary
1968至1969年早期NWG组织、RFC 1及以编号备忘快速公开未决问题和暂定共识的协作机制；后续每份RFC、IETF、正式标准与互联网总体效果排除。
Evidence gapsRequires NWG meeting, RFC editorial history, and site archive segmentation for organizational, editorial, and technical content responsibilities.
Original Chinese · evidence gaps
需NWG会议、RFC编辑史和站点档案细分组织、编辑与技术内容责任。
Full attribution budget
Every recorded actor remains visible. Share (0–1) retains the ledger’s exact decimal value.
- 0.29Steve CrockerOriginal Chinese · 史蒂夫·克罗克Person
- 0.22Early NWG site representatives, Steve Carr, Jeff Rulifson, and collaboratorsOriginal Chinese · 早期NWG站点代表、Steve Carr、Jeff Rulifson及合作者Team
- 0.14Precursors in open scientific memoranda, standards, and collaborative engineeringOriginal Chinese · 开放科学备忘录、标准与协作工程前驱Predecessor pool
- 0.12Early RFC drafters, respondents, and implementers, 1968–1969Original Chinese · 1968–1969年早期RFC起草者、回应者与实现者Team
- 0.1UCLA, ARPA, and early ARPANET institutionsOriginal Chinese · UCLA、ARPA与早期ARPANET机构Institution
- 0.06BBN IMP and host-software teamsOriginal Chinese · BBN的IMP及主机软件团队Team
- 0.07RFC/NWG organization, editing, and attribution portions pending verificationOriginal Chinese · RFC/NWG的组织、编辑与归属待核部分Unallocated
02ARPANET initial host-to-host protocol NCPARPANET初始主机到主机协议NCPOUT-SL4358-1969-1972-ARPANET-NCP-HOST-PROTOCOL
Record year1969–1983 (before NCP-to-TCP/IP migration)
Original Chinese · record year
1969–1983（NCP至TCP/IP迁移前）
summaryThe ARPANET initial host-to-host protocol NCP handled early inter-host communication. The Internet Society links Crocker to the initial NCP; RFC 1 simultaneously shows BBN responsible for IMP software and multiple host groups negotiating host software. NCP is not equivalent to the later TCP/IP, internet applications, or all network services.
Original Chinese · summary
ARPANET初始主机到主机协议NCP处理早期主机间通信。Internet Society将Crocker与初始NCP联系起来；RFC 1同时显示BBN负责IMP软件、多个主机组协商主机软件。NCP不等于后来的TCP/IP、互联网应用或全部网络服务。
M rationaleThe Internet Society explicitly attributes NCP, and RFC 1 provides message, connection, checksum, and host/BBN division of labor, sufficient for a provisional estimate of M5.6. The scope is a transitional operational protocol, not the invention of the internet.
Original Chinese · M rationale
Internet Society明确NCP归属，RFC 1给出消息、连接、校验和主机/BBN分工，足以暂估M5.6。范围是过渡性可运行协议，不是互联网发明。
attribution rationaleCrocker 0.25; NWG design and implementation 0.27; BBN/IMP 0.13; technical antecedents 0.14; node experiments 0.09; institutional 0.07; unresolved 0.05.
Original Chinese · attribution rationale
Crocker 0.25；NWG设计实现0.27；BBN/IMP 0.13；技术前史0.14；节点实验0.09；机构0.07；未解析0.05。
overlap boundaryEarly ARPANET host-to-host NCP protocol suite and its operational connection experiments; the RFC documentation mechanism is credited only for its distinct contribution as a means of documenting the work. TCP/IP, application protocols, routers, and the modern internet are excluded.
Original Chinese · overlap boundary
早期ARPANET主机到主机NCP协议族及其可运行连接实验；RFC文档制度只计载体残余，TCP/IP、应用协议、路由器与现代互联网排除。
Evidence gapsRequires NCP specifications, version history, and records of each host's implementation to calibrate individual shares.
Original Chinese · evidence gaps
需NCP规范、版本史和各主机实现记录校准个人份额。
Full attribution budget
Every recorded actor remains visible. Share (0–1) retains the ledger’s exact decimal value.
- 0.25Steve CrockerOriginal Chinese · 史蒂夫·克罗克Person
- 0.27NCP and NWG protocol designers and host implementersOriginal Chinese · NCP、NWG协议设计者与主机实现者Team
- 0.13BBN IMP software and interface teamOriginal Chinese · BBN的IMP软件与接口团队Team
- 0.14Precursors in packet switching, host communication, and computabilityOriginal Chinese · 分组交换、主机通信与可计算性前驱Predecessor pool
- 0.09ARPANET host sites, operators, and experimentersOriginal Chinese · ARPANET主机站点、运营者与实验者Team
- 0.07ARPA, UCLA, BBN, and host institutionsOriginal Chinese · ARPA、UCLA、BBN与主机机构Institution
- 0.05NCP design, implementation, and attribution portions pending verificationOriginal Chinese · NCP的设计、实现与归属待核部分Unallocated
BOUNDARIES NOT COUNTED
Not included in this score
These subjects are recorded as exclusions and are not silently treated as zero or as part of the included outcomes.
ICANN SSAC founding-chair role
ICANN SSAC创始主席职务
Reason Current sources establish only the office; charter design, recommendation texts, member divisions of labor, and actual adoption are absent, so Internet-security outcomes cannot be inferred from the position.
Original Chinese reason
当前来源只确认职务，缺章程设计、建议文本、成员分工与实际采用，不能据职位推定互联网安全成果。
All RFC-series protocols, IETF, TCP/IP, and overall Internet benefits
RFC系列的全部协议、IETF、TCP/IP和互联网总体效益
Reason RFCs have long depended on many authors, editors, implementers, institutions, and users; NCP also migrated to TCP/IP in 1983.
Original Chinese reason
RFC长期依赖大量作者、编辑、实现者、机构和用户；NCP亦在1983年迁至TCP/IP。
Specific divisions of labor in NCP versions, implementations, and first ARPANET experiments
NCP各版本、实现与首批ARPANET实验的具体分工
Reason RFC 1 shows joint work by multiple sites and BBN, but there is no complete archive sufficient to divide design and implementation responsibility in detail.
Original Chinese reason
RFC 1显示多站点和BBN的共同工作，但当前没有足以细分设计和实现责任的完整档案。
How to read this score
Scores can change when evidence is reviewed. The method page explains how magnitude, attribution, and included results relate to the displayed score.
Read the method in English →