<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [ih] DNS History</title></head><body>
<div>Only for those who weren't there.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Politics were the means to protect the Money in all layers and
still is in all standards efforts.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 20:40 -0800 2010/03/08, Kevin Dunlap wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>You forgot layer 9 =
Political</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><a
href=
"http://www.isc.org/store/logoware-clothing/isc-9-layer-osi-model-cotton-t-shirt"><span
></span
>http://www.isc.org/store/logoware-clothing/isc-9-layer-osi-model-cot<span
></span>ton-t-shirt</a></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>On Mar 8, 2010, at 7:29 PM, Richard
Bennett wrote:</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Revised OSI Model: Layer 0 =
Authentication; Layer 8 = Money.<br>
<br>
On 3/8/2010 7:18 PM, John Day wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Yes but much this pays no attention to
issues of security, access control or scope.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>At 17:51 -0800 2010/03/08, Richard
Bennett wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>And now there's this Semantic Web thing
and the Bob Kahn Digital Object Identifier systems that aim to expose
structure in web sites so that the content can be more easily indexed,
searched, and grabbed. In the end, it's all about granularity and
aggregating local indexes.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>On 3/8/2010 5:26 PM, Dave Crocker
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Could you say the same thing about
X.500?<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Nope -- early attempt to do the web.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Wasn't all that Archie and Veronica stuff
an attempt to provide the<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Internet with a directory service?<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>This exchange is confusing things a
bit.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>The Web publishes documents and has
evolved into something that is probably best viewed as allowing
interaction with documents. (That might be a Procrustean view,
given the lofty views of web 2.0, etc., but I'm trying to stay with
basics.)<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Google, et all, scan the web and index
it. A search engine is not 'the web', although it is a tool of
the web. The web is either the documents or the full set of
things that touch the documents. But a search engine is not
'the' web.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Anonymous FTP published documents.
Lousy usability characteristics. Gopher published documents.
Reasonable usability, but limited document style. They were the early
sequence that led to the actual Web.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Archie indexed ftp. Veronica
indexed gopher. Early search engines. These are services that are
layered on top of the publication service and the publication service
is passive, in that there was no organized registration of the
documents, particularly, with respect to the indexing (more recent
active web page support of search engines not withstanding.)<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>X.500 was a user name registration
scheme, originally designed to lookup users, especially for email. It
started with the premise that, done in scale, a human name is not
unique so that other attributes would be needed to distinguish the
target user. Since if flowed from X.400, the concept of a
simple, global, unique email address was already a lost cause.
(Your global address was relative to your provider, which led to
some interesting business cards, for folks who had multiple
providers.)<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>In its earliest discussions, the function
description was strikingly similar to what we built for MCI Mail, so
that<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> crocker, brandenburg,
california<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>might produce my address. (My first
participation in the X.500 discussions was shortly after we had MCI
Mail running, so I was able to confirm the utility of this basic
model, though not the later technical design for achieving it in
scale. MCI Mail was a closed system.)<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>But note that the data base that X.500
used was for actively registered email users, not passively available
(rather than listed) documents. This was meant to be more like a
White Pages than a more general searching service, even as constrained
as a Yellow Pages. (But yes, goals expanded.)<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Besides having a search function, X.500
differed from the goals of the DNS by being finer-grained, targeting
personal addresses, rather than host addresses.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>The differences between document
publishing, personnel registration, name lookup and name (or, more
generally, attribute) searching each warrant distinction from the
other.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>d/<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>--<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Richard Bennett<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Research Fellow<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Information Technology and Innovation
Foundation<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Washington, DC<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
--<br>
Richard Bennett<br>
Research Fellow<br>
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation<br>
Washington, DC<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#578551">Kevin
Dunlap</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font
color="#578551">425-296-9255</font></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><a
href="mailto:Kevin@Dunlap.org">Kevin@Dunlap.org</a></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><font face="Calibri" size="+1"
color="#1F497D">LinkedIn: </font><a
href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/kjdunlap"><font face="Calibri"
size="+1"
color="#1F497D">http://www.linkedin.com/in/kjdunlap</font></a></blockquote
>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>