yes - add jugnead, WAIS, alta-vista, ...<div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Richard Bennett <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:richard@bennett.com">richard@bennett.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Wasn't all that Archie and Veronica stuff an attempt to provide the Internet with a directory service?<div class="im">
<br>
<br>
On 3/8/2010 2:15 PM, Craig Partridge wrote:<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Intriguingly 822 contains support for multi-level domain names (at<br>
a time they were largely not being considered) including several examples<br>
and also the early version of DNS names -- what I referred to in the day<br>
as the "appellation controlee" approach of using one's company as the<br>
last part of the name. In many ways it was a spec bullet-proofed for<br>
whever the DNS ended up (belated kudos on that foresight!).<br>
<br>
Craig<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Small tidbits:<br>
<br>
By accident, RFC 822 published a spec for domain /names/ slightly before the<br>
DNS<br>
specification came out. The efforts were parallel and 822 was a revision to<br>
733<br>
that included positioning for Internet (as opposed to Arpanet) usage. This<br>
included support for the scalable host naming system.<br>
<br>
And RFC 821 contained the support also.<br>
<br>
I remember being confused that each hop in the SMTP sequence was being given<br>
the<br>
/full/ domain name, rather than some incrementally stripped version and Jon<br>
Postel gave me a tutorial about the difference between global naming and<br>
route-based naming. Up to that time, any multi-part naming really was<br>
route-based, in some fashion, including the work we had done with CSNet<br>
(user@host@gateway).<br>
<br>
d/<br>
<br>
On 3/8/2010 12:31 PM, Craig Partridge wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
First, in terms of the RFC system, where are the comments themselves? Wer<br>
<br>
</blockquote></blockquote>
e<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
they hard-copies that no longer exist, or mailing lists that have been<br>
tucked away somewhere? Is there any correspondence left (for DNS related<br>
RFCs) or has it all been lost?<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
There was no formal comment system (nor is there now). But there were lots<br>
of comments on drafts on various mailing lists. For DNS issues the<br>
archives of the namedroppers list is probably your best place<br>
(<a href="http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers" target="_blank">http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers</a> and kudos to Randy Bush for bringing it<br>
up)<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Second, does anyone have or know where to find details about the<br>
debates/conversations that took place leading up to RFC 1591 and what<br>
appears to be a "compromise" between generic and ccTLDs?<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
RFC 1591 is awfully late -- most key technical issues, as I recall, were<br>
determined when RFC973 came out.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Third, it is not entirely clear to me exactly why DNS was engineered in<br>
place of X.500. It is my understanding at this early point in my research<br>
that OSI standards seemed inevitable at one point, and sources have told m<br>
<br>
</blockquote></blockquote>
e<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
that DNS was designed to get something out the door quickly (presumably<br>
something that *wasn't* X.500). Was X.500 simply based on an old paradigm<br>
(white pages / old telecom) and seen as a bulky and slow alternative? Whe<br>
<br>
</blockquote></blockquote>
n,<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
and with whom, was the actual decision made to ditch X.500 altogether? Th<br>
<br>
</blockquote></blockquote>
is<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
part of the story goes a long way to explaining why everyone in the world<br>
doesn't have a unique identifier.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
I have my theory on that subject -- I'll send you the relevant paper I wrot<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
e<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
on the history of email, there's a brief discussion.<br>
<br>
Thanks!<br>
<br>
Craig<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
-- <br>
<br>
Dave Crocker<br>
Brandenburg InternetWorking<br>
<a href="http://bbiw.net" target="_blank">bbiw.net</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
********************<br>
Craig Partridge<br>
Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies<br>
E-mail: <a href="mailto:craig@aland.bbn.com" target="_blank">craig@aland.bbn.com</a> or <a href="mailto:craig@bbn.com" target="_blank">craig@bbn.com</a><br>
Phone: +1 517 324 3425<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div></div><div><div></div><div class="h5">
-- <br>
Richard Bennett<br>
Research Fellow<br>
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation<br>
Washington, DC<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>