<div dir="ltr"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><i><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">What, in general, is the impact of historical technological<br>
</span></i><i><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">issues on current protocols and practices?</span></i></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Based on my own research and work in this field, there's a real disconnect between what's observed and what people discuss on this list. What I mean is that all technical decisions are in their own way political, and are influenced by a kind of internal politics surrounding their engineering. Those politics change over time, as they are used and adjusted, as do the ways people think about the given technology.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The example I will use is DNS and domain names, because that's what I've written about. While in the early 80s there was a need for a naming system do deal with several pressing issues (email header nightmares, for one), the system that was eventually put in place was neither obvious nor inevitable. There are ccTLDs and gTLDs. They both exist in the system because some people thought that recognizing international domains would be important not just from a basic geographic standpoint, but because OSI would eventually subsume or operate on top of whatever ARPA implemented, and so might as well have ccTLDs for that forthcoming future. On the opposite end, gTLDs were intended to be a fixed set containing everything else, a set with global (in the geographic sense) applicability.</div>
<div><br></div><div>It wasn't some logical or semantic epiphany, for example, that led Canadian universities to abandon .edu en masse later in the 1980s. Instead, it was the perception that the gTLDs were for US based entities because the NIC was funded by the US government. And they weren't alone -- this became a widespread perception and then pretty much a reality.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Of course, the strong cyber-libertarian strain that runs through a lot of the culture eventually helped contribute to a situation where domains are put to the free-market. As we all know this has manifested itself in the "innovations" of ICANN and the ability to pay to create new TLDs (which is contrary to the original idea of a limited, fixed set that are "semantically neutral"). Similarly, ccTLDs don't really mean much. They certainly weren't subsumed by OSI to any great extent, as we all know. You can buy space under a lot of them. I'm sure the tech companies buying .io and .co subdomains have little official contact with the governments of Colombia or the British Indian Territories. </div>
<div><br></div><div>So to get back to your original question, the ways people perceive a given technical problem influence the design of the solution. But then perceptions of that solution can also change over time.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Brian E Carpenter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com" target="_blank">brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I think there is a rather philosophical history question here,<br>
all the same.<br>
<br>
What, in general, is the impact of historical technological<br>
issues on current protocols and practices? To take a completely<br>
different example, there was a considerable period when handling<br>
larger than 16 bit quantities in minicomputers was awkward and<br>
slow, so there was a tendency to design stuff around that constraint.<br>
Or consider the cost of electronics and cabling in the token ring vs<br>
Ethernet argument. I'm sure there are a dozen examples of tech issues<br>
from the 1960s and 1970s that still have significant impact today.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"> Brian Carpenter<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Eric</div></div>