[ih] DNS History

[Dave Crocker]

> Third, it is not entirely clear to me exactly why DNS was engineered in
> place of X.500.  It is my understanding at this early point in my
> research that OSI standards seemed inevitable at one point, and sources
> have told me that DNS was designed to get something out the door quickly
> (presumably something that /wasn't/ X.500).  Was X.500 simply based on
> an old paradigm (white pages / old telecom) and seen as a bulky and slow
> alternative?  When, and with whom, was the actual decision made to ditch
> X.500 altogether?  This part of the story goes a long way to explaining
> why everyone in the world doesn't have a unique identifier.


DNS predates x.500 by quite a lot.  X.500 specification work was /begun/ around 
1984, whereas DNS was getting early deployment around that time, and had become 
critical infrastructure within a few years.  In contrast, X.500 never gained 
widespread use.

The usual assessment is that simplicity won out over complexity, since it's far 
easier to develop, deploy and use.  Note, for example, that LDAP was developed 
much later, to provide simplified x.500 service.

But there is also the first-to-market benefit and riding along on the more 
successful boat.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net