[ih] DNS History

[Kevin Dunlap]

The original RFC are available, a good list can be found in "Development of the Domain Name System".
X.500 came after the initial DNS design.  Grapevine was another distributed name server that was available at the time.
Here are a few links to published early design papers for DNS.

Development of the Domain Name System, PV Mockapetris, KJ Dunlap, ACM Sigcom 1988
http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/wi01/cse222/papers/mockapetris-dns-sigcomm88.pdf

The Berkeley Internet Name Domain Server
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/1984/CSD-84-182.pdf

A Name Server Database
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/1984/CSD-84-174.pdf

The Design and Implementation of a "Domain Names" Resolver
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/1984/CSD-84-176.pdf

The Design and Implementation of Berkeley Name (BIND) Server
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/1984/CSD-84-177.pdf

Distributed Nane Servers: Naming and Cachine in Large Distributed Computing Environments
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/1985/CSD-85-228.pdf

Kevin Dunlap


On Mar 8, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Eric Gade wrote:

> Hello all,
> 
> I have begun my masters thesis work on the history of DNS and I have several questions that perhaps some of you can address.
> 
> First, in terms of the RFC system, where are the comments themselves?  Were they hard-copies that no longer exist, or mailing lists that have been tucked away somewhere?  Is there any correspondence left (for DNS related RFCs) or has it all been lost?
> 
> Second, does anyone have or know where to find details about the debates/conversations that took place leading up to RFC 1591 and what appears to be a "compromise" between generic and ccTLDs?
> 
> 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.
> 
> I have also been informed that people may not want to speak to me because of the more recent controversy surrounding Domain Name issues and the formation of ICANN, etc.  I want to put out a disclaimer that my research will not be centered on the White Paper and those later developments.  For the most part, I am interested in the 80s and early-to-mid 90s.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -- 
> Eric Gade



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20100308/88135385/attachment.htm>