[ih] DNS History

[Craig Partridge]

Intriguingly 822 contains support for multi-level domain names (at
a time they were largely not being considered) including several examples
and also  the early version of DNS names -- what I referred to in the day
as the "appellation controlee"  approach of using one's company as the
last part of the name.  In many ways it was a spec bullet-proofed for
whever the DNS ended up (belated kudos on that foresight!).

Craig

> Small tidbits:
> 
> By accident, RFC 822 published a spec for domain /names/ slightly before the 
> DNS 
> specification came out.  The efforts were parallel and 822 was a revision to 
> 733 
> that included positioning for Internet (as opposed to Arpanet) usage.  This 
> included support for the scalable host naming system.
> 
> And RFC 821 contained the support also.
> 
> I remember being confused that each hop in the SMTP sequence was being given 
> the 
> /full/ domain name, rather than some incrementally stripped version and Jon 
> Postel gave me a tutorial about the difference between global naming and 
> route-based naming.  Up to that time, any multi-part naming really was 
> route-based, in some fashion, including the work we had done with CSNet 
> (user at host@gateway).
> 
> d/
> 
> On 3/8/2010 12:31 PM, Craig Partridge wrote:
> >> First, in terms of the RFC system, where are the comments themselves?  Wer
> e
> >> 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?
> >
> > There was no formal comment system (nor is there now).  But there were lots
> > of comments on drafts on various mailing lists.   For DNS issues the
> > archives of the namedroppers list is probably your best place
> > (http://psg.com/lists/namedroppers and kudos to Randy Bush for bringing it
> > up)
> >
> >> 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?
> >
> > RFC 1591 is awfully late -- most key technical issues, as I recall, were
> > determined when RFC973 came out.
> >
> >> 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 m
> e
> >> 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?  Whe
> n,
> >> and with whom, was the actual decision made to ditch X.500 altogether?  Th
> is
> >> part of the story goes a long way to explaining why everyone in the world
> >> doesn't have a unique identifier.
> >
> > I have my theory on that subject -- I'll send you the relevant paper I wrot
> e
> > on the history of email, there's a brief discussion.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Craig
> >
> 
> -- 
> 
>    Dave Crocker
>    Brandenburg InternetWorking
>    bbiw.net
********************
Craig Partridge
Chief Scientist, BBN Technologies
E-mail: craig at aland.bbn.com or craig at bbn.com
Phone: +1 517 324 3425