[ih] DNS History

[Richard Bennett]

Wasn't all that Archie and Veronica stuff an attempt to provide the 
Internet with a directory service?

On 3/8/2010 2:15 PM, Craig Partridge wrote:
> 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
>    

-- 
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC