[ih] DNS History

[Richard Bennett]

Could you say the same thing about X.500?

On 3/8/2010 4:25 PM, Craig Partridge wrote:
> Nope -- early attempt to do the web.
>
>    
>> 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 t
>>>>          
>> he
>>      
>>>> 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.  Thi
>>>>          
>> s
>>      
>>>> 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 giv
>>>>          
>> en
>>      
>>>> the
>>>> /full/ domain name, rather than some incrementally stripped version and Jo
>>>>          
>> n
>>      
>>>> 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?  W
>>>>>>              
>> er
>>      
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              
>>>> e
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>>>> they hard-copies that no longer exist, or mailing lists that have been
>>>>>> tucked away somewhere?  Is there any correspondence left (for DNS relate
>>>>>>              
>> d
>>      
>>>>>> RFCs) or has it all been lost?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              
>>>>> There was no formal comment system (nor is there now).  But there were lo
>>>>>            
>> ts
>>      
>>>>> 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 i
>>>>>            
>> t
>>      
>>>>> 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 resear
>>>>>>              
>> ch
>>      
>>>>>> 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 paradi
>>>>>>              
>> gm
>>      
>>>>>> (white pages / old telecom) and seen as a bulky and slow alternative?  W
>>>>>>              
>> he
>>      
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              
>>>> 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 worl
>>>>>>              
>> d
>>      
>>>>>> doesn't have a unique identifier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              
>>>>> I have my theory on that subject -- I'll send you the relevant paper I wr
>>>>>            
>> ot
>>      
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> 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
>>      
> ********************
> 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