[ih] DNS History

[John Day]

X.500 was more an attempt to be Google.  It was viewed by some as the 
white and yellow pages.  And after all isn't Google more and more 
just elaborate yellow pages?

Archie, Veronica, gopher, and www were all the same kettle of the 
fish.  There was little remarkable about the web until it got a 
browser.

At 16:45 -0800 2010/03/08, Richard Bennett wrote:
>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