[ih] DNS History

[John Day]

That was the limited view that CCITT and IFIP WG6.5 brought to it. 
If I remember right, the work of IFIP WG6 was significantly 
diminished after 79.  IFIP was only a liaison organization to ISO (as 
opposed to a Member Body) and had no real  relation with CCITT.  I 
don't think there were liaison representatives to CCITT.

Discussions of the directory and what would be in the NWI were 
initiated as a result of the work on the Naming and Addressing Part 
of the Model.  (Although, the Naming and Addressing Part just 
provided the official impetus for something that had been in the plan 
for some time. ) The IFIP contribution was merely one feeder into 
that broader work.  From the point of the model, the primary purpose 
of the Directory was application name to address mapping.  Anything 
beyond that was gravy.


At 19:20 -0800 2010/03/08, Dave Crocker wrote:
>On 3/8/2010 7:09 PM, John Day wrote:
>>Ah, yes, Dave attending one design session would certainly be
>>definitive. Whereas, I was probably in only 50-100+ X.500 related
>>meetings from before it was even a Work Item or it was known as X.500
>>and was the designated arbiter by SC21 on some of their more
>>controversial issues. But then what would I know?
>
>That's probably the disconnect.
>
>The meetings I went to were before that.  They well might have been 
>IFIP WG 6.5 meetings, feeding into the start of the ISO/CCITT 
>effort, since for example I didn't go to Geneva.  This was the same 
>model as had been done for what became x.400 (but was initially 
>known as X.MHS during the first round of specification.)
>
>>>>>attributes would be needed to distinguish the target user. Since if
>>>>>flowed from X.400, the concept of a simple, global, unique email
>>>>>address was already a lost cause. (Your global address was
>>>>
>>>>Actually it didn't flow from X.400, it was just the same people. The
>>>>plan to a directory was in place from early on.
>>>
>>>It came directly from needing to find email addresses. It was not an
>>>accident that it was the same people. They knew that X.400 addresses
>>>were unwieldy and they knew that the global scale of an email service
>>>required some way of finding addresses.\
>>
>>As I said, actually it didn't. That was later as the scope expanded.
>
>Which is quite strange, since it was the only focus on the initial 
>discussions.
>
>>>(Odd historical note, given your citing him: John White wrote an early
>>>Arpanet NCP implementation for an IBM 360, at UC Santa Barbara. I've
>>>heard rumors that it was the first NCP that was operational.)
>>
>>Jack White was at SRI in the early days and was responsible for much of
>>the NSW.
>
>John was first at UCSB.  He moved to SRI later.   While he was 
>there, around 1980, he supervised a CMU summer student who created 
>the RPC scheme that you love.
>
>This was during the IFIP WG 6.5 discussions that were starting up 
>the X.400 effort.
>
>>Really. I don't remember seeing your name on any of the delegate lists
>>representing the US. Once again, I think you only perceived them to the
>>be the formative discussions. Discussions had been going on for some time.
>
>Yes they had.
>
>d/
>--
>
>   Dave Crocker
>   Brandenburg InternetWorking
>   bbiw.net