[ih] .UK vs .GB
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Sun Apr 15 21:55:00 PDT 2018
Yes. At CERN we were gatewaying email between DECNET, "ARPANET", Grey Book,
EUNET (aka USENET), RSCS (aka EARN aka BITNET), and of course a little
X.400 (using Steve Kille's EAN).
Here's how we believed an "ARPA" user would send mail to a CERN user in 1987:
user%host%cernvax.bitnet at wiscvm.wisc.edu
(Non-paywall preprint of the paper: http://cds.cern.ch/record/182913/files/ )
Brian
On 16/04/2018 08:44, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
> Dear Vint,
>
> the dates are indeed similar.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloured_Book_protocols
>
> They were indeed contemporary. And when I used them on DEC VAX, the
> address was something of the like: CBS%UK.AC.KCL.CC.ELM::ZDEE699 --
> which would be ZDEE699 at UK.AC.KCL.CC.ELM
> (my then email address :-) )
> To send to an Internet address: (you for example)
> CBS%UK.AC.NSFNET-RELAY::us.va.reston.cnri::vcerf
>
> Sending to an X.400, one had to start with:
> CBS%UK.AC.MHS-RELAY::
> with the rest in quotes. Often the parser in the return made an absolute
> mess with X.400 sourced emails.
>
> Also, note that CBS also accepted bang! paths, but the difference
> between the % and @ delimiters in specifically routed emails for
> example, vcerf%cnri.reston.va.us at nsfnet-relay.ac.uk didn't exist, thus
> it was :: all the way.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Olivier
>
> ps. the "transition" came when one ran TCP-IP over X.25.
>
> On 15/04/2018 21:03, Vint Cerf wrote:
>> does anyone on the list recall the rough dates for the "Colored Book
>> Protocol" ? Seems possible that these were at least contemporary with
>> DNS and UCL was confronted with the need to translate between those
>> and the ARPANET and/or Internet protocols of the time.
>>
>> v
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Eric Gade <eric.gade at gmail.com
>> <mailto:eric.gade at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Also worth noting that in a May 1984 draft of RFC 920 (and a few
>> drafts prior to this going back to April), ISO-3166 was *not*
>> specified as a set for potential TLDs, but .UK *was* given as an
>> example. In fact, the inclusion of UK was used by many
>> participants discussing the draft to argue in favor of both a
>> country-based set of TLDs and a more generic set (note that these
>> early drafts used .PUB and .COR instead of .COM and .ORG). It was
>> sometime between May and July that the ISO list was proposed as
>> the ccTLD set.
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 11:02 AM, John Klensin <jklensin at gmail.com
>> <mailto:jklensin at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, Nigel, I should (for several reasons) have remembered that
>> comment in RFC 920, but my recollection is still consistent
>> with that
>> document and your list. That timeline list is, IMO, extremely
>> useful
>> and far more accessible (and, IIR, comprehensive) that the Park
>> dissertation.
>>
>> john
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Nigel Roberts
>> <nigel at channelisles.net <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>> wrote:
>> > Far be it from me to be seen to clarify John's first hand
>> knowledge of
>> > RFC 1591, but it's worth pointing out that the decision to use
>> > ISO-3166-1 was not first documented in RFC 1591, but already
>> in RFC 920
>> > (October 1984) as follows
>> >
>> >> Countries
>> >>
>> >> The English two letter code (alpha-2) identifying a country
>> according the the ISO Standard for "Codes for the
>> Representation of Names of Countries" [5].
>> >>
>> >> As yet no country domains have been established. As they
>> are established information about the administrators and
>> agents will be made public, and will be listed in subsequent
>> editions of this memo."
>> >>
>> >
>> > Stephen Deerhake and I put together an (as yet unfinished)
>> hyperlinked
>> > timeline of the DNS quite recently. Even though there are
>> some places
>> > where the editing is still a little rough, I think there is
>> some useful
>> > stuff which is not easily accessible otherwise.
>> >
>> > You can find it at http://timeline.as
>> >
>> > It does need a little work, and we need to move it from
>> using TikiWiki
>> > (which seemed like a good idea at the time) to something
>> faster, but
>> > there are some interesting things there...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 04/15/2018 02:13 PM, John Klensin wrote:
>> >>> The only explanation I got orally was that "GB stands for
>> Great Britain, while UK stands for United Kingdom of Great
>> Britain and the Northern Ireland".
>> >>>
>> >>> That was enough for me. Don't even remember who explained
>> it, but it was around the famous entry of .CS into the root
>> zone that created the "interesting" situation with
>> CS.BERKELEY.EDU <http://CS.BERKELEY.EDU> (and others) and
>> massive weird extra hacking in sendmail.cf
>> <http://sendmail.cf> due to the Janet "reverse" order of
>> labels in a domain name.
>> >>
>> >> Let me try an even less complicated one, based on what I
>> was told when
>> >> we were evaluating what became the decision to use ISO 3166
>> alpha-2
>> >> codes: The country code system started because of a
>> request from the
>> >> UK to be able to manage their own DNS hierarchy rather than
>> depending
>> >> on a US-based organization to manage the TLD. The ccTLDs
>> are US and
>> >> UK were decided upon (and possibly delegated) before other
>> >> administrative decisions about ccTLDs were made and "UK"
>> was what they
>> >> asked for.
>> >>
>> >> FWIW: (1) While RFC 1591 was not published until 1994, it,
>> for the
>> >> most part, described thinking and procedures that had had
>> been in
>> >> place for years rather than anything of significant that
>> was novel.
>> >> (2) YJ Park, whom some of you may know, tried to sort
>> though all of
>> >> these issues and history while working on her
>> dissertation. The
>> >> search for answers to questions of this type might
>> reasonably start
>> >> with her and that dissertation. That should lead to some
>> context and
>> >> references even where she does not have exact answers.
>> >>
>> >> john
>> >>
>> >> _______
>> >> internet-history mailing list
>> >> internet-history at postel.org
>> <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
>> >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
>> >> Contact list-owner at postel.org
>> <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> for assistance.
>> >>
>> > _______
>> > internet-history mailing list
>> > internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
>> > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
>> > Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org>
>> for assistance.
>>
>> _______
>> internet-history mailing list
>> internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
>> Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org>
>> for assistance.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Eric
>>
>> _______
>> internet-history mailing list
>> internet-history at postel.org <mailto:internet-history at postel.org>
>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> <http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history>
>> Contact list-owner at postel.org <mailto:list-owner at postel.org> for
>> assistance.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> New postal address:
>> Google
>> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor
>> Reston, VA 20190
>>
>>
>> _______
>> internet-history mailing list
>> internet-history at postel.org
>> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
>> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>
>
>
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>
More information about the Internet-history
mailing list