On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:39 PM Nick Hilliard <nick@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote on 21/01/2021 16:00:
> Perhaps we should ask how registries can go wrong. Or maybe we should
> ask the IAB to consider this.I can think of a few problems:
>
> Integrity
> * Duplicate registrations
> * Unauthorized registration modification
> * Unpublished registrations
> * Inappropriate semantic mapping
>
> Availability
> * Rent seeking
> * Denial of service
> * Coercion by government
+ practical issues: insolvency, mismanagement, internal fraud, graft,
liabilities therefrom, corruption, threat of legal action due to
deregistration, threats from stakeholders / owners, etc.
> OK so there is one 'risk' that perhaps should be mentioned openly
> because it is likely the one of most concern to people, 'what are the
> unexpected uses of these addresses' or 'what else is PHB planning he is
> not telling us about'.
obviously raising prices 10x after lock-in has been achieved 👀
I wasn't asking for an exclusive. As with the WebPKI, anyone else can start up a registry allocating from a different prefix. I am only asking for 1 out of 16 million registry prefixes in that space.
Deregistration cannot take place in my technology model.
There's no shortage of failure modes.
> The registry concern that is rarely considered in IETF is what happens
> if there is no registry? There are two possibilities:
>
> 1) Innovation is put on hold until the registry is created.
> 2) People just create their own code points
>
> The second has occurred on countless occasions and sometimes between
> really big companies. Every hard drive has a unique identifier which is
> actually in the MAC address space. After asking nicely and getting the
> run-around, the drive makers just allocated themselves 1/16th of the
> total MAC address space.
does this matter to the IEEE? I.e. is this a MAC?
The IEEE didn't like it but they ended up having to make a big hole in their MAC allocation space to make room for it.
