On 07/19/2015 05:27 AM, John R Levine wrote: >>> >> >> By this logic, using a FCFS 'registry' model implies at least enough >> information (if not a requirement) for some of tracking the registrant >> to confirm continued use, transfer, release or abandonment at the very >> least, no? > > To the extent that's practical, sure. There are plenty of existing IANA > entries that have little more than an e-mail address to contact for more > information. > > But once again, if we start inventing hoops for people to jump through, > they won't. That's counterproductive since we have no control over what > they're doing, so we'd like them to voluntarily tell us.
And you want to be careful about what you require. Some P2P overlay network developers try hard to not reveal their identity. Not to mention, developers may change. Who is in charge of BitCoin or NameCoin? By what authority? Let me know if you find out ;-). (Hint: you cannot, nobody is.) E-mail addresses also don't work well: mine has changed over the years. I2P "lost" control over its original DNS domain for many years, breaking e-mail and domain name references to the project. But, it was always possible to find it for those looking... So what's practically achievable is likely way less than what would be desireable.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
