On Mar 12, 2013, at 7:36 PM, David Conrad <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 2013, at 4:21 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: >> The choice of going with a single registry with neither competition or nor >> elected >> oversight may also work, but places enormous faith in the enduring best >> intentions >> of the enlightened and benevolent overseers, particularly once there is >> significant >> usage and a complete lack of viable alternatives. > > I dunno -- IANA seems to have done pretty well with the 1000+ protocol > parameter registries they manage with lightweight oversight by the IETF/IESG. Indeed. While I don't believe any of the parameter registries are as widespread and pervasive as what is intended with EIDs, there is no reason to believe such scale isn't achievable. I was only noting that the reasons expressed on the list for having a registry/registrar split included more than just "scalability". FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. This email sold by conceptual weight not volume. _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
