[Blockchain-interop] Thoughts on unique DLT numbering/identification

Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@mit.edu> Fri, 09 October 2020 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <hardjono@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: blockchain-interop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: blockchain-interop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E07983A118F for <blockchain-interop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 11:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3-H1rIyKmFRH for <blockchain-interop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 11:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing-exchange-5.mit.edu (outgoing-exchange-5.mit.edu [18.9.28.59]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE0243A118C for <blockchain-interop@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 11:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oc11exedge2.exchange.mit.edu (OC11EXEDGE2.EXCHANGE.MIT.EDU [18.9.3.18]) by outgoing-exchange-5.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 099IfQC8004021 for <blockchain-interop@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 14:41:30 -0400
Received: from w92expo23.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.74.77) by oc11exedge2.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.3.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1293.2; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 14:40:55 -0400
Received: from oc11expo23.exchange.mit.edu (18.9.4.88) by w92expo23.exchange.mit.edu (18.7.74.77) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1365.1; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 14:41:22 -0400
Received: from oc11expo23.exchange.mit.edu ([18.9.4.88]) by oc11expo23.exchange.mit.edu ([18.9.4.88]) with mapi id 15.00.1365.000; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 14:41:22 -0400
From: Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@mit.edu>
To: "blockchain-interop@ietf.org" <blockchain-interop@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Thoughts on unique DLT numbering/identification
Thread-Index: AQHWnmurYC1vKWyIVkyrBd/ooNUmrA==
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 18:41:22 +0000
Message-ID: <6a6b1e0074c4416dada1bfab957b8371@oc11expo23.exchange.mit.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [73.167.220.69]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/blockchain-interop/gwhiLCXZpF-Z915YJTSsSy1FxRc>
Subject: [Blockchain-interop] Thoughts on unique DLT numbering/identification
X-BeenThere: blockchain-interop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Blockchain Gateway Interoperability Protocol <blockchain-interop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/blockchain-interop>, <mailto:blockchain-interop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/blockchain-interop/>
List-Post: <mailto:blockchain-interop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:blockchain-interop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/blockchain-interop>, <mailto:blockchain-interop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2020 18:41:34 -0000

One of the gaps or issues with blockchain systems or DLTs today is the lack of a globally unique and uniform numbering (identification) scheme for each system.

For example, if a community in one country is running its own network of nodes (using a version of Hyperledger or Quorum), and a different community in another country is using the same software-stack on a different set of nodes, there is no way for a machine today (e.g. client) to distinguish between these communities (networks).

There has been some proposals for numbering/identification of the entities (e.g. VASP number), but this does not cover the network as a whole.

Do we need something like ARIN registry to allocate AS-numbers for blockchain networks.


Thoughts anyone?

		

-- thomas --