Re: new RRTYPEs, was DNSSEC architecture vs reality

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Wed, 14 April 2021 19:57 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23FE03A1DCD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.387
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.387 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 B8PhVgcPSeNI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-f173.google.com (mail-yb1-f173.google.com [209.85.219.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62A163A1DF3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-f173.google.com with SMTP id v3so21152652ybi.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=wYrYtCCJ4M5dzwe/lGmwX9f1J7/sp7Mg4Qh+HI617uM=; b=lsDXt7cHLbYsMVa0nbx4ut2QnGcojte1X2/rmnMnQN2SmjgArQKiQTcT//zw3URlFS eOICrAUdbKPfXgRFgtHV+4y+bQ5u55aOB9TP0u/m9WOBvlrIzmUxqJNmKbR/aChljVmV dTzm8ZmFWtQxCXQwZIm+lYz2kfyUesk1loel1m6b3hungB6IZ1IWzN5k54HNEezvfC5t LVV2xAflE+Hq2UJcMs5jwRNP7BbFrctTCzCPpyKq+8hF5rI1N6LguBymagrerXRBfdQO IfH3ADgD96V72fhxmopodaDkNBK4QP9FpLCUladKLrGF9GKBADkTpxX/Xdsm/9UtD1w5 qsag==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533QY1WZb9PPkSuUV8V+BpgFC36xN20b5V88gRSWM1Ok7HiSe0Bj g/6chzzFmM6t3N9TENOq/ebr56MzoQnp4BWhmy4rmNGc
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJznOqefq0JgvblhulROwc5se9eK24IX1bVctdWZl2R+WYag4uYKcPOuVvLIf3R3pv4EQEBCenESmJK9g7jSn3E=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d051:: with SMTP id h78mr22714200ybg.497.1618430272228; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210413015000.9297272C47BA@ary.qy> <C8C39247-226E-4C78-88E8-3AC215F2FF21@isc.org> <1c90249a-a9ad-52dd-bbc5-5e4bc6e6bdf@taugh.com> <CAMm+LwhEmiQOYtP807n2Gm2MKq7cGhMoCB_hkJxPZCQ9uatW8Q@mail.gmail.com> <YHdE/p3Oz5f6PVa2@straasha.imrryr.org>
In-Reply-To: <YHdE/p3Oz5f6PVa2@straasha.imrryr.org>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 15:57:39 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwj0BAb6nNQT13xT06jgEYA=pBh1OpPhiK2PQ_4CtfbHPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: new RRTYPEs, was DNSSEC architecture vs reality
To: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000078526a05bff429e7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/G1YKz2Hx-33edN3S8sYA5MoaA-g>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:58:04 -0000

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:40 PM Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 12:48:05PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
> > The parts I don't like in DNS are the root and the need to rent your
> > name for $10/yr. What if the cost was $0.10 for life?
>
> Then on a modest budget for many folks on this list, one could buy up
> and squat on the likely most popular 50,000 to 100,000 names.
>
> So it would seem that either the names are memorable mnemonics, and thus
> some much more valuable than others, or they're less valuable by being
> less usable.  The $0.10 for life does not sound realistic, unless all
> the names are essentially high-entropy random serial numbers.
>

Well I did predict that nobody would read the draft.

The cost of providing service is less than $0.10

I propose to sell names of 9 characters or more for $0.10, increasing by a
factor of 10x for each character less than 9.

So @a is $10 million, @alice is $1,000, @bob is $100,000 and so on. (or
would be only @alice and @bob are reserved names for examples.) The best
names tend to be shorter names and so the cost would be quite a bit higher
but that is just making sure that we don't leave too much money on the
table while giving people incentive to market Mesh names (and thus the
Mesh).

Yes, this does leave money on the table but I reckon that there Mesh
foundation needs an income of about $10 million /year to do what I want it
to achieve. Running the registry should cost less than a million. The rest
will go to funding open source specs and reference code, funding
conferences, etc. etc.

No, as they put it in the Godfather, I am not a communist. The not for
profit registry is separate from my for-profit Mesh Service Provider and
apps businesses.

The tricky part here will be to make sure that certain names with valid IPR
claims end up in the right place. Obviously, @microsoft, @apple, @cisco
etc. have to go to the right place or there is a security issue. But again,
read the draft.