Re: Use of "unassigned" in IANA registries

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[e-mail]>wrote:

> On 14 jan 2011, at 23:06, Martin Rex wrote:
>
> > Frankly, I'm actually more concerned about code assignments for
> > severely IPR-impaired algorithms (e.g. Elliptic Curve related)
> > than about GOST.  (Admittedly, the GOST 34.10-2001 signature
> > algorithm appears to use Elliptic curve math, and it's entirely
> > unclear to me whether and how existing EC-related IPR claims might
> > apply.)
>
> Withholding registration just means that people are going to pick an
> unregistered number with all the problems that that entails. In cases where
> there are no scarcity issues registration should happen as long as there is
> a reasonable expectation of non-negligible use, regardless of whether the
> registered protocol is endorsed by the IETF (whatever that means) or IANA.


+1

If people think that IANA is a tool they can use to impose their own
personal political agenda on the Internet, they are mistaken.

Here we have a proposal to enforce a particular royalty free agenda. Some
Internet users might support such an agenda but most don't even understand
what the argument would be about.

It is very easy to accept the idea of someone imposing a political agenda
you agree with. But what if the agenda turned out to be something else? What
happens if the representation from authoritarian leaning countries increases
and there is a group of people who agree on the need to fight 'information
terrorism' as defined in the SCO treaty.

All that is necessary to keep the Internet open is to prevent any party from
gaining control.

And the best way to prevent that is to ensure that there is no control
point.



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/