Context
This proposal follows the plans that were outlined here (gradually opening up private subnets) →
The previous proposal of this sort was this one → Proposal: 134334 - ICP Dashboard
Proposal 134498
I’ve voted to adopt. The proposal sets the io67a subnet to public (it’s currently private). This means anyone will be able to deploy to this subnet. It’s a small subnet with very few canisters and very little memory usage. Looks like a good candidate for making public.
There are also 4 subnets that are being made private with this proposal, due to passing the threshold of 300 GB in memory usage (this means canisters will not be able to be deployed to those subnets unless the principal is explicitly authorised by NNS proposal, or already has a canister in the subnet). These changes are detailed in the table below, followed by some questions.
Depending on the size of your screen, you may need to use the arrow keys to scroll right and see all columns of the table (after clicking on the table).
| Subnet id | Subnet Type | Public | Authorised Principals | Last Changed | Canisters | Memory Usage | Proposal Action and Claims |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| io67a | Verified Application | pr42y + EVERYONE | 141 | 0.532 GB | Subnet Type: Verified Application, Public: false ⇒ true | ||
| wyzjx + EVERYONE | |||||||
| xiwzc + EVERYONE | |||||||
| mpubz | Application | 2024-12-02 by 134334 | 54,985 | 317.019 GB | Subnet Type: Application, Public: true ⇒ false, Subnet has more than 300 GiB state size | ||
| pr42y | |||||||
| nl6hn | Application | 2024-12-02 by 134334 | 31,252 | 316.527 GB | Subnet Type: Application, Public: true ⇒ false, Subnet has more than 300 GiB state size | ||
| o3ow2 | Application | 2024-12-02 by 134334 | 56,244 | 516.721 GB | Subnet Type: Application, Public: true ⇒ false, Subnet has more than 300 GiB state size | ||
| opn46 | Application | 2024-12-02 by 134334 | 39,501 | 366.461 GB | Subnet Type: Application, Public: true ⇒ false, Subnet has more than 300 GiB state size | ||
| pr42y |
@DRE-Team, after this proposal executes pr42y will have privileged deployment access to opn46 and mpubz (as illustrated in the table above). Is this intended, and can I ask who or what team this principal represents? (if this isn’t known, I would suggest the privilege should be removed)
Note that if io67a is made private again in the future, there will be three principals that will still retain priviledged deployment access (also illustrated in the table above).