Re: [sidr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions-03.txt> (Adverse Actions by a Certification Authority (CA) or Repository Manager in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)) to Informational RFC
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Wed, 21 December 2016 00:36 UTC
Return-Path: <randy@psg.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 C444512965B; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 16:36:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1, 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 bxY70Ur9qE8Z; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 16:36:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (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 BED4D129579; Tue, 20 Dec 2016 16:36:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1cJUto-0002xQ-Pi; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 00:36:53 +0000
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 09:36:50 +0900
Message-ID: <m2tw9ym82l.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] Last Call: <draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions-03.txt> (Adverse Actions by a Certification Authority (CA) or Repository Manager in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)) to Informational RFC
In-Reply-To: <148227568116.23845.9629515365054901514.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <148227568116.23845.9629515365054901514.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.5 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/cMnJ8877lA00howG5eqb8j1YITM>
Cc: IETF Rinse Repeat <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 21 Dec 2016 00:36:56 -0000
> The IESG has received a request from the Secure Inter-Domain Routing WG > (sidr) to consider the following document: > - 'Adverse Actions by a Certification Authority (CA) or Repository > Manager in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)' > <draft-ietf-sidr-adverse-actions-03.txt> as Informational RFC as was repeated many times in the wg, a non-trivial number of the 'actions' in this document are normal operational practice, not actions by an attacker directed at a victim. the use of "adverse" misleads the reader and can cause folk to be told their practice is incorrect or an attack when it is not, or cause the document to be written off in its entirety by the ops community. that's a "no," by the way. randy