Re: [sidr] adverse actions -01 posted

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Tue, 02 August 2016 19:54 UTC

Return-Path: <kent@bbn.com>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E1CB12D8ED for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 12:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.488
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.488 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, 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 61CpRGw9BeUN for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 12:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 626BE12D913 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 12:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ssh.bbn.com ([192.1.122.15]:35797 helo=COMSEC.fios-router.home) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1bUflK-000Hyv-99; Tue, 02 Aug 2016 15:54:02 -0400
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
References: <76dad5c8-114a-19fe-6fc2-cf3c45e0f666@bbn.com> <227BF007-90BD-4301-A349-FC01A1A5969A@ripe.net> <c9243c24-e976-c234-01c7-110c768ba0b6@bbn.com> <m2zip43s0q.wl%randy@psg.com> <afb4f8dc-3e29-c8fe-f8fe-2d7b2fcd7a1f@bbn.com> <alpine.WNT.2.00.1607272054380.15548@mw-PC> <9b33dd4f-6361-626d-5e0b-fa6d4ba3b260@bbn.com> <m260rq39ma.wl%randy@psg.com>
Message-ID: <de3222b6-98ec-3c87-5a68-101ee4f8f3a0@bbn.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 15:54:01 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <m260rq39ma.wl%randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/-9lqVyoNYvdxOV5mh3pv3VT8ZF0>
Cc: sidr <sidr@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sidr] adverse actions -01 posted
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidr/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 19:54:15 -0000

Randy
>>>> Tim offered no suggestion for a different term, which is not helpful.
>>> the suggestion was "unwanted".
>> I reread Tim's message; I don't interpret it as having suggested
>> "unwanted" as an alternative.
> that is clear.  others, such as matthias and i, did.  but this is not
> productive.
>
> to be clear, i hereby suggest s/adverse/unwanted/
I will process your suggestion in the same spirit that you continue to 
ignore my comments about revising the folksy language in the LTA use 
cases document.

The term "adverse" is appropriate here.

Contrary to Tim's assertion, it does not imply, ".. that for conscious 
actions by a parent CA against the will by a child CA, the parent is 
"wrong" and the child is "right."

"unwanted" is a wimpy term that fails to convey the fact that the 
actions have a negative impact on the INR holder.

Steve