Re: [sidr] adverse actions -01 posted

Stephen Kent <> Wed, 14 September 2016 20:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05CFE126FDC for <>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 13:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.921
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ej69iSoGyne3 for <>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 13:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1D8E120727 for <>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 13:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id u8EKBwx7020096 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 14 Sep 2016 20:11:59 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ( with ESMTPS id u8EKBwaZ001157 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 14 Sep 2016 20:11:58 GMT
Received: from ([]:33682 helo=COMSEC.fios-router.home) by with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1bkGXG-00006i-5i; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 16:11:58 -0400
From: Stephen Kent <>
To: Tim Bruijnzeels <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <alpine.WNT.2.00.1607272054380.15548@mw-PC> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 16:11:57 -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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-09-14_08:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=2 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1609020000 definitions=main-1609140261
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <>, sidr <>
Subject: Re: [sidr] adverse actions -01 posted
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 20:12:03 -0000


I'm happy to hear that you liked the revisions I made, several of which 
were suggested by Chris.

> However, I maintain that the term "adverse" has connotations that you 
> may not intend, but a significant proportion of readers will pick up 
> on. The first synonym on is actually 'hostile', and the 
> oxford thesaurus includes 'hostile' and 'antagonistic' for 'adverse' 
> in relation to a human response. 
Yes, the first synonym provided by that website is "hostile" but that 
term does not appear in the definition Other online dictionary 
definitions include:  preventing success or development, harmful, 
unfavorable, opposed to one's interest, causing harm ...

In the case of an attack, hostile is appropriate. In the case of an 
error or an action dictated by contract, hostile is not appropriate. But 
I think the text in the intro and abstract makes it clear which is which.
> This is why I, and others, suggested weaker terms. I still think "unwanted" can be used. I have no issue with "anomalous". But "adverse" I cannot support.
And I've explained why "unwanted" and "anomalous" are terms I cannot