Re: [sidr] adverse actions -01 posted

Tim Bruijnzeels <> Wed, 14 September 2016 08:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3797812B617 for <>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 01:56:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.408
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.408 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.508] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QJCfexybuqPp for <>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 01:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1371]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3687512B206 for <>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 01:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <>) id 1bk5zS-0003l8-Fc; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 10:56:24 +0200
Received: from ([] by with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1bk5zS-0005GT-A9; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 10:56:22 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Tim Bruijnzeels <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 10:56:22 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <alpine.WNT.2.00.1607272054380.15548@mw-PC> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Declan Ma <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-ACL-Warn: Delaying message
X-RIPE-Spam-Level: -----------
X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -11.6 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -7.5 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -2.2 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000]
X-RIPE-Signature: 784d7acfe6559f2a0b602ec6519a0719756d2015e6e300720fa6051e75bff9c7
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 08:56:32 -0000

Hi Di, WG,

This is the last email I will send on this subject.

> On 14 Sep 2016, at 10:39, Declan Ma <> wrote:
> Tim, 
> If a word is synonym of other word, it does’t means they two are semantically equivalent. Synonyms make sense in specific cases, not one-to-one mapping. 
> The term “adverse" doesn’t means “hostile" necessarily.  
> I checked "adverse”  with where you had got the explanation and synonym of “adverse".
> However, it says in Usage Note: “Adverse is seldom used of people but rather of effects or events, and it usually conveys a sense of hostility or harmfulness: adverse reviews; adverse winds; adverse trends in the economy. ”
> Note that:
> …..hostility “OR” harmfulness…… “adverse trends in the economy"
> The implication of “adverse” can be fairly employed to express harmful effects, as in “adverse trends in the economy”.

Here the term "adverse" is not used in conjunction with some autonomous phenomenon such as the economy or the weather. It's used in conjunction with the word "action" - which in itself often (no not necessarily, but often) refers to a conscious deed my an actor. #3 at -> "an act that one consciously wills and that may be characterized byphysical or mental activity"

> Besides, the term “adverse" in the RPKI context is clarified explicitly in the Introduction. I don’t see any confusion or misdirection happening.  

I understand that this is the opinion of the authors. I still disagree. A weaker word such as "unwanted" or "anomalous" can also be used - it is less likely to confuse a reader, and can be equally clarified in the introduction.

Again, let the chairs note that I cannot support the term "adverse" and take it from there.


> Di
>> 在 2016年9月14日,15:56,Tim Bruijnzeels <> 写道:
>> Hi Steve, WG,
>>> On 08 Sep 2016, at 16:28, Stephen Kent <> wrote:
>>> "anomaly" is better than "unwanted" in some respects, but it too fails to convey the fact that the anomaly has an adverse impact on the INR holder. It would be anomalous if a CA changed a cert to contain more resources than were supposed to be allocated to the INR holder, but if these resources are not in conflict with allocations to other INR holders, the effect is not adverse. [Maybe it becomes adverse when the bill arrives ;-)]
>>> I'm still reluctant to change the term given the changes I have already made to the text to note that a CA may engage in an action that is perceived as adverse by an INR holder, but the CA may be in the right in effecting this action.
>> Thank you for adding this text. I appreciate it and it helps.
>> 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.
>> 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.
>> Tim 
>>> Steve
>>>> I think using the term "RPKI anomalies" is another choice here. It's kind of neutral about cause/intention.
>>>> Advising/alerting the user community about -
>>>> RPKI anomalies may arise due to various reasons.
>>>> It could be due to fat fingers, negligence, or actions by your service provider or law enforcement, etc.
>>>> They have potential impacts on your routing, so you should be watchful, etc..
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sidr mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> sidr mailing list