Re: [sidr] adverse actions -01 posted

Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> Wed, 27 July 2016 20:13 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 83EFE12D501 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 13:13:38 -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 XrCG88dg66R1 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 13:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE2E112D500 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 13:13:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ssh.bbn.com ([192.1.122.15]:51431 helo=COMSEC.fios-router.home) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <kent@bbn.com>) id 1bSVCm-00054F-Pv; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 16:13:24 -0400
To: Matthias Waehlisch <m.waehlisch@fu-berlin.de>
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>
From: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Message-ID: <9b33dd4f-6361-626d-5e0b-fa6d4ba3b260@bbn.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 16:13:24 -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: <alpine.WNT.2.00.1607272054380.15548@mw-PC>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/Dy6u8co5UGBHFZysaia4pZDLa6Q>
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: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 20:13:38 -0000

Matthias,


> Hi Steve,
>
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2016, Stephen Kent wrote:
>
>> 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. What I see is Tim noting that the changes 
are unwanted by the INR holder. That's true, but the term evocative, 
i.e., it fails to communicate the fact that the changes adversely effect 
the INR holder.
> I just had a brief look into "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2"
> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4949), "corrupted" could be an
> alternative but I suppose it's still not light version.
Corruption usually implies an unauthorized change, an integrity 
violation. Suppression of an update to the RPKI repository system would 
not be accurately characterized as corruption, yet it is one of the 
actions we consider.

Steve