Re: [sidr] adverse actions -01 posted

Stephen Kent <> Thu, 08 September 2016 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9EEA12B1A6 for <>; Thu, 8 Sep 2016 07:28:56 -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 WmF_G7lyfbXc for <>; Thu, 8 Sep 2016 07:28:54 -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 3759612B2A9 for <>; Thu, 8 Sep 2016 07:28:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id u88ESncl022138 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 8 Sep 2016 14:28:49 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ( with ESMTPS id u88ESmWu010890 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 8 Sep 2016 14:28:49 GMT
Received: from ([]:48848 helo=COMSEC.fios-router.home) by with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1bi0Js-000MBd-Kc; Thu, 08 Sep 2016 10:28:48 -0400
From: Stephen Kent <>
To: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <>, Christopher Morrow <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <alpine.WNT.2.00.1607272054380.15548@mw-PC> <> <> <> <> <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 10:28:48 -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=2016-09-08_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=8.0.1-1604210000 definitions=main-1609080208
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 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: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 14:28:57 -0000

"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.


> 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..