Re: [sidr] adverse actions -01 posted

John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> Fri, 16 September 2016 12:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jcurran@istaff.org>
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 2C40312B252 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 05:04:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] 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 iGjuXk26g5XB for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 05:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pmta2.delivery5.ore.mailhop.org (pmta2.delivery5.ore.mailhop.org [54.186.218.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED90C12B24D for <sidr@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 05:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-MHO-User: d3253557-7c05-11e6-a6cb-494f8443c808
X-Report-Abuse-To: https://support.duocircle.com/support/solutions/articles/5000540958-duocircle-standard-smtp-abuse-information
X-Originating-IP: 100.36.32.126
X-Mail-Handler: DuoCircle Outbound SMTP
Received: from geode.istaff.org (unknown [100.36.32.126]) by outbound2.ore.mailhop.org (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTPSA; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 12:05:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by geode.istaff.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 249AA162A4F; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 08:04:50 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at istaff.org
Received: from geode.istaff.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (geode.istaff.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O3ELZyHFbVel; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 08:04:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fullerite.fios-router.home (reston-gw.fios-router.home [192.168.100.1]) by geode.istaff.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 883F0162A34; Fri, 16 Sep 2016 08:04:49 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E08FA149-59CE-44C4-A856-66DDFEC9AA64"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
In-Reply-To: <65C8B8D1-36EB-41AF-9239-79B49EFCD169@ripe.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 08:04:49 -0400
Message-Id: <8AEE8C20-6EA7-4A22-95ED-71ABA13EE84D@istaff.org>
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> <de3222b6-98ec-3c87-5a68-101ee4f8f3a0@bbn.com> <CAL9jLaZ4Y2oK7Y9=EA8L+XpmBYB-RK_J9fCT8+JTb7PCxZ8zXA@mail.gmail.com> <DM2PR09MB0446F23D2A61F782077406F084E40@DM2PR09MB0446.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <cb8752b3-cf1b-addf-fcc1-6c0dceb7b8fd@bbn.com> <4AE43CB1-9AD7-4315-9B8A-FB5D1C60C314@ripe.net> <FBBE99C2-851C-4541-8D25-6A121CA8144C@zdns.cn> <65C8B8D1-36EB-41AF-9239-79B49EFCD169@ripe.net>
To: Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/VTq4opNYlvjtximswINjhGa2Sd4>
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: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 12:04:55 -0000

On Sep 14, 2016, at 4:56 AM, Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net> wrote:
> ...
> 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.

Tim - 
  
   I have no view on this matter either way, but am seeking clarity on your objection
   to the term “adverse” in the document - is it with regard to simply the title of the 
   document, or also with regard to the usage of the term in text of the document 
   itself?   (the former would represent a minor change, whereas the latter would  
   require more a significant change to resolve.)

Thanks,
/John

p.s. my views alone - not necessarily even worth the electrons used in transport