Re: [sidr] adverse actions -01 posted

Stephen Kent <> Tue, 26 July 2016 18:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6641B12D904 for <>; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 11:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.488
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QBO35sY_kLyH for <>; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 11:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4503B12D903 for <>; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 11:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]:49622 helo=COMSEC.fios-router.home) by with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1bS7Hv-000NNv-Jv; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 14:41:07 -0400
From: Stephen Kent <>
To: Tim Bruijnzeels <>
References: <> <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 14:41:07 -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
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: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 18:41:25 -0000


> Hi Steve, list,
> I still have an issue with the word "adverse" used in this document, and especially the first line in the introduction:
>     In the context of this document, any change to the Resource Public
>     Key Infrastructure (RPKI) [RFC6480] that results in a diminution of
>     the set of Internet Numeric Resources (INRs) associated with an INR
>     holder contrary to the holder's wishes is termed "adverse".
> To me the word "adverse" communicates an unfavourable, possibly even malicious, action by an adversary.

The term adverse is appropriate as used in this document. When I look up 
the term I find the following primary definitions:

     unfavorable or antagonistic in purpose or effect, opposed to one's 
interests, causing harm, etc.

Synonyms include inimical and injurious.

These meanings are precisely what is intended here.

>   It implies that for conscious actions by a parent CA against the will by a child CA, the parent is "wrong" and the child is "right" (the victim of something that is "adverse").
You seem to be imposing your own interpretation here. Your description 
above is not consistent with dictionary definitions or normal English 
usage. There is no sense that an adversely affected entity is 
necessarily right.
> As I said earlier there are circumstances where we as RIPE NCC are bound to reclaim resources from holders against their will. And however "unwanted" this may be by the holder of the resources, this is not because we bear these holders any ill will (and actually in most cases there is no dispute). Reclaiming resources is based on policy discussed in a bottom-up policy development process in our address policy working group. Calling this "adverse" implies that the holder is "right", and RIPE NCC is "wrong" in these cases.
Use of the term does not imply that the INR holder is right and the CA 
is wrong. The fact that you keep using RIPE as the example CA suggests, 
to me, that you are biased and very defensive, in your interpretation of 
the term.
> I strongly believe that this document should not take sides. This may be what the authors intended in the first place, but then I would be much more comfortable if the word used was "unwanted". I believe this term is also more appropriate when the cause of the problem is unintentional (an error/glitch).
The term is appropriate irrespective of the source or motivation of the