Re: [sidr] adverse actions -01 posted

Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> Fri, 02 September 2016 21:24 UTC

Return-Path: <christopher.morrow@gmail.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 3222B12D559 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 14:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 W61hmzKG5wui for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 14:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x231.google.com (mail-qk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6D4812D54F for <sidr@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 14:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id l2so133911801qkf.3 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 14:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=AS/E8JBVKKItGTku/ImAGDmjdQcyBp6OLd5f6wfCY2Q=; b=rieyI0j6dLzYo5d0DMQTFrwuOm7zkyEJdwzp411OWxrdkRKS6l7I2X2OYHpTpbaclr N3AbCxVTqCLTj2Q0bsMtA42yjMf658UG9JXISj9WTv0sqLSxO4gAqTBI/NfPLQeZ3LeH vc1GYu926ni7HF599ptUJnZmyc+7USnnRgoRKbiwS0OeEXY24PAQFvlfb+Hwmh9sZGmm h/sBHuGHrlURs3OQjVn7Am9kYgxYWtmSeba0GOx89vYo9O2Cy9cLsVVEhazTnKfTPCHi Yh/fl5X5xFVhwlmg7FvgT7LsnRWWNTc7S2yiBaJYL+iMN23mHjrnOcSMewjfEZ9QsdWE Bpzg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=AS/E8JBVKKItGTku/ImAGDmjdQcyBp6OLd5f6wfCY2Q=; b=PJFo5r6g7e3IpgsMxTA528oywsZIUJLxbrnU7VAcvFiHgLvNOVD2pX20C7EaNiR+ni 8DnGijNtURr0J1EBKJsow0G3WbOKNE5AsZvfpAoAvTu3RIMwQ47ZnIT6QOlLniPhXjA8 /9PCDisk1cUi1uZlWjkmKLDObwM68rrHhT5PXO9EZTbivO6g7hOblk5oQHBB+jbTZhIL Eb2nhbuxIEWn16pt03UYKag55yNGSZ4kSpH2nBhJhC91tnt+YNrGXBiX+nG1+c5iC2o5 1dBYIQE+X4GIHhUHfle6hHP7njjGIyyGfhpV5wsGPDhYkOtNF354T6pAX9PcsTIFBUG3 0D0g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwNqG8aKmBHRoFWxUi31h7geeINzCqGGAh/sPahUQdGmw8d9btBOlI+bvFlr9gzix0Aw5cxqqiuPaD33hg==
X-Received: by 10.55.120.2 with SMTP id t2mr25218807qkc.62.1472851491046; Fri, 02 Sep 2016 14:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: christopher.morrow@gmail.com
Received: by 10.140.85.116 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Sep 2016 14:24:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <de3222b6-98ec-3c87-5a68-101ee4f8f3a0@bbn.com>
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>
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 17:24:50 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: yvQXyRz3F-oNE293t8ceaky3fmo
Message-ID: <CAL9jLaZ4Y2oK7Y9=EA8L+XpmBYB-RK_J9fCT8+JTb7PCxZ8zXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c05dd8cee4e8e053b8cf55a
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/lv3itNrgEoNifoGiPrGQsyiZezg>
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, 02 Sep 2016 21:24:54 -0000

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> wrote:

> Randy
>
>> 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.
>>>
>> that is clear.  others, such as matthias and i, did.  but this is not
>> productive.
>>
>> to be clear, i hereby suggest s/adverse/unwanted/
>>
> I will process your suggestion in the same spirit that you continue to
> ignore my comments about revising the folksy language in the LTA use cases
> document.
>
> The term "adverse" is appropriate here.
>
>
The discussion here seems to be about (though I haven't seen this word
used) connotations attached to 'adverse'.  'by the english definition'
 adverse may be correct. It may be worth using 'unwanted' though to avoid
the connotations associated with 'adverse' ?

Is the point here that occasionally a parent my ask you to eat your peas,
while you don't enjoy that thought?


> Contrary to Tim's assertion, it does not imply, ".. that for conscious
> actions by a parent CA against the will by a child CA, the parent is
> "wrong" and the child is "right."
>
> "unwanted" is a wimpy term that fails to convey the fact that the actions
> have a negative impact on the INR holder.
>
> Steve
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>