Re: [sidr] adverse actions -01 posted

Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net> Wed, 14 September 2016 07:56 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@ripe.net>
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 3A08412B136 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.408
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.408 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.508] 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 VbLjzRri3tTE for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from molamola.ripe.net (molamola.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1371]) (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 2C06312B1FF for <sidr@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nene.ripe.net ([193.0.23.10]) by molamola.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <tim@ripe.net>) id 1bk539-000BJN-Rg; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:56:09 +0200
Received: from sslvpn.ripe.net ([193.0.20.230] helo=vpn-160.ripe.net) by nene.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <tim@ripe.net>) id 1bk539-0008HU-N5; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:56:07 +0200
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net>
In-Reply-To: <cb8752b3-cf1b-addf-fcc1-6c0dceb7b8fd@bbn.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:56:07 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4AE43CB1-9AD7-4315-9B8A-FB5D1C60C314@ripe.net>
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>
To: Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
X-ACL-Warn: Delaying message
X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---------
X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -9.0 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -7.5 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -2.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.4914]
X-RIPE-Signature: 784d7acfe6559f2a0b602ec6519a071964dcb030d5321cfe1d8f20a61b7d6a87
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidr/rvw2qnxcjMcnJVPxSiZHwoiSk8Q>
Cc: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi \(Fed\)" <kotikalapudi.sriram@nist.gov>, 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, 14 Sep 2016 07:56:18 -0000

Hi Steve, WG,

> On 08 Sep 2016, at 16:28, Stephen Kent <kent@bbn.com> wrote:
> 
> "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.

Thank you for adding this text. I appreciate it and it helps.

However, I maintain that the term "adverse" has connotations that you may not intend, but a significant proportion of readers will pick up on. The first synonym on dictionary.com is actually 'hostile', and the oxford thesaurus includes 'hostile' and 'antagonistic' for 'adverse' in relation to a human response.

This is why I, and others, suggested weaker terms. I still think "unwanted" can be used. I have no issue with "anomalous". But "adverse" I cannot support.

Tim 


> 
> Steve
> 
> 
>> 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..
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> sidr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr