Re: [sidr] adverse actions -01 posted

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