Re: [sidr] adverse actions -01 posted

"Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <> Sat, 03 September 2016 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18F2A12D1CA for <>; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 07:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Je4AXBDUONqv for <>; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 07:56:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B981212D16B for <>; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 07:56:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector1-nist-gov; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=9AlXnR9iDsXnBMSiGIIV7PC0y6HahtOJHfBd69Fh2QY=; b=WSd/5+0DFSEcfCrOhKXXlBW59otCGbEkpRF5anCxqNkgO5IyeO11Zvil+EBfuVNJK28WbB2VOpJ6bxlA4Z5xtBn6/+opA5e0BFowTtW3Uof/+bwXhxF7O/e97Ei3CM8Ow2lUioI+BP6PgDlXP+knFzGtMSLmsTnbVloYB+YUO2A=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA_P384) id 15.1.587.9; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 14:56:33 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0587.019; Sat, 3 Sep 2016 14:56:33 +0000
From: "Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)" <>
To: Christopher Morrow <>, Stephen Kent <>
Thread-Topic: [sidr] adverse actions -01 posted
Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:56:33 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <alpine.WNT.2.00.1607272054380.15548@mw-PC> <> <> <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 23fab34c-9e7c-4f02-3b0d-08d3d40a7f3b
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DM2PR09MB0447; 6:wqqp88Tz1unMH7OsLOLxf0x0cR2VfFXnNqS1eDXdEPAimShN51UHJejiI/sIboH41ttP1r9W7EEaYjFq5j5lCYw9EcEOvIS8p7EWOulvY3NKHjUlWEWOe9QmxMnB7EoQky5R9I6i9gQwF6ENfZwZhMVWrzujpOTxQ8CnsC9RPw/9aS3zta/Ca+5h4WWZEKkJnRudI9qQyxFCcbjBd8BLtC51KFwWBtn7BCR5NgmTujXkUT/FxNMjKg5YQeAo1+pG6wjCuoUoZakpr2pnMSa/jIUzPjivjx9qQ/apI0nS/aeVW5GiRF6gliwBDjtoF7fGRJVCR7B1h+6h7KzB51+OOw==; 5:T8TFBYqCtIUkgktBtbEzOiZjoZq1ieaYEQe/NBnAzKJgXhpKJCXMtYAFJ/1E4I4ZwBlkYGBv82nx2UrU9fyPCqlba8lzMsLSDkPXoZLoQ+m+DmOdLPxnwdSh9Tnya52IKhX7YeK+/0AHVkXP+pU25g==; 24:jSFQ75jmp8VyPS4KjOWOqPKpif+mhz6hu0JaTEQ2UpJGy+iDfStv0qhr8QuRhseHJeumTWIMvMr5HaIX6RarfE7ur6oqF01R6Jpks3IvUxc=; 7:sRWTKfv1U9q8UCrRPnNdRdelo5ip100Serpgzd9Mfkhs9M6RkXYfehARa4s9NrHEK00xY/MM++VLUMm2AEq2RautnFfRm+I5meF8+IP14jpFF7oGKqkJKe7DdLzG2OOVdBeOSH9U6hC3TXrUehV9HLN1UuLhF7feu2ZNrLVPWIPlWfmJ1HKe5Wn6EG8qHKiHmoEL6x8gXk5/7kADGS0v5R+CN/JZHamgF1Fms4gRgW5GPFb5Q0Kcs8tfVfjGuteW
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DM2PR09MB0447;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040176)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026); SRVR:DM2PR09MB0447; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DM2PR09MB0447;
x-forefront-prvs: 00540983E2
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(7916002)(24454002)(199003)(377454003)(189002)(87936001)(93886004)(5660300001)(305945005)(92566002)(74316002)(11100500001)(3900700001)(4326007)(76576001)(19580395003)(586003)(8936002)(2900100001)(9686002)(54356999)(2950100001)(50986999)(76176999)(33656002)(3660700001)(66066001)(3846002)(2906002)(6116002)(3280700002)(5001770100001)(7846002)(97736004)(7736002)(68736007)(5002640100001)(102836003)(189998001)(101416001)(19580405001)(81156014)(81166006)(15975445007)(77096005)(7696003)(106356001)(122556002)(10400500002)(5890100001)(106116001)(99286002)(105586002)(8676002)(86362001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DM2PR09MB0447;; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Sep 2016 14:56:33.2315 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 2ab5d82f-d8fa-4797-a93e-054655c61dec
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM2PR09MB0447
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: Sat, 03 Sep 2016 14:56:38 -0000

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..

From: sidr <> on behalf of Christopher Morrow <>
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 5:24 PM
To: Stephen Kent
Cc: sidr
Subject: Re: [sidr] adverse actions -01 posted

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:54 PM, Stephen Kent <<>> wrote:
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

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.


sidr mailing list<>