IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sidrops] WG-ADOPTION: draft-borchert-sidrops-rpki-state-unverified-01 - ENDS: 2019-03-12 (mar 12)

Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Wed, 27 February 2019 16:28 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@foobar.org>
X-Original-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C682E130FFB for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:28:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 ZTlvD3w_zjjK for <sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:28:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.netability.ie (mail.netability.ie [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 989AD130FF0 for <sidrops@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:28:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Envelope-To: sidrops@ietf.org
Received: from cupcake.local (089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netability.ie (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x1RGSSt1035408 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:28:29 GMT (envelope-from nick@foobar.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: cheesecake.ibn.ie: Host 089-101-195156.ntlworld.ie [89.101.195.156] (may be forged) claimed to be cupcake.local
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: Christopher Morrow <christopher.morrow@gmail.com>, sidrops@ietf.org
References: <CAL9jLaZOVBLt6tCrsh9dUZjW54n7t-e4Poqd6+fGZnxgn_yh=Q@mail.gmail.com> <m2d0nd5hos.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Message-ID: <ef5d1de5-94f3-dfc3-4df7-e3c539233166@foobar.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:28:27 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 PostboxApp/6.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <m2d0nd5hos.wl-randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/gJA7z1I0Lu7CJFqNzyMbo4gYgbg>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] WG-ADOPTION: draft-borchert-sidrops-rpki-state-unverified-01 - ENDS: 2019-03-12 (mar 12)
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <sidrops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidrops/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidrops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 16:28:35 -0000

Randy Bush wrote on 27/02/2019 16:17:
> bottom line: i care if it is valid.  i care if it is invalid.  i do not
> care why it could not be marked one or t'other.

Maybe the authors could describe use cases?  I can't see any situation 
where this flag might be useful, but hey, other people have different 
requirements on their networks.

nit: it would be better to use the term "unchecked" or "unevaluated" 
instead of "unverified".  Verification implies assignment of a value of 
truthfulness, which is not what this draft is about.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email