On 2010.05.18. 7:49, Terry Manderson wrote:
I support the adoption and willing to review....and I have some concerns about the terms of "valid", "invalid". ("Unknown" I like). This may only be semantics, but the valid and invalid terms convey more than a preference level. IE if a database prefix set covers an UPDATE prefix then the UPDATE route, in my mind, would be preferred over one that was, using the draft notation, 'invalid'. It may be that my concern shouldn't be covered in pfx-validate, or the use of valid and invalid should be constrained to just talking about the RPKI validation result, and different terminology used when matching UPDATE prefixes to RPKI validation result sets. Or the section on policy might need to be expanded. Cheers Terry
I agree with Terry on this one. I'd personally be much happier with verified/unverified instead of valid/invalid. These terms are much closer to what we really mean.
Robert _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
