Hi Terry, Robert,
> 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.
Ack. We will make this terminology change in the next revision of the draft.
- Pradosh
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
