On 22/05/2010, at 12:46 AM, Pradosh Mohapatra wrote:
> 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.
I disagree with this terminology change - there are three states that are
potential outcomes of the process, not two and the proposed terminology does
not accommodate this. I request that no change be made in terminology.
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
