On 2010.05.21. 23:19, Geoff Huston wrote:
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.
Geoff, you misunderstood. We proposed varified/unverified/unknown instead of
valid/invalid/unknown.
Robert
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
