Folks, Sorry, had weekend away from the keyboard.
On 22/05/10 12:46 AM, "Pradosh Mohapatra" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Terry, Robert, >> >> 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. Lets not be hasty :-) I think "verified" goes closer to what is intended. Thus, one would talk about a verified route as having a valid and matching ROA. Although un-verified is amiss. Calling on my poor grasp of english I think the natural antonym of 'verify' is 'refute'. I would propose 'refuted' in the place of unverified. Thus, based on the existence of a valid ROA a route can be refuted if originating from a spurious ASN (for example). That is we are disproving the route was intended but not asserting, in broad statements, that the route can't exist under some policy construct. You could, I think, leave "unknown" in place. However "unverified" strikes me as a better place to be, such that an unverifiable route does not have any existing valid ROAs to match against and not statement can be made about the route in any form. In an order of preference one might (when asserting their routing policy) choose: Verified, over Unverified, over Refuted. Cheers Terry _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
