On 24/05/10 11:40 AM, "Robert Loomans" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Refuted" definitely has the right connotations. > > I'm not fond of "unverified"... if "unknown" is not acceptable, > perhaps "undetermined" is a good term. > I can live with "unknown". > I still have reservations about using different terms than other > drafts. I would prefer to see one set of terminology for results from > the RPKI. Hopefully, one that doesn't conflict with other PKI usage. One problem I think exists is that the desire to take strong security constructs and taxonomies seen in PKI models where a certificate status is binary (it either validates or does not) doesn't, in my opinion, mesh perfectly to the routing system where we have all these fantastic grey areas that involve preferences, policy, contracts, and so forth. I agree that whenever you speak of a PKI certificate validation you should use the matching language - but when it spills onto the PKI::Routing merge I'm decidedly uncomfortable with the valid/invalid terms. (aside: as a navel-gazing exercise I've wondered about the wisdom of linking the allocation system to the routing system ... I digress, sorry) Cheers Terry _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
