Tim,
Although I appreciate that Randy is trying to explain the case in
terms anyone can understand, it would be preferable to keep it general.
agreed.
(Including a parenthetical note about the historical precedent of a
Dutch court order involving RIPE is relevant and might be included.)
If there was such a precedent, but there isn't. I have raised this
before, but again...
I am familiar with the incident. While it is true that the court did not
order RIPE to do anything with RPKI data, the precedent it set has often
been cited as an indication of what might happen in the future. That's
why the adverse actions document identifies the following cause for some
types of actions:
There is also the possibility that a CA or repository operator may
be subject to legal measures that compel them to generate "bogus"
signed objects or remove legitimate repository data.
This is the sort of more formal language I have encouraged Randy to use
in the LTA use cases doc, to no avail.
Steve
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
