"anomaly" is better than "unwanted" in some respects, but it too fails
to convey the fact that the anomaly has an adverse impact on the INR
holder. It would be anomalous if a CA changed a cert to contain more
resources than were supposed to be allocated to the INR holder, but if
these resources are not in conflict with allocations to other INR
holders, the effect is not adverse. [Maybe it becomes adverse when the
bill arrives ;-)]
I'm still reluctant to change the term given the changes I have already
made to the text to note that a CA may engage in an action that is
perceived as adverse by an INR holder, but the CA may be in the right in
effecting this action.
Steve
I think using the term "RPKI anomalies" is another choice here. It's kind of
neutral about cause/intention.
Advising/alerting the user community about -
RPKI anomalies may arise due to various reasons.
It could be due to fat fingers, negligence, or actions by your service provider
or law enforcement, etc.
They have potential impacts on your routing, so you should be watchful, etc..
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
