Hi Steve, WG, > On 08 Sep 2016, at 16:28, Stephen Kent <[email protected]> wrote: > > "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.
Thank you for adding this text. I appreciate it and it helps. However, I maintain that the term "adverse" has connotations that you may not intend, but a significant proportion of readers will pick up on. The first synonym on dictionary.com is actually 'hostile', and the oxford thesaurus includes 'hostile' and 'antagonistic' for 'adverse' in relation to a human response. This is why I, and others, suggested weaker terms. I still think "unwanted" can be used. I have no issue with "anomalous". But "adverse" I cannot support. Tim > > 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 _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
