On 2010.05.23. 0:14, Geoff Huston wrote:
And yes, my objection to the proposed terminology change still stands.
Geoff
My command of English is inherently inferior compared to yours, so I'll have
to give in in whatever you guys agree on.
Our difference of opinion may be because we're in
On 24/05/10 11:40 AM, "Robert Loomans" 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 t
i like good, bad, and ugly
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
At 2:11 AM -0700 5/24/10, Terry Manderson wrote:
...
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 syst
I remind everyone discussing the terminology in the draft that the current
question before the working group is whether the work should be adopted as
a work item.
It would be helpful if the terminology discussion could be separated from
the thread concerning adoption.
It would also be helpfu
> I remind everyone discussing the terminology in the draft that the current
> question before the working group is whether the work should be adopted as
> a work item.
>
> It would be helpful if the terminology discussion could be separated from
> the thread concerning adoption.
Forgot to say "speaking as wg chair"
--Sandy, speaking as wg chair
On Mon, 24 May 2010, Sandra Murphy wrote:
I remind everyone discussing the terminology in the draft that the current
question before the working group is whether the work should be adopted as a
work item.
It would be helpful
