On 24/05/10 11:40 AM, Robert Loomans robe...@apnic.net 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
i like good, bad, and ugly
___
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
Folks,
Sorry, had weekend away from the keyboard.
On 22/05/10 12:46 AM, Pradosh Mohapatra pmoha...@cisco.com wrote:
Hi Terry, Robert,
I agree with Terry on this one. I'd personally be much happier with
verified/unverified instead of valid/invalid. These terms are much closer to
what we
Refuted definitely has the right connotations.
I'm not fond of unverified... if unknown is not acceptable,
perhaps undetermined is a good term.
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.
I disagree with this terminology change - there are three states that are
potential outcomes of the process, not two and the proposed terminology
does not accommodate this. I request that no change be made in
terminology.
Geoff, you misunderstood. We proposed varified/unverified/unknown
On 22/05/2010, at 20:08, Robert Kisteleki wrote:
On 2010.05.21. 23:19, Geoff Huston wrote:
I agree with Terry on this one. I'd personally be much happier with
verified/unverified instead of valid/invalid. These terms are much
closer to what we really mean.
Ack. We will make this
On 22/05/2010, at 8:08 PM, Robert Kisteleki wrote:
On 2010.05.21. 23:19, Geoff Huston wrote:
I agree with Terry on this one. I'd personally be much happier with
verified/unverified instead of valid/invalid. These terms are much
closer to what we really mean.
Ack. We will make this
On 22/05/2010, at 10:30 PM, Robert Loomans wrote:
On 22/05/2010, at 20:08, Robert Kisteleki wrote:
On 2010.05.21. 23:19, Geoff Huston wrote:
I agree with Terry on this one. I'd personally be much happier with
verified/unverified instead of valid/invalid. These terms are much
closer to
Hi Terry, Robert,
On 2010.05.18. 7:49, Terry Manderson wrote:
I support the adoption and willing to review..
..and I have some concerns about the terms of valid, invalid. (Unknown
I like).
This may only be semantics, but the valid and invalid terms convey more than
a preference level.
On 22/05/2010, at 12:46 AM, Pradosh Mohapatra wrote:
Hi Terry, Robert,
On 2010.05.18. 7:49, Terry Manderson wrote:
I support the adoption and willing to review..
..and I have some concerns about the terms of valid, invalid. (Unknown
I like).
This may only be semantics, but the
On 2010.05.18. 7:49, Terry Manderson wrote:
I support the adoption and willing to review..
..and I have some concerns about the terms of valid, invalid. (Unknown
I like).
This may only be semantics, but the valid and invalid terms convey more than
a preference level. IE if a database prefix
Pradosh Mohapatra has requested that the working group adopt the draft
draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate-07.txt as a work item.
This work has been presented at IETF 73, IETF 75, and IETF 77.
It is available at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pmohapat-sidr-pfx-validate-07
Recall that active
12 matches
Mail list logo
