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 different contexts. When
validating a *ROA*, I'm perfectly fine with valid/unknown/invalid. But when
using a ROA to inform a routing decision, the *update* (as per section 2 of
the draft if I'm reading it right) can be verified/unknown/unverified. In
this light I'm not concerned if this draft uses a different terminology
compared to ROA, certificate, etc. drafts.
If I'm not reading the draft right (in terms of whether it refers to ROAs,
routes or updates), then some clarification text may be useful.
Robert
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
sidr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
