Re: [Sidrops] WGLC = draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification - ENDS 02/17/2023 (Feb 17 2023)

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 10:51 AM Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed)
<kotikalapudi.sriram=[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi, Claudio and all,
>
> Yes, please wait a few weeks and then read the upcoming version 12 (ASPA verification) draft for commenting.
>

yup! I jumped the gun, no worries. We can defer until -12 arrives.

> I was puzzled as did some of my co-authors seeing the WGLC posted yesterday.
>
> I have closely interacted with Claudio who has a nearly complete implementation of ASPA verification. Much of the proposed revisions for v-12 are motivated by his feedback.
>
> Claudio wrote:
> >I sent a mail on Nov 2nd with a large amount of feedback to this draft.
> >None of it has been incorporated so a last-call for this draft is very
> >premature.
>
> Your Nov 2nd post: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/KlILGgdItF-0O-xUsJde1DqGCoE/
> My Nov 4th response: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/cWcF2Y0msvko73zY912Y3cQj7SM/
>
> Yes, your excellent and detailed feedback will be incorporated in v-12.
>
> Claudio wrote:
> >There are additional concerns I have with this draft after working on the
> >only BGP implementation over the last weeks. I will send a follow up
> >regarding my findings.
>
> Yes, please send. In part, you may be referring to the IXP RS AS (transp./non-transp.) and RS-client discussion we had (via video chat). I posted about our discussion and conclusions here:
> Jan 13, 2023 post: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/JgxHTtynu-mihYnPxw1xgVGopPg/
>
> So, yes those proposed changes about the part of the verification algorithm that deals with IXP RS & RS-client will also be included in v-12.
>
> Claudio wrote:
> >1. Introduction
> >
> >    When the CAS has multiple Providers, all Provider ASes are listed in the
> >    ASPA including any internet exchange point (IXP) route server (RS) AS that
> >    serves the CAS.
>
> >This requirement is wrong and I will not approve any version of this draft
> >which requires inclusion of "any internet exchange point (IXP) route server
> >(RS) AS" in the SPAS.
>
> Yes, as you and I discussed, that requirement will only apply to non-transparent IXP RS AS. We'll make that clear in both ASPA drafts.
> This was also stated in my post of Jan 13: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/JgxHTtynu-mihYnPxw1xgVGopPg/
>
> Also, I plan to incorporate comments from Rich Compton:
>    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/zPXDR5iL52REtpIDoL6qdvJ2IsI/
>
> Job asked:
> >What is the status of ASPA in NIST BGP-SRx?
>
> I had posted about implementation of ASPA path verification in BGP-SRx in Dec. 2021:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/C6Ethp2aC9sJsxDtBrLQDjmCqk4/
> BGP-SRx ASPA unit test cases/examples:
> https://github.com/usnistgov/NIST-BGP-SRx/blob/master/examples/example-demo-aspa-new/README
> BGP-SRx project Github page: https://github.com/usnistgov/NIST-BGP-SRx
>
> We have not yet included the IXP RS portion of the ASPA verification algorithm in BGP-SRx implementation.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Sriram
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sidrops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops