Re: [Sidrops] WGLC = draft-ietf-sidrops-aspa-verification - ENDS 03/22/2023 (Mar 22 2023)

[Amreesh Phokeer <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

Thank you to all those involved in this draft. We have reviewed the document and here are our comments:

  1.  Section 4: “An AS SHOULD NOT have more than one ASPA”
     *   It should be clarified that one ASPA per AFI is tolerated
     *   How do you do “make before break” in case an AS is changing provider or in the case of a resource transfer?
  2.  VAP: it is unclear whether how the VAP will be merged but grouped by AFI in the case of multiple ASPAs?
  3.  Validation of the ASPA payload
     *   A Customer ASID cannot be 0, should it be mentioned in the document or rather in the profile document?
     *   To make it clear “AS 0 ASPA MUST only have AS 0 as Provider AS”, it doesn’t clearly mention that “normal” ASPA (non AS 0 ASPA) MUST NOT have AS 0 in the Provider AS.
     *   In the absence of point ‘b’ what if AS 0 is added as Provider AS in the ‘normal’ ASPA?
  4.  ROV vs ASPA validation states, keep the states consistent (Unknown/notfound)
     *   ROV States [valid, invalid, notfound] vs ASPA states [valid, invalid, unknown]
  5.  6.1: Item 3: duplicate “then”

Finally, not critical but there seems to be lot of recommendations (SHOULD/SHOULD NOT) in the document and we wonder whether splitting the current document into a Standard Track and a BCP  (e.g. RFC 6483) would help to improve readability.

Aftab Siddiqui
Amreesh Phokeer
Hanna Kreitem
Max Stucchi