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

[Aftab Siddiqui <[e-mail]>]

Hi Job,


>
> >      *   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?
>
> I'm a bit unclear on what is meant with the above two points, can you
> further clarify?
>

As per the definition "An ASPA object showing only AS 0 as a provider AS is
referred to as an AS0 ASPA." i.e. {CAS, AS(0)}
Any ASPA which is not "AS 0 ASPA" is referred to in the draft as "normal
ASPA" but it doesn't say that normal ASPA can't have AS 0 in the provider
AS. i.e. {CAS, AS(139038), AS(0)}. Yes, there is no reason to have AS 0 in
the provider AS but make it clear in the draft.


>
>
> >   4.  ROV vs ASPA validation states, keep the states consistent
> (Unknown/notfound)
> >      *   ROV States [valid, invalid, notfound] vs ASPA states [valid,
> invalid, unknown]
>
> Why? Route Origin Validation and ASPA verification are two different
> algorithms with different inputs and different outputs. To me it doesn't
> seem to increase consistency.
>

OK then why using terms like "valid", "invalid" and "unknown" why not just
use "Provider", "Not Provider" and "No Attestation" because these are
actual outputs of the function? don't you think the latter creates more
clarity than the former?

--
Best Wishes,

Aftab Siddiqui