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

[Martin Hoffmann <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sririam!

Sriram, Kotikalapudi (Fed) wrote:
> 
> >My observation was mostly about the fact that this is (now: was)
> >rather quite hidden in the somewhat complex document structure.
> >Calling it out in the profile draft should be good enough for RP
> >implementers to at least be aware of something going on and having
> >to read up on it some more.  
> 
> Just to be sure, would you be fine now with the proposed copying
> of the ASPA registration related sections (Sec. 2 and Sec. 4) 
> from the verification draft into the profile draft?

I think keeping them in the verification document is better. To my
mind, the split between the two documents should be: profile contains
everything an implementer of relying party software or a (simply) CA
needs to be aware of, while verification has everything related to BGP,
i.e., how does ASPA verification work and what should an AS publish.

Profile would then be limited to parsing and validating
published objects itself and transforming their content into a
validated payload set.

Keeping both publishing recommendations and ASPA path verification
together in one document makes sense to me, since in order to fully
understand the consequences of publishing certain ASPA objects, you
need to understand how path verification works.

  -- Martin