Re: [Sidrops] RIPE NCC RPKI pilot for ASPA objects

[Ben Maddison <[e-mail]>]

Hi Erik,

On 12/09, Erik Rozendaal wrote:
> Hi Sriram,
> 
> Thanks for your feedback. We've decided to use the terminology already
> present in the RIPE NCC RPKI API for consistency. Since we already
> used "ASN" for ROAs we also used this for ASPA in preference over the
> RFC use of "AS ID".
> 
> With respect to the _afiLimit_ field we felt it was better to be
> explicit instead of depending on the absence (or null value). For the
> CMS objects it makes sense to use a default value to reduce the size
> of the objects, but this consideration doesn't really apply to our
> API.
> 
> The use of _providers_ vs _ProviderASSet_ is more personal preference
> and easier typing.

That all seems reasonable enough to me. I don't find the naming
differences particularly confusing.

I have some other observations though:

- I would call the no-afiLimit variant "NONE" rather than "ANY" as that
  is a closer match to the semantics of the actual ASPA field;
- I would make `aspaConfigurations` a map/object keyed by `customerAsn`,
  so that you get the guarantee of a unique ASPA per customer AS for
  free.
- I would make the ASN fields uint32s rather than strings beginning with
  "AS". The later are really inconvenient to write types or schema
  definitions for, with no benefit that I can see.

Let me know you thoughts?

Cheers,

Ben