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

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

Guns were Jumped, Things were Slowed.. Did the new v12 appear? or is
it appearing soon?
(what's the timeline I mean to ask)

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:27 AM Christopher Morrow
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 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